Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that is a part of today's Department of Justice Authorization Act. Enacted in 1994, this law provides access to programs and services for many victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Since VAWA was first passed, domestic violence has decreased by almost 50 percent and incidents of rape have decreased by 60 percent More than one million women have used the judicial system to obtain domestic violence protective orders. During my time as a former King County Prosecutor I saw how VAWA successfully helped many people. The criminal justice system was improved by training police and prosecutors to respond more effectively to incidences of domestic violence or sexual assaults. The Act also provided legal aid so victims may seek justice to their crimes. It provided the tools in order to protect the victims and provide them with the services they need to escape this horrible situation. But there is still more work to be done. Each year, 960,000 incidents of violence are reported in which the offender has acted against a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend. It is unacceptable that women are still being abused. It is unacceptable that high school students are sexually harassed. It is unacceptable that these victims face the fear and embarrassment of telling others about their situation. Unfortunately, some victims are faced with the situation where their abuser is a law enforcement officer. I recognize that law enforcement officers are faced with many complex situations and a great deal of work-related stress. I recognize that law enforcement officers are faced with complex situations on a day to day basis while trying to make our communities safer. However, these situations can push many to their limits and cause hardships in their jobs and personal lives. I would like to bring to your attention the case of Crystal Judson. On April 26, 2003, Tacoma Police Chief David Brame shot his wife, Crystal Judson Brame, before he killed himself in a parking lot in Gig Harbor, a community near my district. Their two young children, ages 8 and 5, sat nearby in their father's car. Crystal had been the victim of abuse for many years prior to this incident, but she was unable to obtain help for herself and her children in part because she lacked the tools and resources she needed. Unfortunately, there was no policy in place for the City of Tacoma or the Tacoma Police to address this issue. In response to this incident, the Washington State Legislature passed a law in 2004 establishing standards for law enforcement agencies within the state to prevent and punish future incidents of domestic violence committed by law enforcement officers. I am pleased to see law enforcement agencies taking this matter seriously and implementing policies that help them address these situations. I am disappointed that I--along with several of my colleagues from Washington State--were not able to offer two amendments that sought to address this issue. The first amendment would have simply clarified that Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecution (STOP) program grants were available to law enforcement agencies to develop policies to address law enforcement officer domestic abuse. STOP grants promotes a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to improving the criminal justice system's response to violent crimes against women by encouraging the development and strengthening of effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to address violent crimes against women and the development and strengthening of victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women. The second amendment would initiate a study conducted by the Department of Justice to investigate the incidence of domestic violence involving law enforcement officers. Little research has been done on this specific issue in over a decade. A study conducted by the Justice Department could provide policymakers with critical facts and information as we seek to undertake a federal effort to address the issue. While I am pleased that Chairman Sensenbrenner agreed to conduct a GAO Report on law enforcement-officer-involved domestic violence, I hope this study will be conducted in a speedy manner to ensure other victims like Crystal Brame are not left without a voice. I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure ample funding for VAWA and STOP grants. I look forward to supporting the Chairman in his request and look forward to the results so we can do more to assist victims of domestic abuse.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment for the Federal government's delayed response to Hurricane Katrina. I am extremely concerned about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael Brown and call for his resignation. Brown and his senior leadership team have demonstrated a stunning level of ineptitude that made the disaster of Katrina and the loss of life and property much worse than it had to be. This tragic event has made clear that the FEMA team is not up to the job of protecting Americans from either natural disasters or from any possible terrorist attack. Security is a paramount concern to me and Americans deserve a competent and able emergency management agency. Now that it is proven that this team is incapable, we can't afford to wait to replace Director Brown. I also strongly disagree with the suggestion--made by many in the Administration and the majority--that Americans shouldn't ``point fingers'' or play the ``blame game'' as the relief effort continues. Thousands of lives are at stake right now. We are also spending billions of public dollars on the recovery and those resources must be spent effectively and efficiently. We need an experienced team now to implement the government's plan for repairing the southeast region, not after a lengthy review process. While I support that broader review, one thing is immediately clear: The director of FEMA is plainly not up to the important job at hand. Consider the following critically important facts. Despite days of warning, FEMA did virtually nothing to prepare for the impact of Katrina. Director Brown reportedly waited 5 hours after Katrina struck before he proposed to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff that he send 1,000 Homeland Security workers into the region to support rescuers. Even then, his letter gave personnel 2 full days to arrive on the scene to begin offering assistance. It was 5 agonizing days before FEMA and DHS showed up in any significant numbers with adequate supplies to help the tens of thousands of people in New Orleans. Equally disturbing are the efforts of FEMA and others in the Administration to explain away these inexcusable actions. Claims have been made that local leaders in Louisiana did not ask for help and that the Federal government could not have foreseen that the levees around New Orleans would be breeched in the event of a significant hurricane. The utter absurdity of these claims makes it even clearer that we need new leadership at FEMA if Americans are to have any confidence that the agency will wisely and effectively deal with the continuing crisis in the Gulf Coast, much less prepare for future natural disasters or terrorist attacks. First, locals did ask for help before the storm hit and FEMA assumed responsibility for dealing with the fallout from Katrina. Louisiana's Governor Kathleen Blanco declared a State of emergency for Louisiana on August 26th and on August 27th, she requested Federal support. On that same day, and acting on your authorization, Director Brown responded to Blanco's request for assistance and declared that FEMA would ``mobilize equipment and resources necessary to protect public health and safety by assisting law enforcement with evacuations, establishing shelters, supporting emergency medical needs, meeting immediate lifesaving and life-sustaining human needs and protecting property, in addition to other emergency protective measures.'' Second, the