Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his help. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a proud member of the baby boom generation that is soon to bankrupt us, although I will not hold him entirely responsible.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come and address the Chamber this evening. I want to talk about deficits, the debt and fiscal responsibility. There was a time in this country when those issues were very, very important. It dominated public debate in this country in the 1980s and well into the 1990s as we saw our deficit on a yearly basis explode and the overall debt go up to levels that started to concern people. There was a constant battle to try to figure out how to get that debt under control and get our budget balanced on a yearly basis. In recent years, that debate has drifted away. Part of that makes sense. After 9/11, with the slowdown in the economy, with the war in Iraq, there is no question that it makes a certain amount of sense to run short-term deficits in at this point. In emergency situations, that is what you do. My concern and the concern of the New Democrats, which I represent and work with, is that far from simply saying, well, for the time being we are not going to pay as much attention to deficits, it has gotten to the point in Congress and with the White House where it seems like they do not care about them at all, they do not care what the numbers are and they do not think they are important, and that is a very, very dangerous policy and one that we must correct. So this evening I want to talk about, first of all, putting it back into context and letting folks know where the deficit is at, where the debt is at. In recent years we have not focused on it that much, and I think people have totally forgoten what those numbers are. It is important to be aware of what those numbers are. The second issue is to remind folks that the deficit and the debt matter. We have heard some truly bizarre talk here in recent months, coming primarily from conservatives, conservatives who just a few short years ago were arguing that we ought to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we ought to require that it be balanced, never have it be an option to run a yearly deficit. Those same people are now saying deficits probably do not really matter that much. I think they were probably wrong in both, requiring a constitutional amendment and now in saying that the deficits do not matter. Deficits do matter. Now, there are times when you should probably go ahead and run one because of an emergency situation, so a constitutional amendment to balance the budget would unduly restrict our Federal Government. But to go from that to saying that they just do not matter at all is ridiculous. So what I want to start out with is showing where the numbers are at and just how bad things have gotten. First of all, as we head toward fiscal year 2003 coming to a close in October, the projections are now that that deficit, when you add in the supplemental for the war that is going to pass this week in Congress, that deficit will approach $400 billion, just for the one year. That is a higher dollar figure deficit than our Nation has ever seen, by a comfortable margin. I think the highest deficit we had, even during the really bad times of the early 1990s, was $290 billion. When you look long term at the 10 year picture, that is where it gets even bleaker. That is what we are talking about this week with the budget resolution that the House and Senate are trying to reach agreement on. The budget resolution, in theory, is a 10 year blueprint for where we want our budget to go. That blueprint right now has us going in debt, in debt to a level never before imagined. So I have a chart here that shows this and where we are going. This is from the Goldman Sachs study that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) mentioned earlier. It starts off by showing what the official CBO projection is. The official CBO projection is that over the course of the next 10 years, we will have an $890 billion surplus. So basically they are assuming, despite the existing $400 billion deficit that we are going to run this year, in the out years, as we get further down, we will have sufficient surpluses to make that up and get us up to this very happy figure of an $891 billion surplus. The problem is that there are a lot of assumptions in that number that simply will not come to pass, and those assumptions are laid out in the Goldman Sachs analysis. First of all, economic growth has been far slower than CBO expected. If that economic growth hits modest levels over the course of the next 10 years, instead of the overly optimistic projections from CBO, that knocks over $1 trillion off of this $891 billion figure. In addition, will $891 billion does not take into account the emergency supplemental, which, of course, we are going to pass, probably sometime in the next 48 hours, and that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 billion, which, again, comes out of that figure. Now, it is also worth noting that this $80 billion figure may not turn out to be the total cost of the war in Iraq. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and others were talking about earlier, there are big plans to spend even more money on the rebuilding of Iraq, which may well need to be done, but that will drive this figure up even further. Finally, we have a little thing called the alternative minimum tax, or at least finally on this top set. The alternative minimum tax is something that is going to have to be fixed. It was set up a while ago, and it is incredibly complicated, but the bottom line is in the next few years, if we do not change the alternative minimum tax, middle- class taxpayers are going to have to start paying it. It is going to get down to the point where your average middle-class taxpayer will not be able to take the deductions that they are used to taking and they will be hit with this tax. Well, to fix that, it would cost $500 billion over that 10 year period. So for these three things, the adjustments bring us down below the $891 billion figure and put us into deficit. Then we have a series of other issues. If you assume the president's tax cut, that is another $509 billion, plus making the 2001 tax cut permanent, which is part of the President's proposal as well, is another $624. Then in defense, CBO does not assume a significant increase in defense spending. The President's budget does. Given where we are at right now in the world, it seems that the President is right, we are going to increase spending on defense. If we increase that modestly, that is another $536 billion more than CBO projected. Non-defense discretionary, one of the assumptions in the President's budget that helps make it look more fiscally responsible than it is is the assumption that somehow we are just going to dramatically cut all non-defense discretionary spending. Well, historically that has not happened. This is what happened during the time of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings proposals. These proposals would come out in the early eighties and say over the course of the next 6 or 7 years we are going to make these cuts, and then, inevitably, they would never happen and the numbers would be higher than expected. So even assuming a modest growth, 2 percent, which is less than what inflation would probably be over that period, or at least inflation plus population growth, even assuming a 2 percent modest growth, you lose another $350 billion. Lastly, we have the oft-talked about issue of a prescription drug benefit. I do not think there is a significant politician, House, Senate, Democrat, Republican, White House, who has not said we should not do a prescription drug benefit. Well, if we do, it is going to cost something. The figure Goldman Sachs picked on was $600 billion. That may be $400 billion or $500 billion, it may be more than this. But whatever it is, if we do a prescription drug benefit, that is another thing that CBO did not count on. Lastly, once we add up all of these additional expenses, they drive up the debt, and when we drive up the debt, we drive up the debt service. It is just like when you owe more money on a credit card, your minimum payment gets higher and your interest payments get higher. Those interest payments are projected to be $878 billion. So when we add all of this up, what we come up with is instead of a $891 billion surplus over those 10 years, you wind up with a $4.2 trillion deficit over the course of those 10 years. I now know what this $777 billion figure is. This is counting the 891. So basically, if we add all of these up, that reduces this down to a negative 777, and then we add it all the way up and get 4.2. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) pointed out when he spoke earlier, even this figure is a little optimistic, because this counts Social Security surpluses against it. If we take those Social Security surpluses out, put them aside, as we should do, because that money is going to be needed to pay for Social Security as the baby boom generation starts to retire, this figure gets over $6 trillion. Right now, in the entire history of the country, we have ran up a debt of around $6 trillion. If we go forward along the path that the President and the majority in Congress is proposing, we will equal that in the next 10 years. Another $6 trillion in debt will be lumped upon us. So it is important to keep these figures in mind, even if it is not at the top of the agenda right now, as folks are distracted, understandably so, by the war in Iraq and other issues. These figures need to be put into our minds and we need to remember, this is where we are headed, towards another $6 trillion in debt over the course of the next 10 years, with very modest assumptions. This does not even have any emergencies. It seems like every year we have an emergency within the farm community and we have to fund that. Who knows where the next natural disaster might hit or where the next military conflict might come up that would change all of these numbers dramatically. The bottom line is, the numbers show us heading into long-term, structural deficits and huge debt. Which brings us to the next argument and that is the one that the conservatives have been throwing out there recently that oh, come on, deficits do not really matter. It is not really that big of a deal. The economy can move forward and everything is fine. One of their favorite arguments is that deficits do not, in fact, drive up interest rates. Because consistently, one of the arguments against running deficits and in favor of fiscal responsibility is that it is good for the economy. The basic argument is, if the government has a balanced budget, interest rates will stay low because the government will not be out there gobbling up all of that excess cash and driving up interest rates. Well, conservatives look at a couple of historical figures. They have gone back to the 1970s when, in fact, interest rates were very high and deficits were not, and then they have gone to the late 1980s and early 1990s when deficits were high and interest rates really were not and they said, see, one thing does not really have to do with the other. First of all, deficits and how they effect interest rates happens over a long period of time. It is not immediate. And it simply defies economic wisdom to say that the amount of money that the Federal Government is gobbling up has no impact whatsoever on what that money is going to cost. That is what interest rates are: the cost of money. So it just does not make any sense that it will not drive up interest rates. But beyond that, even if it did not drive up interest rates, if we run deficits year after year, the bottom line is, sooner or later, we run out of money. Sooner or later, the only thing the Federal Government is going to be able to do is pay this number down here, pay interest on the debt. Sort of like you get so far in debt, all you can do is make the minimum payment on your credit card, and as that number goes up, spending for everything else, for every other priority in this country must go down. If we run these types of numbers, 10, 15 years from now, the generations that follow us, the Congresses that follow us will have no money whatsoever to meet the needs of their day, and there will be needs. As we look around the country now, we can see many, many crushing needs. In education, the IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act, has been underfunded by tens of billions of dollars for years. Transportation. We have huge infrastructure needs in this country. Back to education. School construction. It is estimated that we have somewhere in the neighborhood of a $300 billion need for school construction. We will not meet that. Health care. Access to health care is in crisis. In my State, reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid are so low that providers are frequently not accepting Medicare and Medicaid patients and they have got nowhere to go. The bottom line is there are needs that require funding. There are needs now, and there will be needs in the future. And if we continue to run up deficits like this, blow the debt through the ceiling, blow the debt payments through the ceiling, we will have no money to address those needs, our infrastructure will collapse, and the economic impact will be devastating. Bottom line: fiscal responsibility matters. If we drive home no other point in this hour this evening talking about fiscal responsibility and deficits, I hope it is that. Let us not get carried away with other issues and forget that fundamental point: balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility matter, and they are good for this country, and we should fight as hard as possible to see that those policies are enacted, that we get the budget balanced, that we put ourselves on a long term path towards fiscal responsibility. That will help this country grow economically and will help us be in a position to meet our needs for the future. The budget resolution that is coming out this week in the House and the Senate will not come close to being fiscally responsible. We need to make sure that we get that under control. I am pleased this evening to be joined by a couple of my colleagues who wish to discuss this issue. We have my fellow cochair of the New Democratic Coalition, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and I yield to him.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. The gentleman's remarks reminded me of a line from the President's State of the Union speech this year. Very early on in his speech he said that the paramount goal of his was that we shall not pass our problems and our challenges on to future Congresses. Now, I think what the President was alluding to at that point was Saddam Hussein and Iraq; and I happen to agree with him on that for one. I think it was bold and courageous to step up and address that problem and not pass it on to future Congresses. But I could not help but be struck by the irony of a line saying, We shall not pass our problems on to future Congresses. If you think about it basically what he was saying was but we shall pass on the bill. That is not responsible. When you run up deficits like this, that the very definition of passing your problems on to future Congresses. It is irresponsible, unworkable, and not in the best interest of the future of this country. I am absolutely convinced we can do better, that we can put together a fiscally responsible budget that best prepares us for the future and allows future economic growth. I want to thank my colleagues again who came out to speak with me tonight on this issue. This is not the last time we will be talking about it. Fiscal responsibility is a never-ending job.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I missed the following rollcall votes: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass. Sponsor: Representative Ron Kind; Motion agreed to: 411-13. To promote Department of the Interior efforts to provide a scientific basis for the management of sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and for other purposes. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 85, a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 961, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''. Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass. Sponsor: Representative Chris Cannon; Motion agreed to: 423-0. To revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 84, a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 788, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Boundary Revision Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, on House rollcall vote 78, on the Hill Substitute to H. Con. Res. 95, I mistakenly cast my vote as a ``no''. I intended to vote ``aye'' and support the Hill substitute.