Floor Statements

The bottom line is that this is not just us, or the Democrats or the American people. Mr. Meek, Mr. Murphy, these are the soldiers who are coming back.

I don't know what your personal experiences have been, but the soldiers in my district who have come back, and I meet them for a cup of coffee at the coffee shop and they talk off the record, they say, Get us out because this is insane. It is ridiculous. The only thing we all hear from the soldiers who say I want to go back, they say they want to go back because their buddies are over there. They are not going back because there is some great cause that the President has outlined for them. They are so far beyond that. They go back because their buddies are there, and God bless them. Those are the kind of buddies that we all want.

I think it is important that that picture that you showed, Mr. Meek, and what the minority party is trying to do here by not giving us enough votes to override a Presidential veto in the House and in the Senate is they are complicit in following President George W. Bush's foreign policy that has taken this country right off the cliff. Mr. Meek, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Speaker, $600 billion, thousands of lives lost, innocent people in Iraq getting bombed.

And here's the bottom line that I think the country needs to know and completely understand. This President has made the country less safe. There are more terrorists today that are gunning at the United States than ever before. Even pre-9/11, and now al Qaeda is coming out and saying we are stronger than we have ever been. We are as strong as we were on 9/11.

We have thousands and thousands of more terrorists who want a gun to come at the United States. There are sleeper cells I am sure in the United States, but when we try to pass a Homeland Security bill that funds 3,000 more Border Patrol agents, that puts the proper equipment and the proper technology on the borders to make sure that when the cargo is coming into the ports that those are checked, that our first responders have the proper equipment that they need, the Republican minority basically filibustered in the House and tried to stop that from happening.

So what we are saying here is that if we don't quickly rectify this problem and start making investments that we can go after Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda instead of this mess that we are in in Iraq, then we are more vulnerable as a country. And if something happens in this country, it lays right at the footsteps of the White House because we have been fighting this war. It has been ridiculous. The whole concept has been ridiculous. George Herbert Walker Bush said it was crazy to go into Iraq. This has not made any sense since the beginning. And now we are wasting $600 billion fighting a war in some country that we don't know a whole lot about instead of focusing that money on making sure that we get Osama bin Laden, making sure that we destroy al Qaeda. That's the war.

And so if al Qaeda hits the United States of America, it is because George Bush led us into a war in a country that didn't have any al Qaeda members in it.

We're slingshotting the kids then for 5 months.

Well, $50 million for children's health care or 5 months more in Iraq, let the American people make that decision. Poll that, get the focus group out and figure that one out, where the American people are going to be. They're going to be with the leadership. They're going to be with the Speaker. They're going to be with the majority leader in the Senate. They're going to be for making these investments.

And I just love, Mr. Speaker, how our Republican counterparts went way back to 1992, they went into the deep parts of the Republican library, the CATO Institute and everywhere else, and they pulled out the 1992 talking points, and they've dusted them off and everything's socialism and union bosses. And it's typical of why they're not in power.

That's the God's honest truth of where we are. The force of the American people broke through in the election, but it is yet to penetrate the ideology of the Republican leadership and the Republicans in the House, many of them, and everything is coming down to priorities. It's all coming down to priorities.

And when Mr. Murphy and Mr. Pallone and yourself are talking about making this investment in the children's health care, poor kids getting health care, our friends on the other side are so void of any ideas on how to make America competitive in the 21st century that they have got to scream socialism, and I urge all of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to go back to the 1930s and 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The only argument our friends on the extreme right have is socialism.

We're talking about a bill that passed out of the Appropriations Committee with bipartisan support. The Members who are coming down here are extremists. They are the extreme neoconservatives who have implemented their policy over the last 6 years and have run this country domestically into the ground, have run our foreign policy into the ground, and now all they have is names to call us.

Well, go out, and when these millions of kids have health care, go to them and say, you know what, you really shouldn't get that health care because it's socialism, okay? When you go to college and you have an extra 700 bucks in a Pell grant or over the next few years it will be an increase of over $1,000 by 2011, from $4,050 to over $5,000, go to that college family, the parents that are struggling to pay for that, and let our friends on the other side say we have no business helping you with college; that's not the role of government, Mr. Speaker, that's socialism. And when we cut student interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, I urge all of our friends on the other side, go to all the millions of families across this country and say we don't want to do that, that's socialism; let the free market work.

These banks have been sucking off the government for years. We didn't raise taxes to do this. All we did was say the banks aren't going to make a big profit on the student loans. We're going to give it to the kids and give them a nice 3.4 percent rate so they can go get an education and go get a job and go create wealth and go start a business and hire people that are going to pay taxes to keep tax rates low for everybody.

They're void of ideas, and this is the best investment. I mean, this is great. We get to go, over the course of the next year, and campaign on this? This is good stuff.

Can I make a point because I think this is so important. There's not been a tax increase here. This is not where the President can say, I'm going to veto this bill because the Democrats increased taxes on someone.

What we did is we shifted this money that was going to the banks and allowed them to charge students 6.8 percent. It was basically corporate welfare, and we're saying that that same amount of money that went to them is going to go to more students for cheaper loans, less interest rates, 3.4 percent instead of 6.8 percent, just a shift in the money, shift in priorities.

So what the President's basically saying is I would rather have the banks make the profit than expand student loans to more kids and more parents. Now, that's just reading the facts. Ignore our rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to share some of those minutes with my good friends who are here, and I just want to kind of go on the point that Mr. Murphy was making.

We have a situation now where everything that we've done I think is going to help average folks, middle-class folks, lower middle-class folks, poor folks, upper middle-class folks. Think about a family who in July is going to get an increase in the minimum wage, struggling to get by, looking to get a little boost, and they get the boost because of a new Democratic Congress and the priorities of the Speaker that we're going to implement.

And then you have a kid in school or you have young kids that need health care, and you're going to now be able to access the SCHIP program. You're going to be able to go to more community health clinics because there's been an increase of hundreds of millions of dollars. Some more people are able to be covered.

Then, if you are in a State like Ohio, where the Governor, Governor Strickland, used to be a Member of this body, signed a budget that has a zero percent increase in tuition costs this year and next year, that used to be 9 percent on average in Ohio.

Now this same family has an increase in the minimum wage; they have a $500 increase in the Pell Grant. They have student loans they are taking out that will be cut in half from 6.8 to 3.4 percent. If they have young toddlers, they will be covered under SCHIP. This family now will be a healthy, educated productive family in the United States of America, so that the 300 million people we have in this country can all be on the field competing against China for us, competing against 1.3 billion people in China for the United States, competing against 1.2 billion people in India for the United States.

Now, isn't that a good thing? Aren't these good, smart, targeted investments? I would say they are, and the benefits that we are going to yield from these investments are going to serve us for generations to come. We did a study in Ohio years ago; I think the University of Akron did the study. For every dollar the State of Ohio invested in higher education, they got $2 back in tax money, because those people made $40,000 a year instead of $20,000 a year.

Now, this is a good investment. These are good investments for us to make. Long term, they are going to make us more competitive. When you look at what we are doing, what we are trying to do with stem cell research, what we are trying to do with alternative energy research, this is good stuff.

We are trying to compete with 1.3 billion people in China, 1.2 billion people in India. We only have 300 million people in the country.

So it seems to me that these investments that we are making are very wise, targeted investments. There is no tax increase. But what we are saying is, is it better to make sure that the banks have an increased inflated profit margin, or is it better for us as a country, the public, to make those investments in the families and basically give these families a tax cut? These middle-class families are getting a tax cut.

If you are taking out a loan, and you have two, three, four people in your family, you have a couple of kids going to school, both parents work, you are making 60 or $70,000 a year, and you are taking out a student loan, and last year if you took it out it was 6.8 percent and if you take it out this year and it's 3.4 percent, that's a tax cut for that family. When you go to file for the Pell Grant next year, and there is an increase of 4 or 5 or $600, that is a tax cut for a middle- class family.

