Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to this martial law rule, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote against it because this budget resolution is a travesty; but what is even worse is the process in which this budget resolution is going to come before this body within the next day or so.

This is a $2.6 trillion document. This is going to establish the priorities and the important investments that we need to make as a Nation for the next fiscal year, and yet it is being written by a handful of people, mainly in the Speaker's office, at 2, 3, 4 o'clock in the morning, drafted by a bunch of staff people, and not one of us in this body will have the chance to thoroughly review it before we are asked to cast a vote on it. And that is a joke.

And what is even worse is that it basically adopts wholesale the budget parameters that the President had submitted earlier this year, which, by the way, was written by a bunch of unknown people in the President's Office of Management and Budget, which in essence now is drafting and writing these budget documents that the Congress is considering.

And I would defy any Member of this body to stand here today and claim with a straight face that they think this House and this Congress is a co-equal branch of government today. We have ceded everything to the executive branch. Not only that, but just to a few enlightened individuals, it seems, to make these important decisions for the rest of the Nation. And we do not even have the common decency or courtesy to take the time to allow an important deliberative discussion about these priorities and allow a little bit more input from the various Members who want to be involved in this process for the sake of the people whom they are representing.

The resolution itself, I feel, lacks the vision that we need to deal with the challenges facing our Nation. Instead of the majority party and the President being so eager to dismantle the New Deal, we should be talking about offering the American people a new New Deal to prepare them for the challenges of a global marketplace, because it is here now. And yet the effort that we are making in regards to support for education and job-training programs is a joke, and it is not going to get us there to maintain our technological and scientific edge in the world when it comes to the competition of the jobs that are coming up.

This budget resolution that is coming before us allows the continuation of the exploding budget deficits. It automatically increases the debt ceiling for the fourth time in 4 years, and every Member should understand that, by voting for it, they are increasing the debt ceiling by another half a trillion dollars in this budget resolution.

It fails to adopt budget disciplinary rules such as pay-as-you-go for both the spending and the revenue side, rules that worked effectively in the 1990s that led us on a glidepath to 4 years of budget surpluses. It continues the raid on the Social Security, Medicare trust funds, being used for other purposes, either tax cuts that are primarily benefiting the most wealthy in this country or other spending priorities at a time when they are claiming that Social Security is in dire financial crisis; and there is no effort to try to repay those trust fund moneys.

I think we can offer the American people a more realistic vision of the challenges that I think we all appreciate on both sides of the aisle; and yet this budget that is going to be coming up before us, again mainly drafted in the dark wee hours of the early morning, lacks that vision. And it is not offering enough people in this country the hope or the optimism that we are going to be able to compete in the global marketplace in light of what other countries are doing.

Let us start over. There is no need to rush to get this done within the next day or even the next week. I would rather do it the right way than the wrong way, and there are too many missed opportunities in this budget resolution that is going to be coming up to be able to support it.

So, again, I oppose the process, the martial law rule that we are debating here this morning, and I oppose the substance of this budget resolution and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in rejection of this budget resolution because it continues to mortgage our children's future. A vote for this budget resolution tonight is a vote to continue the record budget deficits that we have seen over the last 4 years. A vote for this budget tonight is a vote that continuously raises the national debt automatically by a half a trillion dollars in this budget resolution for the fourth year in a row.

A vote for this budget continues the raid on the Social Security trust funds. And a vote for this budget continues our reliance on Japan and China being the largest purchaser of our government deficits today.

It also fails to invest in our students and our work force who need to compete in a 21st century global economy by cutting the education workforce by $12.7 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we can do better for our children, for our students, for the workers of this country. Reject this budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to make this junk food energy bill just a little bit healthier.

Members, help me with this quote: ``I tell you, with $50 oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies. There are plenty of incentives.'' No, this was not some liberal, left-wing environmental activist. You are right, it was the President of the United States, who comes from the oil industry, that recognizes that the oil companies are awash with profits.

During President Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign, he railed against the so-called royalty holiday saying that it was, and I quote, ``Giving major oil companies a huge tax break.''

Agree with the President of the United States, agree with us, accept this amendment.

Section 2005 waives Federal royalty collections from offshore oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf. Added to the rest of Title 20, this will put $483 million of taxpayer money into the already deep pockets of big oil during a time in which they are reaping record profits. In fact, an April 8, 2005 Wall Street Journal article relates the news that Exxon Mobile recently reported a fourth-quarter profit that amounted to the fattest quarterly take for a publicly traded U.S. company ever: $8.4 billion.

