John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment affords you a rare opportunity to cast a vote for more jobs, for fewer deaths and injuries on the highway and against sharp price increases in the most popular of our vehicles. All you have got to do is vote ``no'' on the amendment. I urge you to do so. Take a look at the jobs that are involved here. Those are where your constituents work in automobile plants. There is nothing in the base bill which would preclude the Secretary of Transportation from fixing the levels of CAFE at those which are fixed by the Markey amendment. All that they would have to do is to find that it is technologically feasible and economically desirable and possible to so do. The Secretary now can and will under the base bill save 5 billion gallons of gasoline. That is equivalent to taking off the road the production of 1999 pickups and SUVs for a period of 2 years. In a word, that ain't hay. I would tell you some other things about this. The UAW and the American autoworkers are going to be most hurt if this amendment is adopted. It will force the auto companies to eliminate 135,000 jobs now held by American working men and women. It will force GM to close 16 of its plants and DaimlerChrysler to close two plants. That is about as bad as it gets until you consider that each auto company job supports seven other supplier jobs throughout the American economy. What about safety? The National Academy of Sciences says that the higher CAFE standards contribute to more deaths and injuries by creating lighter and less safe vehicles. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2506, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY 2002. I commend the efforts of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee who worked hard to guarantee that this bill adequately funds U.S. programs in the Middle East that help facilitate peace. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 2506 allocates $35 million in funding for economic and educational programs in Lebanon. This bill also provides needed assistance to Egypt and Jordan, key allies in this troubled region who have worked diligently with the U.S. to bring about an immediate cessation of violence and a comprehensive, permanent peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. While overall I am pleased with the funding provided H.R. 2506, I am troubled the language of this legislation that blames the Palestinian Authority--and solely the Palestinian Authority--for the violence that has consumed the Occupied Territories and Israel since September 28, 2000. It was on that date, I would note, that the Al Aqsa Intifada was sparked by the reckless, provocative act of a desperate Israeli politician, Ariel Sharon, who has since become Israeli Prime Minister. I believe the United States must be engaged and committed to bringing about a fair and lasting peace to this troubled land. The U.S. must act as a fair and unbiased arbiter in the peace process. If we take biased positions and pass one-sided pieces of legislation, we hinder our ability to broker peace. The United States is the only nation who can broker peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. However, when we take sides, hope wavers and desperation increases. Desperation leads to fear and anger, which in the Middle East begets violence between the Israelis and Palestinians. This, in turn, raises tension in the region and increases the likelihood of the outbreak of a larger regional war. Mr. Chairman, Section 563 of this bill requires the President to submit a report to Congress determining whether the Palestinian Authority has taken steps to comply with the 1993 Oslo Agreement and prevent attacks on Israelis. If the President does not determine that the Palestinians have fully complied, this section would not only cut off U.S. assistance to the Palestinians--none of which, incidentally, is given directly to the Palestinian Authority or the PLO--but also shut down their Washington office and insure that the American people hear only one side of this 53 year-old conflict. On April 30, 2001, the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, headed by George Mitchell, issued its report on the current conflict. The Mitchell Report highlights the fact that both the Palestinian and Israeli governments can and should do more to halt the bloodshed. It concludes that neither government is beyond reproach for their conduct in this sustained confrontation. It notes that both the Israeli and Palestinian populations have lost faith that the negotiating process will meet their goals. For Israelis, ongoing violence has led many to believe that the security of Israel will not be guaranteed through negotiations. For Palestinians, settlement expansion and property confiscation is seen as a demonstration that Israel never will relinquish control of the West Bank and Gaza. The Report also notes that both settlement activity and terrorist attacks must end if confidence in the peace process is to be restored on both sides. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of the Mitchell Report, I would gladly support Section 563 if it also required the President to make a report determining if Israel has complied with Oslo and taken steps in the interest of peace. Congress must act responsibly on issues affecting the Middle East, particularly since the Bush Administration continues its policy of disengagement. Already, the violence, economic turmoil, and diplomatic stalemate that exists today has generated disillusionment with the peace process among Israelis and Palestinians. However, these feelings are growing much more pronounced due to the Bush Administration's tepid commitment to the peace process. Apathy is not an option, because without American leadership, the current conflict will escalate and engulf the region. Our allies, such as Egypt and Jordan, and millions of people in the region rely heavily on the American commitment to brokering a fair peace and preventing such as war from occurring. Mr. Chairman, in my hand I have a resolution that expresses the sense of the House that, in absence of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement brokered by themselves or the United States to halt this current round of bloodshed, the United Nations should consider sending peacekeeping forces into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I believe that it is in the interests of all parties to explore any reasonable avenue that could lead to a permanent peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis. I believe U.N. peacekeepers would help cool tensions on the ground, monitor any cease-fire agreement including that recommended by the Mitchell Report, and make the climate more conducive for peace. Peace, after all, is in the interest of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the United States, the Middle East region, and the world. This resolution does not blame the ongoing violence on the Palestinians, nor does it blame the Israelis. It simply states that this body is in favor of a reasonable, fair policy that promotes peace. Mr. Chairman, hope in the peace process cannot become a casualty of this ongoing conflict. I urge my colleagues to oppose one-sided policies that help no one but harm everyone, including Israel. I urge them instead to join me as a cosponsor of a constructive piece of legislation that, if passed, will demonstrate that America is a fair arbiter of peace who is more interested in ending this deep, bitter conflict rather than sustaining it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman for his position. Second of all, I want to thank him for yielding. Third of all, I want to tell the gentleman that I strongly agree with him. I assure the gentleman that I share his concerns about excessive concentration of ownership in media markets. In fact, I think there is too much concentration at this time. In fact, I just recently wrote the chairman of the FCC, as the gentleman