Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last week, on March 19, our Nation marked a somber milestone. We began the fourth year of the Iraqi war. It is becoming quite clear that this falsely conceived war is proceeding disastrously, with no end in sight. The administration's repugnant use of the phrase as bombing began, ``shock and awe,'' has deteriorated into a ``knockdown and raw, last man left standing'' war of attrition. The situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate precipitously. In the last month alone, there has been an escalation of sectarian violence. Dozens of suicide bombings, insurgent attacks and the like have left almost 1,000 more people dead since a bombing destroyed the dome of Samarra's Golden Mosque, a sacred and holy site to Shiite Muslims. Iraq is still without a functioning government, as the Iraqi parliament has convened just once and for only 30 minutes. Moreover, there was an automobile ban in place throughout Baghdad to prevent car bombings that same day. A city-wide ban on cars, Mr. Speaker, is not a safe city. A nation where journalists cannot travel to report is not a safe country. Headlines from newspapers around the globe have the same theme, civil war in Iraq. The administration, however, does not seem to see it that way. The President was in Ohio last week and made the following comment: ``Americans look at the violence that they see each night on their television screens and wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq. They wonder what I see that they do not.'' Well, I think the President has it the other way around, Mr. Speaker. The world sees a lot this President doesn't. Three years ago, we saw the administration did not have a plan to win the peace, and he and his narrow group of advisers led us down the path to war. We also see what he cannot see today, that our presence in Iraq has led to an increase in violence and terrorist activities in the Middle East and around the world, making us less safe as a nation. Three years ago, on the eve of the invasion, I warned, and I quote myself, ``Even if we take the ground, we do not share the culture. In the end, we have to learn to exist in a world with religious states that we may not agree with, and find ways to cooperate.'' So the President has traded a brutal sectarian regime for an unstable nation that looks more and more every day like a dawning theocracy. Events in the last few weeks seem to show this is indeed becoming the case. By refusing to prepare for the possibility that we would be considered occupiers rather than liberators, these architects of this war never afforded an opportunity to truly win the peace. Hospitals and medical services were ignored. Iraqi organizations open to the West were never consulted. Western media was not culturally appropriate inside that region. The seeds for unrest were sown before U.S. troops even entered Iraq. Achieving military success without winning the hearts and minds of the public is a hollow victory, and now the President tells us troops will remain in Iraq until he leaves office in 2009, who knows when. May I remind the body this President held a theatrically staged press event on a U.S. aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, with a ``Mission Accomplished'' banner flying in the background. Major combat operations in Iraq have ended, he announced. Two weeks ago, the United States launched the largest aerial assault in Iraq since 2003. More than 1,500 of our soldiers were deploy in the Samarra region to root out insurgent strongholds and seize weapons caches and the like. That sounds like a major combat operation to me, and it sounds like we are losing ground rather than making progress. Statements by those in the administration prior to the invasion show how wrong the Bush administration has been. Donald Rumsfeld in February 2003 said, ``It is unknowable how long the conflict will last. It could be 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months.'' Vice President Cheney in March 2003 said, ``We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. I think it will go relatively quickly . . . (in) weeks rather than months.'' We are into the fourth year, almost as long as it took to fight World War II. The toll this war has taken is staggering. Since March 2003, 2,322 U.S. soldiers have died, another 18,000 troops have been injured as a result of hostilities, with numbers doubling between 2003 and 2004 and increasing again in 2005. Mr. Speaker, this evening I wish to place in the Record names of Ohioans, 104 of them, brave patriots who have died in service to our country in Iraq. God bless them. Ohioans Dead Through Operation Iraqi Freedom (as of March 4, 2006): Anderson, Nathan Richard; Andres, Joseph John Jr.; Barkey, Michael Christopher; Bates, Todd Michael; Bell, Timothy Michael Jr; Benford, Jason A; Bernholtz, Eric James; Biskie, Benjamin Walter; Boskovitch, Jeffrey A; Bourdon, Elvis; Bowen, Samuel Robert; Brownfield, Andrew David; and Buryj, Jesse Ryan. Christian, Brett Thomas; Cifuentes, Michael Joseph; Conover, Steven Daniel; Davids, Wesley Graham; Derga, Dustin Alan; Deyarmin, Daniel N Jr; Dixon, Christopher Robert; Dowdy, Robert John; Dyer, Christopher Jenkins; Eckert, Gary Andrew Jr; Eckfield, Robert Franklin Jr; Erdy, Nicholas Brandon; and Etterllng, Jonathan Edward. Finke, Michael Wayne Jr; Fitzgerald, Dustin Robert; Ford David, Harrison IV; Garmback, Joseph Martin Jr; Gilbert, Richard Alan Jr; Godwin, Todd Justin; Grella, Devin James; Gurtner, Christian Daniel; Hardy, Richard Allen; Harper, Bradley Jared; Hawkins, Omer Thomas II; Hines, Timothy James Jr; Hodge, Jeremy Michael; and Hoffman, Justin Fenton. Ivy, Kendall Howard II; Johnson, Adam Robert; Keeling, Thomas O;Kinney, Lester Ormond II; Kinslow, Anthony David; Knight, Timothy Allen; Knop, Allen James; Kreuter, David Kenneth John; Kuhns, Larry Robert Jr; Landrus, Sean Gregory; Large, Bryan William; and Lyons, Christopher P. Martin, Ryan Abern; McVicker, Daniel M; Mendezruiz, David A; Mendoza, Ramon Juan Jr; Messmer, Nicolas Edward; Meyer, Harrison James; Miller, James Hoyt IV; Mitchell, Curtis Anthony; Montgomery, Brian P; Morgan, Richard Lynn Jr; Murray, Jeremy Enlow; Neighbor, Gavin Lee; Nolan, Allen Duane; and Nowacki, Andrew Walter. Oberleitner, Branden Frederick; Odums, Charles Edward II; Ott, Kevin Charles; Pintor, Dennis Lloyd; Pratt, Daniel Joseph; Prazynski, Taylor B; Prince, Kevin William; Pummill, Richard Thomas; Ramey, Richard Patrick; Ramsey, Joshua Adam; Reed, Aaron Howard; Reese, Aaron Todd; Rock, Nathaniel S; and Rockhold, Marlin Tyrone. Schamberg, Kurt Daniel; Schroeder, Edward August II; Scott, David Allen; Seesan, Aaron N; Seymour, Devon P; Shepherd, Adam Roger; Shepherd, Daniel Michael; Sloan, Brandon Ulysses; Smith, Kevin Scott; Smith, Michael James Jr; Souslin, Kenneth Clarence; Spann, Jacob D; Sparks, Jason Lee; Squires, Brad D; Swaney, Robert Adam; and Swisher, Tyler Bobbitt. Tipton, John Edgar; Van Dusen, Brian Keith; Vandayburg, Allen Jeffrey; Webb, Charles Joseph; Wightman, William Brett; Wilkins, Charles Langdon III; Williams, Andre L; Wobler, Zachary Ryan; and Zimmer, Nicholaus Eugene. Ohioans Dead Through Operation Enduring Freedom (as of March 4, 2006): Egnor, Jody Lynn; Foraker, Ryan Dane; Freeman, Daniel Jason; Goare, Shamus Otto; Good, Alecia Sabrina; Hickey, Julie Rochelle; Jones, Darrell Ray Jr; McDaniel, William Louis II; Oneill, Michael Christopher; and Owens, Bartt Derek.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I am taping or putting up here a Web site that will help to pay tribute to over 200 students, professors, and other citizens from Ohio's universities, schools, and just citizens interested who traveled to the gulf in our country on an alternative spring break. Called Rockets on the Road to Compassion, the University of Toledo's alternative spring break directed the efforts of over 200 Americans in helping the hurricane-ravaged areas of the gulf. To learn more about what they did and are doing, go to the Web site www.UTalternative springbreak. utoledo.edu. I will keep repeating that tonight. From March 3 through March 11, these magnificent Americans traveled to Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia. The UT chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ sent 65 students to Pass Christian, Mississippi, where Katrina's eye made landfall. The UT's Catholic Student Association sent 20 students to help build homes in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. Donovan Nichols, a University of Toledo graduate student and AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer, led coordination efforts for 104 participants spread across five locations devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Bay St. Louis, Mississippi; Bayou LaBatre, Alabama; Orange, Texas; Lake Charles; as well as Metairie in Louisiana. Organizers and chaperones included Dr. Celia Regimbal, tenured University of Toledo professor in health sciences, and Reverend Dee Baker, the director of the Toledo Campus Ministry on the campus. America thanks all of them. The world can learn more about their journey by looking at their Web site, www.utalternative springbreak. utoledo.edu. Some of the hundreds and thousands and stories from the gulf are reflected by what they did. We recall with them the words: America is only as great as she is good. I know that their goal is to help follow through on this journey, to tell other Americans what happened so they can follow suit and to help us as we continue relating to these communities. Let me just read some of the excerpts on this blog. From Dr. Celia Regimbal, University of Toledo professor, assigned to Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. She says, it has taken 21 of us 3 days to remove siding and get felt paper up. How long would it take one person? How long would it take to replace your neighborhood? There is not a house in Bay St. Louis and Waveland that has not suffered some damage. We are guessing that 30 percent of the homes are totally gone. It will take years to rebuild the coast. We cannot forget that the folks here will continue to need our help. Terrance Teagarden, who was assigned to New Orleans, wrote: between the two crews we have got operating right now down here, we look to have two houses gutted and a decent start on two more. Three houses gutted by crews of about 10 in 4 days' time. At this rate, he says, it will take years to get things back to normal here. I saw President Bush and his escort fly over on a helicopter yesterday morning before we began our work. I heard the President say at a press conference awhile back he would love to bring his family here. Not in this condition he would not. Mr. President, he says, please come down to the 9th Ward and work with us, or any crew of volunteers for one day. I guarantee you will think differently of the progress made. Then the young man says, honestly, pointing fingers will not help anyone anymore right now. We need thousands, droves, of Americans staying in tents and parks and churches all over the gulf region just helping to gut, prepare for inspection, and rebuild houses. Through all of this, it has been the efforts of grass-roots organizations that have really gotten things done. Right now there is a need for playground items such as Hula-Hoops, balls. Schools and churches also need supplies to rebuild. Donovan Nichols, who was assigned to Lake Charles, Louisiana, said, prior to Hurricane Rita, this town of Cameron had a population of roughly 2,000 people clinging to the edge of the Gulf of Mexico. Now, aside from relief workers, the community is deserted. While working on the roof at the house in Starks, two separate individuals dropped by asking us for help. They described how they were not eligible for any FEMA money, but they really needed help. They sent them to some local churches for help. Mary Ellen Edwards in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, says: our