coming disaster was clear. Max Mayfield, the Director of the National Hurricane Center has confirmed that both Director Brown and Secretary Chertoff listened to his agency's briefing on Katrina's likely impact. Mayfield made repeated warnings about the hurricane and was quoted by the New Orleans Times-Picayune as saying, ``We were briefing them (FEMA and DHS) way before landfall. It's not like this was a surprise. We had in the advisories that the levee could be topped.'' It is alarming that, given this knowledge, FEMA thought it was appropriate to sit back and wait instead of aggressively preparing for the disaster. Third, the vulnerability of the levees was well established. Last year, FEMA conducted a simulation involving the potential evacuation of New Orleans as a result of a Hurricane. For my years experts had been predicting that the levees could be breached by a hurricane and that the results would be disastrous, costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. In 2001, the Army Corps of Engineers conducted a study and found that the levees in the region needed to be updated, raised, and the pumping systems modernized. In the event of a category 4 or 5 hurricane, like Hurricane Katrina, the levees would fail and the cities within the levees would be at risk of flooding. Perhaps most troubling, Federal officials knew from news reports and from Mayor Ray Nagin's comments that tens of thousands of New Orleans residents would not be able to respond to the call to evacuate. Despite this understanding, no action was taken to accommodate those who could not evacuate their city. I am deeply troubled by what this failure of leadership could portend for another disaster or attack. Some of FEMA's top positions have been staffed with individuals who have ample political and campaign experience, but virtually no understanding of how to prepare for and respond to a disaster of any magnitude. We expect State and local responders to be well trained and qualified. The same must be true of FEMA's leaders. There is no doubt that a new and better skilled leadership team at FEMA is required in order to best protect our Nation. The tragic events caused by Hurricane Katrina have left hundreds of thousands of Americans with shattered homes and families and without food and water. I am committed to joining together to provide relief and to save as many lives as possible. I have seen the compassion of Americans as volunteers, donations and financial assistance has flowed into the southeast region. We must now do our part to repair the damaged region and assist in rebuilding the lives of many of our citizens. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress to help the people in this devastated region.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, ``Today, I rise to discuss the need for the United States to be a true leader in the fight against global poverty. More than 1 billion people live on less than $1 a day and another 2.7 billion people struggle to survive on less than $2 a day. So what do these numbers really mean? They mean that well over half of the world's population is struggling in poverty and one-sixth of the world's population can't meet even the most basic needs for survival. This is morally unacceptable. I applaud the President's leadership on the issue, including his commitments to increased debt relief and direct assistance to Africa that were discussed recently at the G-8 summit in Scotland. Programs like the Millennium Challenge Account, which have allowed us to increase development aid and target it more effectively, are an important part of the solution. But, the United States still lacks a comprehensive strategy to help eliminate extreme global poverty. We need to leverage development aid, debt relief, technical assistance and public private partnerships. We need to coordinate with world bodies, including the United Nations, in helping impoverished'' countries devise plans that will work for them. I'm pleased that this bill includes language that will move us in the right direction. The language, that I requested be added to the bill as it was being drafted in committee, declares that the elimination of extreme global poverty should be a top foreign policy priority for the United States and that the U.S. should work with all the players involved in this fight, including developing and donor countries and multilateral institutions to coordinate polices to address global poverty. Most importantly, the language urges the President to develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate extreme global poverty. It says this plan should include foreign assistance, foreign and local private investment, technical assistance, private-public partnerships and debt relief. I'd like to thank Chairman Hyde and the entire International Relations Committee for including this language in the bill. The United States has the opportunity to take a firm leadership role in bringing relief and a better future for billions of people around the world. The time to act is now and we can get started with developing a comprehensive plan and I look forward to continuing to work in a bipartisan fashion on increasing the United States commitment to global poverty.''

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, there is really nothing terribly, terribly wrong with this resolution. Talking about a need to invest in greater innovation, research and education, certainly makes sense. The vexing thing for me is this Republican Congress and White House has systematically unfunded almost all of those items. We heard the numbers from my colleagues, and I will not go back over them, except to remind folks of the recent debate we had over the appropriations bills. Repeatedly, throughout the debate, as Democrats talked about spending more money on a variety of different items, the Republican appropriators said, You know, this is the money we have, this is the best we can do with what we have. Well, let us look at the decisions that left us in the position where ``this is what we have.'' One of the consequences of those decisions is we do not have enough money to fund the research, education and innovation that is necessary. All of the items that are ticked off, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, No Child Left Behind, we all know what they are. We know how important in the global economy innovation, research, education and skills training is. Yet the programs that fund those vital needs, vital needs particularly for blue-collar, middle-class and lower-class workers, are consistently cut, reduced, not funded like they should be because of the budget decisions of this Congress. Part of it certainly is the tax cut. That has been the decision of this Congress; supply-side tax cuts for people making a lot of money at the expense of all of these programs we are talking about today. It is incredibly vexing to hear the Republican majority stand up and talk about how much they care about these programs. At a minimum, I wish they would make a choice, they would say: Supply-side tax cuts for people making a lot of money, that is what we support; that is what we are going to do. That being done, we cannot afford to do these other things, and that is okay. But to stand up today and say that you care about them when you have created a budget environment where they cannot be funded is disingenuous, to say the least. If these are priorities, then let us change the budget. And it is not just tax cuts. We can look at the spending decisions of the last 6 years that have seen massive increases in overall Federal spending while, at the same time, underfunding these critical items. The budget priorities of the Republican Congress are responsible, and an empty ``Sense of Congress'' resolution is not going to fix that.