knows, and expressed my strong belief that the current broadcast ownership cap should be retained and that the public interest requires that that be done. However, I also believe that the amendment originally proposed by my friend might have had some unintended consequences; and I want to thank him for deciding not to offer it today. I will assure the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I will work with him in all kind of ways and on all occasions to try and see to it that his view and my view prevail on the matter of increasing concentration in the media. There are several court cases pending that many believe will remand certain media ownership rules back to the FCC for further consideration and revision. Unless and until the FCC acts pursuant to a court order, there would be no ownership limitations in place if the amendment carried. That is an outcome that I believe neither of us would like to see. I will assure the gentleman from Wisconsin that I will continue to work within the legislative committee. It will be my intent to work with my good friend from Wisconsin to assure that existing constraints on excessive media concentration are maintained. To that end, I am going to be requesting the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to hold hearings on that topic so that we can make better informed judgment as to how we might best protect the American public from the very real dangers that media concentration and media ownership concentration issues present. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I want to commend him for what he has had to say today, and I wish to say to him again, I agree with him.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at a deplorable and despicable act which disgraces the honor of our country--the burning of the U.S. flag. Behind the Speaker hangs our flag. It is the most beautiful of all flags, with colors of red, white, and blue, carrying on its face the great heraldic story of 50 States descended from the original 13 colonies. I love it. I revere it. And I have proudly served it in war and peace. However, today I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 36, the flag amendment, which for the first time in over 200 years would amend our Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, throughout our history, millions of Americans have served under this flag during wartime; some have sacrificed their lives for what this flag stands for: our unity, our freedom, our tradition, and the glory of our country. I have proudly served under our glorious flag in the Army of the United States during wartime, as a private citizen, and as an elected public official. And like many of my colleagues, I treasure this flag and fully share the deep emotions it invokes. But while our flag may symbolize all that is great about our country, I swore an oath to uphold the great document which defines our country, the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is not as visible as is our wonderful flag, and oftentimes we forget the glory and majesty of this magnificent document--our most fundamental law and rule of order. This document defines our rights, liberties and the structure of our government. Written in a few short weeks and months in 1787, it created a more perfect framework for government and unity, and defined the rights of the people in this great republic. The principles spelled out in this document define how an American is different from a citizen of any other nation in the world. And it is because of my firm belief in these principles--the same principles I swore an oat to uphold--that I must oppose this amendment. If this amendment is adopted, it will be the first time in the entire history of the United States that we have cut back on our liberties as Americans as defined in the Bill of Rights. Prior to the time the Supreme Court spoke on this matter, and defined acts of physical desecration to the flag under certain conditions as acts of free speech protected by the Constitution, I would have happily supported legislation which would protect the flag. While I have reservations about the propriety of these decisions, the Supreme Court is, under our great Constitution, empowered to define Constitutional rights and assure the protection of all the rights of free citizens in the United States. Today, we are forced to make a difficult decision. There is regrettably enormous political pressure for us to constrain rights set forth in the Constitution to protect the symbol of this nation. This vote is not a litmus test of one's patriotism. What we are choosing today is between the symbol of our country and the soul of our country. When I vote today, I will vote to support and defend the Constitution in all its majesty and glory, recognizing that to defile or dishonor the flag is a great wrong; but recognizing that the defense of the Constitution, and the rights guaranteed under it, is the ultimate responsibility of every American. I urge my colleagues to honor our flag by honoring a greater treasure to Americans, our Constitution. Vote down this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, oh, pity the Vice President. His electricity bill is too expensive. It seems that like many other Americans, the Vice President is faced with an intolerably high energy bill this year. What is our unfortunate Vice President to do? President Bush has suggested that American people spend their tax- rebate check to pay their energy bills. Regrettably, the Vice President's rebate check will be not enough to cover his costs--his electricity bill is in the six-figure range. Perhaps he would be well served by turning off some more lights around the house as Lyndon Johnson used to do, or maybe turning his air-conditioner off when he is not at home. But until recently, the Vice President has not been strong on conservation--dismissing it as ``a sign of personal virtue, but not the basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.'' Consistent with that thinking, Vice President Cheney said, ``If you want to leave all the lights on in your house, you can. There's no law against it. But you will pay for it.'' Well, thankfully, the Vice President is putting his money where his mouth is. Or is he? You see now, Mr. Cheney, with his 33-room mansion and $186,000 per year energy bill, doesn't want to ``pay for it.'' He wants the United States Navy to pick up the tab, and House Republicans are going to extraordinary lengths to help him get off the hook. House Republicans are poised to relieve his official budget from paying for his electricity costs, by passing the buck on to our sailors in the Navy. That's correct, in a classic instance of do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do, Mr. Cheney, doesn't want to pay his electricity bill. If only the American public had it so easy, to be able to pass their bills on to somebody else. Coming from an Administration that is doing nothing to help consumers cope with the sharp rise in electricity prices, this raises real questions. Mr. Vice President at least practice what you preach, and pay for your own electricity bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, once again I find it necessary to oppose amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bill designed to gut the protection the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) affords all Americans. Once again we find ourselves debating ill-conceived efforts to convince our people, particularly the elderly, that a panacea for high drug prices can be found in re-imports of American manufactured prescription drugs. Make no mistake--despite the good intentions of their proponents, nothing in these amendments will lower drug prices one dime for consumers. Nothing in these amendments will benefit any consumer, directly or indirectly. Instead, consumers will be put at risk, because drug re-importation would be a welcome mat for crooks and frauds. Foreign wholesalers were cut out of the drug