Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the 2003 University of Florida women's tennis team, for achieving the highest honor in collegiate play, the NCAA title. The Gators upset the top-ranked and two time defending champion Stanford in front of a spirited sellout crowd at Linder Stadium at Ring Tennis Complex in Gainesville, Florida.

This week the University of Florida women's tennis team has been invited to The White House to participate in the 2003 NCAA Spring Sports Championship Day, recognizing the NCAA team champions from the 2003 spring season. The 2003 Gator team will be UF's fourth national championship team to visit The White House, joining the 1996 football team, the 1998 soccer and 1998 women's tennis teams. I congratulate the Women's Tennis Team on their exceptional 2003 season and wish them the best of luck in 2004. Go Gators!

Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished colleague for yielding me this time, and thank him, of course, for H.R. 3140, the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act.

As has already been pointed out, about 36 million Americans wear contact lenses, but those millions of Americans do not have a right to a copy of

their contact lens prescription. I think a lot of us did not realize that. This bill changes all of that, so doctors are required now to provide patients with a copy of their prescriptions whether they ask for it or not. So now it is their property, and they can use it as they wish.

Of course, with that prescription, the consumer now has an opportunity to be empowered so that the issue of competition is heightened in the contact lens market. Because unlike doctors who are prevented from filling drug prescriptions, eye doctors and optometrists are able to fill contact lens prescriptions. This sets up a conflict- of-interest situation, where third-party sellers are actually competing for the sale of lenses with the individual writing the prescription. That will all change under this bill.

So this bill requires doctors and optometrists to verify prescriptions with third-party sellers. If the doctor refuses, for example, to verify this prescription, then the verification is presumed. What this means is the consumer will no longer be caught between the doctor and the seller in a competitive tug-of-war where the consumer is always the loser. This bill gives power to consumers over their buying decisions and allows the consumer to make his choice.

I think it has been pointed out that the bill has also received the endorsement of the American Optometric Association and has received strong bipartisan support in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It came out of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, which I chair, and it is a good piece of legislation. I support it and I commend the author.

Mr. Speaker, with each passing day, the President's critics become more emboldened in their attacks on what they decry as a misleading impetus to go to war. According to the information they are able to ascertain from 24-hour news channels and the New York Times, they continue to condemn the President's claim that Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda.

We have all heard their diatribes accusing the President of invading Iraq with little or no evidence that Saddam Hussein worked along Osama bin Laden. I recommend the recent article in the Weekly Standard's current issue that details the memo written in response to the administration's prewar intelligence. It is clear evidence of the nexus of terrorism with terrorist-sponsoring states that many antiwar advocates deny exists at all.

According to this memo, dated October 27, 2003, bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives, weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps, safe haven in Iraq, and Iraq financial support for al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, the findings put forth in the memo come from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources.

Some of it is new information obtained in interviews with high-level Al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials and some reaches back a decade. Not surprisingly, the picture that emerges is one of long-standing collaboration between two of America's most grave enemies. According to the memo which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points, Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq war began. So in effect, Mr. Speaker, this information has been accumulated over three administrations.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to the memo, bin Laden sent emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials. At some unspecified point in 1991, according to CIA analysis, Iraq sought Saddam's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda. Both parties were equally interested in developing that relationship and according to the CIA reporting memo, bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's abilities through ties in Iraq.

The cumulative weight of the intelligence is compelling. Even The Washington Post recommends that its readers examine the evidence and decide for themselves. The notion that the pragmatic Saddam Hussein, who had grown closer and closer to extreme terrorists in the 1990s, would avoid any contact with al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not a reasonable conclusion to draw. The alliance is a natural one. With al Qaeda now claiming responsibility for the recent attacks on synagogues in Turkey, we are reminded of our duty to respond.

Were the President to have completely ignored this information, the world would have to face potentially horrifying consequences. Yet today's critics seem eager to claim even after 9/11 the administration should only have acted against Saddam if it has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he, Saddam, was in league with al Qaeda.

Hopefully, this report provides the evidence that is needed to make this link. This information is reaffirming our need to topple Saddam. After so many years of complacency, weakness, and denial, the President made the decision to oust Saddam. He took the action, the action that was vital to protect our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the rule and strong support for the conference report, H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2000.