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for organizing this hour to talk about a very important subject, the budget. Of the many things that are disturbing about the budget that the President has proposed and the Republicans have proposed here in the House of Representatives, I think perhaps the most disturbing, is the chatter that is coming out of the Republican side of the aisle that deficits do not matter. It used to be that a balanced budget amendment seemed to be required, and now we have sort of decided because it is inconvenient to have to balance the budget that deficits no longer matter. They have come up with all kinds of fascinating arguments as to why that is. I think the biggest one they focus on is to say that deficits do not really affect interest rates, because that is typically one of the arguments against running deficits is that if the government is gobbling up all the money out there, it is going to drive up interest rates and hurt the overall economy. They point to various points in our history and say that, well, in the 1970s we did not have much in the way of deficits, and we had very high interest rates. In the 1980s we had high deficits and lower interest rates. That is debatable. It seems to me just as an economic matter, if you run deficits over a long period of time, eventually that is going to have a negative effect on interest rates. But even ignoring that point, it is simply true that you cannot run a deficit forever. The biggest reason that deficits are, in fact, a problem is that they suck up all the money for the future and get us to the point as a country where all we can do is pay the monthly payment, just like someone with a credit card debt that is out of control, where they are simply trying to pay the monthly payment, and the interest keeps racking up. The amount of money that we will spend on interest will accelerate. The amount of deficits we run up on a year-by-year basis will accelerate under the President's budget. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, we are going to have no money for any priorities, be they Republican, Democrat or whoever. So if we can at least eliminate one notion, during the debate tomorrow I would hope that someone on the Republican side of the aisle would stand up and say that deficits matter. They are something we should be concerned about, and just because they are inconvenient, we should not turn logic on its head and suddenly say we do not care about them anymore. The other thing that is truly disturbing about this budget is never in the history of this country have we cut taxes while at the same time going to war. The unrealism of that puts us in huge fiscal jeopardy and puts us in a position where we will not be able to meet our obligations in that war. Keep in mind, we are really about to enter our second war. Al Qaeda declared war on us years before September 11. That war was crystal clear after September 11. So dealing with that challenge was number one. Now we are about to launch a second war in Iraq and we, the Republicans, are telling the American people that we can still cut taxes by hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars. That is hopelessly unrealistic. We have already seen the impact of it, the lack of funding for homeland security, and we are very concerned about it, the lack of funding for the war in Iraq for that matter. It has not been put on the table as part of this budget, and we know there is going to be a cost. That is very, very unrealistic. The last thing that is troubling about this budget is it in no way stimulates the short-term economy. The tax cut that is being proposed, only 10 percent of that tax cut will come into being in the first year, right now, when the economy is in trouble. If it were truly stimulative, that is where the money would be. Ninety percent of this tax cut is at least 1 year away, which means it is going to have no impact whatsoever on our economic problems today. Presumably in 2, 3, 4 years, the business cycle will return, and we will have a strong economy, and what is the purpose of the tax cuts then? Certainly it is not stimulative. That is the overarching problem with this budget. This budget reflects a philosophy that says fundamentally we need to cut the Federal Government dramatically. The tax cut that was passed 18 months ago, or almost 2 years ago now, was bad enough. It set us on a path when fully implemented to dramatically see that reduction. Now to pile on another trillion dollars will put us in a position where we will not be able to fund many priorities. Again, the Republican majority is being very disingenuous about this. They come before you and they talk about the no child left behind bill, their commitment to education. They talk about a prescription drug benefit. They talk about the need to deal with health care. If you are going to cut taxes by trillions of dollars, you are not going to be able to address those issues. The no child left behind bill is already on pace to be underfunded by $12 billion from what the President said he would do as a starting point. What this shows us is we cannot meet those priorities. The rhetoric talking about them is simply empty. So one final thing I would ask of the majority in the debate tomorrow is to make that clear to the American people, that this is the choice. Do you want simply to have the largest tax cuts possible, primarily for what they like to refer to as the investor class, which primarily means not most of the people in America? Do you want to have that, or do you want to fund these priorities? Because when the Republicans get up here and talk about a prescription drug benefit and talk about education, understand they have no plan whatsoever to fund it. To the extent it is in there, it is only in there rhetorically. We simply cannot have the tax cuts that they are talking about and fund the priorities that they are talking about. Let us have an honest choice. Let us honestly assess what our choices are, be fiscally responsible, fund our priorities as they lay out there and not pretend that we can have it all; not pretend that in essence we can spend the same dollar three or four times. Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for bringing this debate out. Tomorrow I think we will have the opportunity to talk about it further. I would urge us to reject the Republican budget plan.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a letter to the editor that was printed in The Manchester Enterprise, of Manchester, Michigan, written by one of my constituents, Larry Byrne, a Vietnam veteran. ``To the editor: `Manchester Area People for Peace,' . . . if not for using the Manchester name in your group's cause, I'd never taken the time to write this article. I know as a Marine Corps Sergeant serving two hours of duty in Vietnam, my views may be slightly different from those that are active in the `people for peace' camp. I do hope you realize this doesn't mean the rest of us that enjoy living in our peaceful community would rather live elsewhere, just because we don't share your views on this serious matter. Peace is a state of mind that the majority of Americans have the right and privilege to share. We should never take it for granted nor believe that it didn't come at a very high cost. Hundreds of thousands of men and women gave their lives so that we could live in peace. Our country has made its mistakes throughout its history when it comes to war. Maybe we should have helped remove a crazed paperhanger much earlier than we did, but as Pearl Harbor was bombed they talked peace. Maybe we should have not been drawn into the Vietnam `crisis.' I was sent to Vietnam after some 35,000 Americans gave their lives doing what their country requested of them. I was only 19 at the time and I'll never forget discussing with other Marines the hurt and anger we'd feel when we would read the Stars & Stripes newspaper. Articles and pictures showing our fellow Americans protesting back home only seemed to demoralize us and strengthen our enemy. This brings us to current events. Does anyone really believe Iraq's hostile government or any terrorist organizations would not let us live in peace if not for the threat of war? Therefore, it seems this great nation of ours with all its flaws has been give the role of `peacekeeper.' To those of you don't like this position for our country, I ask . . . to whom do we give it? Germany would have gladly taken the role of 60 years ago, but now they just want to direct the leaders. Japan, like Germany, somewhat graciously relinquished the role and decided to build better cars. Canada--just joking, eh? From France, a newspaper ad: `French military rifle for sale. Never fired, dropped once.' United Nations? Please, the UN has proven totally ineffective with the Iraq situation. On the other hand, what if nobody did anything? I don't know if isolationism could work in our small world today, but if we were all willing to give up a lot, who knows? A new song came out called, ``Have you Forgotten.'' I suggest as you're walking on the bridge with your peace signs you listen to it. Who knows, you may learn something. By the way, don't try this in Tieneman Square. Personally and perhaps most of us that served in our country's military, especially in Vietnam, would appreciate you not using our town's name of Manchester to promote your ideas. Again, I respect your rights and privileges to do so, but don't draft me by name association to be a participatant in your point of view. Da Nang, 1969 or Manchester 2003--strong believes don't change . . . you're hurting us and helping them.'' Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Byrne for writing this letter.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, December 29th, Pierce County, Washington State and our nation lost a true hero, Helmut ``Brownie'' Braunsteiner, due to complications surrounding his battle with cancer. It is difficult to describe Brownie's life without resorting to superlatives, but the evidence speaks for itself. From his birth in 1926 to his escape from Nazi-controlled Austria to America in 1939, Brownie never failed to display his particular brand of zest for life that so characterized his 75 years with us. In 1944 Brownie began his decorated 27-year career in the United States Army, serving in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Because of his fluency in German, he later served as an interpreter at the Nuremberg war crime trials. For thirty years, Brownie was a full-time volunteer for veterans organizations, coordinating Veterans of Foreign War volunteers for the VA Hospital and chairing the Pierce County Veterans Advisory Council. In 1987, he helped found Fife's Veterans Independent Enterprises of Washington to rehabilitate homeless drug- or alcohol-dependent vets and help them become self-sufficient. After he developed diabetes, Brownie dedicated countless hours to the Diabetes Association of Pierce County, conducting diabetes screenings without charge to residents of Pierce County. Brownie was known for both helping people detect their diabetes and begin to manage the condition. He would frequently go so far as to check in with people after their initial diagnosis to make sure they'd seen a doctor about their condition even three weeks after the test. But these jobs and titles don't begin to describe either who Brownie was or the depth of his commitment to life. A man with a big heart, Brownie fought for issues he believed in. After serving our nation with a decorated career in the Army, Brownie worked tirelessly for the rights of veterans. Brownie was a passionate, dedicated citizen. He was patient and kind in teaching me not just about veterans and military issues, but also a wide range of other concerns close to his heart. I was fortunate enough to work with Brownie on veterans issues ranging from concurrent receipt to VA health care to continuing education and reform of the Montgomery GI bill. It was always an honor to stand in the same room as him and I will always cherish the opportunity I had to call him both a colleague and a friend. Brownie's outstanding contributions, selfless volunteerism, patriotism, and endless devotion cannot be sufficiently acknowledged. Everyone in the veterans' community, every elected official, everyone in Pierce County knew him and admired him. His tireless work earned him not only the respect, but also the love of everyone he touched. Brownie Braunsteiner's passing is a loss to all who knew him and we extend our deepest sympathy to his family in their great loss. I will miss his friendship and his counsel.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, last month marked the third anniversary of the bloody intervention by Lao communist security forces against peaceful student demonstrators. In October of 1999, the communist regime in Vientiane sought to crush the Lao Students Movement for Democracy. I was recently honored to join with Laotian-American constituents and survivors of this brutal crackdown to speak at the Congressional Forum on Laos, which had a series of special events in the U.S. House of Representatives this year to mark the anniversary of this dark chapter in the history of Laos and the free world. Mr. Speaker, my district is the home to many freedom-loving Lao- Americans as well as the Lao Students Movement for Democracy--whose members are comprised largely of the survivors of the pro-democracy movement in Laos in 1999. The students escaped the Lao communist regime to neighboring Thailand and then were admitted to the United States as refugees after the outpouring of concern by Laotian-Americans in the South King County area. Sadly, however, many of the Lao pro-democracy student leaders and their families still remain jailed in Laos and have disappeared into their horrific prison system. Amnesty International continues to raise concerns about their plight and the systemic torture that exists within the prisons and gulag system of Laos. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend and thank the leaders of the Lao community for their steadfast efforts on behalf of freedom and democracy in Laos and for the hard work of all those involved in organizing the U.S. Congressional Forum on Laos sessions held on September 17 and October 1st. Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned about the ongoing plight of the Lao students leaders and others who are still jailed in Laos for their political or religious beliefs, or simply because they are members of an ethnic minority like the Hmong people. I would urge my colleagues, therefore, to work toward helping to bring freedom, hope and human rights to Laos and its suffering people. We should remember those who are still persecuted and jailed in Laos, struggling for basic human rights and freedoms. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include into the Record the following news article from the Agence France Press (``Lao Exiles Demand Freedom for Imprisoned Comrades,'' July 18, 2002) regarding the Lao Students' efforts in Congress in Washington, DC: Exiled dissidents have demanded the release of five colleagues who have disappeared into the prison gulag in Laos, following unprecedented anti- Communist protests. The Lao government is holding five of the eleven strong core leadership of the Lao Students for Democracy after it crushed surprise protests in the capital, Vientiane, in October 1999. Six others, two of whom appeared at a U.S. Congressional forum devoted to their cause, on Wednesday, escaped to Thailand, before being granted political asylum by the United States. ``My colleagues are still in jail, they are asking for peace and justice for the Lao people, I would like them to be put on trial as soon as possible,'' said one of the leaders, Aly Chantala. Another dissident leader Nouamkhan Khamphylavong added: ``We still heard nothing about their fate since they were arrested.'' Rights group Amnesty International has accused the ruling Lao People's Revoluntionary Party of denying that the arrests even took place and of holding prisoners in cruel and degrading conditions. Campaigners say the five student leaders were arrested, tortured an incarcerated by the Lao government in violation of the country's one year limit on detention without trial. They want the United States and world financial bodies to withhold financial aid and make trade benefits for Laos conditional on improvements in its human rights record and the granting of political rights. Some business groups and sectors of the U.S. administration have, however, being pushing for Laos to be granted normal trade relations with the United States, arguing that economic opening will trigger an easing of the political situation. Wednesday's event in a Congressional building was part of an ongoing campaign to block the aspirations of the pro Laos- trade lobby.