Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important Resolution commending the incredibly diverse, democratic nation of India on the celebration of its Republic Day.

This Resolution reiterates the overwhelming Congressional support for continued strong relations between the United States and India. And it notes India's commitment, under the Indian constitution, for universal suffrage; equality for all citizens, regardless of faith, gender, or ethnicity; and protections for freedom of speech, association and religion.

Our two nations are ``natural allies,'' as Prime Minister Vajpayee has stated. For while our alliance is relatively young, it has already begun to flourish based on our shared values and commitment to democratic principles.

In recognition of our growing relationship, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and I led a delegation of nine members of Congress to India in January.

During our trip, we were privileged to be received by a number of Mr. Vajpayee's Ministers and we engaged key policymakers in thoughtful discussions on issues ranging from Kashmir and Pakistan to this year's national elections in both India and the United States.

While we certainly discussed, and even debated, a number of issues on which our countries have legitimate differences, the lasting impressions were the broad areas of agreement and cooperation, and the strength and dynamism of the growing U.S.-India relationship.

Madam Speaker, the mutual respect demonstrated in these discussions was a clear sign of our maturing relationship and the trust between us.

For example, our armed forces now regularly participate in joint exercises involving all branches of the military, and the sale of U.S. military equipment to India approached $200 million last year.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, India pledged its full cooperation and offered the use of all its military bases for counterterrorism efforts. And India continues to play a key role in stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

Our economic cooperation also is noteworthy. In fact, the nearly 60% increase in total trade between the United States and India since 1996 illustrates that.

With more than 1 billion citizens, India still faces many problems. And the increasing engagement with the United States will help India to address them.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life of a dear friend and a great American. Blair Cross was a loving family man, a patriotic veteran, and a dedicated activist.

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to work closely with Blair and witnessed his tireless advocacy on behalf of Korean War veterans across the country. Specifically, Blair and I have been working on legislation that would grant the Korean War Veterans Association a Federal Charter, enabling the Association to expand its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes.

Blair was the Korean War Veterans Association's top advocate for this issue, and I am grateful for his activism, and the activism he encouraged among his fellow Korean War veterans.

Mr. Cross's distinguished service did not go unnoticed. The Joint Veterans Committee of Maryland selected Blair to receive the honor of Veteran of the Year and he was to be recognized this April. Blair was chosen to receive this award from over 10,000 veterans throughout the State.

Mr. Cross also helped in founding the Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training. The Baltimore homeless shelter has aided thousands of veterans over the years.

The community, the State, and the country have incurred a tremendous loss with Blair's passing. His advocacy and leadership on behalf of veterans in our State will long be remembered and I send my deepest sympathies to his wife Jane, daughter Sharon and Blair's family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information, and also for planning purposes that assurance for March 12.

We talked last week and we know that the highway reauthorization extension for 2 months was worked out. When can we expect the committees to mark up the reauthorization bill, and when do you expect to see it on the floor.

I thank the gentleman for that answer. Can the leader tell me whether or not there is an expectation that this will be, as we have had in the past, a 6-year reauthorization, or is it possible that there would be a shorter reauthorization, say, of 2 years, obviously focused on trying to build jobs and create jobs in the country?

I thank the gentleman. As we, as well, also discussed last week, can the leader bring us up to date on the progress of the budget resolution and when he expects it to be marked up in committee and when we can expect to have that bill on the floor?

I know this is preliminary and it is early, but my presumption would be that as we did in years past, that the minority would have its rights to submit such substitutes as it deemed appropriate?

Reclaiming my time, if I may say, somewhat, I know, facetiously, but we are pleased that the leader is encouraging us to do so. As a matter of fact, we are as pleased about that as we were last year when the gentleman from Texas urged everybody to support our motion to instruct, that we follow the House Democratic substitute as opposed to the one that we actually passed. So we are encouraged by the gentleman's encouragement.

Last, if I can, the FSC bill. We talked about this last week. Obviously, the Europeans have started to impose some penalties. Can the gentleman tell us the status of legislation to deal with the FSC issue?

I presume, as well, that when and if that is brought to the floor, because there has been some real disagreement on who that bill ought to advantage and focus on as the gentleman knows in terms of domestic manufacturers as opposed to manufacturers who do a lot of work overseas, and hopefully we will be able to offer alternatives to certainly the bill that was reported out last year, if it is the same bill. As the gentleman knows, we would have an alternative to that. Can the leader give us assurance that we will have that option?