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment, and this is after I opposed it last year; but I learned two things since that vote that caused me to change my position. First of all, as has been emphasized by the opponent of this amendment, section 215 has not yet been used by the Justice Department. We hear that if we eliminate this provision, it will somehow jeopardize our entire country and that we have been able to hold off the terrorists for 4 years because of the PATRIOT Act. Yet they acknowledge at the same time that section 215 has not even been used. So, obviously, it is not critical to that effort. The second reason is the reason this is very important. There is no clear standard for when it can be used. If a person goes to a judge and gets a subpoena by some standard, probable cause or some other standard, then that makes sense. That is in fitting with the Constitution. The problem with section 215 is that you go to the Foreign Intelligence Services Act court and seek that warrant. It is a secret court. We do not know what the standard is. There should and must be a clear standard before the Justice Department can seek this kind of information from our citizens. If that clear standard were put in law, that could change things; but there is no standard here, and this law has not been used. So it is not critical, and it can potentially be abused. So let us eliminate that potential and support the Sanders amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today in the United States House of Representatives, we commend the men and women of our Armed Forces and civilian employees of the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development for their services and actions in response to the earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004. In particular, I would like to recognize the active-duty and reserve servicemembers of the 62nd and 446th Airlift Wings stationed in my District at McChord Air Force Base. The Airmen who deployed filled many different roles from aircrew members to maintainers and aerial port personnel and security forces. McChord's aircrews flew badly needed supplies to countries throughout the region. The C-17's unique ability to land in the most austere conditions allowed it to deliver aid where other aircraft couldn't. In particular, I would like to commend Colonel Wayne Schatz, the 62nd Airlift Wing commander, who deployed to Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, and became the Deputy Director of Mobility Forces for the entire operation. While there, he helped marshall the massive humanitarian airlift mission, directing hundreds of aircraft that delivered nearly 3,000 tons of relief supplies to countries most in need of aid. All told, Team McChord's contributions to the relief efforts included: 1.8 million pounds of relief supplies delivered; 660+ passengers moved; and 48 relief missions flown. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of the men and women in my District who participated in this noble operation.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to extend to Paul Allen and the entire SpaceShipOne team my heartfelt congratulations on their huge achievement. Since Orville and Wilbur Wright first took to the skies, mankind has consistently dreamed of loftier goals and continued to push the edge in manned flight, both commercially and through government endeavors. On October 4, the entire SpaceShipOne team expanded man's dream of commercial flight into space. While a noble achievement, this is but the first step in a long process towards the dream of many on Earth to fly to the reaches of outer space. Some day this dream will be a reality and it is because of the efforts and skills of people like those at Scaled Composites and the visionaries like Paul Allen that will make this dream a reality.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 25th, the labor community of Pierce County, Washington and American workers nationwide lost one of their most progressive advocates and dedicated voices, Phillip M. Lelli. Joining the longshore workforce on the Tacoma waterfront in 1949, Phil dedicated his entire career to expanding opportunities at the Port of Tacoma. In doing so he revolutionized the local waterfront. As President of the Tacoma Longshore Union, ILWU Local 23, for almost twenty years, Phil championed unprecedented standards of efficiency within the labor force and innovations on the docks. At the same time, he strengthened the bargaining power of the ILWU and protected the rights and wellbeing of the longshore men and women. Truly committed to the expansion of opportunity at the port, Phil elevated his involvement and was a pioneer in forming partnerships with the greater maritime community. He believed in the rewards of port and union cooperation and he continuously advocated on its behalf. In 1977 Phil became the first longshore worker elected to Tacoma's mainstream Propeller Club, and later the Propeller Club awarded Phil its greatest honor, Tacoma Master Mariner for 1982. Phil's list of accomplishments and legacies is long and impressive. His influence has had a ripple effect in the Tacoma community that will continue long after his passing. I honor the life of Phillip Lelli on an appropriate occasion. Today is National Worker's Memorial Day, a day observed by trade unions since 1989 to honor American workers who have been killed or injured on the job in the last year and an occasion to rededicate ourselves to protecting the health and wellbeing of workers in the future. While Phil recently lost his life after a battle with cancer, he truly worked day to day until his very last to protect the American worker--a commitment that intensified after the loss of his youngest son, Ross, in a waterfront accident in 1989. Phillip Lelli's passing is a loss to all who knew him, and I extend my deepest sympathy to his family in their great loss. My thoughts and sympathies are also with other families across the Nation today who are mourning the loss of their loved ones on this day of reflection.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, throughout this Presidential campaign, we have heard from the Republicans repeatedly that they will not question Senator Kerry's patriotism. We all figured that was an empty promise, but it has been proven true in the well of this House this morning. Several Republican Members came up and directly called into question Senator Kerry's patriotism based on his objections to the Vietnam War. And beyond that, we have even heard Republicans out on the airwaves questioning his service in Vietnam. I do feel that there are many more important issues in this campaign that are legitimate to talk about. Senator Kerry has unbelievable support from veterans in this country. All 50 States have veterans for Kerry organizations that are strong and hard-working to support the Senator and, perhaps most tellingly, are the people who served with him in Vietnam. All of those people are supporting Senator Kerry regardless of their political stripes. Many are taking large chunks of personal time to go around and be supportive of him. His record in Vietnam and his record afterwards should not be questioned, and it is being questioned by the Republicans. I think Senator McCain said it best some time ago when asked about this and asked about Senator Kerry's protest against the war. He said that Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam fighting for our country more than gave him the right to protest the war if he thought it was wrong. Senator Kerry honorably served this country in Vietnam, volunteered to serve, volunteered for combat duty, and he honorably upheld the traditions of this country when he came home and pursued his personal convictions to oppose the war. We should recognize that service.