Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was not present on May 20, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 331, rollcall No. 332, rollcall No. 333, rollcall No. 334, rollcall No. 335, rollcall No. 336, rollcall No. 337.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Friedreich's Ataxia Awareness Day, which is recognized each year on the third Saturday in May. Friedreich's ataxia is a life-shortening neurological disorder that is usually diagnosed in childhood. It causes muscle weakness and loss of coordination in the arms and legs; impairment of vision, hearing and speech; scoliosis, diabetes; and a life-threatening heart condition. Most patients need a wheelchair full-time by their twenties. Life expectancy is reduced to early adulthood. There is currently no effective treatment or cure for Friedreich's ataxia. Although there is no effective treatment or cure available, Friedreich's ataxia patients and families have more and more reason for real hope. In fact, that hope has been translated into increasing confidence that treatment and a cure for Friedreich's ataxia will be achieved. An extraordinary explosion of research insights has followed the identification of the Friedreich's ataxia gene in 1996. Since that discovery, research scientists have learned a great deal about the disorder. We now know what defects in the gene cause the disease, what protein the gene is supposed to produce, what that protein is supposed to accomplish, and why a shortage of the protein results in the cell death that leads to the disease symptoms. Investigators are increasingly optimistic that they are drawing closer to understanding more fully the causes of Friedreich's ataxia and to developing effective treatments. In fact, they have recently declared that, ``in Friedreich's ataxia, we have entered the treatment era.'' That treatment era is being characterized by the two clinical trials already underway and four additional trials to be initiated over the next 12 months. These investigators and our patient families believe very strongly that these clinical trials will result in the first approved treatments for Friedreich's ataxia. At the National Institutes of Health across the country and around the world, clinical trials for Friedreich's ataxia are being conducted on drugs that hold real promise. Growing cooperation among organizations supporting the research and the multidisciplinary efforts of thousands of scientists and health care professionals provide powerful evidence of the increasing hope and determination to conquer Friedreich's ataxia. There is also a growing conviction that treatments can and will be developed for this disease and that the resulting insights will be broadly applicable across a wide range of neurological disorders such as Parkinson's, Huntington's and Alzheimer's. On the third Saturday of May, events will be held across our country to increase public awareness of Friedreich's ataxia and to raise funds to support the research that promises treatments for this disease. I applaud the Friedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance, FARA, for its contributions to these efforts and ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing May 17, 2008, as Friedreich's Ataxia Awareness Day to show our concern for all those families affected by this disorder and to express our support and encouragement for their efforts to achieve treatments and a cure.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was not present on May 6, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 246; rollcall 248; rollcall 249; rollcall 250; rollcall 251; rollcall 252; rollcall 253; rollcall 254; rollcall 256; rollcall 257; rollcall 258; rollcall 259; rollcall 263; rollcall 264; rollcall 265; and rollcall 266. I would have voted ``nay'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 245; rollcall 247; rollcall 255; rollcall 260; rollcall 261; and rollcall 262.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was not present on May 5, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 240; rollcall No. 241; rollcall No. 242; rollcall No. 243; rollcall No. 244.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was not present on April 30, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 227, rollcall 228, rollcall 229, rollcall 230, rollcall 233. I would have voted ``nay'' on the following: rollcall 232.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Miller and Mr. McKeon for skillfully navigating this legislation to the floor, and I strongly support it. Our country's economy has been severely affected by a lack of liquidity crisis. In plain language, people who need to borrow money to do good things who are creditworthy are having a very difficult time borrowing that money. The early tremors are present in the education field that young men and women who need money to go to school are beginning to have trouble borrowing that money; and we are, frankly, concerned that an earthquake may follow those tremors. Rather than wait for that disaster to occur, Chairman Miller and Mr. McKeon are taking preventive, action along with the Secretary of Education, to try to prevent such a calamity from occurring. This legislation is commendable on any number of grounds. First, it strengthens the lender of last resort program so that guarantee agencies around the country will be equipped to quickly move capital to students and schools who find it difficult or impossible to get that capital from the banking institutions. Second, it increases the limits that students can borrow money that is guaranteed under the Federal guaranteed loan programs. This is especially important, because so many of our students need what are called gap loans. This is the person who has an aid package of $28,000, but who needs 31,000 to go to school. In the past, the way families and students have dealt with this problem is to find a private lender to make a loan to fill that gap. There is increasing evidence that achieving that loan is increasingly difficult. By raising the loan limits in a fiscally responsible way, this bill alleviates that problem. And, finally, by encouraging the growth of technological progress in the education sector, this bill ramps up the infrastructure that will be necessary to move loans to more students around