Do big oil companies like Exxon really need taxpayer-provided ``incentives'' to explore and drill? President Bush doesn't think so.

In addition, the oil royalties the Federal Government does not collect from big oil will starve the Land and Water Conservation Fund of critical financial resources. The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides special protection for some of our most precious wildlands and has been a valuable tool for nearly 40 years. A portion of revenues from oil royalties is dedicated to this special fund for acquisition and conservation of natural places and habitat. Without these oil royalty revenues, State environmental protection efforts will suffer.

In a time of serious budget deficits, immense war costs and a sluggish economy, we cannot afford to grant such outlandish subsidies to some of our Nation's largest corporations. I urge my colleagues support the Grijalva amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Energy Policy Act. The bill before us today, full of the same objectionable policies, such as providing liability protections for MTBE makers and taxpayer- funded largesse for the big fossil fuels industries, reminds me of the proverb provided by Saint Bonaventure who said, ``the higher the monkey climbs, the more you see of it's behind.'' Mr. Speaker, this ugly bill has repeatedly scaled the tree and the view hasn't improved any.

I believe the American people expect more from their elected representatives than to simply rehash an energy bill whose flaws have been exposed and it's economic and environmental price tags too high to pay. Yet, once again, the majority refused to work in a bipartisan fashion to craft a balanced and sensible energy bill that meets America's needs.

Every day, millions of American families struggle to keep up with soaring energy costs. Motorists see soaring prices at the pump. Farmers working to provide a secure future for their children watch as their operating margins are squeezed even further. And all too many low- income and elderly Americans are being forced to decide between adequately heating and cooling their homes or purchasing the food and medicines they need.

The American people understand that we face both a short and a long- term energy crisis and that we must develop a comprehensive and balanced plan for our Nation--a plan that finds 21st century solutions to deal with our 21st century energy needs. A bill that directs needed resources to renewable energy sources and efficiency programs. It is unfortunate that the best the majority believes we can do is pass a bill better suited to the start of the industrialization era.

The bill, inexplicably, provides little to promote renewable energy sources or reduce energy use. Instead, it funnels ever more tax benefits to energy companies already making huge profits from high energy prices. In fact, an April 19, 2005 wall street journal article relates the news that Exxon Mobile recently reported a fourth-quarter profit that amounted to the fattest quarterly take for publicly traded U.S. company ever: $8.4 billion. Of the $8 billion in tax incentives, less than $500 million would go to promote renewable energy sources or foster efficiency and conservation programs. After sticking it to the consumers at the pump, do big oil companies like Exxon really need taxpayer-provided ``incentives''? President Bush doesn't think so. In a recent interview, President Bush said, ``I will tell you; with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies. There are plenty of incentives.'' I agree.

The few bright-spots of the bill: like tripling the amount of gasoline sold that contains enthanol by 2012; promoting safe and clean nuclear energy; developing the liquified natural gas infrastructure needed in our country; ensuring electric reliability and easing transmission--all have been overshadowed by the bloated excess and taxpayer-funded subsidies for some of our nation's largest oil and gas companies.

Mr. Chairman, there are unfortunately many more very bad provisions for American taxpayers in H.R. 6, and title 20 in particular--much of which is premised on a `drill at taxpayers' expense approach to the management of energy resources on public lands.

Perhaps the best example is the issue of drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge. As my colleagues know, the arctic national wildlife refuge was set aside over 40 years ago by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower for the clear and express purpose of protecting its remarkable wilderness and wildlife values. I, like a majority of Americans, oppose developing one of our nation's last remaining pristine areas for a short term energy fix.

And there are other provisions that, standing alone, make this a bad bill: such as the ``royalties in kind'' provision; granting broad authority to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior for permitting alternative energy-related uses on the Outer Continental Shelf; and reimbursing oil and gas companies for doing the environmental impact studies that are required under law. I know there are a number of my colleagues who are anxious to speak on some of these provisions, so I welcome their comments and lend my support to their wise concerns.

One of the most egregious provisions of this bill is what is being called ``royalty relief'' for some of our Nation's largest oil companies. This provision waives federal royalty collections on huge amounts of publicly owned lands. Simply put, Title 20 will put billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the already deep pockets of big oil. The amendment offered by my friend from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, would strike section 2005 and restore the collection of royalty payments to the Treasury for offshore oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf--a measure I helped lead last year and one that I strongly urge my colleagues' support.