group here in Bay St. Louis spent part of yesterday and today helping a family of five who were trying to get their uninhabitable house cleaned up. Madam Speaker, I know my time is expired, but I would like to place all of the remarks in the Record and ask the American people to look at www.utalternative springbreak. utoledo.edu Please help Ohioans rebuild the gulf. Today we also helped out the whole community by cleaning the debris off of the beach. The community gets a reduction in the loans it has gotten from FEMA to help out the people in Hancock County for each hour of work volunteers do in beach clean up. Celia Regimbal set this up through the environmental staff person from Congressman Gene Taylor's office. If the role of the government is to provide for the common good, the Federal Government just cannot seem to get much of a handle on this problem. Perhaps it is too worried about the media spin, its image, and pointing fingers than really working on solving the problem. Imagine, by Neda Archie in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi: Actually seeing the devastation has humbled me. The first day we drove through town I had no words. I felt every emotion possible to feel therefore I just looked with a kind of blank stare in disbelief. You don't know anything until you actually see it with your own eyes. Imagine what is now trash and rubble used to be your prized possessions, your family photographs, your favorite pair of shoes, an old staircase from the house your family grew up in, and not your roof but your neighbors roof. Imagine trying to salvage and dry out a little piece of your life that existed before the devastation. Imagine your schools you graduated from, the bridges you used to cross, the trees you used to climb, and the flowers that used to bloom are non-existent. Imagine losing some of your friends and loved ones. Imagine 75 percent of your town is gone. Reflections by Danselle in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi: These past few days have taught us all a valuable lesson, humility. This street was once where beach houses, mansions, and beautiful summer homes once dwelled. Now there's nothing but the Gulf. I expected to come down here and see at least a house fixture, but that's barely possible even 6 months later. Most of the homes have been here for over 100 years, passed down through generations. These homes are extremely too expensive to replace, so most people have to settle with a home that's a lot cheaper. The residents here in Bay St. Louis have experienced the absolute worst in wind damage, and were basically forgotten all about. We have been described as elephant biters. Katrina was like a big elephant dropped onto the entire coast, and we are here to bite chunks out of this elephant until it's completely gone.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, offered with its very able champion, Congressman John Tierney of Massachusetts, will create a select House committee modeled on the Truman Commission created during World War II to exercise due diligence and proper congressional oversight on the over half a trillion dollars of expenditures by the government of the United States to conduct the global war on terrorism, as well as those contracts let for rebuilding of the gulf region after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The original Truman Commission recouped over $15 billion to our taxpayers. That is big money in our time. But it was huge money back then, returned to our taxpayers from those interests that were conducting their business above and beyond the letter of the law. We are asking for a thorough investigation of any waste, fraud and abuse in government contracts associated with the Iraq war and the global war on terrorism, as well as Katrina-Rita recovery and reconstruction. Our amendment is responsible. It is a good government amendment. It provides real means for oversight that is thorough, not anecdotal. Currently, no committee in this House has full investigative authority to probe growing public concerns about where our tax dollars are being spent in this contracting. The charges are legion of cost- plus contracts, contractor fraud, as contracts below $500,000 are purposely kept at that level to circumvent review. Criminal operatives like Rob Stein have been charged and arrested for manipulating Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority accounts in bribery and kickback schemes, waste and abuse. This administration is moving billions of dollars with no audit trails, even back to the Appropriations Committee, which should receive those audits. In Iraq, no-bid contracts of enormous proportions are let, like to Halliburton. In Iraq, rebuilding contracts, amounting to millions are missing. A few wrongdoers have been arrested, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. Companies like Custer Battles, given contracts to secure Baghdad Airport, is a company that never did security work. Indeed it submitted invoices for electricity that were only valued at $74,000, but they got $400,000. Broken trucks bought in local markets cost $228,000, yet Custer Battles billed for $800,000. In our Gulf region, no-bid contracts need Congressional oversight. Over 10,000 manufactured houses sit on the ground in open fields in Hope, Arkansas, costing more than $300 million. Our amendment aims to protect the taxpayer. It will save money. It will save lives as we bring back inferior equipment that is discovered during this oversight. This amendment will allow Congress to do its job, to oversee exactly how billions in taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq and our Gulf coast. The American people deserve this kind of responsible government. It is critical that Congress curtail the opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse in future Federal contracting and bring those to task who are not meeting the letter and spirit of the law. Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts and any remaining time I may have to himself as well as to Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina for their stellar work on this effort.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, America's economic strength can be measured by her trade accounts, whether we are exporting more goods and services than we are importing; and if we do export more than we import, America's economic strength grows. But when America imports more than she exports, her economic muscle weakens. This chart that I brought to the floor this evening shows that since the mid-1970s, when America began signing very unbalanced trade agreements with other countries, every single year America began to import more than she exports. This last year of 2005, we had a historic trade deficit with the world totaling over $750 billion, three quarters of $1 trillion. Indeed, it was $725 billion more in imports coming into our country than exports going out. This is not an insignificant amount. This has never happened to the United States of America before. In January, America imported this year $68.5 billion more in goods and services than we exported. This was an all-time high just for 1 month, an increase of over 5 percent from last December. This year in agriculture alone for the first time in American history since the Pilgrims settled, the United States will import more food than we export. Think about that. Think about what that means for America's independence, our birthright of independence. According to Alan Tonelson at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, America's condition cannot be explained by high oil prices. That makes these numbers worse, but Mr. Tonelson says the January trends spotlight the continued decline of U.S. national competitiveness in ``industries of the future,'' such as high-tech hardware and services, and throughout our vital manufacturing sector. Today, many companies, airline companies, automotive parts companies like Delphi, a data corporation in my own district which just announced bankruptcy, all of them are teetering and a sign that imports are displacing what America used to make and send elsewhere. Today's report by the U.S. Department of Commerce suggests that the U.S. current account trade deficit for this year will probably surpass $1 trillion, $1 trillion; and that is on top of the $9 trillion of public debt that has been amassed since 2000 in our country. Truly, we are a republic teetering financially, losing our independence because somehow we have to fund these gaps in what is owed publicly and in this trade account deficit. And we are borrowing in order to make up the difference, and we owe interest on those borrowings. In order to sustain such an unprecedented and rapidly accumulating deficit, we are dependent on this massive borrowing from abroad and selling off valuable U.S. assets just like a fire sale, like you go to a pawn shop. To sustain a deficit like these, we are dependent upon investment by foreign agents like Dubai Ports World, which is in the headlines again today. Our country cannot be secure, cannot be secure, from the defense standpoint or financially under conditions like these. And yet after 12 years of evidence of the failure of trade agreements like NAFTA, Trade Representative Portman continues to negotiate trade deals like the CAFTA agreement. This year the administration intends to bring new trade agreements under the same failed model like the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement and an agreement with Colombia. Peru, a country that employs child labor, and Colombia, where labor leaders are more likely to be killed and are, summarily, more of them than anywhere else in the world. How can our workers compete with these conditions? How can our small business people, how can our salaried executives compete with undemocratic places, no transparent legal system, no banking system that really functions openly? The answer is we cannot. We simply cannot. So we are outsourcing everything to these places. And that is why imports are rising faster and faster and the people in those other places cannot afford to buy what is made by the people of this country who have sustained a middle- class life-style until now. Despite modest economic growth in our country, middle-class workers are not seeing any rise in their income. That is right: inflation-adjusted income for all households except the very wealthiest is flat. This may be the first generation in America when our children do not live as well as their parents before them. And you know what? The American people know it. They know it. This is not the American Dream. This is the American nightmare. Please sponsor the Balancing Trade Act, H.R. 4405, that would require action by the administration when we sustain these kinds of continued trade deficits with other nations. It is time for America to become independent again. It is time for America to restore her promise to all of her people.