Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Bob Matsui was a pillar of his beloved Sacramento. He was a pillar of the congressional community. So it is truly fitting that the courthouse in his beloved city be named after him.

I think today we should pause and ask what would be the best monument to Bob Matsui here in Washington, and I think it is clear and that is that we join together with his wife Doris, who is now a colleague, to try to carry out

his hopes, to fulfill his dream that everybody in this country counts, and when it comes to our work here, everybody should count equally.

So I am pleased to join with my colleagues and this is another moment of emotion. We very much remember Bob.

Mr. Speaker, in a few words, this is fiscal madness. It is a death wish on the part of some of my colleagues about fiscal responsibility. What my colleagues are burying is fiscal responsibility.

The national debt is now $4.6 trillion, $6.3 if we add in Social Security funds. As mentioned, this bill would add $290 billion in debt, and who would benefit? The very, very wealthy.

One-third of the estate tax is paid by the wealthiest one of one thousand Americans. I think that is one-tenth of 1 percent. Not farmers or small business people. That is the lamest argument brought to this floor in recent memory.

The Pomeroy amendment would totally take care of this, and what my majority colleagues' bill does, and it is interesting, they do not come here and say so, they would increase the taxes for thousands and thousands of Americans. These citizens would have to pay capital gains tax when they do not now do so. Why do my colleagues not come here and say this is a tax increase for thousands of Americans? They do not say that.

What this is also, everybody should understand, is a further raid on Social Security funds. My colleagues have come here, some of them on the majority side, talking about Social Security and how we need to address the shortfall. For some of these same colleagues, private accounts do not even touch that, and then they come here and increase the shortfall.

This is true fiscal madness. My colleagues will indulge in it again I guess, and I hope, once again, the Senate will come to our rescue.

Mr. Speaker, today in this chamber we heard a compelling voice for the power of freedom and democracy in President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine. Just a few months ago, the Ukrainian people stood up for genuine liberty in their country by peacefully demanding free and fair elections in what has become known as the Orange Revolution.

I am proud that the United States stood with the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that demonstrated for democracy in the streets of Kiev. I will never forget last November 24th, when I joined nearly 1,500 Ukrainian-Americans from around the country at a demonstration in support of fair elections outside Ukraine's Embassy in Washington.

The Orange Revolution marked an important milestone in the history of Ukraine. President Yushchenko today addressed forcefully both the lessons of the past and fervent hopes for the future. Now that this peaceful revolution has been dramatically launched, we must stand with the people of Ukraine as they work to strengthen their democratic institutions and to make their country more prosperous. The U.S. should do more, not less, to help build a democratic and prosperous society in Ukraine.

In particular, we must end trade restrictions that were enacted for a different Ukraine at a different time. To achieve this result, I introduced H.R. 1170, a bill to extend permanent normal trade relations to Ukraine. The U.S. must work promptly for the admission of Ukraine to the WTO.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate President Yushchenko on his election and the Ukrainian people for their determination to decide the future of their country. I urge the House of Representatives to make sure that the United States continues to stand with Ukraine as a friend and ally.

Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago or so I worked with colleagues in the Senate on the difficult issues relating to the wishes of people who were going to receive medical care if they were incapacitated. We required that State laws be told to patients about living wills and advance directives.

The Florida judicial system has worked hard to follow its laws and to try to discern what was or would have been the wishes of Mrs. Schiavo. Section 1 of the bill says: ``The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Mrs. Schiavo for the alleged violation of any of her rights under the Constitution or Federal laws.''

That court has already addressed that issue, it did so just a few days ago, and here is what it decided: ``The court finds there is not a substantial likelihood the petitioners will prevail on their Federal constitutional claim.'' That is the same court to whom you are sending this case. And the Supreme Court of our country denied review.

So essentially what you are doing now for one case is changing the Federal rules, for one case, and saying there shall be a de novo hearing, disregarding everything that has happened through the State courts and Federal courts until now. In a word, what you are doing is allowing the rule of law of this country to be twisted in the winds. It is a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, just a brief word about the gentleman from California's remarks about unprecedented deficits. The gentleman points to 9/11, it was one of the causes; so was the recession that occurred under the Bush administration, and also policies that were adopted by this Congress and the President and the tax cuts that went predominantly to the very wealthy. When Mr. Greenspan was confronted with this, he said, ``I relied on the projections that most people made,'' but he was reminded he was wrong. A lot of us here said that at the time.