What we are saying is we have a totally different philosophy from the Republican Party. They are cutting taxes in half over the past 6 or 7 years for the top 1 percent of income earners in the country.

We are saying, and the American people will make a judgment on this in the next election, would they rather have their Congress give a tax cut to someone who makes $1 million a year, or would they rather have us make the investments in the Pell Grant, in SCHIP, in community health clinics, reduce and cutting student loan interest rates in half and investing in alternative energy? Because that's what we are saying.

We would rather make these investments. We haven't raised taxes on anybody at all. That's the beauty of this whole thing, is we are just shifting our priorities. Instead of $14 billion going to the oil companies and corporate welfare, we are investing that money in alternative energy research. Instead of having billions of dollars go to the banks, we are investing that money into kids and giving them more access to college education, raising the minimum wage.

The American people, and many people are seeing, we all are seeing the numbers of Congress right now. We are not good, we understand that. But when these budgets hit, and the American people file their taxes next year, and they see there has been no increase, but yet they go to file for a Pell Grant and they see an increase in that and they see the student loan rate has been cut in half for the loan last year they had to take out for their kids and they get a boost in the minimum wage, and we are hiring thousands of scientists to do research and development through the energy bill that we passed last week, or that we will pass this week, these are the things that the American people will recognize, will understand and will see and these are going to yield long-term benefits.

One final point, the Republican Party has had their opportunity over the past 6 years to fully implement their whole agenda. They had a Republican House, huge majority, Republican Senate, Republican White House. They implemented the extreme neoconservative domestic agenda and foreign policy agenda, and the country has never been in worse shape.

Their philosophy, there is no more debate, what are we going to debate? They have had the chance to do it. They have done it. It's over. They have implemented it.

We have got the chart you showed, all the money borrowed from China, you know, all the money borrowed from foreign interests, the wages stagnant for 30 years, a foreign policy that's an atrocity right now, not a friend in the world.

So they have had a chance, and the American people have been kind enough to give us a chance, and they are going to be very proud. I understand that they may not all have felt yet what is going to come their way, but I believe that early next year, when our budget is implemented and they are having a chance to actually experience what we have done, they are going to say they are the Democrats again, and we are glad they are back in power.

That seems like 10 years ago.

I think that is such a poignant argument to make. Our friends on the other side are basically saying we are against the minimum wage, we are against increases in the Pell Grants, we are for higher interest rates for students to take out loans to go to school, we are against stem cell research. We are against research in alternative energy. They were for offering amendments to cut the budget for all the increases we were making, instead of giving the money to the oil companies to put in alternative energy. They were offering amendments to cut that.

When we offered earlier on to strip the oil companies of the $14 billion in corporate welfare they were getting, our friends voted against it, the extremists in their party. So you are exactly right. What are you for? What are you for?

I think we are quite clear as to what we are for on this side: lower student interest rates, more money for grants to go to college, higher minimum wage, focus on alternative energy, secure the country, 3,000 more Border Patrol agents in this country, technology to monitor biological chemical weapons on our ports, more funds for police and fire interoperability through the walkie-talkies, and able to talk and communicate with each other.

I mean, we have got a real agenda here.

I appreciate it, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Meek, Mr. Pallone who was here earlier, any emails from our colleagues who may be up right now, at www.30somethingdems@mail.house.gov">www.30somethingdems@mail.house.gov or www.speaker.gov/ 30something.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate a couple of points, because we seem to be having this debate every week. It seems to be on the same issues we have always been talking about. But I find it not necessarily enjoyable, but an obligation, to get up and communicate to the American taxpayer and the citizens of this country that over the last 6 years, the Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican White House, borrowed $3 trillion. They asked the Treasury Department to raise the debt limit five or six times to allow them to go out and borrow more money.

You borrowed it from China. You borrowed it from Japan. You borrowed it from OPEC countries. On and on and on and on. All of a sudden, 5 or 6 months into this year, before we have even passed a budget, you are lecturing us on fiscal responsibility.

I want the taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, to keep their forms from this year and compare them to their tax forms next year. They will see absolutely no increase in their taxes whatsoever. None. Zero. So, there is not a tax increase in this 2008 budget.

Now, let's talk about what you are proposing to cut with this amendment.

Superfund sites. Okay, you want to cut the Superfund site program that is going to clean up the most toxic sites. In many of the old industrial areas like mine, the gentleman knows very well, they were polluted in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. We can't develop the local economy because where we have water lines and where we have sewer lines, they are contaminated.

Quite frankly, the city of Youngstown and the city of Warren do not have millions of dollars to put into this because their tax base has eroded. If you want us to contribute to the tax base like we did in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s when, quite frankly, a lot of that money that was taken out of Youngstown, Ohio, was used to develop the West and to develop new water lines and sewer lines in the South in many of your districts, all we are asking is for a little bit of help.

Help us clean up the brownfield sites.

How about your cutting the methamphetamine prevention and treatment program? I am sure you can't wait to get back to your districts and tell that to your constituents. How about those of you in the West fighting wildfires? You are going to cut that program.

Mr. Chairman, many will say there are not any cuts in this bill. There are cuts in this bill: $193 million cut from construction account, it eliminates $31 million for landowner incentives; $39 million cut for the EPA Mexican border program; $24 million cut from the EPA Alaska Village setaside; $24 million cut from the Indiana land consolidation. There are cuts in here. We are not raising taxes. We are making investments into our community.

Just because, Mr. Chairman, the minority party raised the debt $3 trillion, just because the minority party is ashamed, quite frankly, of their behavior over the past 6 years doesn't mean that they can displace all of their shamefulness on the new Democratic majority. I wouldn't want to admit that I borrowed $3 trillion from Japan and China either. I would run from it as fast as I could. But that doesn't change the facts.

So I think we should vote down this amendment. There are great investments for local communities all over the country in this bill, and I think we should keep it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend my friend, not only for his athletic ability and his talents on the basketball court, but also for his focus and discipline in regards to this issue.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in the city of Akron, which I represent a part of, their obligation for the EPA is $400 million in the city of Akron. Our friends on the other side are saying that there is no role for the Federal Government to play.

You have communities like Akron, you have communities like Youngstown that have lost significant industry over the past 20 or 30 years; and if we want to bring industry back, if we want to grow industry, we can't have brownfields all over our cities.

This is an investment. This is going to clean the site up. This is an opportunity for us to redevelop sites in our communities.

Now, 30 years ago when the steel mills were pumping, when the rubber industry was pumping, a lot of our tax dollars were going to many of your communities to help lay down roads, build the interstate, rail lines, water infrastructure, all of these things. What this bill does is it tries to reinvest back into some of these communities. We want to be self-sufficient, but we don't have the local tax base. There is a role here for the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my friends, why would you want to prevent us from cleaning up brownfield sites in the old industrial areas? We don't need it forever. We just need to clean them up, and then we will have a tax base there and have more taxpayers to pay taxes and keep the tax rates low for everybody, because we will have more. But if we can't develop these sites, it becomes very, very difficult for us to grow our local economy.

We need the Federal Government to make these investments, and that is exactly what this bill does.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the gentleman from Georgia who said the individual taxpayers can spend their money better than government. The taxpayers in my district can't clean a brownfield, go out with 50 bucks and clean a brownfield. This is something we need to do collectively as a community and as a country, to clean that up. Individuals can't do that.

Individuals couldn't build the interstate highways and the railroads and the Panama Canal and all the great infrastructure projects that we have had. We need help to do this in some communities so we can be self-sufficient, and individuals can't do that.

Mr. Speaker, as we a couple weeks ago had a big brouhaha here on what we would do as Democrats to protect the homeland, I think Frank Rich is exactly right: They are already trying to get us here, and this war has created more terrorists who are trying to get at the United States. Many may be here already. We don't know.