I thank the gentleman for that observation. One additional observation. That is obviously an important option. I think the gentleman states correctly the practice of the House under both Democrats and Republicans.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thought of that question, Mr. Leader, but I thought it was probably not worth asking because I knew the answer. But to the other question, with respect to offering substitutes, very frankly, what happens is you can offer a substitute, but if it is not germane and you do not receive a waiver when you are granted the right to offer the substitute, obviously on the one hand you have the ability to offer a substitute, but you do not really have the ability to offer an alternative. There is a very substantial difference.

I do not necessarily expect an answer today, but I really would hope, because we are talking about very significant, important issues, where there are differences in a bipartisan fashion on either alternative, that alternatives should be allowed that are consistent with the objective, although, as the leader well knows, from time to time because of what is or is not included in the committee product may or may not be germane even though it is pointed to the subject. I offer that as food for thought because I think it is fair and I think it would be good for the American public to have a broader spectrum of options than is sometimes allowed to us, notwithstanding the fact that theoretically a substitute is made available.

I think the gentleman understands my point, and I thank the gentleman for the information.

Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 2004, Bowie Lodge Number 2309 of the Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks will welcome Amos A. McCallum of Saco, Maine, Grand Exalted Ruler of the Grand Lodge of Elks to Maryland at a luncheon to be held at the Bowie Lodge on March 26, 2004.

My long-time friend Judge Gerard F. Devlin will serve as the Master of Ceremonies and I regret that my duties here in this House will not permit me to attend and join with my many friends in the Bowie Elks in welcoming this distinguished guest to our State. Initiated in the Biddleford-Saco lodge in 1963, Grand Exalted Ruler McCallum rose through the chairs in his native Maine to eventually hold the high office he now occupies with such distinction.

Space would not permit me to list all of the many charitable philanthropic activities individual lodges and the Grand Lodge participate in, but suffice it to say that no fraternal organization does more for people than the Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks.

I salute the Grand Exalted Ruler Amos A. McCallum and hope he enjoys typical Maryland hospitality in his visit to our State.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in urging the Members of this House to support this important Resolution.

As I remarked in a speech on trade relations nearly four years ago, the most powerful nation on earth cannot ignore the most populous nation of earth. The United States, in my view, must use its best efforts to move the People's Republic of China toward democratic reform, market economics and the rule of law.

However, even as we seek to engage the People's Republic on issues of mutual interest and concern, we have a continuing obligation, in my view, to hold the communist regime in Beijing accountable for its unjustified and indefensible human rights violations.

Just today, Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post reported that China has detained a group of Hong Kong residents--including at least three British citizens--and has begun to prosecute them on espionage charges.

One of the British citizens charged is accused of, among other things, discussing he 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre with a British agent.

And it remains unclear how these British citizens are being prosecuted under Chinese law for activities that allegedly took place in Hong Kong before China resumed control of that territory.

And just last week, the State Department's 2003 Human Rights Report Scored Beijing on this issue. The report stated:

``We began 2003 with hopes that the incremental but unprecedented progress in China seen in 2002 would be continued and expanded; however, throughout the year, we saw backsliding on key human rights issues. Arrests of democracy activists, individuals discussing subjects deemed sensitive by the Government on the Internet, HIV/AIDS activists, protesting workers, defense lawyers advocating on behalf of dissidents or the dispossessed, house church members and others seeking to take advantage of the space created by Chinese reforms increased.''

In short, this Resolution urges the United States to introduce a resolution at the 60th Session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission that calls on China to end its human rights violations and to meet internationally recognized standards for human rights.

Furthermore, it states that the United States should take the lead in organizing support for the passage of such a resolution, and that American officials continue to speak out against religious and political persecution in China, as well as coercive family planning practices, forced labor camps, the forced repatriation of North Korean nationals and other abuses.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleagues from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for introducing this Resolution. And I urge all my Members to support it.

The People's Republic has made great economic progress over the last half century. But its persistent pattern of human rights abuses is a dark stain on its record. As a beacon of liberty and democracy, we have an obligation to ensure that it is held accountable for such abuses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information; and reclaiming my time, I wish to ask the gentleman just a few questions about other legislation.

