Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for the leadership that she has shown on this issue as well.

Mr. Chairman, let us be clear again yet today. This is not a fight about banning human cloning. We all agree cloning for purposes of creating another human being is wrong and it should be prohibited.

Instead, what we are arguing about is allowing scientific research to continue that can lead to cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries. Unfortunately, H.R. 534's approach would take a Howitzer after a house fly.

What about bone marrow transplants? What about in vitro fertilization? If we logically extend the argument for H.R. 534, that is next.

Some of the most advanced and exciting stem cell research in the world is occurring at the University of Wisconsin. I have had the opportunity over a few occasions to visit their research department; and while the research they are doing there itself is exciting, what is most impressive is how much in tandem the researchers of the science and the ethics department work.

What most people do not realize on this subject is that therapeutic stem cell research is already a heavily regulated industry. The FDA has strict requirements on what they can and cannot do.

But my main point is this: we need to do this if for no other reason than to provide leadership for the rest of the world. I am more comfortable knowing that our country, our researchers, our FDA is providing oversight and guidance on this discovery which could lead almost anywhere. Lets make sure that with our leadership, the discoveries will be used for the betterment of human kind rather than for nefarious purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the substitute and rejection of H.R. 534.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 534 and in strong support for the Greenwood/Deutsch/DeGette/Eshoo/Kirk substitute. The United States has long been the leader in medical research and biotechnology. Biotechnological advances have the potential to transform the way we treat many debilitating diseases.

One promising way that biotechnology is changing our lives is through the potential of stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is not cloning in the sense most people use the term, namely using technology to create a person who is a genetically identical copy of someone else. That type of cloning is reproductive cloning and is rightfully subject to a ban. The Greenwood Substitute would do just that.

In addition, the Greenwood Substitute would also permit therapeutic cloning. The potential therapies that may be developed from therapeutic cloning are significant. Therapeutic cloning will help researchers pursue stem cell therapies that could impact the lives of millions of Americans suffering from many of our most devastating illnesses, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, ALS, heart disease, cancer, and spinal cord injury. Further, this technology offers hope to the more than 1 million American children who suffer from juvenile diabetes because of the potential to turn these cells into insulin- producing cells.

We have entered the 21st Century and are on the verge of breakthrough biomedical discoveries that could save millions of lives. H.R. 534 would halt vital research that has the potential to revolutionize the biotech industry. Stopping this research in its tracks puts the United States at a clear and immediate disadvantage. Other nations such as Britain, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands, all of which currently have laws allowing therapeutic cloning from designated sources, continue to advance the technology. Molecular and cellular biologists committed to this research have already begun to look abroad, and they take with them lucrative investments from the biotech industry. Other scientists have dropped the cause all together, wasting precious time in the development of life-saving procedures that will someday help millions of people.

Back home in Wisconsin, I have had the privilege of meeting with Dr. James Thomson, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has contributed greatly to stem cell research. Three years ago he became the first person to isolate stem cells from human embryos. He has not taken on this work lightly, he has thought carefully about the ethical implications of his research. For Dr. Thompson, the moral questions about embryo experimentation were not difficult to resolve; he concluded that research was the ``better ethical choice.''

Because embryonic stem cells have the potential to grow into any cell or tissue in the human body, scientists say they hold great potential for repairing damaged tissues or organs. But to extract them requires that the embryo be destroyed, therefore, every year since 1995, Congress has attached language to its appropriations legislation to ban taxpayer financing of the work.

This ban requires that Dr. Thomson work into different laboratories, one of them in secret. He works primarily out of the university's primate center. This is his federally financed laboratory where he studies stem cells derived from the embryos of rhesus monkeys and marmosets.

When he conducts research on human cells, he must, however, move to an entirely different laboratory. This one is paid for by WiCell Research Institute, a corporation set up as a subsidiary of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the nonprofit group that holds the patent to Dr. Thomson's work. The location of this lab has never been disclosed to ensure the safety of the workers.

Freedom of research has led to the development of over 117 biotech products that have helped more than 250 million people worldwide. In addition, the biotech industry generated $28.5 billion in revenues in 2001, an increase of more than 350 percent in just ten years. Further, employment within the sector more than doubled in the same time period.