And buried deep in this bill, under the title named ``miscellaneous'' there is another provision that could have major consequences for communities struggling to clean up their dirty air. This provision allows cities and towns whose air pollution comes from hundreds of miles away to delay meeting national air quality standards until their offending neighbors clean up their own air. In considering the most significant change in the Clean Air Act in 15 years, I must note the irony that we are just days away from celebrating the 35th anniversary of Earth Day. Earth Day, begun by Wisconsin's own Senator Gaylord Nelson, provided the impetus to President Nixon signing the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the majority party has stuck in the bill a provision that would limit the ability of coastal states to challenge offshore oil and natural gas production. Apparently, the majority party in Congress no longer has much regard for the 10th amendment.

So that is the back-side of our monkey. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this energy bill that does little to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels--or the fossil fuels' industry dependence on taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York for not only offering the amendment, but providing a very important point in this debate, and that is, unfortunately, the underlying bill is not going to work because it lacks one crucial element, and that is vision, the vision to see that we need to pivot off the status quo of the current energy policy and move to a new energy plan that makes sense for a new century.

The fact of the matter is, and the dirty little secret in this place, those involved in energy policy have to admit it, is that no matter how many incentives we give to the oil companies, how many royalty relief provisions are loaded in this bill, even though the President who comes from the oil industry says that it is not necessary, given the high price of oil, is that we cannot produce our way out of the energy challenge that we are facing in this century.

We are already in a race against China and India for the limited oil supplies that exist throughout the world. This amendment provides the vision for us to start pivoting off from our dependence on fossil fuels generally, but the importation of oil more specifically, by providing incentives for alternative and renewable energy sources, incentives for increased energy efficiency and conservation practices and, hopefully, the incentive to move to a new energy source for a new century, and that is fuel cell development.

I would encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation because the current system needs reform to protect those people truly in need of debt relief, while holding accountable those who can repay their debt.

Bankruptcy filings have risen steadily in recent years, an indication that our current system is an ineffective one that discourages consumers from saving and planning responsibly and ultimately isn't good for consumers, families, or a society that values individual responsibility. I believe bankruptcy should be a last resort--one that allows people who need protection to receive it and people who can repay all or some of their debts to do so. The system in place now gives incentives to people in trouble and encourages them to steamroll headfirst into Chapter 7 liquidation of all their debts, even when they could get back on their feet through a reasonable repayment plan or basic credit counseling.

While S. 256 is not a perfect bill, I do believe it goes great lengths in addressing the growing problem of bankruptcy in this country. I believe there is great misunderstanding about what this bill does and who will be affected. Only those earning above the median income and who have the ability to pay will be required to pay back their debt. However, millionaires who use bankruptcy law as a method of financial planning will no longer be able to buy extravagantly and subsequently have all of their debt written off.

It is also important to note that many families and small businesses will benefit because of changes to this law. Bankruptcy costs are passed on to other consumers, and the average family pays hundreds of dollars each year in higher prices. Additionally, small businesses that might otherwise not be paid for their goods or services will have a better chance of gaining compensation as a result of this bill. A very positive aspect of S. 256 is that it makes permanent Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code. I, along with other members of Congress, have been working for years to make permanent this much-needed source of relief for our family farmers.

There have been accusations that this bill will be detrimental to the most needy; in fact, there are a great deal of safeguards. S. 256 includes protections ensuring that alimony and child support payments are made. I believe single parents and dependent children need our help far more than millionaires who benefit from current bankruptcy laws. Additionally, families who have exorbitant medical bills they cannot afford can still file for Chapter 7, and judges will still have a great deal of discretion when it comes to the issue of means-testing.

In addition, this legislation will create new disclosure requirements for lending institutions to provide better information to consumers about credit cards and debt. This is particularly important for young adults who are bombarded by credit applications and have limited knowledge about the risks that accompany credit card ownership.

It is important to note that this legislation is only the first step in addressing the bigger problems underlying savings in this country. With an over-reliance on credit cards and a lack of saving for retirement, too many Americans find themselves on shaky financial ground. Addressing this problem must be our next goal, and we must encourage more personal responsibility in consumers.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act will benefit consumers and provide all Americans with better access to credit. It helps prevent abuse of the system while providing debt protection to those who truly need it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of making estate tax relief permanent so that family-owned farms and businesses can be passed down from generation to generation. The estate tax should be updated and modernized to reflect both the economic growth many Americans have experienced in recent years, and the hard work of millions of entrepreneurs and those just trying to make a living. These businesses should not be punished for being successful or for simply having their owners pass away.