It is my understanding the highway reauthorization bill has not been completed by the other body. It has not come back here. As the gentleman knows, it expires Sunday, I think. Does the gentleman have any idea of what action, if any, might be taken on this?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. We did pass the extension in a timely fashion. And although I have not had the opportunity to discuss this with the Democratic leader, my presumption would be that we would try to work with the majority in providing unanimous consent, so that if something can move in the next 48 hours, we accomplish that objective.

Mr. Leader, as you know, the 9-11 commission has requested an extension of time. My understanding is the President has indicated his support of that extension. I also think I have read that the majority leader in the Senate believes that they would support that.

Can the gentleman inform us as to whether or not we might see legislation on the floor to accomplish an extension of time that Governor Kean and Mr. Hamilton have requested?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. On this issue, I have discussed briefly with the leader on our side, and I believe if such an extension, even if it were on the highway bill, that would not preclude us from entering into a unanimous consent. I have not polled everybody, so I cannot say unanimity; but there is broad support.

The families I know, as well as the commission, believe that they need more time to do the work we have asked them to do. So I thank the gentleman for that answer and for focusing on that.

The fiscal 2005 budget resolution, Mr. Leader. When might we expect the budget to be marked up in the Committee on the Budget and to be here on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman would expect consideration on the budget in the March 15 time frame?

Lastly, Mr. Leader, the Foreign Sales Corporation Act, as the gentleman knows, we have not modified that, and the European Union has said on March 1, a few days from now, Monday, they have the ability to start imposing sanctions on U.S. goods. When do you think or is there any information as to when we may consider on the floor a bill dealing with foreign sales corporations to respond to the problem that exists that will motivate the EU to impose such sanctions?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that answer, and I would hope that we can respond to that issue as soon as possible. I know there is bipartisan support for what was referred to as the Crane- Rangel bill. I am not sure what it is referred to now, the Rangel- Manzullo bill. I think we could proceed in a bipartisan way if that bill could be moved forward. I understand that is not the bill that the committee has reported out, but it seems to me there is bipartisan consensus on that issue, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for that information.

Mr. Speaker, today Maryland mourns the loss of William Coates, thought to be the oldest man in America and certainly someone who made a lifetime of contributions to our state.

Mr. Coates was born in Maryland on June 2, 1889 and lived to see many of our nation's most important moments, including the Wright Brothers' first flight, the Great Depression, two World Wars, the Civil Rights movement and the Space age.

Over the span of his life in our great state, Mr. Coates worked with the Maryland State Highway Department in the 1930s building roads for the state, and as a tobacco farmer on a variety of farms throughout Prince George's County including Claggett Farm in Upper Marlboro.

Mr. Coates leaves behind him a caring family of nine children, 21 grandchildren and 37 great-grandchildren, many of whom still live in Prince George's County. His life, like the times he lived through, will long be fondly remembered by his family and friends and those of us who marveled at his longevity.

William Coates' extended and healthy life is also a tribute to a dedicated investment in medical research. Mr. Coates' life shows us that by investing in research, we can all improve our lives and our health.

William Coates has dedicated a life of service to our state and community, and my thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, as we honor Black History Month fifty years after the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, one would think that we would be able to celebrate the end of the ``separate but equal'' doctrine and laud the accomplishments of America's black community.

There is no doubt that we have come a long way from the days of Jim Crow and segregated schools, but the ``separate but equal'' doctrine did not disappear with the waving of a magic wand by the courts fifty years ago.

Today, in some instances, it seems to be one accepted by the current White House. The President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget released earlier this month is a potent example of this Administration's willingness to tolerate two Americas. But now, like then, the doctrine is better characterized as ``separate and not equal.''

Instead of celebrating the achievements of black entrepreneurs like Madame C.J. Walker, Earl Graves and Bob Johnson, I am obligated by the economic plight of many black Americans to discuss how the President's economic policies are failing minority communities.

Under the President's budget the White House seems to believe that ``separate but equal'' is acceptable in our nation's economy.