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe, but the Bush administration, through its Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, has given a nod and green light to the Dubai Ports World deal. Mr. Negroponte says the Bush administration ``assessed the threat to U.S. national security posed by Dubai Ports World to be low. In other words, he said, ``We didn't see any red flags come up during the course of our inquiry.'' Now the questions I have to ask: Why should we trust the Bush administration or their analysis on intelligence on anything certainly when it comes to the Middle East? It seems to me their record on assessing risk is not good. Let us review some of their intelligence predictions: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, back in February, 2003, said about the war in Iraq, ``It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last 6 days, 6 weeks. I doubt 6 months.'' That is what he said. His estimate was dead wrong. Vice President Dick Cheney, March, 2003, said, ``We will, in fact, be greeted in Iraq as liberators . . . I think it will go relatively quickly . . . in weeks rather than months.'' His estimate was dead wrong. President Bush told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Well, the United States called off that search in January, 2005. There were no weapons of mass destruction. His estimate proved to be dead wrong. This administration seems to make wrong decisions about a lot of things, like knowing who the enemy really is, like knowing what causes enemies to rise in the first place, and working to prevent that by avoiding cozy deals with dictatorships of all stripes. I think it is clear to even the least interested of observers that the architects of this war, starting with the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense, allowed our troops to go to war in insufficient numbers, with inadequate resources, with fantastic escalating costs and with absolutely no plan whatsoever to win the peace. Globally, their approach is yielding more terrorism every day. Their approach is yielding more anti-Americanism every day globally. Why then should we trust the Bush administration? Why should we believe their intelligence that the Dubai Ports World deal will not risk U.S. national security? Those who seek to do us harm know a lot about ports. Two weeks ago, in Yemen, 23 al Qaeda members escaped from prison. Thirteen of them were men convicted in involvement in the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole that occurred in Yemen's harbor which killed 17 American soldiers. The others were attackers of the French supertanker Lindbergh in 2002. Some of those who are our enemy have spent decades working the oil fields and sea lanes of the Middle East. Supertankers like the Lindbergh now wend their way to our shores because we irresponsibly are dependent on oil imports to sustain this economy. Those who want to harm us know this system well. The quagmire in Iraq is bringing contempt for the United States around the world and our enemies seek to harm us. That is why port security must be uppermost in our minds. America is fast becoming a dependent Nation, dependent on other countries for oil, for food, for autos, for electronics, for toys, even for clothing. Our maritime system includes over 95,000 miles of open shoreline, and 316 U.S. ports and ships carry more than 95 percent of our non-North American trade. But only 2 percent of what comes into this country is even inspected. Just last week, we saw what happened in Saudi Arabia as an al Qaeda attack occurred at their largest oil facility. In this era, when vastly more is shipped into our ports than goes out, we had best be on the alert to protect our portals. I am introducing legislation to prohibit any foreign government or foreign- owned company from owning, leasing, or in any way controlling a U.S. port. The bill will ask our Coast Guard to assume full oversight and control over these bloodlines and all inspection of all cargo flowing into them until America is no longer at war. The Federal Government controls and operates the agencies that admit people into this Nation. Our Federal Government controls and operates the systems and agencies that admit airplanes into this Nation. We should have the very same system of control over our port systems, one that, by the way, is increasing and expanding at a very rapid rate. In 2005, more than 11 million containers came into our country from abroad, and the estimate is that will quadruple in the next 20 years if we don't get this trade balance in line. We have invested billions in other systems and pennies in our port system. Isn't it time to put America's national security first before any private deals?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, my Special Order this evening concerns the proposed acquisition of Dubai Ports World of the leasing contracts for several major U.S. ports on the east coast. And in relation to that, I have sent letters to the Treasury Inspector General and to the committee of jurisdiction here in the House, the Government Reform Committee, asking both those entities to review any conflict of interest regarding the participation of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, who chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment, the group which approved the recent contract with Dubai Ports World. I will place these two letters of request in the Record. The letters ask the committee and the Inspector General to determine whether appropriate processes were followed, conflicts of interests explored, and whether or not American companies were solicited during that process. The Treasury agreement itself raises serious ethical questions regarding those directly responsible for this decision. In particular, given that Dubai Ports World acquired CSX World Terminals in 2004 for $1.15 billion, a company of which Secretary of the Treasury John Snow was chair prior to coming to the administration, and this should raise serious questions both about the acquisition of the CSX port operations and the recent awarding of this contract. As chair of the U.S. Treasury Committee on Foreign Investment, Secretary Snow and the Treasury Department had the lead authority in approving the Dubai transaction. Secretary Snow holds a deferred compensation package and a special retirement pension from his days as CEO of CSX Corporation. In 2004 CSX World Terminals was acquired by Dubai Ports World, the successful bidder on this contract. But given that Secretary Snow had previously disclosed a deferred compensation package with CSX valued at between $5 million and $25 million and $33.2 million from a special retirement pension, one would expect that any financial benefit from the sale of CSX World Terminals to Dubai Ports World, including any stock holdings, would have been revealed, especially if there might be any residual from subsequent actions such as these. The President's assertion that he had polled his Cabinet Secretaries on the Dubai deal causes concern for me that at least one, Secretary Snow, should have removed himself from the decision, given his business connections to CSX and Dubai. On 9/11, two members of the hijack team that simultaneously downed the Twin Towers in New York City and killed hundreds of Americans at the Pentagon were from the United Arab Emirates. And as the 9/11 Commission reported, those same terrorists laundered much of the money for their operation through the United Arab Emirates-controlled banks. We should ask instead of developing our own companies to manage our own U.S. operations, why should we settle for the revolving door that has skilled people move from one company to another, creating a pea-in- the-shell game that leaves the public wondering who is in charge and does anyone care? And, importantly, is America for sale at any price? Secretary of the Treasury John Snow was CEO of CSX just about a year before CSX sold some of its international operations to Dubai Ports World. Was this billion-dollar deal done totally after he left, or was it already in the works while he served as CEO of that company? Why is it that no one at Treasury said that Secretary Snow recused himself from this transaction until they were called about it? Secretary Snow himself claimed not to have known about the deal. How can someone not know about a deal from which they should recuse themselves? The White House has appointed David Sanborn as the new administrator of the Maritime Administration. He worked as Dubai Ports World director of operations in Europe and Latin America until he was appointed to the post in January, the same month the Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved the Dubai Ports World takeover. David Sanborn also previously worked for the CSX Corporation. The revolving door brings him back to a high government position. Some Senators have vowed to block Sanborn's nomination unless he testifies before the Commerce Committee. CNN has reported that the United Arab Emirates is a major investor in the Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush's father once served as senior adviser and is a who's who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested $8 billion in the Carlyle fund. Another Bush family connection, the President's brother Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the United Arab Emirates investors. And why did George Bush, Sr. accept a $1 million donation to his library in Texas from the United Arab Emirates?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the Special Order time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the ``why'' question tonight. Why would the United States allow itself to be reduced to a state of beggardom in the Dubai ports deal? The definition of a beggar is a person, in this case a country, that lives by asking others for help or charity. So why would the United States allow itself, a nation that created Social Security, won World War II, landed a man on the moon, why would our Nation let itself be reduced to beggary and the Nation, to beggardom? Why would any level of our government seek foreign ownership or leasing of any of America's key assets, our ports, airports, railroads, turnpikes, industrial plants, even endowments to Presidential libraries? Why would we do it, ever? But why would you do it particularly when we are a nation at war? The answer is simple. It appears our Nation cannot afford to stand on its own two feet anymore. We beg foreign investment because we cannot pay our own way. Our jobs and productive wealth and manufacturing and agriculture are being shipped offshore every day. Our piggy bank is empty. So our assets are being sold or leased to foreign interests. Our savings are drained. Our national debt is skyrocketing. So our society is selling off, releasing our crown jewels. I do not agree with this. I have been fighting it ever since our Nation started to sell more and more of our U.S. debt securities to foreign interests, who now own half, half of the debt of this Nation, and we pay them over $300 billion a year in interest and it is skyrocketing. Some people who get elected, even Presidents, do not think that there are certain fundamentals in accounting that you must follow. They think that you can avoid responsibility in borrow-and-spend abandon. They think you can avoid responsibility. They mix up their love of money, frankly anybody's money, even foreign interests' money, with freedom's discipline. They somehow think it will all work out. Well, America has been pushed to the edge of its financial resources with over $7 trillion in debt, which is rising. The war in Iraq has cost billions too much. We were told we would be out of there in 6 months. We are lectured by a President that we should become energy independent, yet during his presidency he has made us more dependent on foreign sources of oil, so we borrow and spend to make up the difference. And we are paying more and more for imported fuel and going deeper into debt with oil imports, now the largest share of our trade gap. Budget numbers do not lie. Trade statistics do not lie. Who do you think is financing America's beggardom? Foreign interests. The kind of folks who own Dubai Ports World. Trade deficits are exploding as we witness the import deluge into our country. Last year nearly a trillion dollars in trade debt, staggering, hard to find anything made here anymore. So now we are in the fire sale phase. Rent out the ports, lease the Indiana Turnpike, sell off the auto industry, print the stationery in China. To live so recklessly and to spend so wildly does exact a price. It forces America to be reduced from our birthright of independence and the discipline that that entails to a sorry state of beggardom. Curious developments happen too. Why did George Bush, Sr. accept a million-dollar contribution to his Presidential library in Texas from the United Arab Emirates? Who was buying favor with whom and for what? What is so shocking is that the vast majority of Americans oppose beggardom, oppose the leasing of U.S. ports to any foreign interests, surely by those who could not prevent infiltration of their citizens to this country on 9/11. Americans want to be independent. They love freedom, not beggardom. The World Ports debacle is the latest evidence America's corporate and political elites, sometimes the same people, are selling out America's independence, making deals with undemocratic kingdoms. Seven sheiks run the United Arab Emirates. It is not a democratic country. Dubai World Ports is a government-owned enterprise. Why should it compete with free enterprise in this country? That country does not recognize Israel, and it does not allow Christian crosses to be erected anywhere inside the borders of that nation. Who could believe that a nation that sent two terrorists into our Trade Towers and whose banks laundered money for 9/11 will now manage some of our major ports. Insanity. Some people say our intelligence services failed us. I say our elected leaders have failed us, starting in the Oval Office. They fail us time and again because they are blinded by their own beggary. They used to say you could buy people here in Washington for a lunch. Wow, has the bar been raised. America, awake. Patrick Henry's clarion had it right, give me liberty or give me death, no beggary, no beggardom, no sellout of our Republic.