The United States has an obligation to demonstrate our continued leadership in this arena and we can only do so with the support of our government. We cannot afford the loss of resources that a chilled scientific climate will bring. We should not cede our leadership, or our industry, to other nations.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Weldon bill. Support responsible research, vote yes on the Greenwood Substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic substitute to H.R. 4, which reauthorizes welfare reform. H.R. 4 is a step in the wrong direction. It replaces State flexibility with unfunded mandates, it promotes make-work at the expense of wage-paying employment, and does nothing to help families escape poverty when they leave welfare for work. I worked closely, however, with representatives Cardin, and Woolsay, in crafting a Democratic substitute that better assists the States in moving families from welfare to work and I am pleased to be a lead sponsor of this legislation.

Furthermore, as co-chair of the New Democratic Coalition, I am satisfied that our substitute incorporated many of the new Democrats' suggestions based on the principle of ``work first.''

The successful welfare legislation passed in 1996 was one of the signature New Democrat initiatives and succeeded where previous attempts to reform welfare failed.

Welfare reform, however, now faces its stiffest test since its enactment. The roaring 90's--the decade during which more than 22 million new jobs were created--are long gone. Our economy today is stagnating. The unemployment rate and welfare rolls are up. An estimated 8.6 million Americans are out of work, including 166,000 in my home State Wisconsin.

Adding insult to injury, the States, which took responsibility under the 1996 law for administering assistance programs, are in the grips of their worst fiscal crisis in 50 years. They are being forced to cut back services--services that provided critical supports for welfare recipients and the working poor and, as many recipients reach the five- year benefits limit, States increasingly will find themselves providing very basic supports for their citizens through food programs and homeless shelters.

Unfortunately, our changing economic fortune has not stopped the House leadership from pushing welfare reform legislation that fails to help those who are struggling to make end meets and imposes even more unfunded mandates on the States.

The GOP plan, for example, would drastically increase the number of house that mothers with young children will be required to work, without a corresponding increase in child care funds. In fact, House leadership would freeze funding for welfare and child care at current levels, even though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the new work requirements will cost the States an additional $8 billion to $11 billion over five years. In Wisconsin alone, this would add another $89 million to our State's projected $3.2 billion budget deficit.

Thus, the Democratic substitute is a better alternative that places welfare recipients on the path to independence from public assistance by preparing them for good paying, private-sector jobs. Our alternative reform provides the States with flexibility and freedom to be innovative in moving families from welfare to work and empowering individuals to become self-sufficient.

Currently, the most promising State programs that help welfare recipients obtain and advance in a job, combine a ``work first'' approach with supplements training and education. Our plan helps these States by providing employment credits and allowing them to count education and training towards their participation rate for up to 24 months. Finally, our plan combines heightened work requirements with an addition $2.2 billion per year in childcare funding to ensure that families transitioning off of welfare can afford to work.

In addition to the Democratic Substitute, I offered two amendments during Rules Committee yesterday, which, unfortunately, were not accepted by the House leadership and were kept from being debated on the floor today.

The first amendment was an employment credit that I offered with Congressman Levin. Currently, States have the option of taking advantage of the caseload reduction credit that rewards States with credit against its participation rate just for moving people off welfare. Our amendment, however, would have replaced the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit, thus, rewarding States for moving people into jobs, with a bonus for moving them into high paying jobs. Last year, even the Administration's plan eliminated the caseload reduction credit and replaced it with its own employment credit.

The second amendment I offered gave States incentives to put fathers to work. It rewarded States with a credit towards its worker participation rate if they worked with fathers to increase their employment and pay child support. While very little research exists about marriage and its direct benefit to children, substantial research shows a working father most effectively improves children's emotional and financial well-being.

Again, I am pleased to have sponsored the Democratic substitute with Representatives Cardin and Woolsey. Our alternative is a step forward in the right direction. Today, while facing a stagnant economy coupled with unprecedented budget deficits, our welfare reform legislation ensures that families are strengthened, companies well served, and individual futures improved. By building on our past success, we can continue to help millions of Americans once and for all gain a foothold on the first rung of the career ladder.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4 and support the Democratic substitute offered by Representatives Cardin, Woolsey and myself. Finally, I regret that this legislation was pushed through the House so quickly without any consideration from the committees of jurisdiction. Acting with such haste completely ignored the process and shut out all our new Members. Such an important issue should have received more thought and consideration.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), for working to put together what I think is an admirable and quality substitute measure.

For whatever reason, the majority party here today has a bill before us deciding to bypass the democratic process here in the House, bypassing the committee work, not giving an opportunity to 54 new Members of the House of Representatives to deal with

one of the most important pieces of legislation in the 108th Congress. This bad process has resulted in bad policy.