The United States is the land of opportunity, encouraging free enterprise and rewarding entrepreneurs. The estate tax should be modified to protect family-owned small businesses and family farms from the threat of having to be sold just to pay the tax.

But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 would fully repeal the estate tax for all Americans at a time when the administration is running record deficits that threaten the futures of our children's children. As we all know, the estate tax applies to fewer than 2 percent of all estates, about 50,000 a year. This bill would initially cost the Nation's treasury $290 billion over 10 years.

This year alone, our budget deficit will exceed $400 billion. This administration has turned a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over ten years into deficits totalling $2.6 trillion. However, even with these record deficits, we are debating yet another tax cut.

With the majority's policies leading our Nation toward a fiscal train wreck, we should not be talking about totally repealing the death tax and instead talk about doing something about the debt tax, which falls upon all Americans.

Therefore, I am supporting the substitute being offered by my good friend Mr. Pomeroy. His legislation will immediately help the small businesses and family farms by increasing the estate tax exemption to $3 million for individuals and $6 million for couples. This meaningful, common-sense bill will exempt 99.7 percent of all estates from the estate tax. Under current law, the tax basis for inherited property is ``stepped up'' to its value at transfer through 2009, which helps farmers and small business owners who inherit property by reducing the amount of capital gains taxes to which the property is subject. Under current law, in 2010, ``carry-over'' basis rules (with a $1.3 million exemption) replace the ``stepped-up'' basis rules, creating burdensome new requirements and increasing the tax liability for many of these property-owners. H.R. 8 makes this switch permanent and creates more losers than winners. The Pomeroy substitute, however, will retain the ``step-up'' rules rather than the ``carry-over'' rules.

Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to avoid towering deficits and reduce the debt future generations will inherit. We must give them the capability and flexibility to meet whatever problems or needs they face. I cannot, in good faith, support legislation that will put our country further into deficit spending with a tax cut that will hurt future generations for the unforeseeable future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to John Medinger upon his retirement as mayor of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Involved in local politics since 1976, John is a dedicated public servant and a good friend. I will miss his leadership as mayor, but I am confident he will remain active in our community and influential in improving the quality of life in western Wisconsin.

Born and raised in La Crosse, Mayor Medinger and his family have always been active in local politics and have contributed immensely to the growth and development of our community. His father, Don, a good union member, served on the La Crosse City Council and was well- respected throughout the area. Following his father's example of civic duty, John ran for and was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly in 1986, where he served for the next 16 years.

From 1993 to 1996, he worked for U.S. Senator Russ Feingold as his western Wisconsin regional coordinator, and in 1996 he ran for and was elected mayor of La Crosse. During his tenure as mayor, he continually advocated for social justice on behalf of the hard-working families in western Wisconsin. His contributions and dedication to the community made him an excellent mentor, and our area has been well served by his leadership.

I have known John for many years and have admired his thoughtfulness, idealism, unwavering principles, and ability to reach across party lines to create good public policy. As mayor, he was always honest and never hesitated to tell you when he thought you were wrong. Likewise, he was the first to embrace a good idea and work to put a plan into action.

Lastly, I commend John for his tireless work to encourage and welcome greater racial diversity, which has made the La Crosse area a special place to live and raise a family.

John exemplifies all that is good, noble, and decent in public service. He believes in our representative democracy, and he made himself approachable and accessible to anyone who wanted to share their thoughts with him, whether it was when he showed up on their doorstep during the course of his many campaigns or during his time in office.

Both John and his wife, Dee, have sacrificed greatly to live a life of public service. If anyone deserves a break from the public spotlight, they do. Although John Medinger is retiring from the mayoral position, his advocacy and community work will leave a lasting legacy on the La Crosse community, and the area will continue to benefit from all that he has done.

I want to thank him for his hard work and dedication, and I wish Dee and John the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month. In 1987, Congress passed a resolution designating the month of March as Women's History Month and a time to honor, ``American women of every race, class and ethnic background [who] have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways.''