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Americans are upset about what they view is a compromised, bought-out Congress. They hear of favors passing hands, deals being made, arms being twisted, while votes are held open to the wee hours of the night. They are sick of it, and they should be. Minor procedural forms are being proposed within this Congress and are being touted as answers. But truly these proposals are window dressing, and they totally ignore the massive iceberg of campaign money that infects every single officeholder at the Federal level. The old expression goes, ``If you really want to know what is going on, follow the money.'' Thank goodness for Political Moneyline and other Web sites that help reveal what is really going on in Washington. The reforms being proposed in this Congress do not get at the real problem. Each party is afraid of disarmament and certainly unilateral disarmament to get the money out. Ross Perot had it right a few years ago when he said, Those people in Congress, they are really good people caught in a very bad system. Congress has nibbled around the edges of reform, and there are some congressional rule changes that may do the same. But to help move toward real reform, I am introducing a package of four bills dealing with the need for real limits on campaign spending as well as slamming shut the revolving door on lobbyists that allows too much foreign- generated influence and money inside this legislative branch. My proposals are as follows: First, a sense of Congress resolution that recognizes that the Supreme Court erred and was not complete when, in the case of Buckley v. Valeo, they stated that free speech equaled money, that no matter how much you spent was okay because money was equated with free speech. Well, if that is true, the converse is true. If you do not have the money, you lack free speech. And more and more Americans are being shut out of the highest levels of lawmaking in this country because they simply do not have the money to compete. My second bill is the constitutional amendment itself that would give Congress and the States the power to limit the contributions and expenditures made by, in support of, candidates for Federal, State, or local office. That is a tough proposal, but it is one that I think our children and grandchildren will thanks us for. The third measure is the Ethics in Foreign Lobbying Act of 2006, which would prohibit contribution expenditures by foreign-owned corporations and would establish within the Federal Elections Commission a clearinghouse of public information regarding political activities of foreign principals and agents of foreign principals. It was interesting that some major Russian interests were involved with Mr. Abramoff. As this scandal unravels, we are going to find some very interesting characters sitting at the bottom of that heap. Finally, the fourth bill is the Foreign Agents Compulsory Ethics and Trade Act of 2006, which would impose a lifetime ban on high-level government officials from representing, aiding, or advising foreign governments and foreign political parties. It imposes a 5-year prohibition on representing, aiding or advising foreign interests, including commercial interests, before the Government of the United States. It is not enough just to shut the gym to former Members who are lobbyists. You have to get at the heart of the problem. Campaign finance authority Herbert Alexander estimated that $540 million was spent during the 1976 period on all elections in the United States. By 2000, that figure had risen to over $4 billion. To run for this job in the House in 1976 cost on average $87,000. Today, the average Member has to spend nearly $1 million, and some $2 million, 10 times what was spent just 30 years ago, and the population hasn't gone up by 10 times. A winning Senate race back in 1976, you could spend about half a million dollars, which is a lot of money where I come from. Today, the average amount spent is over $5 million; and in places like New York, that is chicken feed. Mr. Speaker, we have become a plutocracy. America, wake up. Please support real reform for our children and grandchildren.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, when President Bush served as governor of Texas, that State had more uninsured people than any other State in the union, and his system continues until today: Texas still has more uninsured people percentage-wise as well as numerically. Today, President Bush visited Ohio to try to sell his latest health care scheme. The reality is his health savings accounts are simply tax shelters for the healthy and wealthy, leaving more Americans worse off. Indeed, the numbers of the uninsured in Ohio have grown dramatically during his administration. More than one out of four people under the age of 65 went without health insurance, and almost half of Ohio's households with children are uninsured, while 76 percent of the uninsured are members of working families. The President's travel stop today reminds me of his Social Security drive to privatize that a year ago. The American people said no. Our working families deserve better and should not buy this latest ploy for health savings accounts either that are going to leave most Americans in the drink.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, America is not winning on the global trade front. Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the United States has the largest trade deficit in our history. So many more imports are coming in here than exports, and every American can affirm that every time they go to shop. At $725 billion in the red in 2005, that is three-quarters of a trillion dollars, our trade deficit is growing at a rate of more than $1,500,000 every minute. This total is more than 18 percent higher than one year ago. Sectors such as agriculture, as well as manufacturing, which once sustained a thriving economy here, are now withering. For every billion dollars in deficit, we are shedding a minimum of over 10,000 jobs. Workers' wages are not rising, their pensions are being cut, health care costs are going up, and this is a major contributing factor. Our manufacturing sector is deteriorating. Since the year 2000, 3 million more manufacturing jobs, good jobs, have been outsourced. The 2005 deficit in autos, trucks and automotive parts is $138 billion, the worst ever. Those are dollars we used to put in our own pockets, the pockets of our workers, the pockets of our shareholders, the pockets of the executives. This industry was once at the cutting edge of the world and the mother of invention. Today, we have become an assembly line for imported parts. Our Trade Representative, Ambassador Portman, comes from my home State of Ohio. He should be intimately aware on a global scale that it is just not a level playing field that parts producers and other exporters face. Yet the deficit in the auto sector, which once provided a path to the middle class for millions of Americans through living wage jobs, keeps going more and more in the red, another 20 percent just last year. It seems every week we hear about another plant shutting down, more layoffs, the most recent set of companies, Delphi. In agriculture, which used to be America's savior, our global trade balance in agricultural products showed a mere $27 billion surplus in 1996. That has gone down from $27 to $4 billion, and it is projected we are going to become a net food importer. America, the richest agricultural nation in the world, a food importer? That is what is happening. Yet the agreements that this administration has signed, including CAFTA, will encourage countries like Brazil and El Salvador to undermine one of our most promising agricultural sectors, ethanol, because CAFTA will allow Brazilian ethanol transhipped through Central America to undermine that promising agricultural sector of our economy. And what is the Bush administration through Ambassador Portman doing to stop these hemorrhages? Nothing. Just issuing reports. There is no new enforcement actions, no special bilateral talks with countries with which we are massing these huge deficits. Today's Congress Daily reports Ambassador Portman issued a report reviewing China's trade practices; China, a most undemocratic nation that represents an alarming chunk of this growing trade deficit that we have amassed. Indeed, our trade deficit with China is at an all-time high, over $200 billion, dollars we used to put in the pockets of American workers. Mr. Portman did note that the trade relationship between the United States and China ``lacks equity and balance.'' Yet his report does absolutely nothing to change it. By contrast, my bill, the Balancing Trade Act of 2006, H.R. 4405, would require action in the face of consistent deficits of more than $10 billion with a single country. With 21 bipartisan cosponsors so far, this bill will require action from any administration. With the red ink getting deeper and deeper every minute, with American workers losing, with American communities losing, we need action, not more whitewashing. What a shame that Washington is so out of step with what is happening on every Main Street and every manufacturing and every agricultural sector of this country.