Let me put this in context: The legislation before us today is the single most important piece of legislation dealing with antipoverty programs that this session of Congress will address and that Congress has the opportunity to address for many years to come. But instead of working together to produce a meaningful bill that can empower people with real work opportunities and with empowering tools such as education and job training, they produced a bill which, I am afraid, is doomed to failure.

The key to implementation of this bill is getting the States to do it well. We did a survey of the States, and they came back and said they need basically two ingredients: Give us the flexibility, give us the tools, and we will finish the job. But instead of receiving the flexibility, they get a straitjacket. Instead of receiving the tools, they get a $12 billion unfunded mandate in H.R. 4, making it impossible for them to deal with changed economic circumstances, as well as the flexibility to empower people to become true, meaningful participants in our society.

Instead of rewarding States to get meaningful employment for recipients on TANF, they are still going to receive credit for merely reducing their caseload. That has worked over the last few years, but many of those no longer on the caseload, we have lost. We have no idea where they went or how well they're doing.

If anyone thinks this has a chance of succeeding by underfunding the required child care program, they do not understand that the parent or parents are not going to enter the workforce unless they know their children are taken care of.

This is an experiment being offered today, Mr. Chairman, but I am afraid it is doomed to failure. I do not know how a Member of the Wisconsin delegation, which was a pioneer in welfare reform, can support this bill that limits the flexibility of our State and State agencies, and then also provides a $89 million unfunded mandate to our State when we have serious budget difficulties already.

Furthermore, the Republican bill strips vocational education as wanting--the work requirements; our substitute allows it because it is the backbone to economic development programs throughout Wisconsin and the rest of the Nation. We can't have meaningful welfare reform without vocational education playing an important role.

We have an opportunity to still get this right, to deal with the flexibility issue, to deal with the funding issue, to allow recipients in TANF to get the type of skills and work qualifications that they need to gain meaningful employment and to stay off the welfare rolls forever. But, instead, we are falling back on an outdated program that may have worked during the boom of the 1990s in reducing caseloads, but I am afraid it is doomed to failure with the bad economic performance today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Obey motion to recommit because this massive piece of legislation falls short in some issues critical to our nation, and includes certain controversial provisions that need to be debated and considered through the legislative process, not in closed conference.

I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin that there are homeland security priorities that we can and must fund that are not adequately addressed in this 1,100 page bill. For example, this legislation funds only one-fifth of what the U.S. Customs Commissioner says is needed to effectively inspect the thousands of cargo containers that enter our nation everyday. This presents our nation with an unfortunate vulnerability to terrorism and Congress must fund this priority.

In addition, as a member of the House Resources Committee, I feel provisions included in this legislation, such as a rider potentially allowing significant commercial logging in some of our most ecologically sensitive areas, and the funding of preliminary work for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, are uncalled for. These important and controversial issues should be fully debated and open to amendment through the normal legislative process. In addition, the cutting of important conservation program funding by $200 million dollars will set our nation further back in protecting our most important resources. These programs are supported by the states, and especially important to my home state of Wisconsin.

Further, thanks to an 11th hour provision inserted into the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, consumers of some organic food products may not know if their food is truly organic. This provision seriously undermines both consumer confidence in organic food labels and the USDA standards. The provision will permit some livestock to be labeled ``organic'' even though the livestock products do not meet the strict criteria established by USDA. Most significantly, producers of select livestock (chicken and other poultry products) would not have to meet the requirement that the animals be fed organically grown feed.

The recently enacted organic standard was the result of many years of careful deliberation and public input. Overwhelmingly, organic producers and consumers have supported the new standards. Due to this outrageous omnibus provision, organic producers and consumers will no longer have confidence in the organic labeling process.

Such a massive omnibus bill incorporating 11 spending bills and totaling nearly $400 billion, also lends itself to abuse through the inclusion of numerous pet projects that are not based on necessity and would not be justifiable to the public if considered in the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, we must have priorities in our funding. We must confront the threats facing our land while ensuring our children have access to quality education and our most needy have access to healthcare.

This legislation does meet many of the obligations of our government, and on their own merits, I would have supported them. However, the inclusion of funding for countless projects and programs that were never debated or considered on the House floor makes this bill unsupportable in its current form.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can address some of the most damaging aspects of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against a provision in the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill that weakens the organic label standards related to livestock production. This 11th hour provision weakens national organic standards by no longer requiring organic poultry producers to feed their birds only organically raised feed grains. This language, hidden in the Congressional Appropriations Bill, is contrary to the intent of organic livestock production and would severely undermine the organic standards that we currently have in place.