I want to say now a word about this rule. It completely ducks the issue of Social Security and what the costs would be if privatized. The President said just a few hours ago, ``personal accounts do not solve the issue.'' I am glad that the President acknowledged that privatization does not solve the issue. What he did not say is it makes it worse, far worse if it were to occur.

When we take their own figures and project them through the first 20 years if privatization were to occur, and we are going to make sure it does not, it would mean that this 2042 shortfall year, 2052 according to CBO, but take 2042, the shortfall would occur 11 years early. It is fiscally irresponsible.

Secondly, the President said, ``I have not laid out a plan yet intentionally; I have laid out principles.'' But they have also had briefings and endorsed plans and called them a good blueprint, and the impact would mean, it would mean there would be a deduction from Social Security benefits of 70 to 100 percent what would be in private accounts.

What it also means is that there would be a mammoth cut in benefits under Social Security, worse and worse the younger you were, $152,000 for a younger worker over their lifetime. We know enough about these proposals that come out of the White House, come out of their briefings or words of the President to know massive debt, major benefit cuts, and they would not, for most younger workers, help but hurt.

The President also said, ``A nest egg you could call your own.'' Those are his words. No, that is not correct. Because it would be under a government managed account and most workers would have to annuitize what was left in their private accounts and there would be nothing to pass on. No, it would not be a nest egg. It would be, for most people, an empty egg.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and congratulate her on doing this. What we are doing here tonight, I say to my colleague from Connecticut and, later on, from California, and my good colleague from New Jersey, is to read some of the letters that we have been receiving from constituents. There are so many, I thought I would read just three of them, and then let others carry on. I hope we will continue to do this, because it brings home to Washington what we hear at home and what comes from home, what comes from home.

The first letter comes from a constituent in Clinton Township, Michigan. She wrote to a colleague of mine, and under our procedures, it was transferred to our office. And it reads, ``The Bush administration has placed Social Security on the top of the domestic priority list, but should it be? The `crisis' '', and that is in her quotes, ``they are trying to fix has been taking in more money than it has paid out since the 1980s. If left untouched, our current system would be capable of paying full benefits until 2042 and 75 percent after that.''

``If this administration wants to fix a crisis, they should begin with the national debt that'' and there is a word left out I think, ``that have created over the past 4 years. Increasing the deficit each year has weakened our country tremendously. Furthermore, allowing Social Security reform would cost the government between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. We live in an economy of job loss, underfunded schools, costly health care, and debt. The problems of today still need to be confronted, so why is this their focus in 2042? Reducing benefits would deprive citizens of the stability they deserve during retirement. The Bush administration is attempting to undermine the very concept of Social Security by doing so. If we allow this reform, the future of numerous citizens would be placed in jeopardy. This need to privatize Social Security is fiction, but the national debt is not.'' This is a wise constituent. All our constituents are wise; this is one who may be especially wise.

``Our government should be working to strengthen stability within our country, not weaken it. My suggestion to the Bush administration is this: Fix the problems you have created before addressing those of 2042. Continuing to ignore the issues of today will not ensure a better future for tomorrow.''

It was sent, and we checked with this constituent to make sure we could use her name, Colleen Szeliga.

Let me just read a second letter that is much briefer. I think the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) mentioned a letter from someone who had worked in the system. This is a brief letter from Jeanne Polisei who says the following in a letter to me: ``I worked for SSA for 18 years. I know,''

and it is underlined, ``what a great program it is. I know it has done wonders for people who would otherwise be poor. Please do all you can to keep this program as it is. Wall Street is not dependable but SSA is.''