distribution system in 1987 because of the flood of contaminated, counterfeit, and mislabeled products. These shady characters have taken advantage of the appropriate public outrage over drug prices to encourage America to once again open its borders to these dangerous drugs. Proponents of the amendments argue that if the drugs are made in America they must be safe. They are wrong. Our Committee's investigation in the middle 1980's showed that American packaging and labeling was duplicated perfectly by counterfeiters entering their product as re-imports. Unfortunately, they had not duplicated the FDA vigilance that Americans believe is attached to such packaging. Counterfeit after counterfeit was imported into the U.S. as ``American Goods Returned'' before the PDMA put an end to it. Ask the women who took the two million counterfeit birth control pills--in packaging that duplicated Searle's--just how good the crooks are at graphic design. The cycles, the boxes they came in, and the instructions that accompanied the pills were knocked off perfectly in Spain and in Guatemala. The Spanish product had so much excess hormone that it caused excessive bleeding. The Guatemalan product contained no active ingredient so it went undetected, except, of course, for the unwanted pregnancies that resulted. I could go on with many more examples such as the perfectly packaged Naprosyn from Mexico that contained aspirin as the only active ingredient. That must have come as a shock (or worse) to those hypersensitive to aspirin. Even the non-counterfeit products were often so poorly stored that safety was frequently compromised. Did these counterfeiters and diverters produce any savings to the American consumer? We looked in depth at this $500 million a year market and found no evidence that consumers saved so much as a penny. No compensation was provided to unsuspecting consumers for all the risks they unknowingly assumed. We should be able to find a way to address effectively the problem of high priced drugs and to protect consumers from risky products. The amendments offered today do neither, and should be rejected.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1291, the ``21st Century'' Montgomery G.I. Bill. This legislation is indeed important to our nation's national security as well as the men and women who serve our nation selflessly in uniform. It is also a sensible, bipartisan bill that will better America. It is good policy. As a veteran and a former GI Bill beneficiary, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1291. However, Madam Speaker, I am troubled by my Republican colleagues' decision to subvert the process and bypass the committee system. Last week, the Veterans Subcommittee on Benefits was scheduled to markup H.R. 1291. However, this markup was cancelled after the Committee's Democratic staff informed their Republican counterparts that Mr. Evans and Reyes each intended to offer an amendment at the scheduled markup. Mr. Evans' amendment would, like H.R. 320, have boosted to H.R. 1291's benefit package to cover the full cost of tuition for every servicemember now and in the future. Mr. Reyes' amendment would have indexed the MGIB benefit to educational inflation instead of using the CPI, thus preventing a future deterioration in the real value of the MGIB. Why did the Republicans block debate on these amendments? Why did Republican staff, after being informed of Mr. Evans' and Reyes' intentions two days prior to the markup--a clear demonstration of good faith--attempt to browbeat veterans' groups into preventing a full debate on H.R. 1291 that would have improved this legislation? Both amendments, after all, would only benefit our veterans, servicemembers, and their families. They were not ``Democratic'' amendments meant to derail the MGIB, but honest attempts to better the MGIB program. I remain in support of H.R. 1291. When I testified in support of it on June 7, I emphasized this bill was a good interim step in our efforts to overhaul the MGIB to make it more in line with the World War II-era GI Bill. I stressed that H.R. 1291 was good policy and a step in the right direction, but was not as comprehensive as H.R. 320, which would essentially pay the full cost of tuition and grant a living allowance for every MGIB beneficiary. I urged passage of H.R. 1291 as a positive step in the process of passing H.R. 320, not as the end of the road. Short-circuiting the committee process by preventing Republican or Democratic members from perfecting this legislation is not in the interest of America's veterans. This bill should be about what best helps veterans, not over who get credit for helping veterans. Madam Speaker, Lane Evans and I have worked hard over the last three years to pass H.R. 320, which aims to bolster military recruiting and assist young men and women who choose to serve our nation in uniform. H.R. 1291 is a solid interim measure that will improve military recruiting and increase access to higher education for veterans. It is good policy for our country, and represents an important step in what must be a continuing process of improving the MGIB. I would urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1291 today, but also urge my Republican colleagues to commit themselves to working with us the remainder of this session to fully restoring the G.I. Bill's purchasing power by passing H.R. 320.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a remarkable automated and superbly efficient computer system in the Capital of this Nation. Madam Speaker, this computer network is extraordinary. It tracks and it responds to the correspondence of more than 500 people. I would note that it is so powerful it is able to keep track of not only the incoming mail from these people on a wide variety of issues but it is also able to respond to each and every one of the people and each and every one of the letters with an identical form letter, which, if you will note, is changed only with regard to the subject matter. I am not describing a top-secret computer lab at CIA, nor am I describing NASA's computer network at Cape Canaveral. No, Madam Speaker, this computer is located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. This afternoon I rise to discuss this computer and the remarkable White House form letter that it generates. I share with my colleagues the opportunity to have interacted with this amazing machine on more than a dozen occasions. Each time I have written to President Bush, I have received an identical response. Whether the topic is the energy crisis or election reform, I get the same letter back. More than a dozen letters to date, each faithfully signed by the President's aide, Nicholas Calio, unless Mr. Calio has used an autopen. I wrote the President about HMO reform, I received the following: ``Thank you for your recent letter regarding a bipartisan Patient Protection Act. I have shared your letter with the President's advisers and the appropriate agencies who have been formulating policy recommendations in this area. Your comments are receiving their close and careful attention. Thanks again, Nicholas Calio.'' I wrote the President on education, veterans, environment, trade and foreign affairs. I again received the same letter. I say to President Bush, ``Thank you.'' And to you, Nicholas Calio, ``Thank you. Your computer serves you well. It has moved the science of computers forward to newer and higher levels.'' I would note that with such close attention to detail, it is hard to fathom how the United States ever lost our seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. How on earth could our allies be unsatisfied with diplomatic dispatches such as, ``I have shared your letter with the President's advisers. Your comments are receiving close and careful attention.'' Indeed, the existence of such a superior computer system response makes the departure of Senator Jeffords from the Republican Party all the more puzzling. How is it possible that that distinguished