the country as the time has come. There is a lot of cynicism, Mr. Speaker, in this country about government, and some of it is quite justified. But I would hope that the cynics would watch the process that has occurred here where two leaders, one Democrat, one Republican, have come together, listened to the Secretary of Education, carefully analyzed the problem, and worked together to produce a piece of legislation that I believe will solve that problem. I commend them for their leadership. I am proud to support this legislation, and I would urge Republicans and Democrats to vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank and congratulate my dear friend from New York for a stellar achievement in her stellar work here in the Congress, and to thank Mrs. Biggert, who has fought with great vigor and enthusiasm for this bill. Madam Speaker, here's what Ms. Slaughter and Mrs. Biggert have achieved. Somewhere this morning, a family is going to get news that a biopsy came back with bad news, that someone they love has a tumor, and that family is going to go through the agony of the next couple of months or even years of wondering if that person they love so much is going to live or die. Now the progress we have made in this country, thank God, has let many more of those people live. But the ultimate progress is to get to the genetic puzzle that makes that person susceptible to that tumor in the first place. The way we are going to find the solution to that puzzle is by gathering data by more and more people being willing to share their genetic information with the brightest men and women in this country. Right now there's a justifiable fear that if you share your genetic information, someone may misuse it to deny you a job, deny you an insurance policy, or hurt you in some other way. This bill lifts that burden, lifts that fear, and will stimulate millions of Americans to voluntarily, privately and safely participate so they can be part of finding this puzzle. What Chairwoman Slaughter has accomplished today, Madam Speaker, is that some day is coming, and I hope it's soon, when people will get the right answer all the time to that question, when the cure will be here, the pain will be gone, and the hope will prevail. There's a lot of things we do in this chamber that have transitory significance. What will happen in a few hours will benefit people around the world for years to come. This is a singular achievement. I congratulate the chairwoman. And as a father and a husband, I thank her for what she's done.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. I would like to thank all of those involved in bringing us to this point, Ms. Slaughter, Mrs. Biggert, and I especially want to mention Mark Zuckerman, Brian Kennedy, Michelle Varnhagen, and Carlos Fenwick from our staff who worked so hard on making this a reality. Thank you very much for your good work. This is about as basic as it gets. It is a fundamental principle in this country that when you walk in and apply for a job, you shouldn't be judged on the color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation, your ethnicity, your age, or your religion. To that today we are adding the notion of your genetic background. I think most Americans would understand as a matter of simple common sense that if your grandmother had breast cancer, it should be irrelevant as to whether you get a job or not. If your grandfather was diabetic, it should be irrelevant as to whether you get health insurance or not, and under what terms. This simple, powerful, commonsense idea that is embodied in this legislation will become embodied in the law very shortly because of the good work that is being done here. Beyond the basic fairness, the basic principle that we should be judged by our abilities and not by our characteristics, is the point that we discussed earlier during the rule debate. Many Americans justifiably fear that if they share their genetic information with researchers, that information may wind up hurting them. It may wind up depriving them of a job, depriving them of health insurance, or raising their health insurance premiums. The very significant protections that are in this bill, soon to become law, will provide a level of assurance for Americans that when we participate in genetic research, as I have by donating my DNA sample to the Coriell Institute in Camden, New Jersey, that we will be protected against misuse of that information. This unlocks an exhilarating potential for finding the cure for all kinds of diseases and afflictions that have hurt so many people for so long. So I believe this is a singular achievement. It is an honor to be a part of it, and I know that generations of Americans will benefit not only from the simple fairness that this law will impose in the workplace, but for the great potential that this law will unlock for the investors and inventors and researchers of this country. No American should ever be denied a job or health insurance or a promotion because of their genetic characteristics. Because of our actions today, this will become the law. I thank the chairman for his leadership. I thank Mrs. Biggert for her leadership and Chairwoman Slaughter as well, and urge a ``yes'' vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was not present on April 29, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 224, rollcall 225, and rollcall 226.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael J. Quinn, senior news writer for CBS News Philadelphia, who retired on April 24, 2008. Mr. Quinn began working in TV news in 1961 at Channel 10, a CBS affiliate. During his tenure with Channel 10, Mr. Quinn served as a news writer, newscast producer, reporter and news anchor. In 1984, Mr. Quinn began working at CBS 3 Eyewitness News, serving as a senior news writer and as a producer for the ``Newsmakers'' program. Mr. Quinn has covered many major events over the past decades, including numerous presidential elections. In 1988, he was the associate producer for coverage of the presidential caucuses in Iowa. Mr. Quinn was the producer of the 2000 Republican National Convention CBS coverage in Philadelphia. Mr. Quinn also was the producer of the inauguration coverage of President George W. Bush in both 2001 and 2005. Madam Speaker, Mr. Quinn spent his long career providing the people of Philadelphia with compelling news coverage. Mr. Quinn's hard work and dedication to his chosen field has touched the lives of millions of Americans. I commend Mr. Quinn for his commitment to broadcast journalism and wish him the best for his retirement.