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for bringing this issue up. What we are trying to do is expand options to fund transportation solutions. As both gentlemen have pointed out, there are many limitations on that, and States throughout the country are struggling with their efforts to find the resources to fund the transportation solutions they want. This is one idea to basically make tolls an option for State projects so that they could receive Federal funds if they wanted to use those tolls to fund it and maintenance of that new construction. The amendment expands this to allow for whatever projects want to apply. It is my opinion that the bill itself is actually narrower. It only allows an isolated number of projects to have these toll roads. It is not my understanding that this amendment in any way changes the current structure on mass transit. I am not certain that we currently allow Federal funds to go for tolling to fund that. But this amendment, to my understanding, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) can perhaps correct me, does not speak to what the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) just talked about. It does not further restrict funds for transit. If it did, I would not be supportive of it. It expands what is available for roads. Toll roads, by definition, are for roads. If there was some way to expand further to deal with mass transit, I would be in favor of it. It was my understanding that this amendment does not further restrict what the law already does. It targets one area and expands the opportunities, whereas the current bill only allows for an isolated number of projects to take advantage of this opportunity. As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) pointed out, it is like three projects throughout the country that could get this, and obviously there are more than that. So this is an opportunity to expand access to transportation opportunities, and that is why I support the amendment. My State and just about every other State I can think of desperately needs more funds for transportation. This opens up an avenue, a way for them to get those funds and build new roads and opens it up in a way that the public is likely to be supportive of. It funds specifically the road that they would be paying tolls on until it is paid for and the maintenance and care of it. Getting public support for these issues has long been a challenge. We voted down the gas tax in the State of Washington on several occasions. This would be an opportunity to get people something that they want and expand transportation funds.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, that cannot possibly be true. I would be happy to take a look at it, but it is not just over 15 years. At the end of 15 years the quotas are still there. They are just slightly larger than they are now. It does not even get rid of them. So sugar was very important to me, and I was actually in conversations with Ambassador Zellick and others while they were negotiating that.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I thank the gentleman for his help on this issue. You worked very closely on it, and I thank you for your leadership I want to close off the debate, and we do not have anymore speakers for our hour, which is almost up, by emphasizing the point the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) made about the cost and some of the choices involved. It is interesting, business leaders throughout this country have come together and agreed with a lot of the items we have talked about tonight, agreed with the importance of education, the importance of job training, the importance of investment in research and development, the importance of another item we have not talked about, which is an investment in infrastructure, a building of roads and improving our energy system so that we can have a sustainable strong economy; and they know we need to do those things, and they consistently advocate for them and I appreciate that support. But it is also tied into the issue of how do we pay for these things, and as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) pointed out, the tax cut choice. We have heard a lot already in this campaign about taxes and tax cuts; and the general approach of the President and his party is that, look, any tax cut there is has to be lower, anyone who is for higher taxes is by definition not worth being elected, but we have to take a step back and look at this in terms of choices, and take a look at those issues that I just talked about, the business leaders and many Republicans say they support, funding for education, funding for job training, funding for infrastructure. There is the little problem of paying for these things, and we have to look at the choice that is being presented. The President wants to make his tax cut permanent, all of his tax cut, including the portion of that tax cut which is a pretty substantial portion of it that goes to people making over $200,000 a year, also the portions of the tax cut that go to people who are paid dividends; and, yes, I know average Americans earn some dividends, too. If you look at the percentage of where dividend income goes, it goes almost entirely, 75 to 80 to 90 percent, to people again making a great deal of money; and I understand the philosophy behind that, give these people money, they will invest and everything will be fine. It has not quite worked over the course of the last 3 years at this point, but more importantly it is a matter of choices. If the business community, other folks out there, want us to make that investment in education, job training and research and infrastructure, there has got to be some money left somewhere to do that; and when we are sitting here with an over-$400 billion deficit due this year to pile on top of a $7 trillion debt, to say that we are going to make the tax cuts permanent at the cost of somewhere around 2 to $3 trillion, over the course of the 10-year period, and still make these investments in our workers, an investment in our economy, it does not add up. It is a matter of choices, what is the best investment of that money. Is it really best to make sure that the top tax rate for people who make, it is about $250,000 before you hit that top tax rate, goes down from 39 to 35 percent? It goes down to 4, I guess, critical percentage points. Or is it best to take some of that money to get us back towards fiscal responsibility and to get us back towards making an investment in our workers that they can fairly compete? Looked at in that context, I think it is a pretty obvious choice; and I hope that we will make those choices. We absolutely need tax cuts. Senator Kerry supports a number of tax cuts targeted to the middle class, the child tax credit, elimination of the marriage tax penalty, a number of different issues; but, absolutely, we have got to give those tax cuts to hardworking Americans. When you look at the total package of tax cuts, these are some choices we can make to better invest in our workers and better invest in our country. We hope that we can make those choices so that we can deal with the challenges we face from outsourcing, from offshore, so that American workers can have that level playing field, can have that opportunity to grow our economy and to benefit from that growth. I thank you very much for the time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, because that is a point I found interesting. When the President has proposed his tax cuts, for 3 years he has talked about the number of jobs he is going to create. The figure that he used for the tax cut that was passed was 1.2 million. He has fallen way short of at this point, I think it is about 400,000. But in making that proposal it is interesting that he assumes that, absent that tax cut, no jobs would be created, which flies in the face of history. Obviously, some jobs were going to be created. As the gentleman points out, after we did this supply side tax cut for people at the high end of the scale, we actually created less jobs than economists tell us we would have created if we had done nothing. So it is worse than just not doing what he said it was going to do. It seems to be having a negative impact.