I serve as a conferee between the Senate and House. We gave developed, in my opinion, a very balanced, sensible bill with production initiatives with conservation. The electricity portion of the bill, one of the most controversial items we have dealt with, sets the stage, I believe, for investment and reliable operations to bring our energy markets into the 21st century.

The bill also provides incentives for renewable energy production, clean coal technology, low-income energy assistance, provides for certainty and reliable operation of our energy markets, and increased domestic production.

As this graph shows, renewable energy, providing new solutions like hydrogen fuel cells, will provide economic and environmentally safe energy solutions and prevent blackouts.

This bill promotes investment in critical electric transmission capacity and efficiency. So I commend my colleagues the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and their staff. They have done yeoman's service in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, billions and billions of dollars are sapped from our economy each year by cargo theft. It is a staggering problem, and, at the same time, a problem that really no one is aware of.

Every day, millions of cargo carrying trucks transport their contents across the highways of our districts. And, every day, millions of dollars of goods are stolen from these trucks, often times with violent results.

Mr. Speaker, this week I will introduce legislation that will seek to address the growing tide of cargo theft in hopes of bringing awareness of this problem to the national spotlight.

With the prevalence of cargo theft today, insurance companies have placed a heavy burden on the trucking industry. The costs associated with investigation, insurance payments, are only exacerbating what is already an industry crisis.

Typical targets for cargo theft often include shipments of clothing, prescription drugs, computers and jewelry. A truckload of computer microprocessors can be worth millions of dollars. A single pallet of pharmaceuticals, another common target, can be worth upwards of $2 million dollars, and cargo containers are capable of carrying dozens of such pallets.

The high value-to-volume ratio of these goods has encouraged criminals previously involved in drug dealing to move into this area of activity, where they run less risk of detection and suffer less severe penalties if they are caught. The National Cargo Security Council reported that cargo worth $12 billion is stolen in the United States every year, and yet the penalties for cargo theft are lower than those for selling drugs.

Cargo thieves employ creative means to prey on cargo carriers and have managed to stay one step ahead of authorities. Thieves know what they want and where they can find it, striking cargo containers at ports and at trains and 18-wheelers.

Thieves will either roll the dice, stealing containers with unknown contents, or they will go as far as camping outside of distribution centers. This method is called ``full load truck theft.'' It involves monitoring shipments out of distribution centers that are known for putting out expensive goods. The thieves will then follow the trucks in rental cars waiting for the right time to pounce. This will often occur at truck rest stops, where the driver leaves the vehicle. The process can amazingly take but a few minutes. These professional criminals are usually licensed truck drivers, who can hot wire a truck quickly and efficiently.

The legislation that I have proposed will seek to finally give both lawmakers and law enforcement officials the tools they need to combat this growing crime. Cargo theft does not receive the attention it deserves because very little concrete information exists today concerning this problem. There currently is no all-inclusive database that collects, contains or processes distinct information and data concerning cargo theft. My bill would require the creation of such a database that will allow State and local law enforcement officials to coordinate reports of cargo theft, helping them prove to lawmakers just how severe this problem really is.

Also, after speaking with officials in my Congressional District, it has become clear to me that stricter criminal penalties are needed in order to keep criminals from turning to cargo theft. My bill does just this, requiring that the United States Sentencing Commission determine what sentencing enhancement must be made.

Finally, this legislation would ensure that cargo theft reports would be reflected as a separate category in the Uniform Crime Reporting System, the data collection system used by the FBI. Currently no such category exists, resulting in ambiguous data and the inability to track and monitor trends.

Mr. Speaker, Members in this Chamber need to be aware of this problem, a problem not only specific to the large port cities of this country, but a problem specific to all Congressional districts. Flowing up and down I-75, through the heart of my district, thieves transport goods to and from Miami. Billions of dollars are being sapped from our economy, and this body is doing little to stop it. It is time that we get aggressive and make our highways safe again for commerce.

This body must make an example of cargo thieves. We must let them know that they will not get away with merely a slap on the hand. And as sheriff's departments begin integrating special cargo theft task forces, we must arm them with the ability to prosecute criminals with stiffer penalties.

