Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), as he knows, there is report language attached to this bill that tells the EPA not to undertake dredging of contaminated sediments until the completion of a study by the National Academy of Sciences. I understand that similar language has been included in the VA-HUD report in each of the past 2 years.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman may know, sediments in the Fox River in Northeast Wisconsin have been determined to be contaminated with PCBs. Last year a number of the paper companies along this river did a dredging demonstration project, commonly referred to as 5657. Unfortunately, the demonstration project did not remove enough of the contaminated sediments to adequately clean up the site. I along with most of the citizens of Northeastern Wisconsin have been pushing both the paper companies and the EPA to complete the cleanup of this site. Fortunately, one of the companies involved recently reached an agreement with EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to go back into 56/57 and complete the dredging to its original specifications. Some people have expressed concern that this report language might have an effect on this agreement and on the overall push for a settlement and cleaning up of the Fox River. I want to ask for a clarification on this matter. Specifically, can the gentleman from New York tell me whether this report language will have any impact on the work scheduled for the Fox River?

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for this clarification and for his attention to this matter.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support of the Kelly amendment. But I want to be clear on this. I rise in support of the amendment not because of any insensitivity to affordable housing, as the other side seems to suggest, but, instead, because I care passionately about affordable housing. I come from a State where breaking the bonds of poverty has been one of our highest priorities. I believe that the dollars we spend on affordable housing are about the most important dollars we as an institution spend. Now, I want to believe that the leadership of HUD shares that philosophy, the importance of these precious dollars. But, Mr. Chairman, to be honest at times that is awfully hard to believe. We have heard reference to the Office of Inspector General's report. That report is damning. It shows that there is a lack of accountability at HUD. HUD could not produce reliable financial records for 1999. Yet these dollars are precious. HUD's newly installed financial system, something called HUDCAPS, could not even meet basic financial system requirements. Yet they say these dollars are precious. The Inspector General's report listed example after example of fraud, waste, and abuse. As my colleagues have mentioned over and over again this evening, HUD spends an awful lot of money on self-promotion while people, while families stand in line waiting for help with affordable housing. The Community Builders Program quite frankly has been little more than a public relations effort. The Inspector General's report says that it is full of, quote, inappropriate hiring. That is putting it mildly. The Inspector General, not me, not the House Republican Conference, not the RNC, says that this program does very little if anything, very little if anything, to address the core mission of affordable housing. This directs valuable dollars away from where we need it most. We need to get back on track. The Kelly amendment is simple. It is common sense. It helps HUD to refocus on its core mission of providing affordable housing. It does not cut staff. It does not cut core programs. It cuts self-promotion. It sends the money back to where it belongs. A number of my colleagues have and will tonight speak about the lack of funding for affordable housing, and I share some of their values and some of their concerns. This amendment is a simple, common sense way to meet the needs that my colleagues have enunciated. If we want to put more money in affordable housing programs, this amendment is the way to do it.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following resolutions for the Record. Whereas, our National Forests were established in the 1920's for multiple use including soil and water protection, recreation, and timber production, and; Whereas, harvesting is an integral component of multiple- use management of forest lands, and; Whereas, it is not in the best interest of sustainable ecosystem management to ban commercial logging on National Forests, and; Whereas, the health of adjoining private and other public forest lands would be in jeopardy if National Forest lands were allowed to become overstocked and subject to insect and disease infestations, and unnecessary fuel build-up were allowed to create the potential for disastrous wild fires, and; Whereas, timber harvested on the National Forests is vital to many local and regional economies, including that of Vilas County, and; Whereas, Whereas, Wisconsin's National Forests are not producing below cost timber sales and are not virgin forests, and; Whereas, there would be an increase in pressure to harvest County Forest Lands and private lands in the area if harvesting ceases on the National Forests within the state, and; Whereas, the State Forester of Wisconsin is also opposed to the halting of commercial logging on National Forests. Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the Vilas County Board of Supervisors is opposed to the National Forest Restoration Act and other legislative proposals which propose halting commercial logging on the National Forests. Be it further resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Governor, to Wisconsin's Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress, George Meyer, Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, Gene Francisco, State Forester, the Wisconsin County Forests Association, and the President of the United States. Respectfully submitted by: Vilas County Forestry, Recreation, & Land Committee.