The President did not make job creation a priority in his budget. While he increased funding for some job programs as a campaign ploy, he cut funding for other programs. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate among African Americans increased last month to 10.5 percent, more than double that of white Americans. When the President assures Americans that the economy is getting better and that jobs are being created, he certainly can't be addressing black America.

In addition, the Bush budget cuts nearly $80 million in funding for the Small Business Administration, which plays a key role in helping minority owned small businesses grow.

Finally, the SBA programs targeted at low-income and minority communities--the Microloan Program, the New Markets Venture Capital Program, the Business Information Centers, and others--received no funding.

This month should also be a time for celebrating the black Americans who have contributed to education. Carter G. Woodson was a visionary who established Black History Month. Woodson realized that white and black America knew little of African Americans' accomplishments and he was determined to educate America on those achievements.

Instead, I am forced to talk today about the fight against a budget that will shortchange America's children, including African American children who disproportionately attend poorly performing schools. The President's budget would fail to provide $9.4 million in promised education funding, eliminate the Even Start program and freeze funding for Pell grants and cut the funding of Perkins loans by nearly $100 million, shutting the door on college for many minority students.

We should also laud this month the pioneering efforts of Dr. Charles Drew, whose groundbreaking medical work with blood and

transfusions have saved lives around the world. Instead, we must focus our hearts and minds on the 7.4 million African Americans without healthcare insurance and the millions more who can barely afford to pay their premiums. The President makes no serious attempt to address these issues in his budget.

In addition, the President's budget cuts by 15 percent funding for the Office of Minority Health. This office supports disease prevention, health promotion, and educational efforts in minority communities. Black Americans suffer proportionally higher rates of heart disease, obesity and diabetes and are in need of such services.

The disparities between the lives of many African Americans and the rest of our country are unconscionable. Whether one looks to jobs, education and healthcare the President's budget fails to address problems facing the African American community at virtually every turn.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be here today speaking of African American contributions and achievements. Instead, I am compelled to talk about the persistence of ``separate but equal'' in our society, and the sad fact that the President's budget does little to confront this entrenched separation in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share remarks made by Recording Academy President Neil Portnow at the 46th Annual Grammy Awards on February 8th, 2003. Mr. Portnow worked on behalf to the Recording Academy in a variety of volunteer leadership roles for over 20 years before being selected as President by the Board of Trustees in September of 2002.

In his first two years as President of the Academy, Mr. Portnow has used his creative talents in marketplace development and his many years in the entertainment industry to advocate on behalf of the Music and Arts community, especially in the area of Music Education funding.

I know I am joined by my colleagues in the House of Representatives in congratulating Mr. Portnow and the Recording Academy on their success in fostering, supporting and promoting a myriad of music-based education and community programs throughout the country.

To follow are the remarks presented by Neil Portnow, President, Recording Academy, on February 8th, 2004 on the occasion of the 46th Annual Grammy Awards:

Thank you for joining as we celebrate the 46th Annual

Grammy Awards.

Tonight, you've seen some remarkable performances that span

the spectrum of recorded music, with musical icons joining

wonderfully talented young artists to demonstrate that we are

all one family.

But our family extends beyond the boundaries of the artists

nominated tonight for Grammy Awards. You, the music fans, are

the most important part of our family for whom all of us in

this creative community give our all. We are inspired to

create and make our music so that you can hear and enjoy it.

After all, music uplifts the very fabric of our daily lives.

As in all families, there are times when we must all come

together as one. Tonight is one of those times.

Many of our music family have arrived here on this Grammy

stage because they had the benefit of exposure to music and

the arts in school. Proposals for dramatic cuts in funding

for the arts mean that our children will be denied that vital

opportunity. We cannot sit idly by and allow this to happen.

If our leaders spend our resources to search for something,

it ought to be for tools of mass education and cultural

enlightenment in our nation.

The Recording Academy recognizes your hunger and passion

for music. We also represent the music-makers and many others

involved in the creative process whose livelihood depends on

your support. And tonight we are asking for that support.

We have spent the past year researching and examining the

complex issues created by the digital world and this evening,

we are announcing a national program designed to educate and

inform music lovers everywhere about the serious issues and

alternatives surrounding digital downloading of music. We

encourage you to visit our new Web site, What's The

Download.com, and learn about legal downloading and the

ethical choices you can make about how you get your music.