But if you look at what we wanted to do with the homeland security bill a couple of weeks ago, put 3,000 more Border Patrol agents on the borders, make sure that we completely fund the cargo inspections coming in and out of our ports, make sure the technology is at our ports to find out if biological or chemical weapons are coming in, fund the first responders, fund the cops, fund the firemen, fund the equipment that they need for interoperability, so we have an agenda on how to protect the homeland that is much different than this one here.

But as Mr. Rich said, and there was also an article today in The New York Times, U.S. generals doubt the ability of Iraqi army to hold gains.

Now, no kidding. They had a big brouhaha with the speaker there, who was a Sunni Arab, who was put on leave at the request of a broad coalition of the three parties after incidents in which he lost his temper at other members and struck them or allowed his guards to rough them up. Now, I understand we have had a few brouhahas here in the House and in the Senate, but we didn't have an occupying force telling us to get along and get together.

These guys can't get their act together, Mr. Larson, in a way that will allow them to take over their own country. When you look at what is going on here and the testimony before Congress on June 12 from General Dempsey, in charge of training the Iraqi army, he said there is a need to increase the Iraqi forces by at least 20,000 troops this year and a further expansion would be needed in 2008. That is not possible. He said, ``However, the past few days of fighting have not yielded the kind of success that we needed. Despite the efforts to encircle leaders from al Qaeda and others there, we are not getting the job done.''

We have so many cultural differences with the Iraqi people, the difficulties in training them, the lack of competence among the administration to jump on this, the lack of troops, on and on and on and on it goes.

I want to lend my voice to yours, Mr. Larson and to Mr. Kendrick Meek from Florida, to say that it is time to bring these troops home. Let's redeploy in a very responsible way, protecting the safety of our troops, Mr. Larson, which we all support, and make sure that we handle this politically and diplomatically, because we won this military battle, but now it is an occupation.

Madam Seaker, I rise today to honor a pillar of the community of Warren, Ohio, who recently passed away. There is a well- known saying which maintains that, 100 years from now, it will not matter what kind of car a person drove or how big their bank account was. The saying affirms that in 100 years, the world may be a better place because of what one person did to help inspire and uplift a child. Very few people in the town of Warren, Ohio, had as profound an impact on so many young lives as Nick Frankos did. A 1943 graduate of Warren G. Harding High School, Frankos was an avid supporter of Warren City Schools and their affiliated athletic teams. Affectionately dubbed ``Uncle Nick,'' he had a paternal, compassionate quality that allowed him to form lifelong bonds with Warren student-athletes and to transform the lives of many of Warren's youth.

In 1956, Frankos opened his much-acclaimed Buena Vista Restaurant, famous around town for serving ``Uncle Nick's Greek Fried Chicken.'' Not only did the restaurant provide delicious meals, but it also served as a popular hangout for local student athletes, coaches, and fans. There were few, if any, high school football coaches who did not frequent the restaurant and who did not know Frankos on a first-name basis. Last year, Frankos was honored by the Warren City Council for 50 years of business excellence in the town.

In addition to his business endeavors, Frankos also served on the Warren City School Board for 12 years. Frankos was notable for his strong support of high school athletics and for his determination to provide local youth with proper athletic facilities. In particular, Frankos was instrumental in securing support for the construction of a new press box at Warren's Mollenkopf Stadium and for the replacement of part of the stadium's seating area. These improvements serve as a remembrance of the staunch support Frankos gave to Warren high school athletics throughout his life.

Madam Speaker, when ``Uncle Nick'' Frankos passed away on May 22 at the age of 82, the community of Warren, Ohio lost more than just a businessman. Many local athletes, coaches, and fans lost a friend. The Warren School Board lost a tireless advocate, and the city of Warren lost a dedicated and caring public servant. Most importantly, the area's youth lost a devoted mentor and role model. It is for his contribution to the youth of Warren, Ohio that ``Uncle Nick'' Frankos should be remembered.

I thank the gentlelady.

I just want to make a comment. The money will not change; there is not going be an increase or a decrease with regard to the amendment. This is about where the money is going to go, and there are 20 countries at least where we are not able to get contraceptives to women and men in these countries who need it. This is not about increase or decrease. This is about getting the money to where it needs to be.

The gentleman before me stated, how can we support coercive abortions. There are many prolife Republicans and prolife Democrats who voted for trade with China, to increase investment in China. We all don't have to rehash what China does with their pro- abortion policy. So the coercive argument needs to at least be consistent.

I just want to share with my friends, I am a prolife Democrat, but I believe that this will reduce the number of

abortions around the world. This is the only way to do it.

The example I want to share with my colleagues is Ghana, where abortion is illegal. The oldest and the largest family planning organization in Ghana previously provided a third of the contraceptives in the nation with no abortion services. It has received no U.S. assistance for family planning, which has decreased access to contraceptives by 56 percent.

This has led to an increase of almost 500 abortions in Ghana because we were not providing prevention. The abortion debate in the 21st century needs to be about prevention. That is exactly what this bill does, this amendment does, and what Ms. Lowey is trying to do.

I also want to share with our colleagues, because we seem to get mixed information, prevention and family planning does reduce the number of abortions. We have many countries where we have implemented this, and it has worked.

In the last two decades, in the last two decades, there have been significant declines in abortion rates in a number of countries like Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, Russia and Turkey. In Russia the abortion rate declined by 61 percent between 1988 and 2001 because of an increase of 74 percent of preventive and contraceptive use.

We know prevention works. If you want to reduce abortion, we need to provide the prevention. Mrs. Lowey just went to great lengths to say we are just shipping the product. This is not money; this is not funds. We are going to ship the product, and then those organizations will be able to take the money they save and buy more contraceptives, not provide abortion, especially in these countries where abortion is already illegal.

I want to support the amendment from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I'd just like some clarification. You said this money is going to come from countries that need it, and it's going to go to other countries. Are you suggesting that those other countries do not need this kind of contraceptives and the preventative care?

Just to clarify the record, Mr. Chairman, this is not money. This is a product that will be shipped. And the other side keeps distorting the debate. This is about the product going over there.

You can't say you're for family planning and then we provide some of the contraceptives to ship over, and then they vote against it.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point. We heard the word ``fungible'' and ``fungibility'' more than once today. I just want to apply that logic to China because we've heard about China today.

According to the logic of money being fungible, all of the money that our friends on the other side over the past 6 years who have borrowed from China, allowed China to make money on the interest, and therefore use that money to have forced abortions in China, that's fungible.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the other side was as concerned about forced abortions in China when they were busting the budget over the last 6 years.

I just would like to end this debate to say that we all have the same goals here. We all want to reduce the number of abortions. Nobody wants to celebrate it. I'm a pro-life Democrat. I voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion and I'm proud of my vote. But we do have an honest disagreement on how we reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. And to me it is clear that if we do not provide contraception to these poor women in these poor countries, then we will have more abortions. The statistics bear this out, the facts bear this out, and that's why this amendment needs to go down and we need to pass the chairwoman's language here, because I believe that if this amendment passes, there will be more abortions, not less.

And one final comment to the gentleman from New Jersey, we were not pressured to support this position. We came to this position by honestly looking at the facts. No leadership pressured us, me and Mr. Langevin and those of us who have a different voting record than some people over here. So this is our choice. Please vote down this amendment and let's reduce the number of abortions.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot let that go unanswered. We are not promoting abortion. We are trying to reduce the number of abortions by providing contraception.

The fact of the matter is the Republican party has no plan on reducing the number of abortions, none. There is only one way to do it, and you provide contraception to poor people. That's what we are trying to do.

You're right. It's not about who's getting; it's about who's not getting. There are poor women who are not getting contraception and contraceptives. We are trying to provide it.