Organic foods have been one of the fastest growing components of the agriculture consumer marketplace, a market that is built upon trust. Millions of American consumers have growth to trust the quality, wholesomeness and integrity of organically labeled meats and vegetables. Should this provision prevail, the American consumers will no longer be able to trust organic labeled meat as truly organic. This provision will undermine both consumer confidence in organic labeling and the existing USDA standards.

Select livestock producers, specifically chicken and poultry product farmers in Georgia, would be able to market their products as organic without raising the birds on organically grown feeds. This provision is inconsistent with organic consumers perceptions of the origin of organic poultry and the intent and regulations of organic producers.

The recently enacted organic standards was the result of many years of careful deliberation and public input. Overwhelmingly, organic producers and consumers have supported the new standards. Due to this outrageous omnibus provision, organic producers and consumers will no longer have confidence in the organic labeling process.

I strongly urge you to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and thank him for his leadership on a whole host of foreign policy issues. I also thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee, and especially the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for the gentleman's help in offering this resolution, doing a Dear Colleague letter, and trying to inform the other Members of Congress of Mr. Havel's retirement.

Mr. Speaker, a silly person once said that only silly people have heroes today. If that is true, this silly person is not afraid to admit that Vaclav Havel is one of my heroes.

Today we honor Vaclav Havel who provided the moral force behind the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989, and who stepped down as President of the Czech Republic just 1 week ago. If proof is needed that the pen is mightier than the sword, then Vaclav Havel is a veritable smoking gun.

It is a magnificent irony that one of the most oppressive communist regimes in Eastern Europe would one day be led by a poet and playwright. But there is a tradition in this part of the world that intellectual integrity and independent art translate into raw political power. Mr. Havel provided the leadership through raw moral force that gave rise to the incredible and peaceful revolutionary movement which we now refer to as the Velvet Revolution.

As uncompromising in his resistance to the totalitarian state as he is in his ironic plays, President Havel withstood censure, numerous imprisonments, and the muzzle to become the premier symbol of Czechoslovakian dissidence in the years after the Soviet Union crushed Prague back in 1968.

He helped found the Charter 77 dissident movement, the moral blueprint for the revolution, and then formed the Civic Forum, the main opposition party in Czechoslovakia against the communist regime. Through his clashes with the authority, he was repeatedly sent to prison. His essays setting out his ideas on national resurgence in a totalitarian state, ``The Power of the Powerless,'' was widely studied inside and outside of Czechoslovakia.

In it, he argued that citizens living ``in truth'' could successfully confront and overturn dictatorial rulers. For his views, the regime forced him in 1979 to choose between exile or 5 years in prison. He chose prison and his enduring stature is partly a result of that choice. He later collected the letters he wrote from prison to his wife in a widely read volume, ``Letters to Olga.''

Mr. Speaker, as a recent graduate of law school back in 1990, I was in one of my short disillusioned states in regards to our own democracy at the time, but was watching with rapt attention the incredible frenzy of events in Eastern Europe leading to the collapse of the communist regimes and ultimately the collapse of the Berlin Wall. I had the opportunity to travel throughout Eastern Europe shortly after these revolutions took place. I spent a little time in Czechoslovakia where I was part of an international student group restoring some of the old castles in Czechoslovakia.

It was during that time, Mr. Speaker, when I also met other political heroes of mine. These were students approximately my age who were, just a few months previously, literally on the front lines of these demonstrations, literally staring down the guns of the Communist forces, knowing their history, but also not knowing whether this would be a repeat of the Prague Spring in 1968, which resulted in a bloody massacre.

I met and stayed with many of these students and I asked them what they were thinking during that time, those fateful couple of weeks in November of 1989. They responded that two things stood out in their minds: one, how bitterly cold it was during those nights during the candlelight vigils, standing out in Wenceslas Square, snow coming down and they were all shivering; and, secondly, how terribly frightened they were.

History now shows that by a vote of 5 to 4, the Communist Politburo decided not to order the troops to open fire on these demonstrators.

It was a lot of these same students who would during the day go out into the countryside and into the homes and villages and town squares throughout Czechoslovakia, bringing news of the demonstrations and the movement building against the Communist regime. They understood that it required the support of the working families, the workers of Czechoslovakia, before the regime could ultimately be brought down.