The coming months and years will be a critical time for all

of us who bring you the music. Our industry will emerge from

what has been a perfect storm. And we will reinvent and renew

that which requires change, providing more choices and

options to discover and enjoy music.

Just as you would respond to one of your family members

seeking your help, we ask you to help us keep music strong

and alive for this and for generations to come. You can be

sure that we will continue to do our part; we're counting on

you to please do yours.

Mr. Speaker, last week a prominent thinker and actor in American foreign policy passed away. Ambassador Warren Zimmermann died on Tuesday, February 3, from pancreatic cancer. He was a career foreign service officer, who later taught at both Johns Hopkins and Columbia universities.

I had the honor and privilege of working with Ambassador Zimmermann in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Our collaboration began when he was chosen to represent the United States at the Vienna Follow-Up Meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. At the time, I was Chairman of the Helsinki Commission. Under his leadership, State Department officers and Commission staff together formed the basis of the U.S. delegation. Ambassador Zimmermann recognized the talent, expertise and political support offered by the Commission and ensured that bureaucratic hurdles would not jeopardize its integration and effectiveness.

Warren Zimmermann also agreed essentially with Commission views about being bold on human rights, on naming the names of political prisoners and divided families as well as the names of the countries whose governments were denying them and many others their basic human rights. Ambassador Zimmermann challenged the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies to uphold their Helsinki Final Act commitments. This happened during the critical first years that Gorbachev was in power in Moscow, and the Vienna meeting helped to give real meaning to words like glasnost and perestroika by insisting, before it would conclude, on actual implementation of existing commitments along with more specific and forward-looking new human rights commitments.

To his credit, and with potential implications for his, career, Ambassador Zimmermann was prepared to remain in Vienna until the Soviets resolved long-standing human rights cases. During the course of the meeting, over 600 of the 750 Soviet political prisoners listed as such by the United States were freed, including all Helsinki monitors. The number of bilateral family reunification cases was reduced from 150 to about 10, and foreign radio broadcast jamming ended. While other, larger factors were, of course, at play, Warren Zimmermann, the U.S. Delegation and the friends and allies of the United States meeting in Vienna from 1986 to 1989 helped in no small way to bring an end to the Cold War and the decades-long, artificial division of Europe.

Warren Zimmermann not only engaged his fellow diplomats. He also developed close contacts with Soviet human rights activists during his postings at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow which he maintained through the Vienna meeting. For his efforts on behalf of refuseniks, he was awarded the Anatoly Sharansky Freedom Award by the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews.

After the Vienna meeting ended in 1989, he went on to serve as the United States Ambassador to Yugoslavia. In that capacity, he would again work with the Commission at a decisive time, namely the beginning of the violent disintegration of the Yugoslav federation. The Helsinki principles, which we had just defended in Vienna, were about to witness their most severe violations primarily at the direction of Slobodan Milosevic. Ambassador Zimmermann knew well the complexities of the Balkans, but, like the Commission, he also knew that human rights violations--in this case taking the form of ethnic cleansing--could not be explained and accepted as the historical inevitability that the region's nationalist propagandists would want us to believe.

Warren Zimmermann's approach to U.S. foreign policy embraced the broader, comprehensive view of security that was relevant to the Cold War, to the Balkan conflicts and to our world today. In 1986, he noted the vital connection between a state's approach to human rights domestically and its conduct internationally. ``If a state is pathologically distrustful of its own citizens,'' he asked, ``is it not prone to a certain paranoia in its foreign policy? If a state does not earn the trust of its own citizens, should it have the confidence of other states? If a state is a threat to its own people, can it fail to present a potential threat to peoples beyond its borders?''

Mr. Speaker, Warren Zimmermann was an American patriot who served this Nation with honor and distinction for decades. His professional legacy is marked by a continual striving for freedom, democracy and human rights, and today there are innumerable people in Europe and elsewhere who live freer, happier lives because of his life's work.

I want to extend my sincerest condolences to Ambassador Zimmermann's wife, Teeny, his entire family, many friends and admiring colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the House next week.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information he has given to the Members and for the schedule.

Mr. Leader, you indicate there will be a short-term extension of the highway reauthorization bill scheduled for next week. Can you tell us as to when the full reauthorization, the permanent reauthorization, will be ready for consideration on the floor?