If I may take a minute to read an excerpt from a letter. I will just read an excerpt because we did not have a chance to reach this constituent, so I will not mention the name or place this fully in the Record. Just the heart of this letter that was written November 10, 2004. This is her handwritten letter and I will read it exactly as it is: ``My daughter is on childhood benefits on her dad's work record and this is the only source of income, just as I am on widows benefits. We are both on Social Security. This has made'' and I think the word me is left out ``so sick with worry. What Bush wants to do is `privatize' Social Security.''

And then she goes on to say: ``The late President Roosevelt set this up as a trust fund for families and their children and the disabled. This is not his money.'' And then I finish with this: ``My husband worked hard for this money and died before his time. I pay the mortgage, the utilities, and food on the table. It is a daily struggle just to make ends meet from month to month.''

So this letter and the others and the ones other Members have read and those that will be coming express so directly and poignantly what this struggle is all about. It is to indeed to save and strengthen Social Security. We are willing to step up to the plate as we were 20 years ago. What we do not want to do is to weaken and dismantle it. And these letters express why this is so important for the people of our Nation.

So carry on with more letters. We are going to keep reading the letters to get this message across as to what the diversion of monies from Social Security to private accounts would really mean for the people of this country. And I think another time we will be reading letters from younger people because they have so much at stake and would be hurt so badly by the effort of the President to take monies out of Social Security, put them into private accounts, making the shortfall worse, not less, and undercutting a program that has meant so much in terms of independence for those on Social Security and will mean so much for my children and my grandchildren.

I thank the gentlewoman very much for giving me this opportunity.

About 30 percent of Social Security benefits go to those who are disabled and those who are family members. And the President said, if I might take another 30 seconds, that they would not be affected, the disabled. But that does not work out because what he has called a good blueprint provides for major benefits cut. And the plan, the second plan of the commission that is part of that good blueprint does affect the disabled. And if you were to have these massive cuts over time, especially hurting younger workers, for retirees and not for the disabled, it would mean deeper cuts yet for younger workers who are going to retire.

It would not only weaken it; but one last point, it would in the end shrivel it next to nothing and mean its demise because of the cuts in benefits and what is called the claw-back which would be an offset against your Social Security of what is in your private accounts and that would be for younger workers, about 70 percent of what was left in your Social Security benefits. So in the end the younger worker in most cases would end up less in both, end up with less in both than if Social Security had not been destroyed. And the Social Security part of it would be so small that it would no longer be sustainable. And that is why this privatization by diversion of Social Security monies is essentially a path to the dismantling of Social Security.

The privatization proposal does nothing to address the shortfall and, indeed, makes it worse.

I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we held three town hall meetings and so many of our colleagues held many, many. It is interesting that our Republican colleagues in Michigan as far as I know during the break held no town hall meetings on Social Security. I think the main reason is it has become increasingly clear that the diversion of Social Security moneys for privatization is a bad deal for everyone, for seniors, for younger workers, for men and for women.

I am glad that the gentleman from Arizona preceded us, because I want to say just a few words. The facts really are allies here of those who are defending Social Security and the facts really are the antagonists of those who want to dismantle it. For example, the gentleman who preceded us from Arizona said that people who are coming to the Republican meetings are coming to heckle. First of all, I do not think there are that many meetings held by our Republican colleagues. Secondly, when the President goes out and holds Social Security forums, the people who can come have to have tickets. They have to be people who are proponents of the President's position. And I just would like to say to everybody, let everybody into the forums that are held by the President as is true of our forums.

As far as I know, that has been true. There may have been an exception, but I do not think so. So the gentleman is right. These are staged meetings and people who come are screened. For those of us who speak tonight, yourself, myself and others who have held our town hall meetings, there is no screening. We notify the public at large and whoever comes, comes. We have people who have differences of opinion. That was one statement of his that is very, very inaccurate. It is really an insult to the people who want to come to the President's meetings, saying that they come to heckle. The answer is they cannot get in. And they would love to participate in the discussion.

He also mentioned another allegation about the number of workers per retiree, and I think he mentioned 15 to 1 or 16 to 1. That is a figure that existed before Social Security began to make payments. The truth of the matter is that when Social Security began to make payments to retirees, the ratio was 6 to 1. Higher than today, it is true. There is a shortfall that would exist either in 2042 or 2052. After that, according to the CBO, the payments would be 78 percent of the scheduled benefits and according to the actuaries, 72 percent. So the notion that it is headed for bankruptcy, this is the path for bankruptcy, is inaccurate.