Senator from Vermont could become so disenchanted with the White House when it uses such an advanced computer system to communicate with Members of the House and the Senate? How could Mr. Jeffords or any other Member of the Congress become disenchanted with such careful and precise personal attention from President Bush? Were the words, ``Your comments are receiving the close and careful attention of the appropriate agencies'' simply not enough? I would like to point out one of the examples of this splendid computer's responses to Members of Congress. I would note, however, that my policy since I was elected to the Congress a number of years ago has been to personally respond to each letter I receive from over half a million citizens of the 16th District of Michigan and to give as substantive a response as is possible to do. Clearly, that idea is out of date at the Bush White House. Well, thank you, President Bush. You have shown us a new way. Thank you for changing the tone in office and your tone in Washington. Thank you for identical form letters from your amazing computer. At least when I write the White House I know I will get a response. It may be unresponsive, but I will get it nonetheless. Seventy days ago, on March 28, I wrote Administrator Whitman of the Environmental Protection Agency seeking information about her decision to weaken the new protective standard for arsenic in drinking water. This is a health issue affecting millions of Americans. I would note I received no answer. A month ago I sent a similar letter seeking additional information from Ms. Whitman about her arsenic decision. Again, no answer. No information, no acknowledgment has been received. Now, it would appear that the White House could inform Administrator Whitman that stonewalling Congress is bad policy and that she should be responding if only with a form letter. In any event, it appears the Bush administration has this wonderful policy which needs to be chronicled here. It is either a form letter or no response at all. Madam Speaker, I will place in the Record these wonderful examples of computer science in the hope that my colleagues will be able to share perhaps their thoughts on similar events. The White House, Washington, March 14, 2001. Hon. John D. Dingell, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Dingell: Thank you for your letter regarding the Montgomery GI Bill program. I have shared your letter with the President's advisors and the appropriate agencies who have been formulating policy recommendations in this area. Your comments are receiving their close and careful attention. Thank you for your interest in writing. Sincerely, Nicholas E. Calio, Assistant to the President and Director of Legislative Affairs.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Michigan's finest and hardest working citizens, Mr. Reni Iocoangeli, on the occasion of his retirement. Mr. Iocoangeli learned the value of dedication, responsibility and hard work early in life. Having lost his father when he was just a young man, Mr. Iocoangeli took on several jobs to support his family. In April 1951, Mr. Iocoangeli was hired at Ford Motor Company in Monroe, Michigan, where he still works today. On July 1, 2001, after more than a half century of dedication and service, Mr. Iocoangeli will retire from Ford. While fifty years at Ford, or with any company, is an accomplishment, Mr. Iocoangeli's true dedication and devotion is to his family. Married in 1963 to Simica Bosonac, after a 7-year engagement, Mr. Iocoangeli has always put family first. Mr. Iocoangeli has passed his values of hard-work, commitment to family on to his sons, Ted and Michael, as well as his grandchildren, Melinda and Alexander. Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Iocoangeli leaves Ford after fifty years of service, I would ask that all my colleagues salute him for his dedication, hard work and commitment to family.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 80, a concurrent resolution congratulating the city of Detroit and its residents on the 300th anniversary of its founding. Detroit has a proud history and has played an important role in the development of the United States. I am pleased that I, and my father before me, have had the opportunity to represent Detroit and the Detroit area for many years. Detroit was founded in 1701 by French explorer Antoine de La Mothe Cadillac and originally called Ville d'Etroit which means ``city of the strait.'' Detroit is the oldest major city in the Midwest, older than Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, and Minneapolis. Most Americans know Detroit as the automobile capital of the world. However, it has a storied past and has done more than just put the world on wheels. Detroit was the last station before Canada on the Underground Railroad. It was also an important battleground in the fight for organized labor and is still home to several unions including the United Auto Workers. Detroit was named ``Arsenal of Democracy'' for its contributions to the U.S. war efforts during World Wars I and II. It has played an integral role in developing jazz, rhythm and blues, and the Motown Sound. Additionally, it continues to be an important gateway to Canada. Throughout its history, Detroit has been the focal point for many other important developments. The mile-long Detroit-Windsor tunnel under the Detroit River was the first automobile traffic tunnel built between two nations. It was in Detroit that Elijah McCoy invented the first practical automatic lubricating cup for trains resulting in the phrase ``the real McCoy.'' You may be interested to know that the ``sippy cup,'' a must have for parents with small children, also was invented in Detroit by Edward Olsen. Detroit has faced many challenges in its history, from the fire of 1805 that destroyed all but one of its 200 structures to its push to move from an economy dependent on heavy manufacturing to one that is more diverse and focused on the advanced technologies of the future. Detroit has overcome many difficulties and has prospered. Mr. Speaker, Detroit is the tenth largest U.S. city. It is a metropolis that is vibrant, diverse, and of a world-class caliber. Accordingly, I congratulate its residents on the 300th anniversary of its founding.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and in great bewilderment over it's purpose. Passing this amendment will damage the credibility of the United States in the Middle East, weaken the government of Lebanon, and further isolate and endanger Israel. It, in fact, runs counter to the objectives of establishing stability along the Lebanese-Israeli border and fostering a climate more conducive to peace in the Middle East. While this amendment doesn't help the U.S., Lebanon, or Israel, it does strengthen the appeal of extremist groups in South Lebanon and increases Syrian influence over Lebanon. This amendment lands a haymaker on the person of innocent Lebanese civilians, USAID and U.S. educational institutions. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that my good friend from California really wants the result he is going to get. Proponents of this reckless amendment have quoted a lot of sources, but I want to read what Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say about this matter. ``The Department opposes the amendment proposed by Representative Lantos to H.R. 1646. If enacted, this amendment would severely impede our ability to pursue the critical U.S. policy objectives in Lebanon and the region, including stabilizing the south and providing a counterweight to the extremist forces.'' Mr. Chairman, I submit a copy of this letter for the Congressional Record. Colleagues, if you want to perpetuate instability in Lebanon and undermine the Lebanese government's efforts to rebuild the nation, the Lantos amendment is the mechanism for doing so. Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, has been quoted. He had this to say about what the Lebanese are doing: ``At present, Lebanese administrators, police, security, and army personnel function throughout the area (southern Lebanon), and their presence and activities continue to grow. They are reestablishing local administration in the villages and have made progress in reintegrating the communications infrastructure, health, and welfare systems with the rest of the country.'' That is what this amendment would bring to a halt. He goes on to say. ``The Lebanese Joint Security Forces proceeded smoothly, and the return to Lebanese administration is ongoing. I appeal to donors to help the Lebanese meet urgent needs for relief and economic revival in the south, pending the holding of a full-fledged donor conference.'' Mr. Chairman, I submit the Secretary General's full report of October 31, 2000, for the Record. Mr. Annan has gone on to point out that we should help, not hurt, the Lebanese in these undertakings. United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 has been cited today. I submit for the Record the entire text of that resolution. Had proponents of this measure read UNSCR 425, they would know that Lebanon is neither required to deploy a specific number of troops to south Lebanon, nor take specific steps to reestablish ``effective control.'' However, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Near Asian Affairs Ned Walker testified to Mr. Lantos' committee on March 29 Last May, Israel withdrew its troops from south Lebanon for the first time since 1977. Only then did Lebanon regain the ability to govern the south. Lebanon, which is in the process of rebuilding its economy after years of war, has actively sought international aid to assist in its efforts to reunite the south with the rest of the country, replace infrastructure, and provide basic social services. Congress recognized that providing USAID assistance to Lebanon in wake of Israel's withdrawal was critical, and increased the Lebanese assistance package from $12 to $35 million. I would note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) joined me by signing a letter to President Clinton in support of this aid. I would also note that Israel received $4.1 billion. Israel even received $50 million from the U.S. to finance its withdrawal from Lebanon. This figure was larger than the entire Lebanese aid program. USAID-Lebanon has developed ties and initiated projects in south Lebanon, helping fill the vacuum created by the Israel's departure. Without access to the basic life-sustaining services provided by USAID, to whom does this author think the people of south Lebanon will turn to? Rebuilding a country after years of occupation and civil war is not an easy job. However, it is a job that is made much easier with the financial support and encouragement of the United States. The money we spend in Lebanon is minimal, but provides funding for essential public works projects, basic social services, and American educational institutions. The administration and the United Nations support these efforts, which demonstrate American goodwill to the Lebanese people at a critical time. The Lantos amendment is the way to kill these efforts and further poison the well and harm U.S. interests in the region. I know my colleagues who support this amendment steadfastly believe that it in some way helps Israel. It won't. It does not help Israel's defenses, nor does it foster stability along the Lebanese border. It does nothing to improve relations between Israel and Lebanon, and further isolates Israel. The Lantos amendment, in fact, only increases the appeal of organizations in South Lebanon hostile to Israel. The only message being sent by this message is directed at the people of Lebanon, and the message being conveyed is that the United States' Middle East policy is biased against Lebanon. Instead of hope, goodwill, and encouragement, we are telling Lebanon that we are not friends and have no vested interest in helping the Lebanese rebuild their country and economy. I urge my colleagues to read this amendment, see what it really does, and vote no. This amendment is unwise, it is irresponsible, it is destructive of American interests, it is destructive of the interests of Lebanese citizens, and it is destructive of the interests of the people of Israel and the region. Mr. Chairman, if you want peace, if you want this country to work for and be able to effectively lead the people in this troubled area, reject this amendment. Show the Lebanese people that you support their efforts to redevelop a peaceful land. And do something else: Demonstrate to people in Lebanon and across the Middle East that this is a country that wants to be a friend of all parties. The Secretary of State, Washington. Hon. Joe Knollenberg, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Knollenberg: Thank you for your letter and the chance to elaborate on my congressional testimony of May 10 on Lebanon. The Department opposes the amendment proposed by Representative Lantos to H.R. 1646. If enacted, this amendment would severely impede our ability to pursue critical U.S. policy objectives in Lebanon and the region, including stabilizing the south and providing a counterweight to extremist forces. The United States has provided assistance for the essential framework for alleviating destabilizing influences in Lebanon. Our economic assistance program strengthens Lebanese central government institutions, and provides a foundation for improved economic and social conditions. Our modest international military education and training (IMET) program helps build an important unifying institution. As such, U.S. assistance helps foster stability and mitigates sectarianism. I strongly oppose the proposed amendment. I want to assure you that we are actively encouraging the Government of Lebanon to deploy its forces and assert its authority in the south, and will continue to do so. I look forward to working with Congress to advance this shared goal as part of our broader effort to work for comprehensive peace in the region. Sincerely, Colin L. Powell.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I will not insist on the motion, but I want my colleagues to understand what this does, and I cannot believe that my good friend from California really wants the result of what he is going to get. Now, he has quoted a lot of sources, but I want to read what Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, had to say about this matter. He says, ``The Department opposes the amendment proposed by Representative Lantos to H.R. 1646. If enacted, this amendment would severely impede our ability to pursue the critical U.S. policy objectives in Lebanon and the region, including stabilizing the south and providing a counterweight to the extremist forces.'' If you want to drive the Lebanese into the arms of extremists, the Lantos amendment is the mechanism for doing so. Now, Kofi Annan has been quoted. What did he have to say? He had this to say about what the Lebanese are doing. ``At present, Lebanese administrators, police, security, and army personnel function throughout the area, southern Lebanon, and their presence and activities continue to grow. They are reestablishing local administration in the villages and have made progress in reintegrating the communications infrastructure, health, and welfare systems with the rest of the country.'' That is what this amendment would bring to a halt. He goes on to say, ``The deployment of both UNIFIL and the Lebanese Joint Security Forces proceeded smoothly, and the return to the Lebanese administration is ongoing. I appeal to donors to help Lebanon meet urgent needs for relief and economic revival in the south, pending the holding of a full-fledged donor conference.'' He has gone on to point out that we should help, not hurt, the Lebanese in these undertakings. Let us take a look at a little bit more here. Look at the resolution. I may not have time to put the whole of it in, but it does not call upon the Lebanese to do