I commend what you are trying to do. We are trying to reduce number of abortions, and all the explicit details of an abortion procedure are exactly why we are trying to do this.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition. I have been listening to this debate over the past couple of days. It seems like the past couple of years. It has been a lengthy debate.

Our friends on the other side, Mr. Chairman, after running up over $3 trillion in debt, are now going to lecture us about how we should be thrifty. You had 6 years to try to close the annual deficits, and your budget you are submitting again this year will be over $200 billion in deficit.

Now, we are not here to be lectured to. Three trillion dollars. And the Republican House, the Republican Senate and the Republican White House in the past 6 years borrowed more money from foreign interests than all of the previous Presidents and Congresses combined.

So, my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, who was up here earlier talking about now we have got to try to compete with China, well, it is very tough to compete with them when the Republican Party, Mr. Chairman, borrows money from them hand over fist like drunken sailors over the past 6 years.

Now we are here to clean up the mess, and our budget that we pass will balance it. What your amendment is going to do is it is going to take away from research that is going to help grow the economy. You are going to cut biomass research. You are going to cut geothermal research. You are going to cut hydro research, where your own party was just up here saying what a great thing it is. You are going to cut solar research. You are going to cut wind research. You are going to cut concentrating solar power research. Solar heating and lighting research will be cut under this. Solar PV ratings will be cut under this. Hybrid electric system. We are getting testimonials from all our constituents in our districts about how they want lower gas prices. You do that by reducing your dependence on foreign oil and investing in alternative energy. That is what we are doing in this bill, and your amendment will cut that.

Advanced combustion engine research will be cut in this, materials technology research will be cut in this, fuels technology will be cut in this, technology integration will be cut under this amendment.

This is a responsible bill that was voted by both Republicans and Democrats out of the Energy and Water Committee. It makes great investments. It turns the page on the past of not balancing your budgets, not making the investments, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you and Mr. Hobson for putting a great bill together and stand to ask our Members to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify something. In 2008, there will not be a tax increase. And no one has to believe me, Mr. Chairman. No one has to believe our friends on the other side. What the American people need to do is keep their tax forms from this year and compare them to their tax forms from next year. There will be zero increase in taxes.

This is a balanced budget, which the other side has not done, and it makes strategic investments so that we can create alternative energy resources here so we reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I would like to clarify. The other side is trying to say that if there are tax increases in the future, it all has to do with this bill which we just increased by a few hundred million. It has nothing to do with the $3 trillion debt that was run up in the last 6 years, Mr. Chairman. The 2007 tax returns versus next year's, the American people need to look at them, no increase. Our friends are saying ``the largest tax increase in the history of the United States'' and it happens 2 years from now. I thought history was in the past. For 2008, check your returns, no tax increases.

Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to be on the House floor. And I must say that free speech is a beautiful thing in the United States of America. Our friends on the other side can pretty much say anything they want in this wonderful Chamber in this country, with absolutely no ramifications or connection to the truth at all. And I want to just share with the American people and I want to share with other Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, and my good friend here from Connecticut, some facts that have been absent over the last hour and really over the last couple of days.

I think it is important to just go back and piece the history together. Over the past 6 years there has been a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican White House. The gentlemen on the other side, fine men from fine families who have been speaking here, have completely forgotten about the last 6 years. They think that they ran up a high bar tab and that it can be fixed rather easily. The fact of the matter is they ran up, the Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican White House, $3 trillion in debt, $3 trillion over the last 6 years.

They just got out of office in January, and here it is June, and they're acting like this is ancient history. Three trillion dollars. They had the debt limit raised five or six times, which means they had to pass legislation out of here that would allow the Department of Treasury to borrow more money. And then 5 months after they're out of office, they come here, Mr. Speaker, and they talk like they've had nothing to do with this.

Now, we saw our friend from Texas earlier hold up the Blue Dog Coalition debt limit sign, over $8 trillion, almost to $9 trillion in debt and act like they had nothing to do with it. But the American people recognized in November and asked for a change in government, and they got it.

Let me clear up another fact that has been misrepresented here today and yesterday and over the past couple of weeks. This is their quote, ``The Democrats are somehow going to raise taxes. It is the largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America.'' Not accurate. Not true. I ask the American people, and as I speak and it is written into the Congressional

Record, we need to ask all Americans to keep their tax forms from this year and hold on to them and match them to next year's tax forms. There will be no increase in taxes from the Democrats. None. And take the statements that have been said here, take your tax forms. Don't believe me. Don't believe Mr. Murphy or Mr. Meek or any of our other 30- something friends who are going to come here, keep your own forms.

Now the bottom line is this; we know how to govern. Our friends on the other side have had their chance. They got the keys to the car in 2000 when President Bush won and they controlled all levers of government and failed miserably; $3 trillion in debt, a foreign policy that's a complete disaster, a FEMA organization agency that can't even respond to natural disasters in the United States of America. They can't even get the American citizens their passports. So save the lectures for somebody who wants to listen to them, because quite frankly, we don't, and the American people do not want to listen to them. That's the bottom line. When you can get the American people their passports on time, then come talk to us about worrying about environment and creating jobs and the economy and foreign policy. Enough is enough.

My friends, Mr. Speaker, on the other side are putting all of their trust in Mr. Bush, our President, because he says he's going to veto all our bills. Well, let's just look at what the Republican Congress did. President Bush, Mr. Speaker, said that he's going to veto all our bills if they come in one dollar above what his submission was to the Congress. Let's look at what happened in 2005.

This is the defense bill in 2005. The Congress spent, Republican Congress, $45 billion more than President Bush requested. President Bush signed the bill on December 30, 2005. Transportation appropriations bill, Republican Congress spent $7.2 billion more than President Bush requested. President Bush signed the bill on November 30, 2005. Labor, Health and Education. Republican Congress spent $5 billion more than President Bush. President Bush signed that bill into law on December 30th. On and on and on. And I can go through agriculture, military, I will submit this for the record so that all of America can go and check this out. Three trillion dollars in debt. Some of the highest deficits in the history of our country were run up by the Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican White House.

Here we go. Exploding national debt under the Bush, now Mr. Nussle, who is joining the team, projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion turned into a projected 10-year deficit of $3 trillion. The surpluses were gone. In the largest budget deficits in American history, Mr. Speaker, $378 billion in 2003, $412 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005.

Now, you look at the Democratic budget, Mr. Murphy, and you will see that we balance the budget. Keep your 2008 forms. We do not raise your taxes. Just to prove what the other side is saying to us, keep them. We don't raise your taxes and we balance the budget. And I can't even wait until all of these pass and we can go all around the country, Mr. Murphy, and talk about what we have done. The largest increase, and I will be happy to yield to you in a second, my friend, the largest increase in veterans spending in the history of the VA. So all of the problems that our veterans have been having, backlogs, they don't have enough workers in the VA system to process the claims, all of that is going to be taken care of. All of our kids that are coming back and our adults and our soldiers coming back, there is $500 million in this bill for post-traumatic stress. There is money in here for amputees. There is money in here for prosthetics. There is money in here for brain injuries. There is money in here to make sure the veterans don't have a huge increase in their copay and user fees, as the Republican Congress and President Bush nickeled and dimed their veterans to death. And this budget that we prepared for the veterans was approved by Disabled Vets, Paralyzed Vets. Everyone has approved and said this is a monumental step.

So we can get into energy, and I'm sure we will tonight; we can get into Homeland Security, which I'm sure we will tonight; we can get into Labor, Health and Education, which I'm sure we will tonight, and basically say, Mr. Speaker, that we have delivered for the American people exactly what they want.

I understand what the polls say right now, but our budget has not been implemented yet. And when people go next year and they apply for a Pell Grant and they're allowed to get $700 more so they can send their kid to college, and their student loans rates are cut in half and they get the minimum wage in July, and there are community health centers being built all over our country so that middle-class families who can't afford health care can go to a clinic at least and get their kids care. When you have a million more kids on SCHIP. Next year this is all going to happen, and some will happen before that, the American people will recognize that it was the Democratic Congress that pushed this agenda. And let the President veto it, let him.