Then another thing that the gentleman from Arizona said, it is just a bunch of IOUs. The President of the United States will not say it is just a bunch of paper and I am sure the Secretary of the Treasury will not, or better not. Why? Because the trillions of dollars held in bonds by our creditors, foreign governments and also individuals, have a bond and those are the same bonds held by the Treasury of the United States to cover Social Security payments. The full faith and credit is behind those bonds. There has never been a default. Actually the bonds have been redeemed for Social Security over the years 11 times. So this notion it is just a bunch of paper is really a serious mischaracterization, and I hope that our leaders will never repeat it.

Let me say a word about this compound interest argument. The privatization proposal would do nothing to address the shortfall.

There is no comprehensive plan, but what has happened is that the President or his spokespeople have come forth with some proposals. So we have proposals, for example, in the commission report which was called a good blueprint by the President. We have a proposal that would shift from wage indexing to price indexing, would lead to a cut in benefits over time of over 40 percent.

This proposal would not address the shortfall, and $1.5 trillion would be diverted from Social Security the first 10 years and a total of $5 trillion over 20 years of privatization.

I am glad the gentleman raised that point, because we are going to spend some time talking about the impact of this privatization proposal on women. In future times, you are going to be talking about its impact on other segments of our population. Let me say just a word about this notion, borrow $1.5 trillion the first 10 years, another $3.5 trillion the second 10 years, what this all means and how it would impact on people.

What has Social Security meant? It has meant independence. There are just a couple of facts I want to mention, and they show what Social Security has meant in this case, specifically for women. Four out of 10 widows in our country rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income. So those who want to play around with or really dismantle Social Security are really affecting the lives of people. Another thing, it is not the income alone, but the meaning of that income, because research has shown that Social Security income is key to so many people deciding they continue to live independently. When you compare the life of people before Social Security went into effect and when it did, the number of older women who are widows who are living independently increased the first 25 years of Social Security almost three times. So as was true for my beloved mother has been true for millions and millions of women. Social Security has not been a source of dependence; it has been a source of independence.

Let me just say a few other things about the impact potentially of privatization on women. As we know, women on the average earn less than men, on the average. Social Security has a progressive element to it. And so that means that for women in terms of the replacement of their wages, Social Security is even more important on the average than for men. And also because life expectancy is greater for women than men on the average, if there were private accounts, it would have an especially adverse impact on women.

The gentleman says there is not a comprehensive plan, but there are proposals. In the State of the Union briefing that was done by the White House, they talked about annuitization. There would be a requirement for millions of people to annuitize their private accounts if they existed. So it is not a nest egg that is their own. There would be a requirement of annuitization. And because women on the average live longer, the annuities would cost more.

These are just some of the reasons why when we go to meetings and people can come, they are not screened, men and women, younger and older; and we are going to be talking another day about the deleterious impact on younger workers, but so many of the people who come, women on Social Security, they just say, look, this has meant I can continue to live my own life. That is what is at stake here. And so what we say to everybody is, the gentleman from Arizona said fix it. Yes, they would fix it by dismantling it. The fix would be in for Social Security.

What we say is, we have fought to keep Social Security strong, we did 20 years ago here, and we will continue to fight to keep it strong. The President

said, and I close with this, we need to keep Social Security strong, we need to keep it safe, we need to strengthen it. What they would do is to weaken it and dismantle it.

So I thank the gentleman for letting me participate, and I am glad that others can continue with this. We are determined to go everywhere in this country and tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Congressman Evans' legislation, the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act, and am proud to be an original cosponsor. This legislation will guarantee that veterans receive the health care they have earned and deserve.

With an increase in the number of veterans seeking care, a dramatic rise in medical costs, and years of inadequate VA health care funding, there is a clear and growing mismatch between the demand for VA services and available funds to support these services. The number of patients entering the VA health care system has increased by 134 percent since 1996, but funding for medical care has increased just 44 percent. This has resulted in unprecedented waiting times for routine and specialized medical care nationwide. In my home state of Michigan, some veterans are waiting more than 6 months for an initial doctor's appointment. This situation is untenable.