For 2005, the theme of Women's History Month is ``Women Change America.'' In celebration of this month, I would like to focus on two women from Wisconsin's history and honor their contributions to society.

First, I would like to recognize Cordelia Julia Grace Wales. Wisconsin resident Julia Grace Wales made her mark in Wisconsin as a peace activist, scholar, an English instructor at University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a dedicated Christian. In 1914, in light of WWI, Wales decided to write her famous Wisconsin peace plan, a plan that she believed would end WWI. Wales made a genuine contribution to women's history in Wisconsin and America's tradition of peace movements.

Born in Portage, Wisconsin, Margery Latimer was a social movement activist and an accomplished novelist. Latimer became well-known in the literary world after writing three highly acclaimed novels dealing greatly with the romanticism era. She once said, ``There's only one possession that's worth having and that is the capacity to feel that life is a privilege and that each person in it is unique and will never appear again.''

The third woman I would like to honor is Zona Gale. Also born in Portage, Wisconsin, Zona Gale was a great novelist and short-story writer. Gale's biggest success was her novel, Miss Lulu Bett. This novel was adapted as a play in 1920 and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1921. As an activist for women's rights and the creation of the Wisconsin Equal Rights Law, prohibiting the discrimination of women, many of Gale's feminist politics were expressed in her novels and then plays. Zona Gale passed away in 1938 in Portage, Wisconsin, but her voice will live on through her novels and efforts for women's rights in Wisconsin and around the country.

These three women, along with so many others, inspired hope and possibility not only in Wisconsin, but across the United States. Whether in art or literature, activism or teaching, they deserve our remembrance, not only during the month of March, but throughout the rest of the year as well.

Mr. Chairman, we are here today in this Chamber to consider a fantasy budget. It is ludicrous for the House leadership to move forward with this budget debate by ignoring the issues of the day merely to lock in huge tax cuts and offer damaging spending cuts to health care, education, veterans' services and much more. We need a better plan. The Democratic alternative that I support would reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule and balance the budget by 2012, just as the Baby Boomers begin their massive retirement, while maintaining significant support for our national defense, veterans programs, education, and health care, which will help grow our economy and create jobs.

I do commend the President for recognizing the importance of the Milk Income Loss Compensation (MLLC) Program as a safety net for America's dairy farmers and including an extension of the program in the Administration's proposed budget. The Republican budget, however, recklessly zeros out this important program, placing struggling family farmers across this nation in peril.

We know that the budget has not included the long-term cost of Iraq, which already cost the country $275 billion, the estimated $5 trillion in the next 20 years for privatizing Social Security, and the full costs of the tax cuts. in fact, it does not even include a full ten- year budget report. The report lacks detail and leaves many programs vulnerable to steep cuts. I would expect a complete and full report in a document as important as the United States Budget. As the campaign in Iraq continues, our thoughts and prayers go out to the young men and women in uniform as well as to their families. May they complete their mission quickly and decisively so they can return home soon and safe.

Our veterans are returning home as we speak. These are the fine men and women who fought to help bring democracy to Iraq. The budget plan calls for cuts in veterans' health care benefits and reduces medical personal by more than 3,000, along with cutting $9 million from other areas in the already overstretched VA. While the budget cuts to veterans' programs, Medicaid grants, and other important programs represent a very small amount of the overall budget, they will make a large difference to the families who depend on them.

The projected budget deficit of $427 billion for FY06 is revolting. Perhaps the worst aspect of this budget is that it is not paid for. This is the classic recipe for exploding budget deficits as far as the eye can see; it's the height of fiscal irresponsibility occurring at exactly the wrong moment during our Nation's history when 80 million Americans, the so-called baby boomers, are rapidly approaching retirement. This is a demographic time bomb ready to explode. That is why the Republican budget proposal, in effect, constitutes taxation without representation because it will be our children and our grandchildren who will be asked to pay for this fiscal mess. I couldn't think of doing anything more unfair to them. The children are our future, and we owe it to them to give them a stable foundation.

As the father of two little boys, I did not come to this Congress to leave a legacy of debt for them or future generations to climb out of. Our Democratic alternative, however, anticipates this demographic time bomb by achieving balance, while offering an economic stimulus plan now that is fair, quick, and responsible. It supports our troops, but it also supports our nation's veterans, our seniors, and our children's education programs.

So I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute. I would call on the leadership in the House to pull their budget resolution so that we can have an honest debate with honest figures, factoring in a realistic cost of the Iraq operation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.