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this administration will go down as the most antilife in modern history. The President's budget is a moral document. It should promote life. Yet the President's new budget released Monday makes the wrong choices. It irresponsibly hurts future generations and saddles them with gigantic debt. It hurts them, it hurts people. It is irresponsible. Let us start with health care. The President's budget will hurt people. It is a health care budget that is antilife. The Bush budget carves out over $36 billion through 2011 from Medicare. Despite the fact that people cannot afford prescription drugs and costs are exploding, why is he forcing across-the-board cuts to future Medicare payments? The chaos surrounding the new prescription drug benefit has already caused undue anxiety and lack of medication to thousands of our citizens too sick and too ill to fight back in lines at drugstores around our country. Seniors 80 years old with Parkinson's disease are being forced to go into drugstores confused without the help that they need. The President's budget is antilife. At the same time, the President's new budget slashes our lead agencies to fight disease. They shortchange veterans' health care. Apparently, the Bush administration's idea of honoring service to our country is to make millions of veterans pay huge increases for health care costs that they have earned. The President's budget proposal includes legislation that would raise veterans' premiums to over 100 percent on prescription drugs. Additionally, the Bush administration has shortchanged the Department of Veterans Affairs, leaving it short of needed funds to take care of the expected influx of tens of thousands of injured and disabled veterans returning from Afghanistan and the Iraq war. His veterans budget is anti-life. The Bush budget offers words only and no substance to thrust our Nation into a new era of energy independence. For hard-hit consumers, he has offered nothing. His policies, however, allow the huge oil giants to rack up even more profits. Take ExxonMobil that just racked up the largest profit of any corporation in U.S. history, $36 billion in profits in just 1 year. Their profits in 1 year were larger than the entire budget of the U.S. Department of Energy. It is interesting to note that Exxon's windfall lifted the combined profits of the 2005 oil giants to $63 billion, three times the size of the entire Department of Energy. His energy budget is anti-life. There are people freezing and getting flu around this country because they have to set their thermostats down. His budget is anti-life. He refuses to see those people. If the President was serious about helping people, he would be committed to making our Nation energy independent. He would have made new fuels a centerpiece of his State of the Union address. Instead, his budget eliminates all funding for new fuels to help expand the production of ethanol and biodiesel. His budget cuts renewable energy loans, bioenergy support value-added to help small companies get a start up. By almost $100 million he shortchanges them. And yet if we look at oil company profits, they have allowed CEOs in those firms to double their salaries and drive up their political contributions by a staggering $450 million in the past 6 years. They know how to cash in. But what a great injustice to the vast majority of people. Their heating bills are going up. They are paying for gasoline. They do not have any sweetheart deals in this town to cut their taxes. If you look at the weatherization program, the President is reducing funds there. If you look at the winter heating assistance program, the people applying have reached a 12-year high, but his budget is over $2 billion short, $2 billion short of what is needed just to take care of the people that we needed to take care of last year. But the oil companies have a $63 billion profit, just the top three companies. What is wrong with this picture? He has cut first responders. We know he has not gotten help to people affected by Katrina and Rita in the gulf. And this says nothing about how his budget is anti-life against the youth of our country and children by causing tuition to go up at all of our schools. The Bush budget fails the moral test. It fails the ill. It fails our youth. It fails the future. It is the most anti-life budget in American history.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, red ink, record budget deficits mount every year. On top of it, America has also been racking up record trade deficits this year, more imports than exports every single day. These twin deficits are stifling real economic growth for our country as we sink deeper and deeper into debt. Every year, with all the unfair trade agreements that have been signed, the red ink just keeps getting deeper. We are hemorrhaging America's good jobs, with fewer people working at good jobs to create real wealth. It is no surprise we have fewer resources to pay off our debts. At the same time, the United States becomes more and more beholding to foreign interests that are financing these deficits. We are not only giving them our money, we are giving them our future and paying them hundreds of billions a year in interest. Is it any surprise that retailing of foreign goods is now America's biggest business? Federal Reserve's former chairman Alan Greenspan warned that this relentless deficit growth cannot persist. How long will it be before we put a foreclosure sign on our U.S. Department of the Treasury? What an embarrassment for a Nation founded in independence.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last night we heard the President say something that has been repeated on news broadcast after news broadcast across our country: America is addicted to imported oil. This chart shows that over 30 percent, one-third of what we consume, comes just from the Middle East. Mr. President, thank you for finally saying what many of us have been trying to tell you and your administration and your father's administration for the past decade-and-a-half. Your own Secretary of Defense told me on the record in the Defense Appropriations Committee that energy independence for America wasn't his job, and yet he runs the largest department in your cabinet. My constituents complain to us daily about the cost of home heating, the cost of gasoline. Small business people can't afford to pay their bills. But they don't want to have to wait until 2025 for a solution after you have been out of office for nearly two decades. The United States consumes over $7 billion worth of imported petroleum, most of it from very undemocratic places. You called them ``unstable'' last night. They are more than unstable. They are undemocratic, Saudi Arabia being the premier country. Now, Mr. President, you are in the sixth year of your Presidency. Four years ago you claimed to offer an energy plan in this book that had 103 recommendations. I said then and I say now, not a single one of these recommendations were directed at new fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, which you referenced last night. It is interesting that you waited until the sixth year, the middle of your second term, to even offer any kind of new energy program for our country. It kind of makes you wonder whether the Bush administration is really serious. We must do something now about America's chief strategic vulnerability. We don't need to wait 20 years; we don't need to wait another decade for cellulosic research. In fact, Minnesota moved to a 10 percent ethanol blend, and we ought to do the very same thing nationally. We can provide funds for infrastructure; just put the pumps in the ground. I can buy the vehicles in Detroit today. I can't get the fuel in my own district. We landed a man on the Moon in 10 years. A man on the Moon. And yet we cannot get pumps in the ground across America. We lay tar and concrete all over the country. Let us get serious. The 2002 farm bill contained the first-ever energy title. I know, we wrote it. Have we had any support from the administration? So small, it is almost embarrassing. In 2004 the administration recommended cutting the minuscule biofuels program operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture by $70 million. In 2005 by $2 million more. They have cut the money for the National Renewable Energy Labs by over $46 million in Golden, Colorado. All of the pieces of the puzzle that could give us the answer and wean us off this foreign dependence are not part of the President's budget proposal. What are you going to do, Mr. President, to recapture lost markets? Think about this: Exxon yesterday reported extraordinary profits of over $36 billion, the largest corporate profit in U.S. history. $36 billion. Yet the entire budget of the Department of Energy is $23 billion. Exxon's profits are almost double the entire budget of the Department of Energy. How many jobs we could create if that windfall could be put to making America energy independent here at home. So, Mr. President, we welcome your interest at long last. We hope it continues. Though you are late to the table, do not shortchange the American people. Our national security depends on it.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, tonight, Congress will pass the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. This comes not a moment too soon for our troops serving bravely overseas during this holiday season. Passage of this critical legislation will ensure that our servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan will receive much needed supplies, protective equipment and health benefits. While I wholeheartedly support the underlying bill, I vehemently oppose a last minute amendment that was added by Senate and House Republicans that will open up a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. This controversial environmental matter should never be attached to a defense bill. Surely the Senate is acting in the mistrusted tradition the American people call Christmas tree bills. This ANWR ramrod fits the description perfectly. Seemingly not content to leave town before selling out to Big Oil one last time, Republican leaders in both chambers have decided to play politics with this must-pass bill and attach to it a provision that is soundly opposed by majorities in both the House and Senate, and, not insignificantly, by the American people. This ANWR ramrod is a mistake. It is a mistake procedurally. It is a mistake morally. And it is a mistake environmentally. Opening the refuge to oil exploration will disturb a delicate environmental balance and threaten a way of life for the native peoples whose livelihoods depend on that balance. That is why I have consistently supported legislative efforts to ban oil and gas exploration along the northern coastal plain of the refuge. Moreover, this sets a terrible precedent for the future. America's last remaining major oil and gas reserves should not be opened up in this way, nor used at this time. They should be preserved for a true national emergency. And that emergency does not exist today. In my twenty-three years of Congress I have never seen the crucial Defense spending bill used as a catch-all for pushing forward legislation that would not otherwise pass on its own merits. By allowing these unrelated drilling provisions, Republican leaders are subverting the will of this House. No Member, including this one, should be forced to choose between providing for our troops and protecting the environment. No, we should not play politics when it comes to supporting our troops. We owe it to the men and women who serve our country to provide the best training, equipment services and support in a timely fashion. Proponents of the plan say that opening ANWR to oil and gas interests will help ease our reliance on imported oil and gas. I could not disagree more. Opening ANWR is merely a temporary stop-gap--not a solution. Congress must pass meaningful legislation to address the serious energy crises that face our nation especially our dangerous reliance on imported oil and our unwillingness to put ourselves on a 10-year program to become energy independent again. That would take real Presidential and Congressional leadership, and we sure aren't