The reason for this problem is evident and so is the solution. Every year, veterans have to fight with a myriad of non-veterans' programs to receive the money necessary for their health care treatment. To end this annual budget battle, the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act would require Congress to meet our veterans' medical care needs by providing funding for VA health care based on the number of enrollees in the system and medical inflation.

This is legislation that Members on both sides of the aisle should support. In fact, a commission established by the White House, the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans, issued a report in March 2003 noting the mismatch between veterans' needs and VA services, and recommending guaranteed funding to fix this problem. To date, the Administration has refused to endorse, or even to acknowledge, the Task Force's recommendation.

The current system is not serving our veterans well. The VA must have a sufficient budget to effectively manage its health care programs, to hire the appropriate number of staff, and to adequately plan for the coming year well in advance. Guaranteed veterans' health care funding would end the year-to-year uncertainty the VA and our veterans face, and would fulfill the obligation this country has to the men and women who served in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to John Knapp on his retirement from the city of Roseville.

Occasionally, we hear of people who are described as ``fixtures of their communities.'' John Knapp is a good example of what is meant by this term. For all the years that I have had the pleasure of serving in Congress, John Knapp has been serving the people of Roseville, Michigan. Since I began representing the city of Roseville a few years ago, John Knapp and the city of Roseville have always seemed to be a perfect match--they both epitomize the best in the definition of ``community.''

John Knapp has held the position of City Manager in Roseville since April 11, 2000. He came to Roseville in 1984, where he held the position of City Controller for over 15 years. Thereafter, John served as Interim City Manager, in addition to his duties as City Controller, from December 31, 1999, until his formal appointment in April, 2000. John's life of public service began long before this in the Wayne County Treasurer's Office, where he served for over 22 years.

During John's years as City Manager of Roseville, he oversaw the completion of the building addition to the Roseville Police and Court Building. He was also instrumental in the development of Veteran's Memorial Park.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding John Knapp for his years of effective service to the city of Roseville and for his tireless commitment to the well-being of its citizens. My best wishes to John with whom I have been privileged to develop a personal friendship, and to his wife of 40 years, Karen, for a healthy and happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my full support as a cosponsor to this resolution, congratulating the Ukrainian people for their role in ensuring a fair and free election on December 26, and congratulating Viktor Yushchenko for his perseverance in winning the presidency.

Democracy in Ukraine has come a long way in a very short time. The Orange Revolution, as it has been called, will be remembered as a historic milestone. This revolution succeeded through the peaceful efforts of the Ukrainian people standing up for democracy and genuine liberty for their country.

Hundreds of thousands of Mr. Yushchenko's supporters, many wearing the orange color of his political party, poured into the streets of Kiev and blocked entrances to government buildings to protest a rigged vote and demand the Ukrainian Supreme Court invalidate the election results.

It was stirring to watch these men, women and children brave the bitter cold and snow in Independence Square and throughout the country, demanding to have their voices heard and their just demands met, namely, free and fair elections.

Here in Washington, I was proud to stand with nearly 1,500 Ukrainian- Americans from around the country on the day before Thanksgiving at a demonstration in front of Ukraine's embassy to demand that the will of the voters of Ukraine be upheld in that nation's presidential election. We gathered together in the rain just as the AP Wire announced that Ukraine's Election Commission had grievously certified the election of Viktor Yanukovych. Ukraine has come such a long way since then.

The United States stood with the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians demonstrating for democracy, and made clear that Mr. Yanukovych must not be recognized as president. The U.S. must continue to stand with the people of Ukraine and strengthen the relationship that has formed between our nations.

I have joined the other co-chairs of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus in writing to Speaker Hastert asking him to invite President Yushchenko to address a joint session of Congress. This should only be the next step. The U.S. must remain committed to assist Ukraine establish a full democracy and create a prosperous free market economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 16.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to that but I must say I loved sitting next to Bob Matsui.