the kind of thing that the gentleman from California would have them do under penalty of loss of assistance. I call on my colleagues to remember, this is a haymaker at U.S. policy in the area. It hurts American universities, it hurts humanitarian aid, and it drives the Lebanese into the arms of the extremists and the terrorists. Is that what we want? No. What we want is peace. American interests in this area are vital to this country and they are vital to us in terms of assuring world peace and to assuring the Arabs that this country wants to be an honest broker in terms of seeing to it that we can sell peace and that we can work together with both sides, with the Israelis and with the Lebanese and with the other Arabs and Muslims and other people in that area. The amendment, I know the gentleman offers in the best of good faith; but, remember, it is a haymaker at innocent Lebanese, it is a haymaker at American educational institutions, and it drives the Lebanese into the arms of the terrorists. If that is what you want, vote for the Lantos amendment, and that is what you will get. You will have more trouble in South Lebanon that will affect the Israelis adversely and that will fill that area with more enemies of Israel and more terrorists receiving more support from the people in the area. If you want to restore peace in the area, the small amount of money, which is supported by this administration and which is supported by the U.N., is the way to do it. The Lantos amendment is the way to kill this. I urge this body to reject what is clearly on its face an amendment which does not look to the U.S. policy or understand what that amendment, in fact, does. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It is unwise, it is irresponsible, it is destructive of American interests, it is destructive of the interests of the people of Lebanon, and it is destructive not only of these, but also the best interests of the people of Israel and the people of the whole area over there. If you want peace, if you want this country to work for and be able to effectively lead the people in that area towards peace, if you want to strike a blow at Hezbollah and the others who are causing trouble in that area, reject this amendment. Show the Lebanese people that you are in support of their desire to redevelop a peaceful land. And do something else: Let us show the people in the area that this is a country that wants to be a friend to all parties. I note we have established this for the benefit of our friends in Israel. There is about $5 billion in here for Israel. The amendment offered by my good friend from California would take out $35 million which would go to help the Lebanese. I urge Members to reject the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, it is with profound regret that I read to my good friend from California the language of his amendment, which concludes with saying that the President shall commit to the Congressional committees a plan to terminate assistance to Lebanon provided under chapter 24, part 2, of the Foreign Assistance Act, et cetera. What the gentleman does is terminates all assistance, military and economic and humanitarian. I think with a more careful reading, perhaps the good author of the amendment would join me in opposition to it.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my preferential motion.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, what does this amendment do? It eliminates two items of assistance. The first is $600,000 for the Lebanese Army. The second is $35 million to USAID for humanitarian concern and aid to U.S. educational institutions in Lebanon. What my good friend, and I express great affection and respect for him, does is he aims at Hezbollah but he lands a haymaker on the person of the innocent Lebanese, USAID and U.S. educational institutions. That is what the amendment does. If you are for peace in the Middle East, you do not want to hurt those undertakings.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to honor the students, teachers and volunteers who participated in 16th Congressional District Arts Competition this past Saturday in Southgate, Michigan. All totaled, 73 students from twelve area high schools participated in this year's competition and I want to say thank you to everyone involved in putting this extraordinary event together. It gives me great pleasure to announce the winners this morning. I offer my congratulations to Jennifer Senko of Lincoln Park High School, who took top honors with her self-portrait entry; Rebecca Gruden of Dundee High School in Monroe County, who won the second place prize for ``Alice's Cup of Tea''; Amber George, also of Lincoln Park High, who placed third for ``The Old House''; and finally Brian D. Goodwin of Grosse Ile High School, who received the fourth place award for his work ``Belle Isle.'' Finally, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of a wonderful woman and educator from Lincoln Park High School, Mrs. Valerie Truax. Valerie has been involved with the Congressional Arts Competition for many years. Unfortunately, this will be her last year, because after 34 years of instructing the students of Lincoln Park in the visual arts, Valerie is retiring. It is a beautiful tribute and a reflection of her dedication and enthusiasm that two of her students won honors at the competition, with Jennifer taking the top prize. Congratulations Valerie, thank you for your fine service to your community and to the arts. We will miss you. Jennifer Senko, the first place winner received a $100 U.S. Savings Bond and will be flown to Washington, D.C. to participate in an awards ceremony with other first-place winners from around the country. Her winning self-portrait will be shown at the Capitol Exhibit with the artwork of other first-place winners in the Cannon Tunnel--an underground, pedestrian walkway between the U.S. House of Representatives and the Capitol--through May 2002. The artwork of Rebecca Gruden, Amber George and Brian D. Goodwin will be proudly displayed in my Washington office through May 2002, where visitors from all over the world will have the opportunity to appreciate the talents of these fine young artists from Michigan's 16th Congressional District. I am looking forward to the arrival of these fine works of art.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of the finest public servants the state of Michigan has ever known. This past Friday, my dear friend Richard Austin passed away. Richard was a man of elegance, grace, dignity, honor, compassion and great intellect. The citizens of Michigan have suffered a tremendous loss. Richard was Michigan's longest serving Secretary of State, having diligently served Michiganders for nearly two and a half decades, from 1970 to 1994. He was a pioneer in many areas, from breaking the color barrier by being the first African-American to hold statewide office to his numerous original innovations while serving as Secretary of State. He was a model public servant, the embodiment of dedication, service, commitment and trust. At a time when citizens' faith in our institutions was low, he made the public sector work, and in doing so, gave government a good name. Austin's reforms and innovations during his long service saved the people of Michigan time and money, earning him a reputation as a friend to the taxpayer. More importantly, he streamlined state services and eliminated red tape. Before Austin's reforms, renewing your driver's license or getting new tags for your license plates could be an all day affair replete with frustrations and long lines. Richard understood those frustrations and worked to make government work for the average citizen, to eliminate the hassles, duplication and inefficiency that are so often associated with state services. That commitment to protecting the taxpayer and serving public interest came from his training as an accountant. Before being elected as Secretary of State, Richard was Michigan's