I yield to my friend from Connecticut.

I would be happy to yield to my good friend, the Cardinal from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, it is like the 1992-1993 talking points have been taken off the shelf somewhere in the cloakroom and dusted off.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at what happened here in the last couple of days. Right here, about 20 minutes ago, we heard two of our friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, talk about a balanced budget amendment. They just ran up $3 trillion in debt, raised the debt limit five times, and it is like it never happened. Let's put on a balanced budget amendment, the constitutional amendment.

It is unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, the beautiful thing about this is that for how many years they talked about the protecting the homeland, about homeland security, that it make us safer fighting there so we don't have to fight here, all their rhetoric hasn't delivered.

So here we come, right? We come with an increase in funding so we can fund the ``loose nukes'' program, the Nunn-Lugar program, so we have more people out with more money buying more loose nuclear weapons that are getting spread around the world, we put hundreds of millions of dollars more into this program, which is going to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the mother of all rhetorical contortions, we are passing a Homeland Security bill here, or trying to pass, where 3,000 Border Patrol agents will be funded; technology for all our ports to monitor chemical and biological weapons coming in; grants for first responders, police, fire. We also passed 50,000 new cops for the country for communities who can't afford them, a lot like mine. And they held up the bill. They held up the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to pass funding for 3,000 Border Patrol agents, and they are trying to hold up the bill. Now, who is for homeland security now? And on and on and on.

But what we have shown, and this is what I love about it, is that when these bills pass, those men and women who get hired to be Border Patrol agents will know it was the Democrats. When the minimum wage goes in this summer, they will know it was the Democrats. When you go to get a Pell grant, they will know it was the Democrats.

They are not going to see a tax increase. Again, keep your tax forms from this year, compare them to what you fill out next year. There will be no tax increase. Period, dot, Mr. Speaker. When you wonder why the fiscal conservatives gave the Democrats a chance and why we are passing balanced budgets, why we passed a rule in the House called PAYGO which says if you spend money, you got to pay for it. You got to find a cut somewhere to cut it out.

Here is why they voted for us: This President and the Republican Congress, as we have stated ad nauseam on this floor, have borrowed more money from foreign interests in the last 6 years than any other President and Congress before them combined. Combined. From foreign interests.

Now, look here: Japan; China; UK; Caribbean; OPEC countries, $67 billion of our debt; Japan; China, $349 billion.

Now, we are trying to compete with China. And one of our friends was up here earlier today with an amendment. We have to compete against China. No kidding. Well, then why did you, he wasn't here, but why did his predecessors before him borrow over $600 billion from China, and then turn around and say, hey, aren't we competing with the bank we are borrowing from? How are we going to work this out?

I think it is important for us to say, we know that the government can't do everything. We know that we can't solve every problem. We have got some basic responsibilities though, defense and what not.

One of the things we are doing here when it comes to gas and oil in the bill that we were on the floor today with, the Energy appropriations bill, is to invest into alternative energy sources. It is very important for us to recognize and for the American people to recognize what we are doing with our budget, because we had a lot of amendments and ``cut this'' and ``cut that.''

This bill passed out as a bipartisan bill on the House Energy and Water Subcommittee, led by Mr. Hobson from Ohio, who is a great ranking member and was a great chair of this committee. But, finally, over the hurdles of many Republicans, over the hurdles of the President, we are now investing into renewable energy and energy efficiency procedures here $1.9 billion, a 50 percent increase in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology. An additional $300 million was added from the joint resolution 2007 resolution we passed.

We are investing in biofuels. Solar energy, hydropower, geothermal, new vehicle technology, new materials technology so we can have lighter vehicles that don't use as much fossil fuel, weatherization grants, carbon capture and sequestration, climate change science research.

You want to talk about moving the country forward? This bill funds 3,500 scientists.

The President is talking about vetoing this bill, my good friend.

Here we have a budget that actually funds scientists, funds research. There is a great report that has come out called Rising Above the Coming Storm, something along those lines, a beautiful panel of experts led by the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, probably not a Democrat, if I had to guess, but a very detailed report on what we need to do.

One of the key components was focus on basic research in the physical sciences. That is what this bill does. Our friend, when I mentioned this the other day, I said, this is a jobs bill. This is the next generation of people that are going to benefit from the research money. They are going to get into research. They are going to partner with businesses and spring out in more research and development and manufacturing and everything else.

He said, well, this is not a jobs bill. I take issue with what the Member from Ohio is saying.

Well, I am sorry. If we figured out a way to do research and create jobs from it and create new industries, isn't that a good thing? That we were able to get a real good bang for our buck in the investments that we have made?

I just think, Mr. Speaker, that illustrates the difference in philosophy. We have one party in this country who comes to the floor and says they can solve every complex issue with two words: Smaller government, lesser taxes, this and that.

We have a bill that doesn't raise taxes and we are able, because we peeled off $14 billion in corporate welfare that we were giving to the oil companies last year and we put it in alternative energy research, we were able to make that investment without raising taxes. Don't be mad at us. Don't be a hater.

I don't want to say it is fun, because there are a lot of people that are still struggling, but it is so much better now to go back to your district and people ask you, what are you doing about gas prices? And we have got a great budget, and it is not immediate. That is the painful thing that you have to realize. People are struggling and people who are driving from lab to lab, they somehow have to use a lot of transportation, it is hard.

But we have something here that we are passing from the House that is going to significantly over time reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it is going to benefit the average American consumer.

So, let's look at this in the broad sense. Of all the promises, the Democrats made promises, they got in, we

gave them a shot. We are taking advantage of this shot. One, we didn't raise taxes, first of all.

But look at what we did. If you are the average person sitting out there, you now in July will have an increase in the minimum wage to over $7 an hour. So anyone who is associated with that will get an increase. Those people slightly above will also get an increase. Included in that was a tax cut for small businesses, so that those people who are bearing the brunt of this will benefit as well.

Then you are getting $700 more in your Pell Grant. So if you have got kids in school, you are going to get an extra $700 a year grant money. If you are in Ohio, Governor Strickland's budget, a former Democratic Member of Congress who is now Governor, passed a budget where there is a zero percent increase in tuition in Ohio next year, zero percent the following year, which traditionally has been almost a 9 percent increase over the past 5 or 6 years.

So if you are a student in Ohio, you are getting a 9 percent cut in your tuition from an increase that would have happened to zero, and you are getting an extra $700 Pell Grant. You are talking about an almost $2,000 tax cut for average families in Ohio if you go to school.

So you got the minimum wage, you got the Pell Grant, you have community health clinics, about $400 million increase between the supplemental and what we are doing in this year's bill. There will be hundreds of more health clinics around the country this year. People can get their healthcare. We are investing in research, 3,500 scientists will be funded through this bill in all of these different areas for alternative energy research. Increased funding in Head Start, Even Start, after school programs. This is a bill for the people.

When you look at why are we doing this, because we are competing against 1.3 billion people in China. We are competing with 1.2 citizens in India. Not only do we have to do that, but we have to put the pedal to the metal and increase the speed of what we are doing here. This is just the beginning of what we need to do to be competitive, to make sure that we have enough engineers and scientists doing the kind of research that we are passing bills on now, starting to lay the groundwork for, so more kids can afford college.

And we have to ask all of the citizens of this country to step up to bat and really make sure that you are developing your skills and talents to the best of your ability because we can't do it for you. We are going to help with funding and after school. We are going to make sure that kids get the kind of support that they need, but we need Americans to step up to bat and develop the kids so we can compete.

We only have 300 million people in the country. We are competing against 1.3 billion in China and 1.2 billion in India. We need everybody to develop to their fullest extent.