Mr. Speaker, my bill represents a cohesive effort backed by law enforcement and industry representatives alike. I urge Members to support this bill, in hopes of bringing acknowledgment of this fight against cargo theft at the Federal level.

With links even to terrorism, cargo theft is a problem that has flown under our radar screens for far too long. Until we strengthen these laws, this 30-year-old crime wave will persist, threatening our ports and roads and costing our economy billions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, twice a year we set aside a day to honor our military--Memorial Day to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice--and, Veterans Day to honor all who wore the American uniform.

All across America, in the largest cities, the smallest towns, and the most isolated hamlets, we mark this occasion with speeches and parades. We pay respect to the guardians of our liberties, for as Americans, we are the beneficiaries of their efforts.

Our military men and women are currently engaged in combat--a fight to defend the light of freedom and progress against the darkness of oppression and intolerance. The enemy we face is ruthless, a force that strikes at innocent men, women, and children.

As the guardians of our freedoms, these men and women are owed our respect and our support. America has a special debt to her veterans, and we have a sacred responsibility to fulfill the promises made to them.

My prayers are with these brave men and women and I wish them success and a safe and quick return home. As so many before them, they are answering the call to defend liberty. It is especially a fitting tribute and expression of gratitude that we acknowledge one of America's true heroes, Sgt. Justin Wrisley Garvey of the 101st Airborne, by naming a bridge in Lewis, New York in honor of his service and sacrifice.

Justin was a man that touched the lives of those who were blessed to know him. I believe that no other statement describing Justin can match that given by his fellow soldier, Sgt. Douglas Norman.

It was the greatest honor to have been able to call Justin

my friend. He was a man who had no enemies. His personality

attracted anyone who came around him. I thank God for giving

me the opportunity to work with him and to be his friend.

Though he was only a man, he is everything I want to be as a

man. Everyone, who ever met Justin, is better for it. It was

an honor to have served with him up to the end, that night.

He taught me what a true hero is.

What is also quite a statement is that Sgt. Norman, who survived the attack that took the lives of Sgt. Justin Garvey and Sgt. Jason Jordan, is going to re-enlist in honor of his fellow soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, our country operates under principles of freedom, the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Our men and women in uniform serve a tremendous cause. They fight with hope against terror and freedom against oppression. Our enemies will never know freedom, because they are imprisoned by hate; and for that they have already lost.

As we cherish our rights--we should also cherish their provider--the American veteran. Thank you and God bless.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 604 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, last week brought the American taxpayers some good news. Whether it was in the USA Today newspaper, Associated Press stories, the New York Times or the Washington Post, they all said pretty much the same thing. The U.S. economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.2 percent during the third quarter of this year.

Mr. Speaker, this is an accomplishment that has not been seen in 19 years, or since 1984, when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. Most economic analysts were expecting just a 6 percent gain. In addition, the growth rate accelerated from a 3.3 percent rate in the second quarter. This must come as quite a surprise to those who have been hoping for bad economic news.

I would like to greet the economic detractors with even more positive news: the value of U.S. stock markets has increased with shareholder wealth up $2.9 trillion, an increase of 22 percent since October 2002; and the 10,000 mark in the Dow Jones is well within reach. Disposable income is up 5.8 percent at an annual rate in 2003.

This is very interesting. U.S. homeownership in the United States was 68.4 percent in the third quarter. Now this is the highest level it has ever been.

Productivity growth remains strong, which has bolstered business profits. Orders of manufacturing goods have been increasing since earlier this year, and shipments of durable goods have increased since this summer after, of course, a period of decline and stagnation.

Consumer confidence has increased and consumer spending has increased on food and clothes by 7.9 percent, and this is the best increase since 1976.

Business spending on equipment and business software has increased 15.4 percent, the largest increase since 2001.

Mr. Speaker, these economic facts are evidence that what President Bush proposed and Congress passed was right in passing the Jobs Growth and Tax Relief package, that is, the tax cuts. It has given the economy the shot it needed from the recession that started at the end of the Clinton administration; and with higher economic activity, American workers obtain better wages and living standards.