I thank the gentleman for those comments. To reiterate, the extension will be until May 30 or 31?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

For Members' planning purposes, does the gentleman expect to have votes next Thursday? I know we have it on the schedule, but I am wondering whether or not the leader has any insight into whether or not we will need next Thursday or not.

Unemployment insurance, as the gentleman knows, has been a real concern, I think, of all of ours but particularly we have raised this issue in terms of the extension. When Congress adjourned last year, it failed to extend, as the gentleman knows, the emergency unemployment compensation program which left 90,000 American workers and their families every week, which now is approximately 375,000 workers by the end of last month, in the lurch, off of unemployment benefits.

We have just passed, in my perspective at least, a very significant amendment which will give some hope and relief to these folks whose families have lost at least some type of floor for their maintenance of their families, the purchase of food and payment of rent and mortgages and things of that nature. I know we just passed it, but I would be very interested in whether the leader has any thoughts as to whether or not it would be possible to accelerate this matter so that we could get it back here so that we could give relief to these families that we have been talking about for many months.

Reclaiming my time, and I appreciate the leader's observation of my cleverness or the cleverness at least of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and our side of the aisle. The most clever thing, though, that we did was to get 229 people in the House of Representatives to say, we need to give relief to these folks who have lost their unemployment insurance. That was the most clever. The gentleman did not vote on that side of the proposition, I understand that, but 229 Members did, Republicans and Democrats. I would respectfully suggest to the leader that his observation may be correct, that the way in which this was done, because the rules required us to do it this way, may not be the best way to do it. There is a best way to do it and it can be done immediately, hopefully even by unanimous consent; simply extend, as we have been requesting for the last 4 months, to extend unemployment benefits so that these folks, these 375,000 who have lost their unemployment benefits, would be covered. The gentleman and I may agree. This may not be the best way to do it. It may have been a clever way, as the gentleman observes, for us to get this issue up, but as I say, the more clever thing was to get 229 Members of the House, a majority of the House, to say that we ought to be doing this.

Reclaiming my time, apparently the leader believes the 39 Republicans who voted for it voted for it as a political maneuver. I do not think that is the case. I do not think it was a political stunt.

There were 39 Republicans who joined over 190 Democrats to say that we need to give unemployment insurance to those families who have lost it. To assert that that was a political stunt, with all due respect, Mr. Leader, is incorrect. It was a conviction, a belief, strongly held, long advocated, that we give relief to those who have lost their unemployment insurance benefits, just as it has been our belief for a long period of time that we give that child tax credit to those 6.5 million families, those 12 million children, those 200,000 service personnel who are not covered by the child tax credit.

Reclaiming my time, surely the majority leader jests. Surely the majority leader knows that Secretary Snow said that the administration was going to create 200,000 jobs per month. Surely the gentleman knows that last month the economy created, in December, the last month we have figures for, 1,000 jobs. That is one-half of a percent of the performance that the Secretary of Treasury said was going to be accomplished, 1,000 out of 200,000. Surely the gentleman knows that during the time period in which he talks, the Clinton years, the 8 years, 22 million jobs were created. This administration has lost 2.5 million jobs over the last 3\1/2\ years.

Mr. Speaker, there is a commitment on this side of the aisle. There was the commitment in the Reagan recession, there was a commitment in the first Bush recession to extend. In fact, as the leader must know, we extended unemployment benefits more frequently with Democratic votes in the Reagan administration and in the first Bush administration than we have done in this recession, with Democratic not only support but leadership on those extensions. With all due respect, Mr. Leader, I would say that the assertion that somehow that Democrats are not for extending unemployment benefits when we have families in trouble is simply inaccurate.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I want to make this comment. I make it as an interesting comment, that during the Clinton years, the gentleman claims that it was the Republicans who created those jobs. Is it not ironic, Mr. Leader, that the Republicans cannot do that when they not only have the House, the Senate, but also the Presidency? Could it be that perhaps the difference was President Clinton? Because with total control, as your friend Dick Armey noticed last time, you own the town and have for the last 3 years. Is it not ironic that you claim credit for doing it before but you cannot do it now?

Reclaiming my time, I know that the leader believes that. He has said it before. He has voted that way. We understand that. There is very little confusion.