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution because I believe that the threat of force is required if we are to have any hope of disarming Saddam Hussein and removing the threat that he presents to our Nation and to the world. Just about everybody agrees that Saddam Hussein does in fact pose a threat. The debate seems to be about how large that threat is, how imminent it is, and how much it is directed at us. I think the evidence makes it clear that we face a threat. I am sympathetic to those who would like to wish away that threat because of the hard choice that we have to face when we realize that we do have a threat against us, but it does not change the facts. Saddam Hussein has a long history of trying to develop the most deadly weapons possible: chemical, biological, and nuclear. He was first thwarted in 1981 by Israel, then in 1991 by the Gulf War, and now all evidence points to the fact that he is trying to develop those weapons again. That makes him a threat right off the bat. Plus he has a proven propensity for violence, a proven propensity to use those weapons. As bad as we think Iran and North Korea are, and the Soviet Union was, none of those countries have ever used chemical weapons. They drew the line; Saddam Hussein did not. He crossed over it, and he used chemical weapons against his own people. He also has clearly expressed his disdain for the United States of America ever since the Gulf War, so clearly he is a threat to us. The presence of international terrorism changes the nature of this threat. Many have said we have not proven a link to 9-11, we have not proven a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, but there is ample evidence that some degree of connection is there. And there is certainly ample reason that tells us that Saddam Hussein coming together with the international terrorists who oppose us is quite likely and quite possible; and that makes the threats both imminent and to the U.S. because terrorism would enable Saddam Hussein to deliver these weapons through means other than having to develop an intercontinental missile. He could deliver them in any manner of different ways and has shown a certain willingness towards violence against the U.S. We face a threat. We cannot wish away that threat because of consequences of acknowledging it. We face that threat, and we must stand up to it, and the threat of force against him is necessary to meet it. Now, I want to deal with the preemptive argument because many have said we are becoming a rogue nation by doing this. And I regret what the President has said about a policy of preemptive strike because I think it has muddied the waters. We do not have to violate international law to go to war with Saddam Hussein. We are in an armistice with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We went to war with them in 1991. That war was only ended by an armistice, an armistice which everyone knows Saddam Hussein is in violation of. We are clearly within the bounds of international law to use force to enforce that armistice. We do not have to get into a debate about first strikes and preemptive action. We are clearly within the bounds of the international law. It has also been said that we should work multilaterally. I completely agree that we should. Again, I regret the approach the President took earlier this year when stories were leaked about how he could do it without congressional approval. He did not want to go to the U.N. He wanted to do it unilaterally. I think that was a mistake. I think he should have learned from his father's example when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The first thing the first George Bush did was to call the U.N. and say let us work together. We should have taken that approach, but now we are. It has been said, How can we give this power to the President who wants to go right over our heads and totally ignore Congress? We are here talking about it. He is not going over our heads. He is asking us for that support. So that too is not an issue. We should act multilaterally. We are. It is my profound hope that we will not go to war, that Saddam Hussein faced with this threat will allow for the disarmament to happen. But absent this threat, rest assured he will not react in the way that we want him to. I also regret that politics has been brought into this. During the time when we were trying to deal with the crises in Kosovo and Bosnia and even Iraq in 1998, I was deeply angered by Republican colleagues who attacked the President's character as he tried to deal with this threat. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the criticisms of President Clinton were that in trying to deal with Saddam Hussein, when he finally so thwarted the U.N. inspectors that they were forced to leave because they could not do their job, criticism was that the President was ``wagging the dog,'' he was dealing with his personal problems. We undercut our own President at a time when he needed us most. And now when I see Democrats doing the same thing by questioning the President's motives at a time when we need to come together as a country, I similarly destain that partisanship. There is plenty of room to disagree here about whether or not we should go to war. We do not need to question the personal motives of our President now any more than we should have back in 1998 when it was Republicans doing it to Democrats instead of Democrats doing it to Republicans. Lastly, I would like to deal with the issue of how this affects the people of Iraq. There has been much criticism of the sanctions regime on Iraq, much criticism of the effect that has had on the Iraqi people. Ironically, that criticism has come from some of the same people who now criticize our threat to use force against Iraq. I think the criticism was this is harming the Iraqi people and doing nothing to Saddam Hussein. So if we do not threaten to use force and back it up if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein and remove that threat, what are we left with? Do we simply remove the economic sanctions and say it is okay for Saddam Hussein to make a mockery of international law, to make a mockery of the same multilateralism that we claim to support, to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and the world and simply say we will do nothing? I fully admit this is a hard choice. Going to war is not easy, but we cannot wish away the threat and pretend somehow this is simply motivated by personal motivations of the President. There is a clear threat here we must deal with. I hope the threat of force deals with it; but if the threat does not, we must follow through in order to protect ourselves and protect the world.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest condolences to the family of Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson who was killed in a bomb blast yesterday in Zamboanga, Philippines. He died while advancing freedom, peace and stability in the Philippines and his family should be proud of his service and his work on behalf of the American people. Sergeant Jackson, who was part of the 1st Special Forces Group at Fort Lewis, WA, was on the front lines of the global war against terrorism. He served as a member of a U.S. force deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, helping to train the Philippine military to fight the Abu Sayyaf terrorist organization more effectively. He will be remembered as one of our finest young Americans and he gave his life so that people throughout the world could be safer and more secure. I strongly condemn the cowardly terrorists who committed this act. The Abu Sayyaf, who has been blamed for the attack, has been consistently linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. They represent a clear threat to America and we will continue the global campaign to uproot the terrorist cells and bring them to justice. Through the efforts of the courageous and dedicated men and women in our Armed Forces, I am confident that we will prevail in this fight.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3781.