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of both the chairman and the ranking member to allow me to speak out of turn. The reason I would like to address the House this morning is with respect to the roadless forest initiative. My colleague and friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), had originally looked at introducing some limitation amendments on the roadless forest initiative and as he will say shortly has decided not to introduce them. In some ways I regret that but I certainly respect his decision. I rise in opposition to the roadless forest initiative. I represent a national forest that was once the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest. Like so many others, I have a concern over the effect of the roadless forest initiative on the economy of my district and the health and safety of our national forests. I would like to make three brief quick points this morning to show the breadth of opposition in my home area to this roadless forest initiative. First, local units of government in the State of Wisconsin in general, and in the Eighth Congressional District, oppose the roadless forest initiative. The Wisconsin Counties Association opposes it. The Counties of Vilas and Oneida and Oconto and others oppose it. They oppose it because they understand how dependent our communities and our economy is upon the national forest, recreation, and timber harvesting. They also oppose it because they recognize that cutting off these forests to human access poses substantial fire and safety risks. Point number two, the roadless forest initiative violates a historic compact between local units of government and the Federal Government. This national forest in northern Wisconsin was created in the 1920s. There were a series of transactions between local units of government, county forests, the private sector and the Federal Government. On record, on the public record and in public documents, specifically these transactions were made with an understanding that access to the national forests would be maintained, in fact, explicitly that commercial access to the forests would be maintained. Yet, the roadless forest initiative, if it is implemented, would break that understanding, would break that agreement. Very clearly, the Federal Government is on the verge of breaking its word with the people of northeastern Wisconsin and very clearly these local leaders would never, would never, have transferred county forest to the national forest if they knew that years down the line we would go back on our word. Finally and most damning, the Forest Service employees of northern Wisconsin themselves oppose the roadless forest initiative. The very people being called upon to implement the roadless forest initiative oppose it. They have taken a formal position through Local 2165 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, they have taken a formal position against the roadless forest initiative. They understand the difficulties of enforcing it. They understand how it will do tremendous damage to our way of life and they understand how the roadless forest initiative has failed to take into account the local concerns in northern Wisconsin. I will later place in the Record these resolutions demonstrating the clear opposition in northern Wisconsin to this initiative.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 249, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), for his support and work on this legislation, as well as my colleague across the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). I do appreciate their help on this. Mr. Speaker, today we have a chance to reach out to educational institutions all across America. These institutions may be small in number, but they serve a very great need. Most importantly, the need they serve is experience by a dramatically underserved portion of the population. And for this portion of the population, these Americans, it offers, I believe, some great hope. Today, we reach out to tribal colleges, not by spending more money, but making sure that for the dollars we do spend that those dollars are more accessible, distributed more equitably and easier to access by all involved. There are 32 tribal colleges in America right now and 12 States serving 25,000 Americans. My own home State of Wisconsin has two, the Lac Courte D'Oreilles Community College and the Menomonee Indian Tribal College. For the Native Americans served at these institutions, these colleges are closing the gap between the America that is and the America that can be. In 1998, Congress created the American Indian Tribally Controlled College and University Institutional Development Act. In fiscal year 2000, $6 million has been awarded in a competitive grant program for these institutions in this program. Last year, 16 tribal colleges applied for grants and eight received grants. We can do more, I believe; and we can reach more tribal colleges, and we can reach more Americans, the Americans that they serve; and that is what this bill attempts to do. Through technical changes that have been supported on both sides of the aisle, voice voted through the subcommittee and supported by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, this bill will, by removing barriers, get more dollars to more tribal colleges. As was mentioned previously, it makes some very simple changes. Number one, it directs the Secretary Of Education to simplify and streamline the application process. The current application process requires applicants to address no less than 16 different subject areas, well intended. Unfortunately, I am afraid it may be overkill. It has the unfortunate effect of discouraging fledgling tribal colleges from taking on the grant application process. We worked closely with the Department of Education in developing these minor changes. Secondly, this bill would direct the Secretary of Education to ensure a more equitable distribution of these limited dollars to the maximum number of institutions. We are not talking about a lot of dollars here, but it is obviously crucially important that those dollars go as far as they can. Finally, as has been mentioned, this bill would exempt tribal colleges from the 2-year wait-out period required under title III part A. Again, we have a small number of institutions; but we want to make sure that this money is available to the institutions that most need it, a small number of institutions and perhaps a small number of Americans. But I believe the ripple effect in the area surrounding these institutions will be enormous and help them realize the potential of the American dream.