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was not present on April 24, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the following rollcall votes: Rollcall 220, rollcall 221, rollcall 223. I would have voted ``nay'' on the following: Rollcall 222.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Deborah Rozanski on the occasion of her retirement. Mrs. Rozanski has served as a New Jersey public school teacher for 34 years. She has dedicated herself to the Audubon School District for the past 29 years, enriching the lives of countless students. In addition, Mrs. Rozanski deserves to be commended for her dedication over the past 28 years as an advisor to the Audubon Safety Patrol, as a student council advisor, and as a representative on the instructional council. Beyond the classroom, Mrs. Rozanski is also an advocate for the protection of our environment. Mrs. Rozanski has organized the planting of many trees on the Mansion Avenue School campus, which add to the beauty of the school and the surrounding community. Madam Speaker, the devotion that Mrs. Rozanski has shown to her work and to the community is truly praiseworthy. I want to thank Mrs. Rozanski for her tireless effort as a teacher and wish her the best of luck upon her retirement.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was not present on April 23, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 209, rollcall 210, rollcall 211, rollcall 212, rollcall 213, rollcall 214, rollcall 215, rollcall 217, and rollcall 219. I would have voted ``nay'' on the following: rollcall 208 and rollcall 216.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was not present on April 22, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: Rollcall No. 205, Rollcall No. 206, Rollcall No. 207.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Christian Albert McGrain, the first baby born in New Jersey in 2008. Christian was born 26 seconds after midnight on January 1, 2008 at St. Peters University Hospital in New Brunswick. NJ to proud parents Jacqueline Dempsey McGrain and Michael McGrain. Christian is the pride and joy of his grandparents Albert and Carol McGrain, Thomas K. and Gail Dempsey, and great-grandparents, Tom and Phyllis Dempsey. Madam Speaker, the birth of Christian Albert McGrain, mere seconds after midnight on New Year's Day, is a cause for celebration. With Christian's timely birth, this is a year his family will always remember. I wish Christian and his family the very best in 2008.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting on April 14, 2008. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 183, rollcall 184, and rollcall 185.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting on April 10, 2008. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 178, rollcall No. 179. rollcall 180, rollcall 181. I would have noted ``nay'' on the following rollcall vote: rollcall No. 182.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting on April 1, 2008. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 150, rollcall No. 151, and rollcall No. 152.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. George Ntim, in recognition of receiving the J. Willard Marriott Award of Excellence. As director of guest relations and community services at the New York Marriott Marquis, Mr. Ntim is receiving this prestigious award for his dedication to excellence in service and hospitality. This is quite an honor as this award will be given to only nine individuals in the entire global operations this year. Madam Speaker, the dedication that Mr. George Ntim shows to his profession is truly praiseworthy, and I thank him for his service to his numerous clients. I have personally had the good fortune to know Mr. Ntim, as he has assisted me various times during my stays at the Marriott. His affable personality and enthusiasm certainly does not go unnoticed, and contributes to his professional success. The hard work Mr. Ntim exhibits on a daily basis exemplifies that he is truly deserving of this honor.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Corporal Raymond D. Hennagir of Deptford, New Jersey. Corporal Hennagir was injured while on foot patrol in Zaidon, Iraq. He stepped on an improvised explosive device, losing both of his legs and four fingers on his left hand. The bravery of this man is truly inspiring. Out of respect and gratitude for the great service Corporal Hennagir has given his country, I submit this poem written in his honor by Albert Carey Caswell. Teach Me Teach Me! Teach me well! You so beseech me. As you so gallantly look past all of your pain and heartache, all of your hell! Reach Me! As you Reach in and out to Me! With your heart which so swells! As your most splendid heart to me, so all about life . . . so tells! All about courage and faith! All about not letting pain and heartache, get in your way . . . and not letting go, or your soul erase! All about courage's, most courageous face! Let me learn! As from you, and all of your character I can so discern! All about life . . . and all about what is possible, when within a great heart a soul so burns! So I can grow! So I can learn, so throughout my life I can so use and learn . . . of what a heart is capable of so! As your blessings to me you now so bestow, ever in these moments of my life . . . I will know! Which, can so show me . . . that path! Which, can so show me the way . . . which can so teach me all about the things which last . . . As I watch you and your most heroic glow! The questions to my heart you so answer, I ask? For you have touched me, with your most heroic glow! For you have so taught to me, all that it is . . . that I so need to know! So I can touch the sky, so I can so soar so very high . . . a part of you, I will take with me I'll show! For on this Earth . . . Our Lord God so puts on such men and women of such fine worth . . . To Teach Us All, to so hear his call . . . to make us all understand, of what it is which comes first! Everybody loves Raymond, You Teach Me . . . Teach Me So!