One final point, we are creating through these bills new industries that will pay dividends for our country. The alternative energy is one. With all of the funding in research, it is going to create things and scientists are going to develop things and partner with the private sector. Ten years from now, we can't even imagine what will come with this investment just this year.

In committee we had testimony that there was a blip in energy research, an increase in the late seventies when President Carter was here, and then it went right back down. In those 2 years, solar panels were developed. In those 2 years of that increase in funding.

Give these bright people the resources they need. And also, we have been able to move stem cell research which the President has vetoed. We can't even imagine the health care advances that will come from that research.

So we are creating new areas for young people to grow into and to create jobs for American people.

I see a commercial here. They are going to be mad at you. Why are you making fun of the caveman?

It is going to be interesting to watch the contortions with our friends on the other side of the aisle, you can see their strategy is to blame the $3 trillion that they ran up somehow on us when we weren't in charge of anything, and then they are going to start taking credit for things like the earmark transparency that we, we are in charge here, so if it passes, we have done it. What we have done they are going to try to take credit for.

But it will be so much nicer, I think, next year when all of this is passed and the American people recognize it is the Democrats that has done this. And if the President vetoes it, let's go out and campaign, take that one to the American people and let the President defend not hiring 3,500 scientists in DOE to do alternative energy research. Let him say he is going to veto the Pell Grants. It will be easier because we won't have to come to the floor as much, occasionally just to remind the American people what we are doing instead of trying to push what we are doing now. I think that will be a good time for us.

So we are happy that we do get some support. As I stated earlier, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) has been a tremendous advocate for putting this budget together through the Energy Department, but the extremists in their party which have been governing their party for the last 6 years, are still coming kicking and screaming into the high-tech research and development economy that we are in now, and somehow think if they cut taxes for a millionaire and that millionaire invests that money in a plant in China, that somehow is benefiting average Americans. Wages have been stagnant for 30 years. So we are trying to create new economies, new sectors of the economy that will grow and provide opportunity for most people.

I just saw a poll yesterday, 7 in 10 Americans think the economy is getting worse for them. That is obviously not shared prosperity, and our friends come to the floor and say the stock market is doing great. Well, that is great if you have stocks. And even if you do, I don't know if it makes up for the stagnant wages and the 20 percent increase in health care costs.

Let's reassure those soldiers and their families who are serving that this will not be another Vietnam when these kids come home. I think we've already seen that. In the VA budget, $1.7 billion above the President's request for medical services. We have major construction, $3.6 billion, $193 million over the President's request. For medical administration, these vets have been backlogged for years, mental health and substance abuse, increase $100 million over the 07 request. Assistance for homeless vets, health care sharing incentive fund. A lot of money that's going to take care of them.

Let's just remember that we're doing all this without raising taxes. Check your form this year, compare it to next year, there

will be no tax increase. We're reducing the budget. We balance it in 5 years, unlike what has happened over the past 6 years with a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican White House.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to remind the American people of this, that they borrowed billions and billions, $644 billion from Japan, $349 billion from China, $100 billion in 06 from OPEC countries in order to begin the largest debt, $3 trillion. Our friends on the other side have raised the debt limit while they were in charge five times so they can borrow more money from Japan and China and put our national security at risk here and, quite frankly, not account for the budget in the United States like they should.

It was an honor to be here with our friend from Florida.

Our friend from Connecticut.

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

I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to lend my support to my chairman of this subcommittee, and also Mr. Hobson, for their great work on this bill. I think it's a great bill. I think you have really shown the rest of us in Congress how a committee can and should work together for the good of the country.

I would like to address a few issues that have been brought up, not necessarily related to the bill at hand, with regard to spending. And I am glad to see a couple of my friends on the Republican side have found some religion over the past few months. These were the same Members who were here over the past 6 years, Republican control of the House, Republican control of the Senate, Republican White House, and ran up $4 trillion in debt for the United States of America. We didn't hear boo from them while all this was going on. And the biggest problem has been most of that money was borrowed from foreign countries, Japan, China, OPEC countries; $4 trillion mostly borrowed from foreign countries by the Republican Party.

They've also mentioned that there has been stress on families. Well, I'm glad they finally came around to understand that, too. And some of the things that we have already done, Mr. Chairman, have addressed those issues: $700 increase in the Pell Grant, that will relieve some pressure for families; student loans rates being cut in half, that will reduce pressure on families; increase in the minimum wage, which begins this summer; increased SCHIP coverage; increased coverage for women's health care needs. These are issues that are going to relieve the pressure that most American families are feeling, and it took a Democratic Congress to implement that.

Now, to the heart and soul of this bill. I think this bill does two things, Mr. Chairman. One, this is a national security issue. What Mr. Hobson and Mr. Visclosky have done here is increase the security of this country by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, by increasing our funding for the ``loose nukes'' program so that we can be safer. And this dovetails perfectly into what we've already been doing here with the Homeland Security bill, where we're going to have 3,000 more Border Patrol agents, where we are going to have technology for our ports so we are making sure we cover the cargo in. This bill fits directly in with that. Money for our first responders, COPS program. This all fits together as a piece of a national security bill.

And this bill also, I think equal to the national security provisions, this is a bill about economic development. The problems we have been having over the last 30 years is that wages have been stagnant. And Rose in Illinois and some of the other people that my friend from Texas have mentioned have had stagnant wages for 30 years. This bill makes the kind of investments that the study from the National Academy of Sciences recommended, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The head of that study was the former CEO of Lockheed Martin. And he noted, along with a very distinguished panel, that the connection between research and development and growth cannot be understated, especially research in the physical sciences. And when you look at what this bill does, 3,500 researchers are funded through this bill; $93 million for research with hybrid cars, $49 million for advanced combustion research, $48 million for materials research for

fuel efficient cars, $23 million for fuels technology, $708 million for coal energy research.

This is an economic development bill. When we began to fund NASA, that created thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs in science and engineering. This bill will do the same thing. It will give Rose in Illinois and all of those other folks who have had stagnant wages an opportunity to go into a field that is growing with public research and private research. This is a jobs bill, this is an economic development bill for a lot of the regions who have suffered under the global economy.

I appreciate what the chairman has done, I appreciate what the ranking member from the great State of Ohio has done with this bill. This is a jobs bill and this is a national security bill. I urge its passage, and I urge that this amendment go down.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just want to share, when asked what programs have been cut or not cut, I want to share with you, 37 cuts to Department of Energy weapons programs; 57 programs have been cut overall; 20 cuts to other programs, 2 in the Corps of Engineers, 2 in the Bureau of Reclamation, 3 independent agencies, and 13 in the Department of Energy. There have been 16 of 37 weapons cuts that were requested by the administration.

I thank the gentleman. And I appreciate, I caught bits and pieces of the debate here, and I think you all have illustrated points that need to be made, and we need to keep making them here if we're going to have any headway.

And I remember sitting in the meeting with the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) where the politicians were talking about this trade unionist who was trying to organize a plant, and the next day or two days later, he's beheaded. Now, we think labor politics are tough in the United States, which they are, but I don't think they come anywhere close to that level.

And it is a pleasure for me to be here with my partner in Summit County, Ohio, Akron, Ms. Sutton.

I just want to make a broad point and then talk a little bit about a bill that I have introduced with Duncan Hunter on currency. And the first point I want to make, and I think everything that you were talking about is saying, we need to represent our values here in the United States of America, not just here when we hear about family values, and we need to have values and we all agree with that. But put it in our actions. And I think that's what we want to do, and the trade agreements that we sign consistently, I think, go against it. And when you look at what the results are, and Sojourners had a great magazine; I may have sent it to some of you.

Two percent of the world owns more wealth than the other 98 percent. Now, that's unbelievable. Two percent of the world own more wealth than the other 98 percent combined. That signals to us that the models that you were talking about, Mr. Speaker, are not sufficient for shared growth for all people.