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is going to be very interesting to watch this debate today. Everyone here today recognizes that some great things have been happening with the economy. Unemployment is at a 30-year low, the economy continues to grow. Now there are some on the other side who want us to go back to the old days, the days of tax and spend and spend and tax. That is really what they are talking about when they bring out their numbers, their interpolated charts and numbers. That is what they are trying to do. They are trying to move us backward. Still others want us to sit back and do nothing. They want us to enjoy the fruits of our labor and the fruits of this growing economy. But the majority budget, the budget we take up today, recognizes that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make progress, to secure America's future. That is what this reform budget does. This budget reinforces retirement security to the social security lockbox. Secondly, it pays down the debt, reduces it by $1 trillion over 5 years. It eliminates the public debt by the year 2013. It reinvests in public education, a 9.4 percent increase over last year. It sets in motion a plan for providing prescription drug benefits to seniors. It begins to rescue our military from years of neglect and misuse. Yes, and I know this is blasphemy to some, yes, it does provide tax relief. It allows Americans to keep more of what they earn. I hope today will be a good debate. I think it will show the clear differences between the two parties, between those who want to move backwards and those who want to charge ahead. Today should be a good debate. I urge my colleagues to support this good, open, fair rule. More importantly, I urge my colleagues to vote for this budget. When we go home over the Easter break, I urge them to talk about the great things we are doing, the challenges that we are meeting, and the steps we are taking.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of both the rule and this bill. Today is a good day because today is the day we learn which party really supports ethics and government reform, because this is where reform truly begins. One cannot, one cannot, seriously and sincerely be in favor of reforming the so-called iron triangle unless you strike at its heart. What is the iron triangle made out of? The Tax Code. That is why the Democrats and that is why the establishment hate this bill so much, because it goes to the heart of their iron triangle. Listen to the excuses they make; listen to how they try to change the subject. The truth is, what is it that Washington special interests focus on most? They focus on the Tax Code, because this Byzantine, complicated, confusing and complex Tax Code is such a monstrosity that it is this Tax Code where they can hide their special interest favors. That is why they support the current Tax Code. That is why they do not want the Tax Code scrapped. That is why they want to change the subject. So I say to my colleagues, if they are truly in favor of ethics reform and government reform and changing the system and changing America, they must support this rule, support this bill, and let us launch ourselves on the real road to reform.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York, for yielding time to me. Let me begin by congratulating the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for all of his hard work in putting this together. To be honest, I feel as good about this bill as I feel about anything we have done in my brief tenure in Congress. This legislation has something for everyone. It does not solve all the problems of the world, obviously, but I do think it touches upon some very important challenges that we are facing in modern society. I am very proud of what it does in the area of removing regulatory barriers. I do not think we spend enough time in this Congress looking at regulatory areas for affordable housing. As we all know, for every thousand dollars that the cost of a house increases by, we are pricing 1 percent of the population out of the market. This legislation creates a housing impact analysis. It also creates grants for removing regulatory barriers, and creates a regulatory barrier clearinghouse. That is important. Secondly, empowerment. We often use that phrase to mean lots of things, but this bill really is about empowerment. Those who I think are most challenged in terms of getting affordable housing these days are those people among us with disabilities. This legislation creates a pilot project to help people with disabilities afford their own home. Finally, in the area of crime, this even makes some important strides in meeting some of our crime challenges. It contains a pilot project which encourages law enforcement officers to live in those high crime areas as described by local officials. So this legislation in my view really makes some important strides in a number of important areas. I think it is something we can all be very proud of across the aisle. I would strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, vote for it today, and then, quite frankly, go home and talk about it, talk to our constituents about what we have done. I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, and again congratulate him.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Too much of this discussion, I think, is looking at the only benefit derived from this bill and from this program as being the family that is enrolled in it and actually utilizing the loan. It is ignoring the fact that there is a public good in stabilizing neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are stabilized by creating mixed-use, mixed-income homeownership. That is how we stabilize deteriorating neighborhoods. That is how we stop the core of deterioration from spreading outward. The part of the goal here is to stabilize neighborhoods; to give local officials the ability to stabilize and to protect and to solidify the good that is going on in so many communities. It is a great idea that I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) has had. It allows more local officials greater flexibility in the tools that they need, that they need to manage the good that is going on in the communities all across the Nation. I strongly support it, and I do oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also would urge strong support for the manager's amendment. As good as the underlying bill is, and I think the bill is solid, I think the manager's amendment is better and makes some important improvements. Very quickly, two particular programs that are included in the manager's amendment that this Member had something to do with. Number one, this manager's amendment would create a 3-year pilot project to help people with disabilities to use section 8 assistance towards home ownership. It creates incentives for employment and home ownership for the most underserved portion of the American public, those with disabilities. Unemployment rates for those with disabilities in America exceeds 70 percent, and home ownership for people with disabilities is below 5 percent. This bill takes an important step in breaking that cycle. This manager's amendment also has an important pilot project, a 3- year program, for law enforcement officers. It helps Federal, State and local law enforcement officers purchase homes in locally designated, locally defined high crime areas. This is different than other law enforcement officer programs because it turns to local leaders, local officials to designate those areas. This will help deter crime. This will help stabilize neighborhoods. In so many ways this manager's amendment makes the dream of home ownership and stable, sound, solid communities a reality. And again, I encourage my colleagues not only to support this amendment and support the bill but to go home and talk about it.