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, there are some things that Congress and the President can really do something about. And one of those is the management of our Federal accounts. The news today reports in USA Today, Oil imports help push the trade gap to record highs. Every time I see the fact that we are importing more oil than finding ways to become more energy independent here at home, I say to myself, there is something that America really can do but is not doing. The New York Times reported, and I include this in the Record, today that the U.S. trade deficit indeed has hit record highs, threatening U.S. growth. We are going deeper and deeper into debt every day with imports climbing much faster than exports. The American people know this. One can hardly find anything made in this country anymore. In fact, the trade deficit is so huge, it is now three-quarters of $1 trillion and rising and, with it, our foreign indebtedness. This widening gap is likely to reduce our overall growth as a country. Now, our thirst for imported petroleum as a part of this increase rose 13 percent. And the Secretary of Treasury is living in another world when he says the reason that we are going into hock is because other nations are not growing fast enough, when, in fact, other nations are the very countries that are lending us money to make up this gap. The New York Times says a growing number of economists worry that the United States has become locked into becoming the world's consumer of last resort, a role that is leading to ever higher levels of foreign indebtedness financed in large part by central banks of China, Japan and other Asian countries. And not just Asian. As this chart illustrates, the amount of debt being held by foreigners is going up. Japan, over $100 billion over last year to a level of $681 billion. They are literally owning us, owning our debt. Europe, $471.8 billion. And a lot of that, I think, comes through the London markets, particularly the oil markets. So this masks some of the buying that actually is occurring through the Middle East. China, Hong Kong, at a level now of over $295 billion. And those kinds of ownership of our assets and debt means we owe them interest. And that level of interest is what I want to discuss tonight. The proportion of our foreign-held debt is now nearly half of what we owe as a country. Nearly half. It has grown exponentially, and the interest we pay on that debt is one of the largest components of the Federal budget. In fact, in this coming fiscal year, the interest alone that Americans will pay to foreigners for their borrowings to us will be nearly $100 billion. Take the amount that we have to pay Hong Kong and China for what they have lent to us. We will pay them over $13 billion. How much is $13 billion? $13 billion is nearly equal to all of the money we spend as a Federal Government financing student loans in the Pell grant program to make post-secondary study a reality for thousands of students. How about the $30 billion in interest that we will owe Japan, when you think that that amount is $6 billion more than we devote to funding the No Child Left Behind Act. And it is twice as much as we spend on funding employment training and unemployment services combined. In Ohio, for example, this past week only one school in the northeastern part of Ohio got funds in order to do additional job training, though President Bush campaigned very hard on that issue in Ohio. Ohio did not get 15 grants or 20 grants, we got one. Our money is going to pay interest to foreigners who are lending us money. We are cutting money for Head Start by more than $11 billion, and yet we are paying over $100 billion to foreign interests who are lending us money. We cannot afford to pay TRICARE for the needs of those in the Guard and Reserve, many of whom are returning home and finding their benefits are cut, and we have a shortfall in the veterans affairs budget. All of those accounts put together are a pittance compared to the interest that we are paying on our foreign-owned debt. I have introduced, along with several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, H.R. 4405, The Trade Balancing Act of 2005, which will require that in cases in which the annual trade deficit, that is the trade gap, the difference between imports and exports, between the United States and another country is $10 billion a year for three consecutive years, the President must take the necessary steps to create a more balanced trading relationship with that country. I am asking my colleagues to help communicate this message to the President, to our colleagues, before a foreclosure sign is posted on our Treasury building. There could be nothing more important that this Congress could do than to turn a sound economy over to the future. Madam Speaker, I will place these additional articles in the Record. Let us put America back on an even keel. Trade Deficit Hits Record, Threatening U.S. Growth (By Edmund L. Andrews) Washington, Dec. 14.--The United States' trade deficit ballooned to a record in October, the government said Wednesday, with imports climbing much faster than exports even though prices for imported oil declined. The trade deficit widened by $3 billion, to $68.9 billion, confounding forecasts on Wall Street that the gap would narrow and signaling that the nation's huge trade imbalance has not begun to stabilize. The nation's deficit is on track to top $700 billion this year, up from last year's record of $618 billion, and its foreign indebtedness is rising at least as rapidly. Because imports are about 50 percent higher than exports, the United States would need to increase exports twice as fast as imports simply to keep its imbalances from growing even more. The widening gap is likely to reduce the nation's overall growth in the final quarter of this year. Morgan Stanley reduced its forecast for growth this quarter to 3 percent, from 3.4 percent on Wednesday, and Merrill Lynch shaved its already pessimistic forecast to just 2.3 percent. News of the deficit also ignited a fresh round of political accusations in Washington over trade and globalization, with Democrats accusing President Bush of being soft on countries like China. The United States stepped up its purchases from every part of the world and in most categories of goods, even as global demand softened, the Commerce Department reported. The trade deficit with China through October hit $166.8 billion, exceeding the $162 billion deficit with China for all of last year. Over all, the Commerce Department estimated that American exports grew by 1.7 percent in October, while imports climbed 2.7 percent. But exports were weaker than the headline numbers implied, because virtually all of the increase stemmed from a big increase in aircraft sales after the end of a strike at Boeing. Excluding aircraft, exports of capital goods and industrial goods were essentially flat. Exports of consumer goods declined 5.6 percent, to $9.37 billion. Many analysts had expected the trade deficit to narrow slightly, partly because of the increase in airplane exports and partly because oil prices declined slightly during the month. But American thirst for imported petroleum shot up 13 percent, largely to make up for the loss of production in the Gulf of Mexico cause by Hurricane Katrina. The United States' trade deficit with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries totaled $77 billion for the first 10 months of this year, up from $59.1 billion for the same period last year. The higher deficit is the result of both higher oil prices over the last year and higher volumes of imports. But that was only part of the reason that the trade balance deteriorated. The trade balance for nonpetroleum products for the first 10 months of this year has widened to $447 billion, up from $400 billion last year. Representative Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, a top Democrat point man on trade issues, accused the Bush administration of failing to create an effective strategy for dealing with unfair trade practices. Representative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat, stepped up her call for legislation to force the administration to take action against countries that consistently run trade surpluses with the United States of more than $10 billion a year. Even some Republicans expressed dismay at the size of the deficit. ``Small business owners in Maine and across the nation are fighting to remain competitive with countries such as China that flagrantly disregard fair trade practices,'' said Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine. The Treasury secretary, John W. Snow, said the administration was pushing countries like China, but added the trade deficit was largely a result of slow growth in other countries. ``If our major industrialized trading partners were growing faster, the U.S. wouldn't have such a large trade gap,'' Mr. Snow said at a briefing on the economy with Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez and Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao. The American economy grew at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the first three quarters of this year, far faster than either the European Union or Japan. A growing number of economists worry that the United States has become locked into being the world's consumer of last resort, a role that is leading to ever higher levels of foreign indebtedness financed in a large part by central banks of China, Japan and other Asian countries. Robert Sinche, a currency strategist at Bank of America, predicted on Wednesday that foreigners would own about $4 trillion in American assets, about 30 percent of its gross domestic product, by the end of 2006.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to pay tribute today to Mr. Chester Devenow, an Ohio business and civic leader whose recent loss our community has sustained. Regarded as a ``titan of industry,'' Chester Devenow always took on broader missions to those beyond his board and firm. He located Sheller Globe's headquarters in the heart of our community to strengthen it economically, and struck labor agreements with its employees that helped build our region's middle class. He was highly regarded for his philanthropy and contributions to the institutions of our community. His business acumen enabled him to create a Fortune 500 company, and he was truly a leader in industry. In his later career, his skills were often utilized in the mediation of labor-management disputes. Even after a well-earned retirement, Chester Devenow's abilities remained valuable to area business leaders. His knowledge and institutional memory were well-regarded by his peers. Upon graduation from high school in Detroit, he studied music at the Julliard School. A decorated veteran, Chester Devenow received a degree in political science from New York University and attended Harvard Law School. President Theodore Roosevelt noted ``We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal.'' Chester Devenow earned this distinction among the industry's titans. We offer our sympathy to Maudette, loving wife of 27 years; his brother Leonard; sons Mark and Jeffrey; daughter Susie; stepchildren William and Abigail Schachner; his six grandchildren; and his numerous friends. May they find some small peace as Chester Devenow joins his daughter Sara and the Creator of us all.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the misguided Hunter troop withdrawal resolution. How irresponsible this is. Instead, let me thank Congressman and Marine Jack Murtha. Thank you for your patriotism. Thank you for your honorable discernment of duty . . . to America . . . to our troops . . . to the cause of victory and freedom in Iraq. Your judicious resolution deserves hearing by the American people, our troops and this House. Yesterday, you stood high on this Hill. Your message reached the American people. And it reached our troops and their commanders. Unlike the Bush Administration, you have a plan for Iraq. Your plan is real. It says: Within six months, redeploy our troops consistent with their safety. Create a quick reaction force in the region. Back that up with an over-the-horizon presence of Marines. Push the diplomacy button hard to secure and stabilize Iraq. You don't want America's soldiers to be viewed as the enemy of freedom. For indeed they are its champions. You spoke the truth when you said our soldiers have been made the victims of freedom in a growing counterinsurgency movement inside Iraq caused by the Bush-Cheney Administration's bungling, misleading, distorting and propagandizing of this war. You were right in letting the American people know that since Abu Gharib the Bush-Cheney Administration has lost U.S. moral authority in the Middle East. Since Abu Gharib, American casualties have doubled. Since last year, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 last year. Yes, winning means winning the hearts and minds of the people, over there, not just here. Victory means political victory as well as military victory. Our military has done everything asked of them. Our diplomats have been missing in action. Our troops were not led to believe that their lives would be lost in a counterinsurgency movement. Our troops are trained to fight force on force. The challenge America faces in the Islamic and Arab world is being made worse every day by the Bush Administration's miscalculations and misreading of the enemy. Every day, we see the Bush Administration wins us fewer friends. America will win when the people we are trying to liberate believe we are their friends, not their enemies. 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops and nearly half of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. This is not a prescription for victory. The time for the Murtha Plan to begin is now. Thank you Jack Murtha for placing your life in the line of fire for our troops and for freedom. Your resolution has a right to be heard and debated as a way forward to freedom. Amendment Offered by Mr. Gingrey