In the midst of all of this was their guiding force, Vaclav Havel, whom they held in high esteem, and still do today based on the correspondence that I have with them. It was an inspiring time for me to meet these young people and to understand that they realized that there were causes greater than themselves worth fighting for and perhaps worth dying for. It was literally their future that was on the line. Through the strength of their collective action, they achieved remarkable change throughout Eastern Europe.

In 1989 and after, President Havel's genius was not just to harness popular resistance that peacefully overwhelmed the Communist regime; it was to understand that to take the trappings of leadership did not mean to betray his own humanity. He was not, however, immune to political defeat. He resigned temporarily rather than preside during the bitter separation of Czechoslovakia back in 1993. But internationally he shone. He led his country into NATO in 1999 and he has positioned them now to join the European Union next year, in 2004.

When Havel left the presidency after 13 years, he left behind a legacy of individual moral authority. It is hard to find a defined political legacy. Instead, he leaves a sense that in the life of any nation, the character of its leaders do matter.

They are still wrestling to find his replacement today in the Czech Republic. A great debate rages, even bickering is taking place, and, of course, the media and the press are more than eager to report on all of this in the Czech Republic.

For those freedoms, for his service and his sacrifice and for his shining moral example, it is only right that the United States Congress pause in our normal duties of the day to give thanks and to pay tribute to one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, Vaclav Havel.

I am sure all of my colleagues wish him much happiness throughout his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday our Nation lost seven American heroes. I rise today to offer condolences to the families and friends of the seven astronauts aboard the Columbia on its fateful mission, one of whom was Wisconsin' pride and joy, Laurel Clark, who was a graduate of Racine's William Horlick High School and a UW-Madison graduate.

We share the sympathies of all Americans for their dedication and bravery and service to our Nation. This tragedy does remind us, however, that space travel is anything but routine. It really is rocket science. When we work on the cutting edge of science and technology, perfection is never guaranteed and chance is always a factor, no matter how much time, money, or expertise is invested. That is why we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid to those brave men and women involved in our space program for the risks they take to explore our last remaining frontier.

Last December, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit Kennedy Space Center. I had a chance to meet with a lot of the scientists, engineers, and some of the astronauts on the shuttle missions. I walked away from that experience with a profound sense of appreciation, given the dedication and professionalism that our team, the NASA team, brings to their job every single day, and a greater appreciation of how terribly dangerous space travel still is yet today.

Some may wonder why we need to go to space. I believe we do it because we have no other option. Since our ancestors first inhabited this planet, we have always had a need to explore and know our surroundings. Whether it is hiking the next plain, climbing the next mountain, sailing the next ocean, or conquering the skies, human nature demands that we explore the next frontier. Space is the ultimate frontier, and the shuttle missions NASA undertakes help expand our base of knowledge for the benefit of all humanity.

As in past tragedies, we will learn from this one and we will go on. The NASA space program is the most advanced the world has ever seen, and our Nation's leadership in this area brings scientific benefits, opportunity, and hope to future generations.

The mystery of space brings unknown possibilities, and the instinct to explore represents the best of human nature and the American spirit. The seven astronauts we lost on February 1 were explorers, and our thoughts and prayers go out to them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for organizing this very important Special Order talking about the State of health care in our country. And before the gentleman from Ohio leaves the well, I want to commend him too for all the work that he has done in regards to veterans issue and also for highlighting for a few minutes this afternoon before the State of the Union address the current state of affairs in regards to health care funding for our veterans in this country generally.

Another very important topic that the gentleman did not address this afternoon is the whole concurrent pay issue, and it is something we have all supported, dealing with veterans benefits and disability payments which are currently offset, and that we are trying to correct; but the administration has refused to fund that.

Now, in a few hours, as my colleagues have indicated, the President will be here in the well addressing the Nation, and really the world, in giving us his speech on the State of the Union. We will hear a lot of discussion in regards to Iraq this evening, in regards to probably some of the other international crises which are currently confronting the world and this Nation. Not just Iraq, but the situation in North Korea, the conflict in the Middle East, the situation down in Venezuela, all are very serious. But we have an obligation in this Congress to do all that we possibly can to ensure the safety and the security of our citizens, and we will move forward as a Nation in addressing those concerns.

One of the things I continuously hear from folks back home in my Third Congressional District in western Wisconsin is they also expect us to walk and chew gum at the same time; to not just deal with the national security threats that exist against us, but also deal with the domestic challenges that now confront us.