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reacting to something said earlier. I come from a State, Wisconsin, which is one of those States that overwhelmingly passed a ban on partial-birth abortions, a law very similar to the one we are taking up today, although perhaps a bit tougher. It has been upheld twice, so let us be clear on the constitutional arguments. It is not as the opponents portray. It is interesting, some of the tenor of the debate today. Some people are upset that we are taking this bill up because it is inconvenient. It is perhaps annoying to them. I have heard reference that we should not be taking this up because we voted on it seven times before or eight times before. Of course we should be here. We must be here, and we must be here each and every year until this practice is gone. As long as two-thirds of Americans, a supermajority, want this horrible practice to end but the administration and the abortion industry will not listen, we should be here. As long as so many States have outlawed this but the administration and the abortion industry will not listen, we should be here. As long as thousands of these horrible procedures are performed each and every year, we should be here. Absolutely, we should be here. If we fail to take up this cause today, then the other side might just get comfortable. Maybe they will believe that we have lost our resolve, that this matter does not matter to us anymore. Sure we face a tough road ahead. The abortion industry is strong and the White House is not on our side. But if we do not stand up, who will? I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and to vote for this very important bill this year, next year, every year until this procedure is gone.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, my vote on final passage of H.R. 3908, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, was mistakenly recorded Thursday, March 30. I intended to vote ``nay'', as I had indicated throughout debate on the bill. An ``aye'' vote was recorded.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to offer my enthusiastic congratulations before the U.S. House to all those involved in the Florence, Food, Fun and Fitness Summer program. Their hard work and innovative efforts have improved the health of our young people and deservedly garnered accolades and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Summer Sunshine Award for Child Development. Everyone who is a part of the Food, Fun and Fitness program should feel a great sense of pride--not only for being honored by the USDA and others, but for genuinely enhancing the health and quality of life of our children. Thanks to this program, the kids involved have learned countless new life lessons, from a new understanding of the importance of food and where it comes from to the new friendships and wisdom they have shared with the seniors who have joined with them in this program. This program is the direct result of a successful partnership between Florence Nutrition Program Educator Katie Tartar and the University of Wisconsin Extension, Florence School District, Florence Sheriff's Department, General Colin Powell and America's Promise, the Family Resource Center of Florence County, County Activity Co-op, Spread Eagle Sporting, the Master Gardener Association and the residents of Chapin Heights Apartments. Mr. Speaker, the Florence Food, Fun and Fitness program is a shining example of what communities can achieve by bringing all their resources to bear in a common effort. It is a program I believe other American communities should look to and emulate. To the folks in Florence, congratulations, thank you, and keep up the great work!

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. That means a great deal to us. And I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations as well, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and let me begin by congratulating the gentleman in the manner in which he has conducted this debate. I think he has done a wonderful job, both yesterday and today. I do rise in opposition to this amendment, because I believe it goes too far, it covers too many things, and withdraws from too many places and too many important operations. However, I do want to speak more favorably at least on one aspect of the amendment. This appropriation package has, as its linchpin, aid to Colombia. That is both its greatest strength and, I am afraid, its greatest risk. It is risky because its success in the long run is dependent upon cooperation and commitment, a commitment to justice on the part of the Colombian government, and this is, I am afraid, where I have some doubts. Just over a year ago three innocent Americans were discovered, their bodies. They had been brutally slaughtered in northeast Colombia, slaughtered while they were educating the people of northeast Colombia, slaughtered by thugs from FARC narcoterrorists. One of these Americans was a constituent of mine, Ingrid Washinawatok of Menominee County, Wisconsin. If we are not careful, I am afraid these three Americans may become victimized yet once again. And here is why. Last October, this body unanimously, unanimously, passed a Sense of the Congress Resolution which decried these murders, condemned FARC, but also, and this is the most important part, called upon the government of Colombia to arrest and to extradite to the United States for criminal trial these awful people. Some weeks ago, at a subcommittee hearing before the Committee on International Relations, I had the chance to ask our drug czar, the