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, there are two stats that have always stuck out for me in trade that I first heard from President Bill Clinton. The first is that 96 percent of the people live someplace other than the United States of America, which means that if we wish to grow and expand our markets, we are going to need access to those markets. You cannot do that without fast track trade negotiating authority. Without the ability to negotiate, to reduce tariff barriers to other countries that we have, you cannot move forward. Right now the U.S. is in the unfortunate position of facing much higher tariffs than we have here at home. We need to negotiate to change those. The second stat is that the U.S., despite being only 4 percent of the world's population, is still responsible for over 20 percent of the world's consumption. So if you are in the developing world that we have heard much about tonight, if you have any hope of growing economically, you need access to our markets as well. Despite those two facts, we have heard a lot about how, Yes, we support trade, but this isn't the way to do it because of all the challenges we face. But what I think we have to think about is under those terms, what would a trade agreement look like that the opponents support? What can we possibly do in a trade agreement to raise the labor standards throughout the developing world, throughout the world that does not have our standards, to our level? The answer, of course, is that we cannot. We are not going to get there. Fully 70 percent of the world is dramatically below us in labor standards. Does that mean that we do not trade with them? Does that mean that we simply say we are going to erect a protectionist barrier? Certainly that is a trade agreement that I guess we would all like. You would like to be able to have access to other countries' markets without them having access to yours; but that is not realistic, and it is not good for global stability. I submit that we can move forward, that the world that has been described tonight by those who say that these trade agreements have destroyed us simply is not the one any of us lives in. We can compete. We have competed and succeeded. Under Bill Clinton's leadership, amongst others, we enjoyed the fastest economic expansion ever, and that was across the board. That was not just the wealthiest 10 percent. That was everybody. We can compete and win. We cannot shut out the rest of the world. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, fiscal responsibility must be a guiding principle of our government. My constituents have told me again and again that government must live within its means and balance the budget. I agree and have consistently fought for more fiscal discipline. That is why I am voting against permanent repeal of the estate tax. I have always supported estate tax cuts--I authored legislation to completely eliminate the estate tax for all family farms and businesses, and have consistently voted to cut and even eliminate it altogether in years past. However, this vote today is simply another step down the path of fiscal irresponsibility. In the past year and a half, our economy has been in recession and was further damaged by the terrorist attacks surrounding September 11. Instead of responding with tough choices and fiscal discipline, however, Congress and the Administration have responded by passing a $15 billion airline bailout bill, a $30 billion supplemental appropriations bill, a very wasteful and bloated farm bill, and a tax cut that will cost $2 trillion over the next ten years. Even though I voted against these things, the truth is that they have all been signed into law by the President or will be very soon, and so their fiscal impact is now a reality and must be taken into account. There has been no serious effort by Congressional Leaders or the White House to design and implement a bipartisan balanced budget plan. The result has been a staggering reversal from the once-large budget surplus projections to large budget deficit projections. Budget deficits mean we use Social Security and Medicare revenues from other programs, putting us in a terrible position to deal with the entitlement crises that are coming in a decade due to demographic changes and the escalating costs of health care. We are falling further and further into debt, and interest payments on that debt will eat up an increasingly large share of taxpayer dollars--currently about 12 cents of each tax dollar. We're moving in the wrong direction, and I cannot vote for legislation that will have such a large fiscal impact on our budget without a corresponding plan to return to fiscal discipline and get our budget balanced again within the next few years. Let me be clear: if the permanent repeal of the estate tax were part of a long-term balanced budget strategy, I would support it. Unfortunately, in this context, it is one more example of Congress and the Administration's lack of fiscal responsibility, and I cannot support it at this time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3479.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Senate is considering the President's request for trade promotional authority right now, and at the same time, connected to it, trade adjustment assistance, help for workers who have lost their jobs. I rise today to urge the Senate today to pass the strongest possible trade adjustment assistance packages. Workers desperately need help dealing with the new economy. It is a land of opportunity for all of us, but there are also challenges. Workers must continually have access to training and education to update their skills. They also need the health care benefits necessary to carry them during periods of unemployment, and they also need income assistance to help them as they move forward and try to find new jobs. I am a strong supporter of trade. As a new Democrat, it is one of our top priority issues to open trade throughout the world and give us access to other markets. Connected to that, however, we have to help the workers of our country deal with the challenges and opportunities that come along with that. There must be a strong health care component. There must be job training and education available. If the Senate were to put together that type of package and pass a trade promotional assistance bill with a strong trade adjustment assistance piece, I am very confident they would be able to pass it in the House, and they would move forward on two critical policies for this country.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, like all Americans, I believe that we must meet our most pressing priorities of protecting our country against terrorism, improving our international relations, and growing our economy. I agree with the president that these current challenges warrant small, short-term deficit spending. However, I am concerned about the lack of sound budgeting practices in the Republican Budget offered today. Under their plan we cannot both address our most pressing current needs, and establish a framework for a long-term, sustainable revenue and spending plan without relying on massive borrowing. The Republican Budget spends most of the Social Security surplus and all of the Medicare surplus, putting us in terrible position to deal with the impending entitlement crises when the baby boomers retire. Despite promises last year from both the White House and Congress to save every single dollar of the Social Security surplus and Medicare surplus, and Congress' votes for a Social Security ``lockbox'' five times in the past few years, this budget uses nearly all the Medicare and Social Security surpluses--more than 86 percent of the Social Security surplus and every penny of the Medicare surplus. The Republican budget also just isn't honest--it doesn't take into account the tax and spending programs that both Republicans and Democrats know Congress is going to pass. For example, the individual Alternative Minimum Tax will balloon twenty-fold by 2012, affecting 39 million households (34 percent of all taxpayers), but fixing that problem isn't in the budget. Republicans also support making permanent last year's tax cuts, which would cost $569 billion and Speaker Dennis Hastert plans to bring up an additional tax cut bill this spring. None of these items are in the budget. And in terms of spending, the White House has said that it will submit a supplemental appropriations request for defense and homeland security that will certainly be approved by Congress--but that isn't in the budget either. They are assuming non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending will be kept at only five percent of the levels necessary to maintain current levels of services in 2003. We all know that's an unrealistic projection--even under Republican control of Congress, spending has always increased on these