As I travel around my congressional district, and I am sure it is true for my friend from New Jersey as well, one of the paramount issues that people want to talk about, because they are so concerned about it, is the State of our health care system and the deficiency that they are currently seeing; the fact we have so many people on the uninsured rolls in this country, close to 44 million this year alone; the fact there is a lot of cost shifting going on by our providers because of the inadequacy of reimbursements rates and the impact that has on double-digit premium increases on insurance policies that large and small employers are offering their employees.

This is killing the backbone of our economy, and small business owners in particular. We need to think of bold and creative solutions to the health care crisis that we are facing, not to mention the inadequacy of the current Medicare program and the lack of a prescription drug program, which is long overdue. That is as key and important a part of modern health care today, prescription drugs and access and the affordability of prescription drugs, as hospital beds were back in the mid-1960s when the Medicare program was first created.

One of my chief concerns as we move forward in this 108th Congress is really the economic plan being pursued by the administration. It is one being pursued with fiscal reckless abandon. They are currently projecting close to a $300 billion deficit this year, which would set a record, an all-time record, in budget deficits for our country. If the economic plan that is currently being pursued with large new spending increases and large new tax cuts continue to be pursued, we will be looking at massive budget deficits throughout the remainder of this decade and perhaps beyond.

This is all occurring at exactly the wrong moment, when we have an aging population, close to 80 million baby boomers all marching in lockstep to their retirement, which is going to start in a few short years. We are not making the type of decisions that we need to make today in order to prepare our country for that inevitability, which is just around the corner.

It is kind of the 800-pound gorilla in this Chamber. Everyone knows about it, but nobody really wants to talk about it or address it. I would hope tonight that during the President's State of the Union address he will touch upon the concerns that the health care industry has, that our providers have in regards to the inadequacy of reimbursements rates, but also what plan he has to turn the budget around so we can get back to balance; so we can exercise some fiscal discipline again in our budgetary decisions; so we can prepare the next generation of Americans, our children and grandchildren, to deal with the challenges that they will face in their lifetime.

One of my greatest fears, as the father of two little boys who are only 4 and 6, is that we are setting them up for failure.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the future generation of Americans who we are going to leave a legacy of massive debt to, and at the same time ask them to afford the programs for this massive baby boom retirement which is going to start in a few short years.

Those are some of the issues that hopefully the President will also delve into given the limited amount of time that he will have in the State of the Union Address. I think these are crucial issues to the people back in my district who are wondering how are we going to deal with the massive budget deficits which jeopardize the long-term economic security of our Nation, while also being able to make the crucial investments that need to be made in the health care system, in our education systems so our kids can stay competitive, and also in preserving and conserving our natural resources in this country.

We need to walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to do this together. Hopefully we will have an atmosphere of bipartisanship as we move forward on these important issues in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I believe now is as good a time as any for the baby boom generation, this massive demographic bubble that is working its way through our society and aging ever so gracefully, to step into this political debate. I think the message is being delivered to them that they can have it all, that they can have massive tax cuts today and retirement security tomorrow, when it is really their generation and the challenge that their generation poses that we need to come to grips with.

I have to believe that the President is a good son, loyal and dutiful and listens to his mom and dad. I think it would be wise if the President were to listen to what his father said when it was proposed, this type of economic plan was proposed to him back in the early 1980s, where they would have huge increases in spending, coupled with large tax cuts, which would lead to large budget deficits, which did occur during the decade of the 1980s and the early 1990s. The first President Bush called it voodoo economics because he knew what would transpire.

It is like deja vu all over again, the economic policies coming out of this White House: Huge increases in spending, although they want to claim to be the party of fiscal constraint. We had a 10 percent growth in government spending last fiscal year alone. On the current track, we are going to be pretty close to that this fiscal year. Double that with the large tax cuts which have been enacted, with the increased spending and the reduction in revenue, we are going to have massive budget deficits forming. That is why the Office of Management and Budget, their own economic analysts are saying $300 billion in projected deficits this year alone without even counting a military obligation in Iraq, which could blow the lid off everything else.

I feel there is time to recover. We have not slid too far down that road yet where, without further budgetary discipline, we could not turn this ship of state around in the nick of time. Unlike the decade of the 1980s and the early 1990s when these huge deficits accumulated, we do not have the luxury of a decade of the 1990s to reduce the deficit and start running some surpluses again in time for this massive retirement that is about to begin with the baby boom generation.

We have a lot of work cut out for us this year, and hopefully some people are starting to pay attention to the looming economic crisis that budget deficits most assuredly will bring, and we will act accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, today, January 8, due to family considerations, I unfortunately was not able to vote on several rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 5. I also would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 6, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 7, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 8.