And we're not saying that if you go out and you start a company and you take a risk and you take out a loan, that you shouldn't be able to make money. God bless you. Make all you want. But recognize that you're a part of a bigger system here that we're all a part of that, investments in education, the minimum wage which we finally were able to get passed, college tuition; all of these things matter, health care in the grand scheme of things. And what we want to do is start exporting some of these values that we hold dear.

And when you say, well, you can make something in China and there are no labor laws, no environmental laws, no this, well, what's the alternative? We go back to those days? And I've been to China. You may have, too. Dumping waste in the rivers, like we had a problem up in Cleveland a few decades ago where the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. Now we don't want to go back to those days, where thousands and thousands of kids got asthma because we didn't have clean air regulations. We don't want to go back to those days.

So we are now in a unique period in history, because in the United States, we're the consumer. We're the ones buying right now. Now, that may not be the case 10 years from now, but we are now, and so let's leverage our power as consumers to make some of these changes.

And I hope that what we're doing here tonight, and Mr. Michaud and Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sutton, what we're doing here tonight is going to help push those things along.

The China currency bill that we have introduced here basically tries to get China to comply with international law. And international law says you're not allowed to subsidize your goods.

Well, China is subsidizing their currency, which is kind of a little more complicated than a government saying, okay, you make this widget, we're going to fund you; we're going to subsidize you so you can sell it cheaper in another country.

What China's doing with their currency is basically subsidizing it so that every product that they send the United States is between 25 and 40 percent cheaper.

I have a company in my district called Wheatland Tube. And it's also in Mr. Altmire's district in Western Pennsylvania. They make tubing. The final product that arrives on the shores of the United States from China is the same price as Wheatland Tube's raw materials before they even start the process. That's the kind of advantage China's getting with their currency.

And I know you all are supportive of this bill, and I think it's something that we can, not talking just about trade, but this is something that I think free traders and fair traders and Democrats and Republicans and people from all over the country are agreeing on. And I know Mr. Levin and Mr. Rangel want to move on a bill that does something with China, and I hope that this is a component of that, and I'm confident it will be.

But those are the kind of things that we need to stand up and talk about. And if we don't, no one will, because there is a certain amount of people that will benefit from the current system, and they are the ones who want to keep it just the way it is. But it is important for us to come here, 700,000 constituents, 700,000 constituents, 700,000 constituents, it adds up if we unify and organize and do what I think

made all the great social movements in the country great, was organization, traditionally the Democratic Party, the unions, the churches.

And I will make one final point that I know I have made to you guys already. It is so important for us to bring in the church communities. I am Catholic, and I think the Catholic Church has an obligation. They speak out on so many issues that I think have less relevance than this issue on average people's day-to-day lives. And I hope that they step up and talk about this issue with the same passion that we hear them speak out on a lot, and the evangelicals we just need to pull.

Sojourners Magazine with Jim Wallace did a terrific job a couple of issues ago. But if this does not become a moral, value-centered movement, we are going to continue to struggle. We have the environmentalists and we have the trade unionists, and we have some of us in the Democratic Party. But if we don't pull in the church community, I think we are going to continue to fail.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you.

Will the gentleman yield?

I know that our friend from Minnesota is here, but I just want to tell one story because I heard it a few weeks ago from my cousin who worked for Delphi Packard.

The plant used to be 15,000 and now they are down to maybe 1,000 because of the global economy, trade deals, China, the whole nine yards. He worked there for probably 10 years, and many people worked there for 30 and made a great living. He is now taking the machines off the ground, taking the bolts out of the ground, helping move these machines, and they are shipping them to China. Now, let's talk about some dignity. This guy is taking out the machines and shipping the machines and his job off to China.

That is where we are at. And we have got some work to do. We are not saying build fences and don't compete. But investments in education, what we talked about early on with stem cells and alternative energy, let's create the new wave of jobs that need to be created for our people to work. It is not just trade and exporting. It is making investments in the U.S. and creating new jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate my good friend from North Carolina. We've been out here a bunch together. First, he says, well, this is politics. This is not politics. This is governing, something you on the other side know very, very little about.

Mr. Chairman, my friends on the other side were saying that this is about politics, and I would like to say that this is not about politics. This is about governing, Mr. Chairman, something the Republicans in Congress know very, very little about.

Now, we have heard lectures today about spending too much money. $4 trillion under the Republican watch, Mr. Chairman, borrowed from China, Japan and OPEC countries with a Republican House, a Republican Senate, a Republican President. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Republicans will spare us the lectures on fiscal responsibility.

And then, Mr. Chairman, they start saying that, well, you're spending it, but you're not spending it right. You can spare us the lectures on spending. Need we bring up Katrina, need we bring up Iraq, Mr. Chairman? We don't really need lectures from the most blatantly irresponsible spending Congress in the history of this illustrious body.

Now, the Homeland Security Department was created by the Republican Party, Mr. Chairman. They ran on it. They ran campaigns against Max Cleland on it. They created it. And so now they're saying that if we actually fund it to protect the country, that somehow we're doing something wrong. That's what you do with programs that work; you fund them.

And now more to the point of what I think the real substance of this argument is really all about: The National Intelligence Estimate said that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists around the globe. That means, Mr. Chairman, that there are more terrorists out there now than there were before, and they're all coming to get us here in the United States. President Bush even says all the time, You know, if we don't fight 'em over there, they're going to come over here and get us.

So what we're trying to do in this bill is to protect the homeland. We're trying to protect against all those terrorists that have been created in the last 5 years, that have joined al Qaeda and all of these other groups that now want to come over here. We're trying to actually protect the homeland.

So we want to secure the ports. We want to make sure we have the first responders. You're impeding progress with the shenanigans that have been going on here the last 24 hours.

I will not yield.

The problem with this is that God forbid something does happen in this country. Every minute that we waste here is 1 more minute that the terrorists get to attack this country without the proper port security, without the proper border security.

So as you delay and you move to rise and you move to adjourn--

Mr. Chairman, as the Republicans move to rise, as they move to adjourn, as they try to filibuster, that is just buying time for these programs not to get implemented. And God forbid the American people, after another attack, come to us and say, what were you doing? Why didn't you have the technology on the ports? The Republicans are going to have to go back home to their district and say, we were filibustering this bill.

I will not yield. You guys have had the floor for 24 hours. You could let us say a few words.

The bottom line is this: The new Democratic Congress has fulfilled the promises that we have made, Mr. Chairman. Passed the minimum wage, cut student loan interest rates in half, security issues. When you look at the budgets that we have passed, the largest increase in veterans spending in the history of the VA to take care of those soldiers who are out there, a $500 to $600 increase in the Pell Grant, fully funding Head Start, SCHIP, Even Start, after-school programs, investment in alternative energy sources.

If I was you, I wouldn't want our bills to pass either, because when these pass and we take it to the American people, Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side are going to wish they would have had the level of competence that the Democrats have.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman from Texas yield?

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. The reason the gentleman from Texas doesn't have an earmark in this bill is because there are no earmarks in this bill.

Just to clarify. The ranking member submitted earmarks. There are no earmarks in the bill. That's a clear difference.

I ask my friend from North Carolina, what do you want to cut out of this bill? The Border Patrol? The 3,000 Border Patrol agents? Do you want to get rid of the technology that we're going to have on the ports to scan cargo coming in? Is that what you want to cut? Do you want to cut the money that we're giving to our first responders?

Mr. Chairman, exactly what is it that you don't like about this bill? There are no earmarks and we're funding programs that are going to protect the homeland.

Now, we understand clearly, Mr. Chairman, that our friends on the other side have had a difficult time governing the country. That doesn't mean they have to impede us from doing it.

Will the gentleman yield?