When I came here Monday morning, having heard the news a few hours before, here is what I said to myself: This place is truly a different place without Bob Matsui. There is for us a large hole in our ranks and in our hearts. He added so much to this institution that he loved. He added his exceptional vitality to the notion we often say, this is the people's House. Bob underlined, this was the House of all the people. He identified with the underdog, with those trying to climb up the ladder of life more than those who were already at the top. Opportunity meant everything to Bob. Tax policy, his interest in EITC, to help those working lift themselves up, his interest in child care and health care for those who were leaving welfare for work. He fought also, we know, for the seniors of this Nation. And how hard he was fighting as illness overtook them, trying to make sure that there was opportunity for elder citizens and not deprivation.

In trade policy, as has been mentioned, my brother the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is here, I think I would describe it this way about Bob. He saw opportunities in expansion of trade, but more and more he came to believe that as globalization expanded it was critical that expanded trade leveled up and not leveled down. Where all of his ardor came from, I am not sure. Some no doubt from his family's life experience and some of my colleagues knew more about that than I did. From him, he did not talk very much about it. I read in some of the reports that Bob was described as low-key and quiet and I see some of my colleagues shaking their heads. Those press reports did not quite capture Bob Matsui.

He was gentle, that is true. And he was very dignified and in a way quiet. But he was a gentle person, focused, dedicated, tenacious, and tough. He did not claim to know all of the answers; but when witnesses came before the committee, he was insistent that they give straight answers to his questions. And the mightier they were, the witness, the mightier was Bob Matsui's determination. I will not mention the members of administrations who learned that firsthand.

There has been reference to this Christmas card and I wish everybody who may be viewing this could see this picture, how it moved us. And let me close by reading just the last paragraph of this card: ``As we look at this special season through Anna's eyes,'' the granddaughter, ``we feel a renewal of our family's traditions. Let us cherish these special moments and be thankful for what is most important in our lives, our family, our friends, and the blessings of everyday life. Bob, Doris, Brian, Amy, and Anna Matsui.''

Our condolences to the family, to Doris, Brian, Amy, and Anna. Bob Matsui was always looking to the future. Now it is up to us to look to the future on behalf of Bob Matsui. Bob, we love you.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the changes in the House ethics rules that the Republican majority is seeking to adopt today. The proposed Republican rule changes would cripple the ethics process in the House and dramatically lower the bar for standards of official conduct.

Late yesterday, the Republican majority in the House released the details of its rules package for the 109th Congress. Some of the newspapers reported this morning that the majority had abandoned its efforts to loosen rules governing Members' ethical conduct, but this is not the case. While the majority backed away from some of its rule changes, the most egregious ethics change remains. This provision would make it much more difficult for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by Members of the House.

Under current rules, if the Ethics Committee deadlocks on whether or not to pursue an ethics complaint against a Member of the House, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee. Under the proposed change, a complaint against a Member would be tabled unless a majority votes to take action on it within 45 days. Since the committee is evenly split with five Republicans and five Democrats, either political party could simply block an ethics complaint by stonewalling and running out the clock.

There is no doubt that if the proposed rule change had been in effect during the last Congress, no action would have been taken against the Members of the House who were reprimanded as a result of the Ethics Committee's investigation of bribery allegations raised in connection with the vote on the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003. The committee would have deadlocked and the entire matter swept under the rug 45 days after the complaint was made.

I was listening to the debate on this earlier. The chairman of the Ethics Committee said

that he does not favor this change. He said he would like it removed. Why then is the majority leadership pursuing this change, when it is opposed by the ranking Republican on the Ethics Committee?

At a time when public confidence in Congress is so low and the Nation faces so many challenges, it is inexplicable that the first order of business in the new session is to water down the ethics rules in the House and make it even more difficult to discipline lawmakers who abuse their office.

This should not be a partisan matter. The proposed rule change harms the integrity and credibility of the House as an institution, and that reflects badly on all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike. I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing this assault on ethics enforcement in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 71st anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932 to 1933.

The horrors of famine are often brought about by droughts, floods or other natural occurrences, but the deaths of more than 7 million Ukrainian men, women and children during this period were the direct result of deliberate policy decisions by a repressive government.