I have had the opportunity to visit Iraq twice over the last 2 years and visit with our military women and men and survey the operations of the U.S. reconstruction mission in Iraq. Never have I been more proud to be an American than when I visited our troops and observed them in the line of duty. My trips reconfirmed that we must give our troops the tools and resources they need to carry out their mission safely and effectively so they can return home soon. For this reason I am supporting the administration's supplemental request for $81 billion.

Specifically, I would like to highlight the good work of the 128th Infantry Division out of western Wisconsin, and the 1158th Transportation Company out of Tomah, Black River Falls, and Beliot. The 128th is on their first tour of duty in Iraq and is performing well, despite several equipment shortages and setbacks the unit has dealt with. The 1158th is on their second tour of duty, and is also performing above and beyond their mission. I am extraordinarily proud of their service to our country.

I am especially proud of young men like Andrew Carter. Today I had the opportunity to visit Andrew, a member of the 128th, at Walter Reed Hospital. He was recently injured in Iraq riding in a Humvee that was hit by an RPG. There is a good chance he would have been killed if it hadn't been for vehicle armor that was added to the Humvee. This supplemental appropriates more funding to continue to armor humvees, so that we can continue to save lives. One of the first things Andrew said to me was that he wants to heal quickly so he can get back to Iraq and serve with his unit. His resolve is a good reminder of the dedication of our men and women in uniform and why we need to renew our commitment to soldiers like Andrew.

While I do not endorse all of the supplemental's provisions, in the absence of a funding alternative, I support the need to provide for our troops. But we do need to start budgeting and paying for their obligations, such as the need for a new embassy in Iraq, instead of passing so-called ``emergency'' supplementals and leaving a legacy of debt for our children to inherit.

As our military effort continues, I and other members of Congress will work to ensure that our service men and women have all the resources necessary to fulfill their mission. Again, my thoughts and prayers are with those serving our country, as well as their families. America is firmly behind our troops and we're all hoping to see them home safe, secure, and soon.

May God continue to bless these United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from South Carolina for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank him and commend him for the leadership that he has shown during the course of the Budget Committee work and for the alternative Democratic substitute which we will talk about a little bit later today.

Mr. Chairman, there are few moments during the legislative year here in Congress which really defines who we are as a Congress, who we are as a Nation and where we are going with our priorities. It is one of these moments today when we have a discussion about our budgets and the priorities that we place in the budget.

For some reason, the Republican budget that we have before us only is budgeted for 5 years rather than the typical 10 years. I submit that one of the reasons I think they are doing a 5-year budget instead of a 10-year budget is because of the complete breakdown in fiscal responsibility and what the costs of their budget will entail and the explosion of budget deficits in the second 5 years that they do not want to talk about during the course of these next couple of days during the budget. We, on the other hand, will be presenting a Democratic alternative, one that does, I believe, reflect the values and the priorities that we share as Americans in this Nation.

Our budget will reinstate the pay-as-you-go rules to instill budget discipline again in the decisions that we are making in these budgets. We achieve a balanced budget under our plan by 2012, just when the massive baby boom retirement wave really starts to hit, and we protect important investments, in defense, in veterans' programs, education and health care to keep America strong and to help us grow the economy and create jobs. By reinstating the pay-as-you-go rules, we will be in a better fiscal position to better preserve and protect the long-term solvency of the Social Security program.

What this chart demonstrates next to me is the result of budget decisions over the last 14 to 15 years. This green line which shows an upward trend that resulted in 4 consecutive years of budget surpluses is Congress operating under pay-as-you-go rules. The red lines that show the plummeting of the surpluses into historically large budget deficits shows Congress without pay-as-you-go rules. What is hard to understand about reinstituting pay-as-you-go rules as part of budget discipline and decisions that we have to make to right the fiscal ship again?

With pay-as-you-go rules, it gave us 4 years of budget surpluses, 2 in which the Congress was not raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and using that money for large tax cuts or other spending priorities and enabled us to start reducing the national debt which was an incredible economic dynamic at the end of the 1990s.

This chart demonstrates the current raid on the Social Security Trust Fund under the Bush administration. Every dime in surplus that is being run in the Social Security account right now is

being diverted, to help finance large cuts for the most wealthy or to help finance large new spending programs, a 30 percent increase in Federal spending over the last few years alone. That will continue throughout the duration when we are running surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund under their budget proposal. What this has meant was increased borrowing cost, year after year after year having to raise the debt ceiling in order to finance the breakdown in fiscal discipline in this place.