programs. Another problem with the Republican Budget is that it uses the optimistic, rosy projections from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rather than the more conservative Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections. Over the next five years, the difference between CBO and OMB revenue projections is $110.4 billion. OMB also plans on the government spending $48 billion less over the same five year period on mandatory spending programs like Medicare and veterans' benefits. That's a lot of ifs. To be perfectly honest, I don't really care whether the numbers we use are labeled CBO, OMB or UFO, but I do believe that it's sound budgeting practice to use more conservative numbers when you're balancing your checkbook. The bottom line is that even with all of these budget tricks and gimmicks that make it look like we can have everything we want, the budget is still in deficit and our debt is still climbing. The budget deficit for next year is projected to be $46 billion, and we'll be in deficit every year for ten years. By 2007, when the baby boomers start to retire, the government will owe more debt to the public--nearly $3.5 trillion--that it does today. Our federal budget needs to be more balanced and fiscally responsible than today's Republicans proposal. I had hoped that House Republicans would recognize the need and the real possibility for bipartisan cooperation on developing a proposal for the federal budget. If the House leadership is willing to invite more people to the table, to go to an economic conference as we've suggested, I am confident that we can have a federal budget that will protect the country against terrorism, lend needed support to our military, take care of workers at home, and pay for needed programs like education, healthcare and social security as well as ensuring a strong economic foundation for the future.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the chairmen of the subcommittee and the full committee for bringing this issue through the committee and to the floor. It is an issue that is very, very important to my district. The Lakehaven Utility District is one of the largest utility districts that I represent and have some critical wastewater needs, as was mentioned. The projects that they have put forward are very innovative and show a great deal of promise in developing new technology to help us deal with wastewater, both in terms of recycling it and properly disposing of it. Some of the problems that we have in this country that do not get as much attention or are not as well noticed are some of the critical infrastructure problems. When most people think of infrastructure, they think of transportation, they think of airports, maybe they think of education; but wastewater treatment is one of the more critical infrastructure issues that our country faces, and we are facing a critical backlog of projects that need help and support. This bill would give us the authorizing language that we need in order to move forward in this project. We are fully aware of the fact we also have to get in line with the other 25 projects to try to get it appropriated, but this is the first necessary step in that process. I really want to compliment the Lakehaven Utility District and their commissioners, who have worked so hard on this project. I think they have been very forward-thinking, and the project they have put forward looked at new technologies and new ways to deal with wastewater in ways that hopefully will help become a model for the country and move forward. They are fully prepared to fund, obviously, a portion of this project and just need a little Federal help to make it happen. Again, I want to thank the chairman, I want to thank all the people on the committee, for allowing this to come forward, and, again, the folks in Lakehaven for doing the work. Lastly, I am going to take a personal moment. It is my wife's birthday today; and, unfortunately, she is back home in my district. So this is my only opportunity to say happy birthday to her in any sort of visual format. So, happy birthday. Again, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill up, and urge passage. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Lee Hartwell, president and director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington and professor of genetics and medicine at the University of Washington, on his outstanding research on yeast genetics which earned him the prestigious Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for 2001. It is with great pride that I extend my congratulations to Dr. Hartwell whose dedication and hard work in the area of genetic research has not only enabled many lives to be saved, but has provided the groundwork for many others to go on and make countless advances of their own. Though I don't pretend to be an expert on cell division in eukaryotic (nucleated) organisms, I am well aware that Dr. Hartwell's dedication and innovative study, beginning over 25 years ago, has made an enormous difference in our understanding of how cells divide and the vast medical advances we can derive from such knowledge. Dr. Hartwell's research was the first to harness the tools of genetics to study how cells function, thus determining which genes cause cells to divide-- without his efforts, this critical information could very well remain a mystery. His hard work and persistence is to be commended, and I am pleased that the Nobel Assembly in Sweden has selected Dr. Hartwell for this honor, which is so richly deserved. Congratulations, Dr. Hartwell, and thank you for your dedication and contribution not only to the biotechnology and health fields, but ultimately to people both here and throughout the world who will so greatly benefit from your discoveries.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is with great disappointment that I vote against this legislation before us tonight. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, have shocked and saddened all of us. In the weeks, months, and even years ahead, they will challenge us to fight for our freedoms and our values, and to figure out precisely how best to do that. As a Member of the U.S. Congress, representing not just the 650,000 people of my district, but the Nation as a whole, I want to do my part to decide what action must be taken and to constantly work with the people I represent so that their views and concerns can be heard, and so that I can keep them informed of the actions our Nation is taking and plans to take. Last week, I voted to authorize necessary and appropriate force in response to the attacks, and I voted for $40 billion in emergency funding to assist the victims and fund the investigation. I looked forward to supporting a package that would keep America's economy strong, by providing assistance to the American airline industry, helping our workers, and improving safety so that Americans feel confident in our skies again. I looked forward to doing all of this in a bipartisan way. I know there are many differences of opinion in this body, even in times of great national emergency, regarding corporate liability, job training, federal control of aviation security, and other critically important issues, but I hoped that both sides would be able to give a little and compromise so that we could quickly put forth a package that would help heal the economic wounds that have been inflicted since September 11. The leadership of both parties in both the House and the Senate and their staffs have worked tirelessly to put together a package that could garner bipartisan support and address all of these issues I've outlined, and I appreciate that. However, I don't believe this package in front of us tonight is nearly well-balanced enough because it doesn't address the worker concerns or safety concerns. I am opposing it because I think we need to go back to the drawing board and fix it. If it takes until tomorrow, or Monday, or Tuesday, we need to get this right. This legislation provides $5 billion in direct aid to the airlines, $10 billion in loan guarantees to airlines, government aid with insurance for airlines, and caps the airlines' financial liability. I support all of these provisions. However, I believe it would be irresponsible not to also address safety issues and employee issues. After all, we cannot have a strong and vibrant airline industry in this country without people who want to fly, and that will require both people who have money