While this significant growth is encouraging, we must strive to ensure that our economy continues on this positive track. Of course, we cannot logically expect that the economy will continue to grow at this rate as it did in the third quarter, but most private forecasters predict the economy will be above the historical average.

Of course, one thing a good economy must do is create jobs; 57,000 new jobs were created in September, the first gain in nonfarm payroll employment since January. This is positive news, and we are seeing signs that the labor market is improving. Initial claims for unemployment insurance have declined by more than 10 percent, and the 4-week moving average has stayed below 400,000 claims for 4 straight weeks.

As the economy has recovered, the U.S. has become more productive. With higher productivity, fewer people are needed to do the same job. Because of this, there has not been a corresponding job increase in the national economic growth.

Of course, I think there is more we need to do to continue these progrowth policies. I would offer one caveat this afternoon. Part of a progrowth economic policy is to reduce spending. Federal Government spending increased by 1.4 percent in the third quarter alone. Over the past 5 years, the government has increased spending by $586 billion. Spending is now just over 20 percent of the gross domestic product. If we continue to follow an alarming increase in Federal spending, the government will be faced with more and more difficult choices, none of which will help our economic recovery and economic growth.

We have a healthy economy to look forward to today. Let us keep it that way. Let us control government spending.

Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically rise in support of H.R. 1516, and I am especially pleased we are going to have a national cemetery finally in Jacksonville, Florida. This is in the northeast central Florida corridor where we have a high military presence. We had this area represented by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) and, of course, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and recently by Representative John Mica. All four of us serve Jacksonville and north central Florida. All of us are very pleased that this cemetery is coming. I am proud that the Jacksonville cemetery has been the intent of my bill, H.R. 197, and others that I have offered during the last 6 years of Congress.

I thought I would just briefly in the time I have also talk about Jacksonville, as why it is such a strategic place for a national VA cemetery. Even before the United States was even a country, there have been veterans fighting in Jacksonville, so it is altogether fitting to establish a national VA cemetery here. Its very name was initially, and is presently, chosen in honor of war heroes. It has a strategic location. It is prominent on the Atlantic Ocean. It has a port, and it has been in many conflicts since its founding.

It was caught in the crossfires of war with Spain, France, the Revolutionary War, and the Seminole Indian War. It was occupied numerous times during the Civil War. And during World War I, 25 steamers were launched from Jacksonville ports. In late February 1942, German spies made it on the shore of Ponte Vedra, but fortunately they were captured before they could blow up Florida's railroad lines and stop the shipment of war supplies.

Mr. Speaker, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, this port was active again. Jacksonville moved supplies and personnel more than any other port in the country. Nearby Blount Island has a command on the St. John's River in Jacksonville. It is the site of the Marine Corps' Maritime Prepositioning Ships, MPS. Employment of MPS assets during Desert Storm and Desert Shield, Restore Hope, Continued Hope in Somalia, and the present Operation Restore Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom decisively demonstrate the utility of these expeditionary forces.

We have also the Mayport Naval Air Station with an aircraft carrier station there. We have the naval air station and depot there also.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of veterans, a lot of military history and presence in Jacksonville; and I just want to remind my colleagues that it is a very, very good place, a resting place for our veterans.

Of course, like others who will speak on behalf of their cemetery, the 2000 U.S. Census shows the revised projections forecasting a population of just under 200,000 by the year 2005. I think that demonstrates what we all know, that a lot of veterans are moving into Florida, a lot of them are moving into northeast Florida to retire. They deserve a resting place with dignity and beauty. I think this cemetery will add a lot to that promise.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by also mentioning our Nation's second largest veteran population and number one in age in terms of just who they are. Nearly 325,000 veterans call home somewhere in this area of northeast central Florida. It is interesting, a number of current active duty and armed servicemembers are calling Florida and Jacksonville their home. So they might retire in Texas or California or somewhere in the United States, and they will come back to Florida.

We have a close proximity to our veterans hospital in Alachua County and Duval County, which have sent a lot of Reservists and National Guard to Iraq. So this whole area, Mr. Speaker, is demonstrating the importance of this cemetery. Of course, the next closest proximity is in Marietta, Georgia, which is just north of Atlanta. So a new national VA cemetery in Jacksonville will answer this unmet need not only for northern Floridians but also for southern Georgians.