Why is this important today? It is important because we do not owe this debt to ourselves anymore. Ninety percent of the new debt that was purchased this last year alone is being purchased by foreign countries, Japan, the number one purchaser, soon to be surpassed by China as the number one holder of our debt.

I do not believe, and Democrats do not believe, it is in our best long-term economic interest to be so dependent on foreign interests to be financing these deficits.

The President has been out campaigning on a new Social Security plan lately. It is kind of tough to engage in a meaningful discussion since he has not offered a detailed proposal; but from what we understand, he is calling for massive new borrowing in order to set up these privatized accounts that he is fond of. In fact, Social Security runs a deficit of $3.7 trillion over the next 75 years. What the President is proposing to do is to borrow $5 trillion for these transition costs to set up private accounts over the first 20 years alone in order to fix a $3.7 trillion problem. And that is probably one of the reasons why he is having such a hard time selling his plan out in Middle America. People know intuitively with this massive new borrowing that it is going to hurt economic growth prospects for our Nation; it is going to jeopardize our children and grandchildren's future by leaving a large legacy of debt for them. That is why, once we can get past the whole idea of privatizing the Social Security system, we can try to get together as Americans and work on a bipartisan solution that will be fiscally responsible and that will keep the promise to future generations.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. He is a friend of mine. He has got a tough job, trying to bring forth a budget priority that reflects his caucus's wishes in that.

But let us set the facts straight here. The Democratic alternative does a lot better when it comes to support of the education programs than our Republican counterpart. We also in our budget proposal reinstitute the pay-as-you-go rules so that if we are proposing a spending increase or a tax cut in one area, we are going to find an offset in the budget to pay for it. Their budget does not do it.

Our budget is also out for 10 years that shows that we come to balance by 2012. Their budget is a 5-year proposal. And the reason they do not do it at 10 years is because their deficits explode in the second 5 years. But their budget has also hidden the true and real cuts that are occurring in their education programs, ones that affect real people, real students in real-life conditions and will not help improve the condition of education or access to higher education, which we desperately need in this country.

Their budget proposal actually calls for eliminating $4.3 billion worth of education programs in the next fiscal year alone. They completely wipe out vocational education, the Federal commitment to that. They completely wipe out all the Federal education technology programs that exist. They wipe out the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Grant program. They also get rid of TRIO and GEAR UP, targeting low-income students who want to go on to

post-secondary education opportunities. They wipe out Even Start Family Literacy programs. And their proposals also hurt students by raising fees for student loans for higher education, ending students' ability to consolidate those loans at a lower fixed rate interest, and not only eliminating the Perkins loan program, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) indicated, but also forcing colleges to repay prior Federal Perkins contributions.

The Democratic alternative is better than that. We restore these funding cuts as well as $4.5 billion in the next fiscal year alone. Talk to any administrator, any teacher throughout the country wrestling with implementing the unfunded Federal mandate called No Child Left Behind, and they will say what these requirements are doing to their school districts with the lack of funding to back up those requirements. Talk to special education teachers, and they will say how the lack of education commitment at the Federal level, only 18.6 percent of the 40 percent cost share that we promised for special education funding is pitting student against student in our public classrooms throughout the country.

We can do a better job. The Democratic alternative does do a better job, while staying true to fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility by reinstituting the pay-as-you-go rules that worked very well in the 1990s and led us to 4 years of budget surpluses, while also maintaining a crucial investment in education programs.

As a Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am heading to China in a couple of days in order to visit their colleges and universities. Guess what? China and India are making a major education investment in the future of their countries. They are graduating more engineering students than we are today. They are emphasizing the math and science and engineering programs while we are starting to cut back in these crucial education areas. Do people want a recipe for economic disaster? The Republican budget and their lack of commitment for education is a sure way of getting us there.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing forth this amendment, with myself and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

With all due respect to the previous speaker, this is not about debating the merits of the necessity or the needs for a new embassy in Baghdad. Having traveled to Baghdad twice, certainly there is a strong case that can be made that we do need to be moving forth on a new embassy, but this is how we are going to pay for that new embassy, getting back to regular order and procedure around here, and how we are going to afford the cost of this new embassy rather than just going into deficit spending.