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this week, the House has in front of it two well- thought-out but starkly different visions of where to take the country. We have put forward a budget that is true to our principles. We believe that you grow the economy and create opportunity for people by stopping the practice of running the government on borrowed money, by investing in the education, health care, and development of our people, and by expanding opportunities for economic development both here and around the world. The minority, true to its principles, has introduced a budget which follows its strategy. I think this is a sincere and well-thought-out budget whose principles are just wrong. And if anything, I think that this budget is nostalgic because it does remind us of the 6 years in which the minority had the majority in both the House and the Senate and the White House. And it follows a tried and true, but failed, strategy, which is to say that you reduce taxes by more than you cut spending, and you borrow the difference. Now, if I add this up correctly, in reading the minority's budget, it calls for spending cuts in the area of $800 billion over 5 years. Perhaps there's a different interpretation, but it would seem to me that there is entitlement spending reduction there and also discretionary. And it calls for reductions in revenue over a 5-year period in the vicinity of $1.2 trillion. So it would appear to me that there is about a one-third or $400 billion difference between the reduction in revenues that is called for and the reduction in spending that is called for. That is, if nothing else, traditional to the practice of borrowing money to run the government. Second, I have a concern about the specificity of the spending cuts that are put forward. Our friend from Missouri, the minority whip, just talked about the instructions to cut spending in the Education and Labor Committee's area. And our friend said that, as a former university president, he would not first look to cut student loans as a way to deal with the cuts that are required under the minority's budget. Well, I would respectfully say to him, Mr. Chairman, through you, that to my knowledge there is only two other places one could look to find those cuts: The first would be in the pensions of Americans through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and the second would be through the school nutrition program, through school breakfasts or lunches. So, one can say that you don't want to cut student loans, but if you do, then you've got to turn either to the school lunch or breakfast program, or the pensions of Americans. We, frankly, disagree with that approach. We took a very different approach on student loans, as the chairman said. What we did was to cut student loan rates in half and expand opportunities for Pell Grants and other scholarships, and we did so without borrowing money. What we did was to go after what we felt were unjustifiably high subsidies for the student loan banking industry. So, this example, I think, shows the difference in philosophies. In order to finance tax cuts which are skewed toward the wealthiest in our country, the minority would borrow a substantial amount of money on top of the debt it has already run up, and it would pay for it in part by cutting either student loans, by raising interest rates to students, or cutting school lunches and school breakfast programs, or somehow getting money out of the Pension Guaranty Corporation. We would not do that. What we did was to cut student loan rates in half, increase Pell Grants and other scholarship opportunities, and pay for it without borrowing money by reducing what we view as a corporate welfare subsidy to the student loan banking industry. This is a very big difference. It's a legitimate difference. We think it's why the gentleman's amendment should be rejected.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. At this time I would like to engage in colloquy the gentlelady from New Hampshire who has seen firsthand the ravages of neglect of people out in the community when you don't fund important programs, and I know she supports this budget because it does, Ms. Shea-Porter.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for her contribution.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I'd first like to begin by sincerely congratulating the chairman of the committee and the ranking member from Wisconsin for, I think, a very thoughtful and substantive approach to a very serious set of problems. I think that the tone and quality of the debate on the House floor this afternoon has served the country well and has served the institution well, and it is entirely owing to the leadership of the chairman and ranking member and the men and women who serve the Members' committee so well, and I appreciate that. I strongly support the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget. I think it's the right thing for the country based upon an analysis of facts, choices, and consequences. The most important factual reason that the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget benefits and strengthens families in our country is it operates on the principle that American families operate under, which is you can't live on borrowed money forever. You can't run your credit card up forever and hope that you win the lottery someday to get yourself out of that mess. The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget, just as American families do across this country, recognizes the reality that you have to make choices. Now, the other fact that I think is very important that Members realize is that this budget does not have a tax increase for anyone this year or anyone next year or anyone last year. One of our friends on the other side, Mr. Chairman, said that this was deja vu, this budget. She was exactly right because most of us were here almost exactly a year ago and heard a ritualistic incantation from the minority side that this was the largest tax increase in American history, the largest tax increase in the history of the world, the largest tax increase in the history of the universe, the largest tax increase in whatever's larger than the universe. Mr. Chairman, I'd just invite the people of this