first African-American CPA. Richard was fiscally conservative and treated the taxpayers' money as if it were his own. Indeed, the reforms and innovations he implemented saved the state and the taxpayers of Michigan hundreds of thousands of dollars. But one achievement of Richard Austin's outshines all others, including his money-saving reforms, and that is the creation of the ``Motor Voter'' law. 8 Voter registration was near and dear to Austin's heart, and he considered it to be the most important function of his office. His passion grew out of his association with the civil rights movement and the long struggle for voting rights that he witnessed and that was a part of his being. Richard was raised in Alabama and experienced the ugly face of racism, disenfranchisement and bigotry first hand. In Michigan, he battled the subtle racism and prejudice of the North. But Richard did not let the forces of hate or intolerance deter him. He persevered, he broke down walls and ultimately overcame, becoming the first African American to hold statewide office in Michigan. When Richard was sworn in, voter registration was at the top of his agenda. In his mind were the memories of the lives lost during the Freedom Rides and the voter registration activities in the South and Mississippi. He remembered the black Americans who fought and died for the right to cast a ballot. Richard Austin knew the disenfranchisement and intimidation that for so long was a part of our history. And thus did Austin appreciate and understand the importance of the vote, and how precious it is. That it is the foundation of our democracy, that ``one man, one vote'' is the cornerstone of American freedom, that every man and woman was equal inside the voting booth and that liberty, freedom and justice are predicated on access to the ballot box. Richard thought long and hard about how to eliminate barriers to democratic participation, how to make it easier to vote, and how to encourage and increase voter registration. Austin's solution was the Motor Voter Act. Motor Voter was Austin's brainchild, and it was a very simple concept: register voters in the same office where you register drivers. Austin championed the idea and saw it signed into law in Michigan in 1975. To his continuing credit, Michigan's experiment was so successful, it served as the model for the federal government when it passed the nationwide act in 1993--a full 18 years after Michigan. It is an association, an accomplishment and a legacy that has bettered this great nation, and it is a fitting tribute to one of Michigan's finest public servants. Richard is in a better place now. He is survived by his wife of 61 years, Ida, and their daughter. He will be sorely missed by all. Good bye Richard and God Bless you.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and remember the 1.5 million victims of the Armenian genocide, who were systematically slaughtered solely because of their race. While there is never a justification for genocide, in this case there also regrettably has never been an apology, and the criminals were never brought to justice. Such an unconscionable act, however, can never be forgotten. It is our duty to remember. I also rise in tribute to the Armenian people who have fully recovered from this atrocity by maintaining their proud transitions and culture, becoming an integral part of America, and nine years ago, forming the Republic of Armenia. The Ottoman Empire's last, desperate act was one of profound cruelty, tragic and gruesome beyond description. During World War I--a tumultuous, revolutionary time of great societal transformations and uncertain futures on the battlefields and at home--desperate Ottoman leaders fell back on the one weapon that could offer hope of personal survival. It is a weapon that is still used today, fed by fear, desperation, and hatred. It transforms the average citizen into a zealot, no longer willing to listen to reason. This weapon is, of course, nationalism. Wrongly directed, nationalism can easily result in ethnic strife and senseless genocide, committed in the name of false beliefs preached by immoral, irresponsible, tyrannical leaders. Today I rise not to speak of the present, but in memory of the victims of the past, who suffered needlessly in the flames of vicious, destructive nationalism. On April 24, 1915, the leaders of the Ottoman government tragically chose to systematically exterminate an entire race of people. In this case, as in the case of Nazi Germany, nationalism became a weapon of cruelty and evil. Let us never forget the 1.5 million Armenians who died at the whim of wicked men and their misguided followers. The story of the Armenian genocide is in itself appalling. It is against everything our government--and indeed all governments who strive for justice--stands for; it represents the most wicked side of humanity. What makes the Armenian story even more unfortunate is history has repeated itself in all corners of the world, and lessons that should have been learned long ago have been ignored. We must not forget the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, or Bosnia. It is our duty that by remembering the millions who have been victims of genocide, we pledge ourselves to preventing such acts from repeating themselves. It is an honor and privilege to represent a large and active Armenian population, many who have family members who were persecuted by their Ottoman Turkish rulers. Michigan's Armenian-American community has done much to further our state's commercial, political, and intellectual growth, just has it as done in communities across the country. And so I also rise today to honor to the triumph of the Armenian people, who have endured adversity and bettered our country. The Armenian people have faced great trials and tests throughout their history. They have proved their resilience in the face of tragedy before, and I have no doubt that they will endure today's tragic occurrence, recognize that a madman's bullet can never put an end to a people's dreams, and keep moving forward on the path of peace and freedom. Mr. Speaker, let no one, friend or foe, ever deny that the Armenian genocide occurred. Let us not forget the heinous nature of the crimes committed against the Armenian people. Let us promise to the world, as American citizens and citizens of the world, that we will never again allow such a crime to be perpetrated, and will not tolerate the forces of misguided nationalism and hate.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, Thursday, April 26, is National DO Day. We recognize the more than 47,000 osteopathic physicians (D.O.s) across the country for their contributions to the American healthcare system. On National DO Day, more than 500 members of the osteopathic medical profession, including osteopathic physicians and medical students, from 40 states will descend upon Capitol Hill to share their views with Congress. For more than a century DOs have made a difference in the lives and health of Americans everywhere. They have treated presidents and Olympic athletes. They have contributed to the fight against AIDS and the fight for civil rights. DOs are represented at the highest levels of the medical profession. Indeed, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the chief medical officer for the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army are all osteopathic physicians. As fully licensed physicians able to prescribe medication and perform surgery, DOs are committed to serving the health needs of rural and underserved communities. They make up 15 percent of the total physician population in towns of 10,000 or less. In addition, 64 percent of DOs practice in the primary care areas of medicine, fulfilling a need for more primary care physicians in an era marked by the growth of managed care. More than 100 million patient visits are made each year to DOs, making them the physician of choice for many people. That's because DOs approach their patients