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, absolutely. We have a sugar industry throughout the U.S. Mr. Speaker, I want to now yield to my colleague from my State, our State, I should say, the gentleman from the great State of Washington (Mr. Inslee) from the first district who is the cosponsor with me on the TAA bill to expand trade adjustment assistance for service sector employees and expand it in other areas as well.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his remarks, and I do agree, as I said, that we need to be more aggressive about enforcing our trade agreements. I will point out I am actually fairly familiar with the CAFTA trade agreement, and it does not have the affect on sugar you describe. It raises the quotas for sugar from Central America by less than 5 percent over what they currently are and it is, in fact, spread out over 15 years. So if my colleague looks at the details of CAFTA, sugar, corn, a variety of different issues, it is a pretty level playing field on both of those. It does not dramatically increase the quotas on sugar coming from Central America. So I would urge my colleague to take a closer look at that and assure your folks in the Michigan sugar beet industry that they are going to be just fine with regard to that particular agreement.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I thank the gentleman. I want to follow up with a couple of the tax policy points. As I mentioned, job training and worker skills, the best way to do that is obviously to have the companies train their workers, because companies know what specific skills they need. Increasingly, in having job skills, it is not just a matter of knowing a certain computer programming skill or a certain scientific skill. It is knowing what a specific company needs, and the only way to do that is to get training from the companies, or I should say the best way to do that. So tax credits that encourage companies to give training to their workers so that they can improve those skills and stay employable in those companies is an excellent idea, and also just overall developing the Tax Code to make sure it encourages businesses to create jobs here domestically. We have a situation now in the Tax Code where if you have a plan, let us take a call center as an example, that is one of the ones that has been off-shored, and you are here domestically in the U.S. employing workers and making profits on that call center, you pay taxes on it. Now, if you take those same workers and move them overseas, even if they are still servicing U.S. consumers, U.S. customers, all of a sudden they do not pay taxes anymore in the U.S. on that. There is a proposal by Senator John Kerry to change that, to make sure that if you are performing services here in the U.S., you continue to perform them for U.S. customers in a different country, you still have to pay taxes on that. That would discourage or take away one of the incentives the companies have to move jobs overseas. The second idea within that area that Senator Kerry has introduced, which is a positive incentive, would be to allow companies that have subsidiaries overseas and subsidiaries that serve overseas markets, not U.S. markets, whether it is in China, India, Vietnam or wherever, if they are doing that and making profits over there, right now if they want to bring those profits back to the U.S. from their subsidiaries, they have to pay taxes on them. If they leave them overseas, they do not. It makes sense to reduce that tax rate to give them an incentive to bring the money back and invest here in the U.S., and that is another tax idea that Senator Kerry has supported. I think it is a pretty good contrast with the general approach of the Bush administration, which is just give tax cuts to the people who make a lot of money and hope that they invest that money here. We know there is no guarantee of that. They can invest that money any place they want to, and increasingly they are investing it overseas. So our tax policy needs to be smart to help grow jobs here domestically. I want to now turn it over to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), another of my colleagues who has worked extensively on this issue and understands the importance of job creation.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk this evening a little bit about a subject that has been on everyone's mind and certainly being talked about throughout the country, and that is the issue that has come to be known as outsourcing or offshoring, the concern that many Americans have about the number of jobs that used to be done in the United States that are now being done overseas. The best way to think about this issue is to think about our entire economy. It is not really just about outsourcing or offshoring of jobs. It is about the future of the U.S. economy and, most specifically, where the jobs are going to be. That is the fear that I hear expressed by my constituents and by people throughout the country. They are worried about what jobs are going to be here for them in the future and for their children and for their grandchildren. What should they prepare for? What type of economy are they going to have? Are we going to have enough good jobs across the board so that the people of our country can be employed and employed at a standard of living that we have all come to expect? I think, when I look at the debate, we have to be very careful about how we approach this issue; and I am pleased in working with the new Democrats and also with other members of the House Democratic Caucus that we are working on a series of proposals and a series of issues to try to address this issue in a serious and intelligent manner that will help us create the type of economy that we all want. Right now, there are sort of two directions that we see being taken by the majority of folks, and neither one of them is particularly helpful. On the one hand, I do not think it makes sense to take a full- scale protectionist approach, to basically say that we need to stop trading with other countries that do not have the same labor and environmental standards that we do, that we need to cut off immigration and, in essence, we need to adopt a policy that says we are going to do whatever we can to protect every job that currently exists, regardless of the consequences. History has shown us that sort of approach leads to less economic growth in the future, and that is what this is all about, is long-term, sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all of us. I would point out that the most protectionist economy in the world right now is, arguably, Japan. They have done just about everything they can to protect all of their existing jobs, all of their existing businesses. They subsidize industry. They erect tariff barriers to outside countries coming in and competing with them. They protect bad loans even long after they are no longer obviously going to be paid. They do everything they can to protect that economy, and it has led to a decade-long recession in Japan. One needs to be able to change. One needs to be able to grow. One needs to be able to not just protect the bulk of the jobs they have but, most importantly, to be prepared to take advantage of the future economic opportunities that are to come. That is what we do better than any other country in the world. We have a higher capacity for change than any other country in the world. We have consistently seen the next trend, gotten there first, and benefited economically. Most recently, we have seen this in technology, in the Internet, in software and hardware before that. We prepare ourselves for the new trends in the economy, take advantage of it, and get out front and have a leadership role, and we need to do that again. As much as protectionism is not the best way to go on this, I think it is an equal mistake to take the approach that far too often the current administration has taken, which is to say that there is not a problem, basically outsourcing, offshoring, it is just the natural economic dynamic at work, creative destruction, it will all work itself out, we do not need to do anything. That, I think, is an equally unwise approach. There are