This amendment speaks to a larger issue. The last time I was in Iraq,

which was last fall, I noticed one thing, we are dropping a lot of concrete in Iraq today, which is an indication that we are going to be there for a very, very long time. And year after year coming forward with more multibillion supplemental spending requests, all deficit financing, is not a sustainable policy.

We need to get back to regular procedure and regular order around here, and what better place than to start on a nonemergency creation, the siting of a new embassy to get it to the appropriate committee for proper oversight and hearings of deliberation, and then finding the appropriate offsets to pay for this.

I am going to support the supplemental today, as I have past supplementals. I believe our troops need to get all of the tools and resources to do their job safely and effectively. They have been doing a terrific job under very dangerous circumstances, including our State Department personnel, who are working in the current embassy within the Green Zone in Baghdad which is also at times a free-fire zone.

But at some point we as a Chamber and as a body need to get back to the regular process of starting to anticipate these costs, starting to appropriate it and budget for it so we do not leave a huge legacy of debt for future Congresses and for our children and grandchildren to inherit. That is what this amendment speaks to.

I want to especially commend a couple of units serving us so well from western Wisconsin, the 128th Infantry Guard as well as the 1158th Transportation Unit. In fact, earlier this morning I got up and ran over to Walter Reed Hospital to visit with some of our troops, including Specialist Andrew Carter from the 128th who almost had his foot blown off due to an RPG that was fired at him during one of his passing patrols.

Just last week we lost another member from western Wisconsin who was shot down in the line of duty, Staff Sergeant Andrew Bossert. He will be buried in Wisconsin this Thursday. I am sure Members will join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to his family, his parents, but especially to his wife Olya who lives in Wisconsin.

What we need to start considering at some point is whether or not the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan should be paid for as part of the normal budgeting process. These are no longer surprises and no longer emergencies. We know we are there. We know what the mission is going to entail and the costs we are facing. I think this is a good place to start by having this embassy go through the regular process where we can find offsets and an ability to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak favorably on House Resolution 16, supporting the goals of National Manufacturing Week, congratulating manufacturers and their employees for their contributions to growth and innovation, and recognizing the challenges facing the manufacturing sector.

The American manufacturing industry has been a key to our economic success in the past, and will continue to be a key to our economic success in the future. As a member of the Congressional Manufacturing Task Force, I have focused on how the federal government can most effectively help small and medium sized manufacturers compete and grow in western Wisconsin and throughout the country. Through good investments and smart practices, the federal government can better assist American companies and help our nation keep its economic edge.

We need to invest in proven programs that help small and medium sized businesses, such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). The MEP provides our manufacturers with the tools to compete in a competitive marketplace. It increases our country's manufacturing productivity and competitiveness, resulting in expanded economic activity and an enhanced tax base. It aids in the creation and retention of well-paying manufacturing jobs for American workers, and it is vital to our nation's small manufacturers. That is why I have supported level funding of $109 million for the MEP in FY 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support House Resolution 16, supporting the goals of National Manufacturing Week, and I congratulate American manufacturers for their contributions to our economic success.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act. I want to acknowledge the work of the Transportation Committee on this complex bill and especially thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, for his leadership on the legislation; the Wisconsin delegation is lucky to have such a strong advocate for our citizens.

We all know that transportation bills are jobs bills, and now is certainly the time that we need more jobs throughout the country. I consistently hear from constituents who are searching for work; who have sent out dozens of resumes and updated their skills but remain unemployed. Each billion dollars spent on highway funding creates not only safer and better roads: it also creates an estimated 47,500 new jobs. An investment in highway funding is an investment for steady work for those in Wisconsin and around the nation.

Furthermore, I am pleased that the bill recognizes the importance of funding crucial highways and bridges in Wisconsin's Third Congressional District. Specifically, the inclusion of funding for the Stillwater Bridge, which connects Houlton, Wisconsin, and Stillwater, Minnesota, is great news for those of us who have been working on this project for years. The bridge is only one example of an important project that will provide the nation with safer roads, shorter commutes, and better jobs.

Finally, I would like to recognize the important conservation provisions that are retained in H.R. 3. These provisions include funding for refuge road maintenance, recreational trails and forest roads, as well as funding to facilitate fish passage. It also includes new money for signs to identify hunting and fishing areas accessible to the public. One of the most important provisions is authorization to facilitate a study to help reduce the growing number of highway accidents involving wildlife. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.