as ``whole people.'' They don't just treat a specific illness or injury. DOs take into account home and work environments, as well as lifestyle, when assessing overall health. This distinct approach provides Americans with the highest quality of healthcare--patients seen as people, not just illnesses or injuries. From the state-of-the-art healthcare facility in a major city to a clinic in a rural Michigan community, DOs continue to practice the kind of medicine that Andrew Taylor Still envisioned over 100 years ago when he founded the profession. I am pleased that on National DO Day more than 30 representatives of the osteopathic medical profession will be visiting our Capitol from Michigan. These representatives are practicing osteopathic physicians and osteopathic medical students from the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine. To the nearly 5,000 osteopathic physicians in Michigan, the approximately 520 students at MSUCOM and the 47,000 DOs represented by the American Osteopathic Association-- congratulations on your contributions to the good health of the American people. I look forward to working with you to further our mutual goal of continually improving our nation's healthcare.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, last week the President told us that it was all right for American families to swallow drinking water with five times the arsenic allowed in Europe when he halted a safe drinking water regulation. Today we are being asked to swallow another dangerous proposal--his budget. I am proud of the day in 1964 when I presided over the House when it passed Medicare legislation. It is probably the most important vote I cast in my life. It has brought protection and health to our country's seniors ever since. But today, just like in 1995, when my Republican colleagues took control of this chamber, Medicare is under attack again--and for the same reason--to pay for a tax cut, which will go primarily to the richest individuals in the country. The budget before us would actually raid the Medicare Trust Fund, just weeks after we passed legislation to stop that. According to Budget Committee analysts, the budget will ultimately dip into the Trust Fund to pay for either tax cuts or undefined contingent funding. The budget resolution marks a retreat from the President's promise to design a meaningful prescription drug benefit. The budget includes just $153 billion over ten years for the new benefit, which is even less than the plan brought forward by my Republican colleagues last year. That proposal, which would give money to HMO's, was called unworkable and far too little. The Democratic proposal would allocate more than double this amount and provide a meaningful drug benefit to all Medicare recipients who choose to participate, not just a small percentage who are poor. We could easily afford this benefit. But the President's budget puts tax cuts ahead of the needs of our seniors. Even worse, this budget pays for its drug benefit by using the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund--money intended to pay for seniors' hospital care. In simple terms, this means we will pay for a drug benefit today by bankrupting Medicare sooner, and reduce future ability to pay for the doctor and hospital care seniors need, the old proverbial borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. That is wrong. We need to add a real prescription drug benefit to Medicare, but this is not the way to do it. I could mention many other problems in this budget--how it shortchanges veterans and safe drinking water for starters--but let me just mention the energy budget. As Ranking Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have heard a lot of rhetoric from the Administration on how we need to focus on our energy needs, but what does the President's budget do? It actually cuts $700 million from the Department of Energy's budget. While the President has refused to tell us where these cuts will come from, news sources indicate it will come from energy research into conservation and renewable energy. How can this make any sense whatsoever? The bottom line is that the President's tax cut of over $2 trillion is driving all of these decisions. This debate helps all of us, and the American people, understand that we must choose our priorities carefully. Last year's campaign was marked by Republican obfuscation. But now they are making choices--the wrong choices. Do we want to protect Social Security and Medicare or do we want a big tax cut now? The President has told us, for example, that reducing taxes on estates over $2 million is more important than saving Social Security and Medicare. Will we agree? I, for one, will not. The Republican budget is a blueprint for future borrowing at best, and draconian cuts at worst. It should be rejected. The Democratic Substitute, offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] is a much better alternative that will provide a fiscally responsible tax cut and will provide more adequate funding for education, Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs, while continuing to pay down the debt.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blue Dog budget which balances fiscal responsibility with the need to adequately fund programs addressing our national priorities and needs. The Blue Dog budget is a responsible plan that balances the budget, retires public debt, and provides modest tax cuts without tapping into the Social Security trust fund. Unlike the Republican plan, it does not foolishly drive our budget back into the red with massive and unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased the Blue Dog budget provides needed funding to expand the Montgomery G.I. Bill in accordance with H.R. 320, the Montgomery G.I. Bill Improvements Act which I, along with my colleague Lane Evans, introduced earlier this year. It also provides funds to pay for a substantial military pay raise and improve the veterans' and military retirees' health care system. The Armed Forces face serious recruiting problems. In order to meet our defense needs, the Armed Forces must have the tools it needs to draw men and women into uniform. The Montgomery G.I. Bill has proven to be the military's most valuable recruiting tool. Unfortunately, the combination of a substantially devalued G.I Bill and expanded federal financial assistance to college-bound students without military service has crippled the G.I. Bill's effectiveness. Recent recruiting gimmicks such as psychedelic humvees, Spike Lee advertisements, drag racers, or desperate cash giveaways are not the answer to these problems. Nor is conscription. Congress would best help our Armed Forces by improving the G.I. Bill. Providing access to higher education in exchange for national service is the right thing to do. A strong G.I. Bill helps veterans and their families, aids our national defense, and strengthens the economy. The Montgomery GI Bill Expansion Act (H.R. 320) will ensure that our All-Volunteer Armed Forces has the ability to attract recruits, and, at the same time, provide veterans with the skills they need to better our economy and their lives. The Blue Dog budget wisely provides funding to expand the G.I. Bill in line with H.R. 320 and will restore the MGIB's value both as a meaningful readjustment benefit and an effective recruiting incentive. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog budget is good for America's veterans and soldiers and is a solid blueprint for our nation's future. Unlike the Republican budget that would foolishly squander the surplus, the responsible Blue Dog budget pays down the national debt and provides sensible tax relief. It will put the nation on a course to cut the publicly held debt in half by 2006 with a strong, immediate commitment to debt reduction rather than return us to deficit spending. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for veterans, soldiers and our nation's future. Vote for the Blue Dog budget.