Seeking to suppress Ukrainian aspirations for independence, the government of the former Soviet Union ruthlessly imposed forced collectivization and grain seizures. Survivors have spoken of eating bark and weeds to subsist, of the desolation of entire villages, and of Red Army soldiers going door-to-door throughout villages confiscating food and livestock. Witnesses testified that the harvests of the early 1930s were bountiful, and while innocents starved in the streets, Soviet soldiers guarded storehouses full of grain.

For decades after these. events, the deaths were covered up and this man-made tragedy was denied by Joseph Stalin and the government of the Soviet Union. Even today, with first-hand testimony and overwhelming evidence, including the final report of the congressionally mandated U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, there are still those who seek to deny the truth.

Each year, we in Congress join with Ukrainians around the world to remember and honor the victims of this atrocity. Through public recognition of the Ukrainian Famine, we work to ensure this senseless cruelty against humankind is not forgotten, and that its remembrance may help to prevent such tragedies in the future.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) asked us to be bipartisan. Why were the Republicans not bipartisan when you put your budget together? You want us to be bipartisan now. What about the past? You want us to be fiscally responsible for your fiscal irresponsibility. We will not do that.

You mentioned the Medicare bill. We paid for ours. You hid the facts about what you were proposing. You hid them from us, and you continue to do so.

It has been said here let everybody understand the impact on the families of America. The gross interest on the national debt this year: three-quarters of all nondefense discretionary spending. And when projected over 10 years, it is going to be even larger than nondefense discretionary spending.

This action of yours today is the bitter fruit of your fiscal irresponsibility. You give every reason for this problem except your own actions, your own default. It is time that you stood up to the bitter fruits of your policies. Do not stonewall. Do not give us the hollow excuses. This country's families are now being asked by you for a tax increase on every family of America. You can vote for that; I am not going to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate an excellent educational institution in Michigan, Macomb Community College, as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. ``Community'' is central to the vision of Macomb Community College (MCC), and over its fifty years of service I am confident it has touched nearly every home in Macomb County in one way or another.

MCC was founded as part of a K-14 system and was known as ``South Macomb Community.'' Approximately 84 students attended classes, $2.00 per credit hour, in seventeen basic course areas at night in space borrowed at Lincoln High School. Today its reach extends to six campus sites and outreach centers and it enjoys an annual enrollment of 44,000 students with 1100 courses offered in the day, night, and online.

Every decade has seen expansion and distinction at MCC. In the 1960s their service area was expanded to include the entire county, and its two main campuses, South and Central, became realities so it could serve both, urban and rural areas.

Enrollment continued to climb in the 1970s and, at one point in the 1980s, MCC was the third largest college in the state behind the University of Michigan and Michigan State University. They also added a world-class facility, the Macomb Center for Performing Arts, which now holds nearly 700 events annually, enjoyed by some 260,000 individuals. It was also in the 1980s that a third campus site was added to house police and fire academies, workforce development and training, and continuing education programs.

In the 1990s, the College partnered with nine universities and upper division public and private colleges to launch the University Center where approximately 2500 students could pursue bachelors and masters degrees closer to home. Also in this decade, its fourth campus, the Emergency Services Training Center was constructed as a state-of-the- art training facility for police, fire, first responder, emergency medical and municipal services.

In 2002, MCC partnered with the State of Michigan on the site of the former Army Tank Plant, after the property was transferred from military to public use, to build its most recent addition, ``The Michigan Technical Education Center'' (M-TEC) to house the College's comprehensive Workforce Development Institute.

Mr. Speaker, one might say that fifty years ago South Community College planted seeds in borrowed space. Today, those seeds have sprouted throughout the entire County. The residents of Macomb County have indeed been fortunate to have such a progressive institution committed to the educational needs of everyone in the area. The College has been forward-thinking in their approach to the needs of the County and they have been committed to the vision of a ``better future for those growing up in the community as well as the community itself.''

It has been my pleasure to work closely with MCC in so many important areas, like school-to-work and re-training programs, and to spend time with the students there. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking all those who have helped build this remarkable institution, and to extend our best wishes for their important endeavors in the future.