I appreciate the support of the chairman and subcommittee chairman. We are now providing a dignified, hallowed ground for our veterans. They deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise today and join my colleagues from the Florida Delegation in commending the World Champion Florida Marlins. It was your classic Cinderella story in which the Marlins knocked out the heavily favored Yankees in a comeback season not soon to be forgotten. Led by skipper Jack McKeon, the Marlins, dealing with the adversity of a coaching change, rebounded from a 16-22 record to finish 91-71, making them only the ninth team in Major League history to rally from at least 10 games under .500 to reach the playoffs. In Game 6 in front of a hostile crowd, McKeon's Marlins, aided by the stout pitching of Josh Beckett, took the World Series title, four games to two. With their second title in the franchise's 11 years, I believe the Marlins are in good hands. Jack McKeon who turns 73 next month, is the oldest coach in any major U.S. professional sport to lead his team to a championship, and I surely hope that he will agree to return for a run at it again in 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to express our warm welcome to President Chen and his delegation from Taiwan to New York City and obviously to support this legislation.

Taiwan and the United States have enjoyed a very close relationship with each other for more than 50 years. It is political, it is economic, it is cultural. It has been a rich association for both of us. In fact, Mr. Speaker, despite its size, it is our 8th largest trading partner, and we are Taiwan's largest trading partner.

For this and for many other reasons, the United States must unabashedly, unabashedly stand behind the Taiwan Relations Act which will communicate our resolve, our intention, our commitment for a peaceful resolution in Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, it has always been that Taiwan has been a reliable ally to the United States. They stood with us, shoulder to shoulder, right after 9/11, and Taiwan has given us its support of our war with Iraq and, as a Nation, has promised humanitarian assistance into postwar Iraq. So I look forward to meeting with him in New York and hearing his vision and commitment to the continued democratization of Taiwan.

Just as a footnote, I might point out he is coming up for reelection. Just like all of us come up every 2 years, he comes up for reelection in March of 2004. He is going to be involved with a free, open election process, and with the free election process in Taiwan, they have a very active campaign structure, and so I look forward to that just as he does.

I might also point out that he is the first opposition candidate to ever be elected in Taiwan. So, again, I think today we can look at that country and say democracy is not only working, it is working uniquely, and we want to commend him and stand behind that wonderful country of Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, with national security foremost on the minds of the American people, there is one thing we can do to simultaneously protect our shores and boost the economy: quickly approve a comprehensive energy plan.

With the President's support, the House passed a responsible energy plan last Congress that will free us from the undue burden of dependence on foreign oil and, of course, bring new jobs to parts of the country that sorely need them.

Ignoring this impending energy crisis will do nothing to solve it. ANWR exploration could free us from trading with leaders like Saddam Hussein, who used oil money to develop weapons of mass destruction. Increased domestic production is an indispensable component of any energy plan.

Mr. Speaker, during World War II, our great nations bonded together and made personal sacrifices to make this world a safer place to live.

Now, again, we are at war, a Nation at war, and just like in the past, we need to come together. We can take one giant step forward by implementing the House's energy plan.

Mr. Speaker, the problems affecting public schools are all to familiar: poor academic achievment, community conflict over the curriculum, ineffective instructive methods, financial mismanagement and a growing inability to meet the needs of families. Less well known is the fact that these ills are shared by state school systems all over the world. In spite of countless reform efforts stretching back over decades, schools have yet to crack the code on educational success. Despite agreement that the system is a failure, possible solutions are a source of great controversy. In developing a strategy for change, it would be helpful to look to a model that is enjoying great success in my home state of Florida.

Florida leads the nation not only in providing education choices for children but also in innovative education opportunities for low-income families and children with disabilities. The state provides A+ scholarships for students in failing schools, McKay Scholarships for students with disabilities, tax credits for donations to scholarship organizations, and over 200 charter schools. Eligible high school students may take college courses for high school and postsecondary credit. These scholarships redirect the flow of education funding, channeling it directly to individual families rather than to school districts allowing families to select the public or private schools of their choice and have all or part of the tuition paid. Scholarships are advocated on the grounds that parental choice and competition between public and private schools will improve education for all children.