I noted that by the President's own admission when he spoke to the House and the Senate, he was saddled with a $5.6 trillion surplus. He has successfully turned that into a $4 trillion deficit, an almost $10 trillion turnaround the wrong way. So in terms of being saddled, Mr. Leader, the recession, by the admission of the administration, was over some many months ago and we still find ourselves in a place where not only do we have 2.5 million people unemployed but we have some 3 million people who are discouraged and are no longer on the rolls because they are no longer seeking employment.

I guess we could go on all night on this. We have a different view. But I really believe and would hope, as we did in the child tax credit, that we could certainly pass an extension to take care of those 375,000 people who have lost their unemployment insurance over the last 3 months.

Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, he inherited the longest peacetime expansion of the American economy in history. He inherited 4 consecutive years of budget surpluses, the first time that had happened in over 80 years. And he inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion.

In March of 2001, President Bush boldly promised the American people, and I quote, ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative.'' That is what the President said.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it should now be clear to the American people that the originator of the term ``fuzzy math'' has become its foremost practitioner. Any doubt about that was erased yesterday with the submission of the President's fiscal 2005 budget, a budget that threatens to plunge us into an economic abyss for years to come.

The President's failed economic policies, adopted by this House and Senate, are the equivalent of fiscal child abuse because they would force our children to pay our bills for decades to come and force our grandchildren to pay our bills for decades to come. His budget projects a record deficit this year. Fiscal conservatives hear me: $521 billion in deficits this year, $.5 trillion, this on the heels of last year's deficits of $375 billion. And next year the administration projects a deficit of $364 billion.

But even that figure is not accurate, and the President ought to know it and, in my opinion, does know it. It fails to include the cost of additional military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget revealed yesterday that the administration may ask for another $50 billion for our war efforts. It failed to provide a long-term solution for the working class time bomb, the alternative minimum tax, and it failed to include the cost of initiatives such as the administration's ill-conceived Social Security privatization plan.

The fact is the President has no plan to dig our Nation out of the fiscal mess that his policies and the policies of this Congress have created. He pretends that he will halve the deficit by 2009, but almost all the deficit reduction in his budget is attributable to growth in the Social Security Trust Fund. I ask my Republican colleagues: Where have you hidden the Social Security lockbox?

Furthermore, the President pretends that reining in nondefense discretionary spending will return the budget to balance. The No Child Left Behind Act is still underfunded by $9 billion plus. The President would slash funding for the environment and from construction on our Nation's highways. His budget even cuts funding for veterans medical care and the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program.

My good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), has recognized the fallacy of trying to balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending. Yesterday, Chairman Young said, and I quote, ``No one should expect significant deficit reduction as a result of austere nondefense discretionary spending limits. The numbers simply do not add up. Nondefense discretionary represents less than 20 percent, some 18 percent of the Federal budget, and freezing this spending reduces the deficit by a marginal amount.''

In fact, if we reduced and eliminated all of discretionary funding, all funding for this Congress, all funding for the executive department, all funding for NIH, all funding for CDC, all funding for CIA, all funding for FBI, and all funding for all other nondefense discretionary spending, we would not balance the budget.

But never fear, while the President proposes draconian and unrealistic spending cuts, he continues to demand that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 be made permanent at a cost of $1 trillion over 10 years. Who is going to pay that? Our children and our grandchildren. Because this generation refuses to pay for what it is buying.

And here is the kicker: The President refuses to offer any explanation of how he plans to pay for them. None. Zero. Nada. Even some of our Republican friends are starting to flinch at this administration's fiscal recklessness. Hopefully, they will vote that way as well, it will not be just rhetorical. And some of them, by the way, do vote that way, and I respect them for that.

On Friday, and the majority leader is sitting here on the floor pretending to ignore my compelling remarks, on Friday, former majority leader Dick Armey was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as stating, and this is Dick Armey, the majority leader immediately preceding our present majority leader, and he said, ``I'm sitting here and I'm upset about the deficit and I'm upset about spending. There's no way I can pin that on the Democrats. Republicans own the town now.'' That was Dick Armey, former Republican majority leader.

I implore every one of my colleagues to reject the President's budget out of hand and to face the fiscal train wreck bearing down on the American people with honesty and candor. Some do. Most do not. When it comes to masquerading as a fiscal conservative, the President deserves an academy award.