in their pockets to buy airline tickets, and a dramatic improvement in consumer confidence that will only come with real safety improvements. This legislation will cost over $15 billion. I find it unbelievable that we could not find one dollar to cushion the blow for the workers who will be affected--by latest estimates, approximately 100,000 workers will be laid off as a direct result of the attacks on September 11. Bolstering the airline industry so that we can minimize these layoffs is imperative, but the sad truth is, even this $15 billion will not save very many of the jobs lost due to the terrorist attacks. Many workers in my district, who work at Boeing's 737 plant in Renton, fear a layoff notice as early as next month. I'm sure the thousands of Alaska Airlines and SeaTac Airport employees in my district are worried too. I have faith that the industry and the economy will recover, but that won't help with these workers' mortgage, electric bill, or car payment. Right now, if a group of workers can prove that their job was lost due to trade, they are eligible for a series of benefits including job training and income support. Why can't we extend the same benefits for the thousands of workers who will lose their jobs and have trouble finding a new one rlght away? Can't we send just a few dollars to the men and women who will no longer fly the planes, sell the tickets, load the bags, attend to the passengers, or build the planes? Before he passed away, my father was one of those men. He worked for thirty years as a ramp serviceman for United Airlines at SeaTac Airport, so I know firsthand how important these jobs are to Americans, and I can't imagine what my father would have said if, after this attack, Congress had passed a relief package that gave $15 billion to the airline industry and not a dollar for the thousands of workers who will be impacted within the next weeks. Let me just say a few words about safety and security issues. I strongly support the U.S. airline industry, and I believe that we should, at this critical moment in history, stand behind them. However, I think we have to fairly and reasonably examine the events of September 11. Our current airport security system allowed four U.S. planes to be hijacked by men with knives, some of whom were on the terrorist watch list. It's safe to say that the airport security system failed us. If we are passing legislation to improve the condition of the airline industry, shouldn't we also address this issue? Perhaps airport security should truly be a security issue, not merely a business issue that, until last week, was mostly considered in terms of a company's bottom line. Don't get me wrong--the bottom line is important to our capitalist economy, but I have come to the conclusion that airport security should not be subject to those concerns. There are many interesting ideas out there for how to improve it, but I believe first and foremost we need to make airport security a responsibility of the Federal Government: perhaps under the Department of Transportation, or the Coast Guard. In conclusion, I want to again express my disappointment at having to oppose this bill. I sincerely hope that the President, Senate leaders, and House leaders will work to address these important concerns before a package is signed into law.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from California for his leadership in introducing H.R. 1157, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. This bill will be an important tool for the Pacific Northwest's efforts to preserve and protect our unique salmon runs. Our region understands the importance of providing salmon with the habitat they need to flourish, and our state and local governments have developed valuable programs to recover salmon runs. This legislation will allow those established programs to qualify for federal matching grants, and provide the incentives needed to enable new organizations to participate in salmon recovery. For Washington state, that means that our Salmon Recovery Funding Board will have an additional revenue source. This board does a good job of getting the funds to programs that are instrumental in recovery efforts, but they need more funding and that is exactly what this bill will do. This bill could mean additional funds for restoration projects like those on the Hylebos Watershed, and the Green and Duwamish Rivers. The states and Indian tribes know what needs to be done to help salmon recover, but they need help from the federal government. This bill will allow existing programs to expand on their successes with the opportunity to qualify for further funding. This bill authorizes $200 million a year for three years for states and Indian tribes for salmon conservation and restoration projects in the coastal and upriver of Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Last year the House considered a similar bill, but it was never taken up in the Senate. I am hopeful that the House's early action on this bill will give the Senate ample time to consider this legislation so that the President can sign it.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, due to the cancellation of my flight to Washington from my Congressional District on May 1, I missed the following 2 roll call votes: Rollcall No. 90, on H. Con. Res. 91, ``Recognizing the importance of increasing awareness of the autism spectrum disorder, and supporting programs for greater research and improved treatment of autism,'' which passed the House 418-1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 91 on H. Con. Res. 95, ``Supporting a National Charter Schools Week,'' which passed the House 404-6 with 7 voting present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for doing an excellent job of talking about the problem and where we need to go in terms of finding solutions. This is a great opportunity for this Congress and this President to work together in a bipartisan way. The President has talked a great deal about wanting to change the tone in Washington and work in a different way. There is some frustration, particularly amongst moderate Democrats like myself, that that has been more rhetorical at this point than actual, but there is still plenty of time. We are a little over 100 days into this, and there are some very important policies that are yet to be fleshed out. The President, by taking a focus on energy, could make a huge difference by bringing people in. I think if there is any issue out there that should be bipartisan, it is certainly energy. It is critical to everything that we do, as was outlined by my colleagues quite well. But I think the critical element in all of this is understanding both the cost of taking the approach that says fossil fuels are the only way to get us out of this, and also the rich field of opportunities to go a different route. Just think about it. Building a power plant a week for the next 20 years to burn more fossil fuels, the impact of that cannot be underestimated; the sheer cost of doing it, the damage to the environment of both building the plants and also of the consumption of those fossil fuels. That is not to say, as all of my colleagues have done a great job of saying, that this should not be a critical part of it. We are going to have to use fossil fuels and build power plants; but we should look at the cost and difficulties in doing that and understand that an alternative is preferable, and then look at the alternatives and say, you know, it is not an impossible dream. There are alternative technologies out there right now that are working. There are ways to conserve energy in a way that will save us dramatically, and that is with what has been a relatively meager investment in those technologies and conservation techniques. Think of what we could do if we actually committed ourselves to solving that problem. Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth the investment and worth the time and energy on our part to do that and come up with the alternatives and build a brighter future that is not as dependent on the constant fossil fuel cycle that we are going through and make us so dependent on foreign nations for the future of our country. I thank the new Democrat Coalition in putting this special order together, and I look forward to working with them as well as everyone else in the Congress and the administration and throughout this country to come up with an energy policy which will sustain us for the future.