policies that we need to adopt in this country to be prepared to deal with globalization, to deal with the economic changes. They will point to past times when it looked like our economy was challenged throughout the 1980s. People thought that Japan and other countries in Asia would take over and we would never be able to compete with them. That certainly did not happen as we came into the 1990s. With each economic change, there has been this concern that somehow we will not be able to compete, and we have risen above and competed. And that is true, but it is wrong to say that we did that effortlessly, that we did that without adopting policies to confront it. In the 1950s and 1960s, we adopted policies to deal with the space race that we had going on with the Soviet Union. We set up the National Science Foundation. We did a lot of things to encourage people to study and get education in the areas where we thought the jobs and the economy would be in the future. We built the interstate highway system. We passed the GI Bill to make sure that all the people coming out of the service could have access to education. We made policy decisions to deal with these changes. We did not just take a step back and say economics will take care of it. We adopted policies that made sense to move us forward. That is what we need to do today, and we have some specific ideas amongst the new Democrats and the Democratic Caucus to do that. First and foremost, there is nothing more important than education and job skills in competing in the global economy. The more skills we have, the more education we have, the more we will be able to compete, particularly for those high-end jobs that are so important in keeping our economy strong and giving American families the opportunities that they deserve. There is some despair out there about job training. We can see stories about people who were trained for jobs and then wound up being outsourced and they did not have access to them. But for every one of those stories, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other stories of people who have used the advanced skills training and the advanced job training and education they have received to be employable, to be employed in many cases in better jobs than they had before. That is why I and a number of other folks have introduced a bill on trade adjustment assistance to the number of people who are eligible for those benefits because we believe that trade adjustment assistance works. It would work a lot better if we fully funded it so everybody eligible for those benefits got all the benefits, but it works when it is used, and we need to use it more, not less. So our Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill would expand the number of people covered to include service sector workers who now increasingly face the same sort of competition that manufacturing sector workers have faced. We also expand the bill to expand the number of countries to which, if they lose their job, they are eligible for these benefits. Currently, it is restricted to very few countries that we have specific trade agreements with. We have lost many jobs to countries that do not fall into that category. We need to retrain those workers as well. We need to make that investment. But when we look at the education and jobs skills issue, it is not just about retraining. It is also about basic education. We hear a lot of scary economic statistics out there, but for me the scariest statistic right now has to do with education and specifically with education in the area of math, science, and engineering. Those are the degrees and skills that are going to most create jobs in the future, that are going to most take advantage of the trends in everywhere from biomedical sciences to energy to the new ideas. It is math, science, and engineering that will grow our economy. Right now, in China, 70 percent of all undergraduates get degrees in math, science, or engineering. That is what the Chinese are doing. What we are doing here in the U.S. is 5 percent of our undergraduates get degrees in math, science, and engineering; and, furthermore, the real number of degrees that U.S. students are receiving in those three key areas, math, science, and engineering, have gone down every year for the last decade. We are putting out fewer people with the skills that are desperately needed, and there are changes that we can make in our education system from the K-12 system forward that will help us deal with that and compete better. We need to set high standards. We need to place emphasis in the K through 12 level on math and science to get our students interested in it. Too often right now, and I have visited just about every school district that I represent and many of the schools, when I talk to the students and the teachers there, they cite the same problem. By about the seventh or eighth grade, someplace between the seventh and eighth grade and 11th or 12th, students lose interest in math and science. It is happening to somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of our students. We lose them before they even have the chance to get into a university and get the advanced degrees that they need in these areas. We have to change that, and we have to increase the emphasis in those areas. I am pleased to say that that is happening in a lot of States in the Union. Certainly in Washington State we have adopted higher standards. We have made math and science priorities. We have made those basic skills fundamental, and we are starting to see some changes. But we need to aggressively approach that. We need to do whatever we can to make sure that we get as many degrees in math, science, and engineering as is possible. But it is not just about education. There are other issues that are important, and certainly trade is important. I mentioned that protectionism is not the way to go, and I believe that. We need to open overseas markets, get access to those markets so that we can sell our goods. But that does not mean that we need to lay back and do nothing in the trade area. We need to make sure that our trading partners live by the same rules that we do. One of the biggest mistakes that this country has made certainly in the last 3 years is to not aggressively enforce the trade agreements to our advantage. Certainly other countries are coming after us. Europe sued us over our manufacturing tax credit. Now we have to totally change that, possibly to the detriment of U.S. companies. We have dealt with many different issues where other trading partners have come after us for what they perceive to be trade violations on us. We, on the other hand, stand idly by while other countries do not give us the same access to their markets that they have to ours. Most specifically, we have a huge problem with other countries, primarily China, stealing our products. And it is not just software and intellectual property like movies and books and recordings. It is everything. It is the basic manufactured product that some small businesses made where the Chinese come over, copy it, take it back, sell it as their own. We should issue trade actions to stop that. We should also aggressively go after nations that unfairly manipulate their currency to gain a trade advantage. That is against the WTO. We voted, I think correctly, to bring China into the WTO, to make them part of a rules-based economy. That is great. But to bring them into a rules-based economic system and then not make sure that they follow those rules is ridiculous. It is not taking advantage of what we put out there. We have numerous opportunities to make sure that our trading partners' markets are as open to our goods as ours are to theirs. We should be much more aggressive in enforcing that. We cannot afford to lay back and assume that somehow we are always going to win these competitions. The final issue I want to talk about is investing in research and development, basically making sure that we have the investments made with our companies and with our