We do not have the luxury of pretending, my colleagues, any longer that his failed policies are working. Let us hope that all of us have the intellectual honesty and the courage to face this issue and come together. It will be tough. It will be wrenching in many respects. But it will be the right thing to do for our country. It will be the right thing to do for our children. It will be the right thing to do for America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), my friend, the distinguished majority leader, for the purpose of informing us of the schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and I understand that the accommodation we are making this week and next week is so that we can hopefully, both of our respective parties, can determine where we are going to go and, as the President suggested at the White House, perhaps come together and try to take such action as we can agree upon be positive for our country. So I appreciate that accommodation for us as for the gentleman's group as well.

My colleague talked about we are going to do the community service block grant reauthorization next week. Will amendments and/or a substitute be allowed to the community service block grant bill?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader, and I will wait with great expectation to be pleased by the announcement of the Committee on Rules, which will not be totally without precedent but not usual. I thank the gentleman for his observation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman was on the floor when the majority leader and I had our weekly colloquy, and he said I was going to be very pleased, I was pleased to hear the information, of course, as to how one perfects an amendment that needs to be made in order, but I did not hear anything about whether or not the Committee on Rules is going to grant, as I asked the leader, the ability of the minority to offer any substitute and/or offer substantive amendments.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much that warm assurance that the gentleman from Florida will be glad to listen to me or to others.

I am a big fan of Martina McBride. I do not know if the gentleman is familiar with her. She is one of the great country music singers in America, and she has a song, the title of which is ``I know you can hear me, but are you listening.'' And I know you may hear me, but I want you to be listening as well.

As the gentleman knows, as he is a long-time distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, we are very hopeful we will start this session off on the right foot and that the minority will be given, as your minority asked when you were in the minority, for the opportunity to offer amendments and substitutes so that our perspective can be considered as well as the majority's perspective. We think that serves the American people well. We think it is what you asked for when you were in the minority. We believe we gave it to you most of the time. You are correct, not all the time.

But we would hope, and this bill I think is not one of the very contentious bills that we will take up perhaps during the session, but we would hope that that opportunity would be afforded the minority.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association. Throughout its existence, the Association has worked to make the dream of independent homeownership for residents of Maryland and Washington, DC a reality.

Under the leadership of building industry pioneer Carl M. Freeman, the MNCBIA received its charter from the National Association of Homebuilders in 1954. And since its inception, the organization has remained true to its mission statement, which reads: ``The Maryland- National Capital Building Industry Association (MNCBIA) is dedicated to organizing, influencing and improving economic growth and legislative, regulatory, social and educational opportunities for all segments of the building industry and the community it serves.''

The MNCBIA is truly demonstrative of the diversity of its trade: The Association is comprised of more than 730 companies representing the interests of more than 18,000 employees of the residential development and building industries. Throughout its existence, the MNCBIA has worked to create an entrepreneurial environment in our area that encourages innovation and competition.

The Association should be strongly commended for its role in the regional economy. In addition to representing the homebuilding industry in local communities, Members are engaged in single and multifamily building, land development, remodeling, rehab and renovation and general light construction. Associate members are companies and individuals who provide materials, products, financing and many other services, including subcontracting, to builders and developers.

Mr. Speaker, because of the hard work of its members, the MNCBIA has contributed to a vibrant building sector in our metropolitan area, and boosted demand for goods and services from the building products industries and other sectors such as construction; consulting engineering, architecture and real estate law.

Successful relationships between the homebuilding industry and residents of Maryland and Washington, DC, are essential for smart growth and mutual satisfaction with the development process. The MNCBIA strives to foster open communication and understanding between these two groups.

The Association has also taken great care to protect the integrity and craftsmanship of the region's home and building designs by establishing the Annual Custom Builder Awards of Excellence, which recognizes local custom builders and remodelers for excellence in construction, architecture, and design.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association for its numerous contributions to communities in Maryland and Washington, DC during the past 50 years. Housing means more than just a roof over your head: It signifies that you can provide for your family independently. I look forward to working with the Association in the future in its efforts to build safe, affordable homes for the citizens of Maryland and Washington, DC--so that those families can claim their part of the American dream.