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, USA Today on the front of the business page has a major story: `` `Fundamentally broken' pension system in `crying need' of a fix: Even companies that play by the rules face shortfalls.'' It goes on to say that David Walker, the chief of Congress's nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, describes the pension system as ``fundamentally broken.'' Mr. Speaker, workers who dedicate years of service to a company should be able to count on a decent retirement and a measure of economic security. Yet in this time when more and more companies are reducing or dropping their defined benefit pension plans and retiree health coverage, worker earned benefits are often not guaranteed. This Congress must step up with meaningful pension reform to help shore up pension plans and encourage companies to continue providing them. Unfortunately, a bill authored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who chairs the committee here in the House, is not that needed legislation. It pays lip service to pension reform for workers, but continues to protect big corporate interests and executives at the expense of workers. It is my sincere hope that this Congress will produce legislation that is truly needed by America and by America's workers. Private pension plans are supposed to be one leg of a three-legged stool of retirement security for all American workers, along with Social Security. However, we live in an era when personal savings are virtually nonexistent, and Social Security's future is menaced by the specter of Republican plans to privatize Social Security. Therefore, workers have to try even harder to shore up increasingly fragile private pension plans. Unfortunately, the Republican leaders in this Congress want to pass legislation which would actually further destabilize and underfund private pension plans. How in the world can they defend that approach? Doehler-Jarvis, a company in my district, several years ago was the victim of a takeover where they had to cancel retiree health benefits, and they just did it over one weekend. They never even told the workers they were going to do it. When they filed liquidation bankruptcy, they pushed their obligations onto the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which is going further and further into the red as I speak here this evening. Though that was not a perfect solution, that was the only one that existed at that time. Recently, we have heard the announcement by Delphi, the largest U.S. automotive manufacturer, that they are going to declare bankruptcy; and that it is the largest filing of bankruptcy ever in the history of the automotive industry. It will have a significant impact on thousands and thousands of workers. And under the terms of their bankruptcy filing, Delphi is attempting to require its employees to take pay cuts as high as 63 percent and benefit cuts of up to 77 percent just, they say, to keep a few of their U.S. plants open. The current Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has a several billion dollar shortfall already. How in the world are they going to be able to try to hold things together without that fund being shored up, whether it is to help Delphi or anyone else. Frankly, this Congress should have legislation passed that would disallow the bankruptcy system to be used by companies to abdicate their pension and health responsibilities. However, given the recent flood of companies that have experienced pension problems or breakdowns, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is no longer as fail-safe as it used to be. It had a $23 billion deficit last year, and since the time of President Clinton has continued to fall from a position of surplus to greater and greater deficit. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Boehner, dubs his plan the Pension Protection Plan; but it does nothing to prevent runaway pension plan terminations, nothing to provide meaningful disclosure and transparency, or ensure fairness to workers, while rewarding corporate executives. And it does nothing to adequately protect the workers pension plans. Mr. Speaker, true pension reform legislation would repeal special protections for executives where they can receive these so-called golden parachutes while employees suffer deep cuts in their promised benefits. And the bill currently authored here says if an employer does not fund its pension plan above 80 percent, then workers cannot receive any increases in benefits or take a lump sum at retirement. No similar restriction is placed on executives. And as the amount of guaranteed benefit goes down, for example if the employer does not fund above 60 percent, the workers' plan must be frozen with no new benefits allowed. Mr. Speaker, America can do better than this. We ought to deep six the Boehner bill and allow the workers of this country to be able to receive the deferred compensation that was part of the contract that they signed when they went to work for America's largest corporations. [From the USA Today, Nov. 15, 2005] ``Fundamentally Broken'' Pension System in `Crying Need' of a Fix (By Marilyn Adams) Washington.--Most surviving American steelmakers long ago abandoned costly pensions plans. But AK Steel still covers most of its 7,500 workers with a plan that pays retirees a monthly benefit based on tenure and past wages--a coveted defined-benefit plan. AK has never missed a benefit payment to a pensioner or a payment to fund the plan. That's a source of pride for the 105-year-old Middletown, Ohio, company. Nonetheless, the assets of the AK pension plan fall $1.3 billion short of meeting estimated future obligations. The plan's long-term survival isn't assured. Much of the attention in the raging pension-reform debate in Congress and the executive branch focuses on big companies such as United Airlines and other corporate giants that have used Chapter 11 bankruptcy-court reorganization to dump defined-benefit pension plans on the already overburdened government insurer, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. But it's also cases such as AK Steel--a relative corporate good guy that has seen assets fall short of liabilities even while the company follows the rules--that have reformers fearing a possible financial catastrophe on the scale of the savings- and-loan meltdown 15 years ago. David Walker, chief of Congress' non-partisan Government Accountability Office, describes the pension system as ``fundamentally broken.'' He's frustrated that policymakers so far have been unable to solve a problem that's been documented over and over. ``There's a crying need,'' he says. Business, Congress and the Bush administration agree that the U.S. system of private pensions is badly in need of fixing. What they haven't agreed on is how to fix it. Despite alarming statistics, years of studies and urgent calls for reform from advocates on all sides, Rep. John Boehner, R- Ohio, a sponsor of the pending House bill on pension reform, rates chances of passage by both houses of Congress this year as slim. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Monday that the Senate bill might reach that chamber's floor by next week. If Congress fails to act, ``The problem will become much worse,'' said Bradley Belt, PBGC executive director. ``To call upon taxpayers--most of whom don't have defined-benefit pensions--to pay for the benefits of those who do would be fundamentally unfair.'' In total, defined-benefit pension plans offered by private employers are underfunded by $450 billion, up from $39 billion just five years ago. The PBGC itself has a deficit of at least $23 billion. PBGC numbers coming out today are expected to paint an even bleaker picture: The high number of failed plans has left it without enough assets to cover future benefits. As more plans fail, the agency's deficit will grow. In recent years, Huffy bicycles, Big Bear supermarkets, Polaroid, Kaiser Aluminum, Bethlehem Steel, WestPoint Stevens, Archibald Candy and United Airlines have terminated their plans and transferred responsibility for them to the PBGC. What worries PBGC officials now is how many other large companies are out there with ailing plans covering tens of thousands of workers. The PBGC last year calculated that financially weak companies with a reasonable chance of terminating their pensions are $96 billion short of covering promised benefits. gm a concern The PBGC won't say whether General Motors, whose pension plan is the biggest in U.S. industry, is among them. But the PBGC estimates that if financially troubled GM had to terminate its plan soon, it would be underfunded by $31 billion, an estimate first reported by The New York Times. Using a different accounting method, Credit Suisse First Boston estimates the underfunding at $12.3 billion. GM, whose plan covers 600,000 participants, disputes those figures but declined to provide its own estimate. It is not required by law to do so. ``We don't think it's appropriate to view the pension plan on a termination basis,'' because GM has no plan to end it, said GM spokesman Jerry Dubrowski. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, meanwhile, is investigating how GM reports pension-plan liabilities in its financial statements as part of a broader look into the automaker's accounting. PBGC director Belt fears the mounting pension crisis could approach the scope of the savings-and-loan debacle that pushed the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. into insolvency in 1989 and cost taxpayers $200 billion. If the PBGC, which is supported by insurance-premium payments from pension-plan sponsors, were to sink too deeply into red ink, a giant taxpayer bailout might be the only way to keep millions of pensioners from losing their checks. Stopgap pension relief for companies expires Dec. 31. Without comprehensive reform legislation this year, temporary rules will take effect that will increase the contributions companies must make to their plans as well as the insurance premiums they must pay the PBGC. U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao says the price of doing nothing about reform will be ``very bad'' for plan sponsors. The pension system in Corporate America is in trouble for many reasons, some within the control of Washington policymakers and some not. Not the least of the problems is Americans' lengthening life spans. Retirees are living longer than ever and will draw pension checks longer than ever. The biggest generation in history, the baby boom, starts hitting 65 in 2011. Making things worse is that many pension plans let workers start drawing benefits after 30 years of work. For many retirees, that means benefits start in their 50s. Another factor: Pension funds rely on assets that grow through investments in stocks and bonds. For five years, markets have produced lackluster returns. loopholes in the law But Congress can do nothing about demographics or investment returns. So reformers are focusing on loopholes in the law--and some companies' willingness to exploit them to avoid or reduce payments. Private pensions are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, passed in 1974 after the collapse of automaker Studebaker a decade earlier, which left its retirees almost empty-handed. The law established the PBGC insurance program, which covers benefits up to specific annual dollar limits--up to $45,600 this year for someone retiring at 65--and requires companies to pay premiums. Over the years, changes have crept into the law designed to make it easier for firms to comply. Among the issues that reform proposals address: PBGC premiums. Almost everyone agrees that without higher premiums and stricter funding rules, pension problems will get worse. The Bush administration proposed $30 per worker per year, up from $19 now. Skipped payments. Rules allow employers to skip plan payments by applying excess contributions from an earlier year as an offset to the minimum requirement for a later year--even if the plan is underfunded. ``The combination of rules allows companies to go for years on end without putting any money into their pension plans,'' says Belt. US Airways, for example, made no contributions to its pilots' pension plan for years before it was terminated in 2003. Overpromising. Employers with underfunded plans are allowed under current rules to sign labor contracts that promise union members larger benefits that the companies can't necessarily afford. Secrecy. Every employer with a troubled plan is required to tell the PBGC each year how underfunded the plan would be if it had to be terminated. But the company is not required to tell the people directly affected: workers and pensioners. The PBGC is not allowed to tell. Inadequate funding. PBGC's Belt says funding rules today simply don't ensure that pension plans are fully funded. Most controversial is an administration proposal to penalize companies with poor credit ratings and underfunded plans by accelerating their plan payments. The thinking is that those companies are at higher risk for pension default and should be required to do more to keep plans afloat. `sky is not falling' Boehner, The Ohio congressman, says such tough medicine would ``kill the patient'' and prompt some employers to drop their plans. AK Steel, for example, says its credit rating has been below investment grade for years, yet it has never missed a payment. Business groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers acknowledged pension rules require tightening. But they question the administration's alarming projections and say companies with pension problems don't represent the majority. ``Our message is the pension sky is not falling,'' says NAM spokesman Darren McKinney. ``The problem is not as big as some would have you believe.'' He says the PBGC's statistics show only 15% of private defined-benefit plans were funded below 70% in 2002, the latest data available. What seems to gall reformers most is the recent pattern of big companies using Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code to jettison the debt of underfunded pension plans, then exit bankruptcy and survive. U.S. Airways did it, and United is in the process. Huff and Big Bear did the same in the bankruptcy court. Now, reformers fear Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines and auto-parts maker Delphi, all of which filed Chapter 11 cases recently, will make the same argument to their bankruptcy- court judges. ``People are using the pension system and bankruptcy code as a business strategy,''charges Walker of GAO. ak steel feels penalized AK Steel agrees. It has seen plenty of competitors unload their plans. AK says its pension and retiree medical costs make its steel at least $40 a ton more costly to produce than some of its competitors'. ``We are penalized because we didn't go bankrupt,'' says Vice President Alan McCoy. So, AK has been going to its unions during contract talks, asking them to agree to freeze members' pension plans so benefits don't keep growing and so new employees aren't covered. Three unions, representing 20% of AK's unionized workforce, have agreed. ``They told us they needed that relief to stay competitive and stay out of bankruptcy,'' says Tim Imes, president of the United Steelworkers union in Ashland, KY, that represents AK workers there. Given pension-plan terminations at Bethlehem Steel, National Steel and elsewhere, the union knew ``the monster was real.'' AK officials say they still believe in good pensions but can't ignore their competition. ``We are disturbed that the bankruptcy system allows what has happened to happen,'' says McCoy. ``We don't think that's right.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to rise to honor the life of Ed Roybal, a great Member of this House with whom I had the pleasure of serving for many years when I first came here back during the 1980s. I would have to say that no one fought harder for health care, particularly for senior citizens and Social Security and Medicare, than the great congressman from the State of California, Mr. Roybal. He had a quiet strength about him and great dignity, and he treated Members with such graciousness. I certainly remember how he treated me when I first came to the House as a new Member. There were only 24 women serving in the House at that time. I think it is fair to say we have come a long way since then, but Ed Roybal is someone who especially was kind to the women and to the new Members, and I shall never forget him for that. He helped me in my own campaign when I was running for reelection in my district back in the mid-1980s when there was an effort made to distort votes on Social Security and Medicare, and Ed Roybal came to set the record straight. I would like to extend to his daughter, who I know he is smiling on today as she serves here in this Congress, and to his entire family the greatest sympathy from the people of Ohio who thank him for the efforts toward which he dedicated his life. I know that the senior citizens who continued to receive Social Security and Medicare during the decades of the 1980s and 1990s and now into the 21st century have Ed Roybal to thank for that. Condolences to the entire Roybal-Allard family on the passing of this great American gentleman and lawmaker.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of deep gratitude and sorrow that I rise to pay tribute to the life of Sister Anne Louise Stoelzel, an Ursuline sister of Toledo, Ohio who passed from this life on Nov. 19. Sister Anne Louise dedicated her life to the education of young women and men, and helped build St. Ursula Academy in our community into a premier institution of advanced learning at the high school level. She tutored students even into her 80's and remained a smiling and vibrant presence to all who knew her. Sister Anne Louise took on the task of moderating the school's large, and growing alumnae association for 30 years, no small task, after having taught mathematics for two decades. In 1990, she received the Alumna of the Year Award and was sought out and loved by the school's graduates. She remembered them, followed their lives, amazingly, kept in touch with thousands of girls, their families, and their lives. She was an avid fan of St. Ursula sports teams and a regular attendee at games as St. Ursula's winning teams rose to fame locally and statewide. She rooted on the bench with all she had in her. Sister Anne Louise was a Toledoan through and through. She carried its values. She grew up in the Old West End, a parishioner at Rosary Cathedral, and a woman in service to Christ throughout her most generous life. She held bachelor of arts and science degrees from the former Mary Manse College in Toledo, and received a master's degree from the Catholic University of America. Her pursuit of lifelong learning took her to many universities--Notre Dame, St. Louis University, Bowling Green, Ohio State, and the University of Toledo. No measure can be placed on the gift of the life of one woman to her community. The life of Sister Anne Louise stands as living testament to a woman who loved others more than herself, who believed in the education and potential of young women to excel and make contributions to life beyond what we know today. It was to that future that she gave herself long before even the laws in the United States afforded women equal opportunity in education. Our entire community sends its sympathies to the sisters of St. Ursula and the loving community of women and men that surrounded her, and St. Ursula's ongoing mission toward education of young women, and the advancement of learning for the betterment of humankind. Sister Anne Louise lived with distinction the legacy of St. Angela Merici, the foundress of the Order of St. Ursula. May Sister Anne Louise rest in peace, a beloved daughter of the Lord who served with love and faith throughout her precious life. St. Ursula Grad Taught Math at Alma Mater sister anne louise stoelzel, 1922-2005 Sister Anne Louise Stoelzel, 83, a graduate of St. Ursula Academy who taught mathematics at her alma mater for 20 years and was moderator of the school's alumnae association for 30 years, died Tuesday of congestive heart failure in the Ursuline Center. Sister Anne Louise retired from classroom teaching in 1991, but she continued to tutor math students until about two years ago. ``She was a very good teacher and very patient,'' Sister Kathleen Padden said. ``As a tutor, she taught not only the girls from the academy, but boys from St. Francis [de Sales High School] and students from the public schools whose mothers might have been alumnae.'' She was a strict teacher, ``but an excellent teacher,'' said Fran Sears, whose daughter, Ellen, was a student of Sister Anne Louise's. ``She knew and understood math perfectly,'' Mrs. Sears said. Sister Anne Louise was moderator of the St. Ursula Alumnae Association from 1971 to 2001 and was moderator emerita afterward. She received the Alumna of the Year Award in 1990. Not only was she a regular at St. Ursula reunions, she kept in touch with alumnae and followed the events of their lives. ``She knew all the grads, all the alumnae. She knew their families and their daughters and granddaughters,'' Mrs. Sears said. ``You mentioned somebody, she could tell you about her.'' Sister Anne Louise was a fan of St. Ursula sports teams and followed local high school sports, Mrs. Sears said. She was born Marie Kathryn Stoelzel and grew up in the Old West End. She was a parishioner of Rosary Cathedral when she entered the Ursuline Community in 1943. Sister Anne Louise received bachelor of arts and bachelor of science in education degrees from the former Mary Manse College. She received a master's degree from Catholic University of America in Washington. She was awarded National Science Foundation grants to pursue her post-graduate education during summer breaks. Her studies took her to the University of Notre Dame, St. Louis University, DePauw University, Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, and Ohio State University. Sister Anne Louise previously taught at the elementary schools of St. Teresa and St. Thomas Aquinas in Toledo and at Lima, Ohio, Central Catholic High School. She and her sister, Gertrude Trompeter, were close, and she visited the Trompeter home on holidays and other occasions, her brother-in-law, Carl Trompeter, said. She also took a keen interest in her four nephews--they called her Aunt Marie--and their families. Her sister died Nov. 19, 2003. There are no immediate survivors. Visitation will begin at 3 p.m. today in the Ursuline Center, where there will be a vigil service at 7 tonight. Funeral services will be at 10 a.m. tomorrow in the Ursuline Center. Arrangements are by the Coyle Funeral Home. It is suggested that tributes be to the Ursuline Sisters Retirement Fund.