university system so that we can develop the next best thing first. That is what economic growth is really about, is being at the cutting edge of new inventions, and that is all about investments in research. One issue of particular concern, when we look at economic growth, a lot of people will tell us that health sciences, biotech, biomedical, that is where the future is. When we look at what is going on with the human genome, with DNA, with a variety of different issues, with the development of pharmaceuticals, there is massive potential for growth in these areas. We have several advantages in being the leader on that. But one of the ones that we are giving away right now is in the area of stem cell research. It is a critical factor in developing in the area of health sciences. We have limited the funding for stem cell research in the United States, and a lot of those projects have gone to other countries. They are getting ahead of us in that technology. In numerous other technology issues we have the ability to change our policy to make sure that we are making the investments in research and new technology to be the leaders. We need to make sure that we do that and move forward. Overall, there is no question in my mind that the United States of America can figure out a way to create long-term economic growth so that we can compete in a global economy and create the kinds of jobs that we want. But we cannot sit idly by and pretend that that is just going to happen naturally. We have to make smart policy choices to help the workers, to help the people of our country in their efforts to compete in an increasingly challenging world. We can do it, no doubt about that whatsoever, but not if we are not smart as public policy makers about helping our workers in their ability to compete and create a strong, long-term, sustainable economic growth in this country. I am pleased to be joined by one of my colleagues who has been working with me and others on this issue, very knowledgeable in economic policy issues. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely critical that we fund our troops and the rebuilding effort in Iraq, and I think some very good arguments have been made in support of that, particularly by the gentlemen who took the trip to Iraq to see, on the ground, firsthand, what is going on over there. We have an incredible investment over there that we must see through to the end. We must follow through on the policy and try to leave Iraq in as good a state as possible when we eventually withdraw. But the problem I have is I think we ought to pay for it. We should not simply add this $87 billion to the already growing Federal debt. And it is fairly easy to do. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has a suggestion in his amendment to take it out of the existing tax cut but, personally, I would be open to other options that reduce spending elsewhere and cover those costs. The problem I have with this supplemental is that it simply adds to our debt. And I know it is an incredibly important expenditure. We have had many incredibly important expenditures in the last several years, and we will have many more in the future, but at some point, those expenditures have got to add up to equal the revenue. If not, we are burdening not just future generations, I have heard that, but anyone here who plans on being alive more than 10 years in the future will also have to bear that burden of an incredibly high Federal debt, a debt that is over $6 trillion in total and a deficit that is going to push towards $500 billion next year. Let us do the right thing in Iraq, but let us pay for it. Let us pay for it preferably out of the tax cut, which could easily afford to see an $87 billion reduction but, as I said, I would have the offer to the colleagues on the other side, if there is some area of government spending that you want to cut specifically to fund it, then that is fine, but we cannot afford to continue to act like the debt does not matter. I think the most scary aspect of the debate on this subject has been the comments coming out of the administration in the last few months that have said just that, that deficits don't matter, that all of a sudden it doesn't matter if you balance your budget. That is wishful thinking and dead wrong. It matters whether or not we balance our budget. Let us start moving in the right direction and do the right thing in Iraq, but pay for it, for once.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor an individual from my district who is a true American hero, Duane A. Osborn. He is an ordinary man with an extraordinary story. Unless you are a friend or a family member you won't recognize his face, or ever have heard of his name. But there are millions of Americans like him--Americans who have sacrificed so much for our country and do not receive nearly enough recognition in return for their service. On this, the 50th Anniversary of the Signing of the Armistice of the Korean War, I'd like to introduce you to one of many forgotten warriors in a forgotten war. Duane A. Osborn was born in Wapato, WA on May 30, 1934. In June of 1952, shortly after his 18th birthday, he enlisted in the United States Air Force with the 8th Division. Before he was sent to the Korean War he married Donna Elder. From 1950 to 1953, the United States joined with United Nations forces in Korea to take a stand against what was deemed a threat to democratic nations worldwide. During the Korean War era, 6.8 million Americans served on active-duty and 1.8 million soldiers served in the Korean theater during the three-year period of hostilities. During the war, 36,940 service members made the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives. At war's end, millions of American veterans returned to a peacetime world of families, homes, and jobs--and to a country reluctant to view the Korean War as something to memorialize. But to the men and women who served, the Korean War could never be a forgotten war. In October of 1955, following his service, Duane returned home to Washington state and settled in an unincorporated area that would become the city of SeaTac in my district. He worked building county roads until an accident in September of 1973 rendered him a paraplegic. Duane's hardship duty in Korea had prepared him to meet this difficult physical challenge and in 17 years of participating in the National Veterans Wheelchair Games, he has won 100 gold, silver, and bronze medals--proving again and again his courage, commitment and dedication, as well as his passion for living. Duane continues to contribute to his community and country as a board member of the Northwest Chapter of Paralyzed Veterans of America where he volunteers his time to make my district and Washington state more accessible for people with disabilities. He works tirelessly to ensure that all Americans are given the opportunities to live their lives to the fullest. It is the regular men and women like Duane who honorably answered their country's call to duty and went to Korea over fifty years ago today that we must also remember. Countless Americans never won medals, never were labeled ``heroes,'' yet they tirelessly fought for the causes they believed in--freedom and country. Now home as proud veterans, these individuals know that freedom is not free, they know the costs and they continue to fight anonymously for liberties at home as they serve their communities, once again volunteering to make life better for all of us. I thank Duane A. Osborn and the millions of other Korean War veterans for their contributions to my community and my country, both during that War and now at home, and I ask that we remember his service and the service of so many other ordinary, inspiring individuals today.