country to evaluate the validity of that claim. When they sit down and fill out their tax return this year, they should ask themselves the question, did my income tax rates go up? No, they didn't. Did the capital gains tax rates go up? No, they didn't. Did the excise taxes go up? No, they didn't. And the same answer would be true for this year and the year after that. Now, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that people listen to this debate and they say, how can this be that the Democrats get up and say there are no tax increases in this budget and the Republicans get up and say it's the largest tax increase in the history of civilization or whatever the latest version of it is? Here's the answer: In 2010 the tax cuts enacted earlier in this decade expire, and the Congress will have to make a choice. Until then, there is no tax raised on anyone for anything. When that day occurs, this budget contemplates that we will do what families across the country do and make an intelligent decision. If the economy bounces back and grows, there's a very good chance there will be plenty of revenue to renew all of those tax cuts. If it doesn't, then the Congress has the choice of reducing spending in given areas to finance tax cuts for all or some of the people who would be affected. But what we will not do is what the erstwhile majority elevated to an art form during its reign, which is to borrow the money to pay the bills. We won't indebt the children of this country to the People's Republic of China and our other creditors because we don't have the discipline to make a decision here. There's a big choice. Our budget believes that the economy grows and American families prosper by stopping the practice of borrowing money to run the government, by investing in the education and health care and development of our people, and by expanding economic opportunity. We believe that works. The other side, with great sincerity, believes that massive tax breaks for the wealthiest people will trickle down to the rest of us and that will work. This is the big choice we have to make, but there is a record for this choice. We do not have to make this choice in the empty vacuum of political theory. You see, because we tried their way for 6 years when they had control of both Chambers and the White House, and our strategy of stopping the practice of borrowing money, investing in people, expanding economic opportunity is what we tried for most of the 1990s, and there's a record. They created some jobs through their strategy. But for every one job they created, we created five. There was some economic growth under their strategy, but for every dollar of economic growth they created or facilitated, we created a dollar and a half. What was the impact of their strategy on the American families that this budget supports? Well, over a 6-year period, the purchasing power of a typical middle class American family shrunk by $1,100. During the years in which our strategy was the policy of this country, the purchasing power of a middle class family increased by $6,000.

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. Reclaiming my time, it's also the case that every single Republican there in 1993 voted against the plan that put that into effect and, therefore, they have no ownership. So I would say the record is very, very clear, that I think our friend from Wisconsin and his fellow colleagues on the committee are very well intentioned about the policy they followed to help American families. I just think they're wrong, and I think the record shows that they're wrong. Now, what are some of the consequences in this budget between their way and our way? Well, one of them is the issue of middle class tax cuts. Now, they are going to say that all these middle class taxes are going to go up. Here's the reality: The budget contains what we call a reserve fund for the purpose of financing middle class tax cuts. And, again, when we reach that point, we will make a decision as to how best to preserve those, either based upon growth in the economy, which we certainly hope will occur, in offsets in spending, which we are prepared to make, or in other sources of revenue which we have brought to this floor before. Look at the issue of children's health care. Last year, we attempted to provide health insurance for 5 million additional children. These are the children of people that work in convenience stores, gas stations and retail stores. These are very hardworking people who are struggling to get ahead. And there is a program that has worked very well since 1997 to help those families and their children. Now, we wanted to expand that coverage to 5 million more children, and we paid for it. A great number of Members on their side voted for this, and a great number of Members of the other body on their side voted for this, but not quite enough, because we ran into a Presidential veto, and we couldn't quite override it here. Our budget will do the same thing. It will say let's find health insurance for 5 million more children who do not have it, and let's pay for it. Let's not pay for it by borrowed money. For those who are trying to live by collecting child support enforcement, there are more resources for it. For those women who are pregnant or have small children and want to promote their well-being, there is more money for it. For Americans struggling to deal with getting by and paying the grocery bills on food stamps, there is more resources for this. Public health issues, whether it is the spread of disease or the prevention of disease, there is more resources for this, as well. This budget proceeds on the powerful principle on which American families proceed. Don't try to survive on borrowed money forever. It puts us in position to make difficult and sometimes unpopular choices. It does not raise taxes on anyone in the fiscal year that is in front of us, and it makes investments in the strategy for economic growth that has worked in the past and we believe will work again. I know that the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) who is new to the institution, but in no way new to serving her constituents, has a special concern about block grants. I would like to encourage her to engage in a colloquy at this time.