esteemed General Barry McCaffrey, for help in pushing for extradition. He assured me he would, and he assured me that he would keep me and my constituents posted. Unfortunately, I have to report today that we have heard nothing from him. And now, just recently, we have heard from the president of Colombia that he will not extradite at least one of these murderers, German Briceno. So it looks as though the family of Ingrid Washinawatok may be let down once again. For this initiative, for this initiative aiding Colombia, to work, there must be trust, there must be understanding, and there must be a commitment to justice; and I am afraid that commitment may be slipping away. I see my friend and colleague, the esteemed chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and I would ask him and ask the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the drug czar, and the President all to help us push for extradition. I do speak in opposition. I believe this amendment goes too far, but some of the sentiments are valid.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Minnesota a little while ago talked about the story of a little red hen. I was reminded of a different story. It is a story about the rooster who used to get up every morning and crow right before the sun came up. One morning the rooster overslept, and the sun came up anyway and the rooster was shattered and crushed. I think our friends on the other side in the minority are like that rooster. They have been crowing, as they have been every year, about how Republican plans would hurt the debt, hurt Social Security and set us back. Yet, every year we have made great progress. Here we are again. We are here today on the threshold of a chance to make history, paying down the debt, strengthening our retirement security system, making major new investments in the programs that families care about. With our budget plan, we will make sure that every family has the tools and the opportunity to pursue the American dream, and we do it in a responsible fashion, built on conservative values and conservative priorities. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this great budget plan.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Right now we are talking about the so-called progressive substitute amendment. That term, progressive, actually means something very specifically to me, because I come from the State of Wisconsin, where the Progressive Party perhaps reached its greatest heights. Our two statutes, our contribution to Statuary Hall, include Fighting Bob La Follette, really the father of the Progressive Party. I would also say that that progressive tradition is alive and well in Wisconsin today. All of my colleagues know about what we are doing in the area of education reform and welfare reform. Well, it seems to me, from the Wisconsin perspective, if we want to talk about progressive themes and a progressive budget, the budget that we should be supporting, quite frankly, is not the so-called progressive substitute, but is, instead, this budget, the Republican budget plan. Because in my view that is the true Republican progressive plan. Number one, it strengthens retirement security. It protects 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. It sets aside $40 billion to provide for prescription drug coverage. That is progressive, to me. It promotes tax fairness, attacking some of the absurdities, some of the injustices in our Tax Code. It provides for reducing the marriage penalty. It provides for small business tax relief. And thanks to a sense of the Congress resolution that we added in the Committee on the Budget, it also takes care of one of the great problems that our farmers are facing in income averaging. My colleagues may not be aware, but as the IRS is looking to implement the income averaging plan from the 1997 balanced budget agreement, they will not let farmers take into account years in which they lose money. Well, I have news for the IRS. Coming from the Midwest, I know that we have lots of family farms who are losing money. That to me is a progressive plan. Our budget plan strengthens support for science and education. We increase education funding by 9.4 percent over last year; that is progressive. A difference between our budget and the so-called progressive plan is that our education funding is student centered, not bureaucracy centered. Under our plan, we ensure that money leaves Washington, leaves the bureaucracy and gets in the hands of classrooms and communities all across the Nation. We believe that our budget plan is the true progressive plan, because it seeks to make sure that every American will have the tools and the opportunity to pursue the American dream; that is progressive. Let us take a look quickly at the progressive budget plan. It is well-intentioned; however, it cuts $30 billion out of defense. How is that progressive? How is that progressive? How can you worry about progressive values if you are not secure? How can you worry about progressive values if your Nation is at risk? The progressive plan also raises taxes by about $151 billion over 5 years. How is that progressive? As we all know, the tax burden that we are facing right now is the highest that we faced since World War II. We are paying wartime taxes at a time when we are supposedly at peace. More and more families have to have two wage earners, not by choice, they have to have two wage earners just to make ends meet. And, yet, the progressive plan would increase their tax burden. My friends, I do not believe it is progressive. I am afraid I believe it is regressive. It is going backwards. It is going back to the days of tax and spend. Look carefully at what our budget does. It strengthens the retirement security system by locking away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and providing for prescription drug coverage; that is progressive. It retires the debt by the year 2013 to hopefully keep interest rates down and keep the economy growing and keep those good jobs coming; that is progressive. It strengthens dramatically our investment in education and science; that is progressive. It promotes tax fairness for families and farmers and seniors, and, yes, it provides for defense. My friends, this is the progressive budget plan. I urge you all to vote for it. I urge you all to reject the well- intentioned, but, I am afraid, regressive progressive budget plan.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall numbers 21 and 20, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''