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt. 168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt. 197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my thoughts on H. Con. Res. 220, a resolution commending Medgar Wiley Evers and his widow, Myrlie Evers-Williams, for their lives and accomplishments. I strongly support this resolution to commend Medgar Evers and his widow, Myrlie Evers-Williams, who were true heroes in their fight for justice, peace, and civil rights. Medgar and Myrlie set up the first NAACP office in Mississippi, and fought tirelessly to desegregate local businesses and schools. They advocated boycotts of businesses that discriminated against blacks, fought for the enforcement of Brown vs. Board of Education, and helped James Meredith gain admittance to the University of Mississippi. Their efforts made not only Mississippi a better place, made America a better place. On June 12, 1963, Medgar Evers made the ultimate sacrifice for his beliefs--he was shot in the back and killed. Myrlie later wrote about their struggles and their life together in a book entitled ``For us, the Living'', which I read as a young man. Her story of how humble and decent people fought hard to make a real difference in the lives of millions inspired me. I regret that I cannot be here in person to vote on this important resolution, but as we recognize the 40th anniversary of Medgar Evers' assassination and commend him and his widow, the reason why I'm not able to vote is a particularly special one. One June 11, my wife Sara and I welcomed a son into the world, whom we proudly named Jack Evers Smith.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I think the most telling thing about this debate thus far is that those who oppose this amendment have said virtually nothing about the amendment itself. We absolutely completely agree that that system on the gentleman from California's chart should stay in place. We should have checks on end use. We should have some standard for what to ship to countries that we do not want to ship it to. This amendment does not eliminate that. It merely recognizes the fact that the existing standard does not work and actually places our country in precisely the danger the opponents have described. The MTOPS system is hopelessly out of date and keeping up with it is virtually impossible. Just to give you one example, by trying to figure out what a supercomputer is, you have this concept that you can simply look at a computer and say, it's a supercomputer or it isn't. It is not that easy. MTOPS is the way it is currently measured, but that does not take into account that a computer that would be under the supercomputer level can be elevated to the supercomputer level simply by adding another processor which is about the size of my hand, or smaller, to the computer. The point here is that the MTOPS system does not work. The Dreier amendment would change that and has nothing to do with the letter that people signed back in 1993. We should absolutely keep standards in place for what technology we export, particularly to countries that we are concerned about. The standard we have now does not work, and it does not protect us. It not only hurts business, as has been mentioned, which, by the way, is also important to national security if we are to maintain our leadership in technology in this country where it does us the most good on national security; but this also does not even work to protect national security because the standard is hopelessly out of date. We are giving the President of the United States, who I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has some confidence in on national security issues, the power to change that system to one that would work better. That is what we are doing. At some point, the opponents of this amendment might talk about it. I doubt it. They will talk about other issues. On the substance of the Dreier amendment, it is a change that is going to protect our national security, which is something we should all be in support of.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Absolutely.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I just want to follow up on how this is the exact wrong time to run up deficits because of the baby boom generation and their coming retirement. I think there might be a tendency to say, we have heard this doom and gloom before. In the late eighties, early nineties, we had huge deficits, big debt, and people said we could never get out from under it. Lo and behold, by the late 1990s we were actually running surpluses. We were fortunate. We had a booming economy. A high-tech economy took off, productivity went up, and we were able to do that. There may be a tendency to think, see, the problem can be fixed. We are in a much different situation now, as the gentleman said. We are going to reach the point in the early part of probably about 2014, 2015, when those Social Security surpluses that we have all grown used to, having huge surpluses in Social Security in order to offset debts in the other part of the budget, they are going to be gone. We are not going to have that money to rely on. What is more, the other part of the budget is going to now have to start covering the deficits in Social Security and in Medicare. So with the baby boom generation retiring, we are not going to be so fortunate this time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I just want to close by saying, it does not have to be this way. There is absolutely no reason our Nation cannot put us on a fiscally responsible path in the next 10 years. Now, I will be honest. I do not believe we can balance the budget this year. We have too many pulls upon us between the economy and the war and various other concerns, but over the 10-year period of time we could quite easily put together a budget that is balanced. I think the reasons we have not gotten there is because politics over the course of the last 20 years, certainly over the course of the last five or ten, in an accelerating fashion has become more and more about promises. And at the end of the day that is why I feel that the Republicans, and in some cases some Democrats, have tried to argue the deficit does not matter because the deficit is inconvenient. When you are out on the stump trying to get elected, people wants tax cuts and they want spending programs. Fiscal responsibility in the short term does not put any money in anybody's pocket and it is a hard thing to be in favor of. You want to promise things. You want to promise a prescription drug benefit. You want to promise a big tax cut. You want to promise more money for the military or more money for education or more money for veterans. And those promises add up to far more than we could ever possibly deliver. And as those promises add up, we dig ourselves a deeper and deeper hole so that when we actually get back to Congress or in the White House and we have to make the decisions that are necessary to move our country forward, we have that huge stack of promises coming up behind us that we do not think that we can get out from under. Mr. Speaker, I guess I will close on a bipartisan note. While it is certainly true to say that the Republicans right now are behaving in a very fiscally irresponsible manner, they have turned on a dime from a rich history of fiscal responsibility for political reasons, it is fair to say that Democrats have not always been fiscally responsible either. In many cases they have supported more programs than our government can support. It is a bipartisan problem but it can also be fixed in a bipartisan manner. There are Republicans and there are many Democrats who believe in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. As a group, we need to rise up and make sure that our voices are heard and our policies get enacted. We can not afford to have deficits for as far as the eye can see. We certainly cannot afford to have $4 trillion in deficits racked up over the course of the next 10 years. If we do, future generations will be dealing with a mess of a size this country has not seen. Fiscal responsibility matters. Let us always remember that and pledge to work on it. Mr. Speaker, before I am done I want to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).