The opposite of that, if there is not a date certain, that means that there is no end. And quite frankly, if there is no end in sight, how do we expect the Iraqi troops to get trained and to actually stand up if they think we are going to continue to be there? You know, it's like raising kids, at some point they've got to leave the house. They've got to stand up on their own. They've got to go pay their own rent, their own cars, their own insurance and everything else. I think that is what we are trying to communicate. We're not saying we want an end date just to have an end date. There is a reason. I think it is important for the Iraqis to know that the American people are not going to support this forever, and they need to stand up, regardless of what side you are on on the vote a few weeks ago or at the beginning of the war.

I want to talk about what happened last night and today on the House floor and what bill we were trying to pass. As most people know who are paying attention to this now, we have a procedure here where we bring a bill to the House floor after it goes through the committee process. And yesterday it came to the House floor and it was what we will call an open rule, so anyone can offer an amendment. There were over 140 amendments to the Homeland Security bill. And our friends in the minority who used to run the Chamber, Republicans, Madam Speaker, were frustrated about earmarks in the congressional process, and so they were protesting this bill. They kept invoking a motion called a motion to rise, which basically ends debate on the bill and on the amendments and stops the process. They did this, I think, nine times last night, and debate went until 2 in the morning.

I share this with other Members and those paying attention, Madam Speaker, because they, in essence, filibustered the Homeland Security bill. And it is important for us to recognize what this bill does. This funds the Homeland Security Department. I want to go through this because our friends filibustered more border patrol agents, 3,000 that the Democrats were trying to fund and get to the border so that we can secure our border.

Now, we hear from our friends on the other side about border security, about illegal immigrants, about all of this stuff that they keep talking about about illegal immigrants and terrorists. Last night and today, Mr. Meek, we tried to put 3,000 Border Patrol agents on the border, and they filibustered the bill. So we have not had a vote on this bill. It has not passed the House.

We had money in here for first responders, for our firemen, those people who would arrive on a scene first in the most critical time in the most critical positions. They filibustered that. So this bill did not pass the House.

We have equipment and technology that will allow us to keep our ports safe and to monitor what is coming into our ports and detect possible attacks on the United States; the Republicans filibustered that. And this bill did not leave the House floor today as it was scheduled. State grants for law enforcement, $90 million, urban area grants. The list goes on and on. Transit grants; emergency management perform grants; fire grants; metropolitan medical response grants; interoperable communication grants; port security grants; REAL ID grants; explosive detection systems; air cargo explosive screenings. It did not pass the House because the Republicans filibustered the bill today. You know why? Because of earmarks. And you know what? There wasn't one earmark in this bill, not one; not a Democratic earmark, not a Republican earmark. It was pure politics today on the House floor, Mr. Meek. You know it, I know it, they know it. And who suffered through all of this? The American people.

Let me make one final point before I volley it back over to you. The National Intelligence Estimate stated last year that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists around the world who hate America. Okay. So whether you were for or against the war in Iraq at this point is irrelevant, really. What are we going to do now? Well, the National Intelligence Estimate has said that there are more terrorists who hate America now. So now there are more terrorists out there than there were before, around 9/11, that are going to come to America and try to harm us.

So, in order to combat that, the majority of the Democrats are saying, why are we fighting this war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, was not harboring terrorists, was not the Taliban, right? And we have this war going on. Democratic philosophy is, fund the Homeland Security bill. Protect our ports; protect our borders; fund our first responders. Let's put some money so we can have more Arabic- speaking translators so that the stuff we are pulling down off the satellites we can translate. Right now we don't even have enough translators to translate the tapes that we are taping from the satellites from terrorists around the world.

Let's be smart. This isn't 1940. You don't drop big bombs anymore. Everything is decentralized; it's more delicate, it's more complicated. It takes a more complex constructive debate, not filibustering the demagogue earmarks in a bill where there are no earmarks.

I thought what happened in the last 24 hours has been a real disservice to the American people, and I think it continues to point out why they had a change of heart in the last election.

A couple of the comments that I would like to respond to, Mr. Meek, that were made today and last night. First of all, we hear a lot from our Republican friends, Madam Speaker, that the Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, okay? Which holds absolutely no water.

I would be happy to yield.

That's right.

Will the gentleman yield?

The arguments we were hearing today from our friends, two things that really struck me as funny, actually, it was so outrageous, one is, we are not fiscally responsible, Madam Speaker. That was the first argument is that we're not fiscally responsible. This is coming from a party who, in the last 6 years, Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican White House, borrowed more money from foreign interests than every President and Congress before them combined. Now we are going to get lectures on fiscal responsibility. Borrowing money from China, Japan, OPEC countries, South Korea, the list goes on and on. And we've only been in charge 5 months. We haven't even passed a bill yet and now they're saying we are fiscally irresponsible. It doesn't hold any water.

And then the other comment was that we are not spending the money properly. This is coming from the party that has been running the war in Iraq, where they are giving more money to Halliburton. Halliburton has already been fined for marking up food, trying to basically war profiteer off of what's going on in Iraq. The Pentagon lost a trillion dollars and nobody even knows where it is. And we're going to get lectures on how we are spending our money. Same group of people who oversaw Katrina, the disaster where people were dying because of the poor investment, poor management, poor execution, poor planning of this administration with a Congress that provided zero oversight, we are going to get lectures on how to spend money and how to run government. Doesn't hold any water.

Now, here's why I think, and I'm going to get out here on a limb here a little bit, Mr. Meek. Here is why I think our Republican friends are trying to filibuster and distract and throw up red flags and put some smoke into the air to try to distract, and mirrors, just to try to get everybody thinking differently.

Here is why I think. I want to just briefly review what we have done with our budgets out of committee. Some haven't passed yet, but some are on their way, and we are going to get these through, because the American people deserve it.

Our veterans budget, Mr. Meek, was the largest, and we all know the veterans' problems across the country, we don't have to outline them, the largest increase in veterans spending in the history of the VA. Our veterans who come back home will be taken care of.

Saying that we support our troops is not a punchline for us. It is something that we take to heart. Budgets are about priorities and values, and in our budgets we have the largest increase for veterans. We have programs that are funded in there for brain injuries, for posttraumatic stress, to make sure the drug supply stays safe for our veterans, and on and on and on. We fixed the Walter Reed problem, rehabilitation, prosthetics. Everything that is needed for our veterans, they got.

In the last 21 years, there has been a small coalition of veterans groups who have their own little budget that they submit to Congress. Never before has Congress met what they wanted in their budget, until this year. We not only met it, we surpassed it by $230 million. We went above and beyond even what the veterans groups were asking for, because that is the commitment that we have.

With that coming down the pike, if I was in the minority and been in charge for 16 years or 14 years and had a President, a Republican President, and didn't deliver on any of that, I wouldn't want to talk about the Democrat's success either. I would want to start all kinds of other fights and filibusters and do everything else.

That is just the beginning. In the education bill, we increased the Pell Grant by $600 or $700. In Ohio, for example, where Governor Strickland now passed a budget where there is a zero percent increase in Ohio college tuition next year and a zero percent the next year, it used to be 9 percent and 9 percent, you take that, if you are a student going to school in Ohio, you go from 9 percent increases to zero percent increases and a $700 bump on your Pell Grant, that is a tax cut for average families.

We have increased Community Health Centers, so poor and middle-class people can go to a Community Health Clinic, by $400 million. Thousands of people in America who didn't have access to healthcare will now have access to it, at least through a clinic.

EvenStart, Head Start, after school programs, all funded with increases from the Democratic Congress. We passed the minimum wage, Mr. Meek. We passed a $200 million-plus investment in alternative energy resources and research.

Now, I am done, but I just want to make the point that with all of this positive news going on, Mr. Meek, I wouldn't want to talk about our budgets either. I would filibuster anything to prevent the Democratic Congress from passing these bills, taking them to the American people and campaigning on them next year.