School Vouchers known as the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) in Florida was created under Governor Bush's A+ Plan, reflects Florida's commitment to higher standards in education for Florida's students. OSP allows parents whose children are assigned to a failing school to choose between sending their child to a higher performing public school or to apply state generated funding toward private school tuition. For the purpose of OSP, a school is considered failing if it has received a failing grade in the previous year as well as one other failing grade in the three previous years.

When a parent has been notified that his or her child is eligible for the Opportunity Scholarship Program, a parent may choose one of three options. They may:

Transfer his/her child to a higher performing public school;

Enroll his/her child in a participating private school;

Retain his/her child in the low performing school.

The McKay Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities makes a school voucher available to any special education student in Florida public schools. This program is the second largest school voucher program in the country, and with approximately 375,000 eligible special education students it is likely to become the largest soon. Currently, over 9,000 students use McKay vouchers.

In 2001, lawmakers approved the John M. McKay Scholarships for Children with Disabilities. These scholarships are available to all Florida school children who have an IEP (Individual Education Plan) and have spent at least 7 months attending special classes in the public school system.

The law allows public school children with any type of IEP disability designation (physical, emotional, mental or general learning disability), whose parents are dissatisfied with their progress in the public school, to receive a scholarship from the state. Their parents are then able to choose a school they consider to be better suited for the child. This scholarship is meant to supplement the cost of private schooling for children with disabilities, not to cover the total amount. These scholarships are not income based and follow the student through high school.

Efforts to promote educational choice are in no way a condemnation or indictment of the public school system or its teachers. The goal is simply to provide educational alternatives to a group of people who, because of financial circumstances alone, have none. Insuring quality education for all of Florida's children will help to assure a bright future for Florida. These scholarship programs are designed to liberate parents who are limited by financial circumstance, to choose the school best suited for their child's unique academic needs.

The success of school choice programs in Florida should be a lesson to us on the national level. It is only when parents are involved in their child's educational life that children respond and flourish.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring to my colleagues' attention a recent Washington Post article regarding deficits. What I found refreshing in this article is that it highlights the true reason behind deficits, that is, excessive Federal Government spending.

I realize there have been some difficult choices since September 11, 2001. As we fight the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas that harbor terrorists, we obviously have to increase spending on defense, and I do not think many people would disagree with that, that it is necessary.

However, as any individual or business leader will tell us, when one has to increase spending in one area, they normally hold or decrease spending in another area. That, the Federal Government should realize, is basic Economics 101.

The biggest misconception about deficits is that by themselves they threaten the economy's long-term vitality. Not necessarily true. The real threat is rising government spending. The reason is simple. Government spending must be paid for by either taxes or borrowing, a deficit. If spending rises too high, economic growth may suffer from either steeper taxes or heftier deficits. Spending, Mr. Speaker, is the real culprit.

Robert Samuelson, in his article, notes ``since 1961, the Federal Government has run deficits in all but 5 years. Over that same period, the Gross Domestic Product has expanded by almost a factor of four.''

So we see that the real problem is excessive spending. The Federal Government does not have its own money to freely spend. It either taxes or borrows the money needed to fund its myriad of programs, many of which have long outlived their usefulness, if they had any to begin with.

Yet we continue to spend. In fact, over the past 5 years, the government has increased spending by $586 billion. Spending is now just over 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. In fact, it is spending, combined with the 2001 recession, that reduced over three-quarters of the previous budget surplus.

Unfortunately, we are going to see additional pressure to increase spending in the future. Baby boomers will be retiring. We are adding a new prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and we will need to continue funding the war on terrorism. And that is precisely why we need to control Federal spending here in Congress.

Samuelson notes that these future spending pressures will result in three choices: raise taxes; borrow funds, deficit spending; or cut benefits to certain programs. Obviously, all of these choices are difficult.

There is another way, Mr. Speaker, and that is to hold down Federal spending and attack waste, fraud, and abuse in this spending. We must also have a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is much easier to hold spending to a minimum if the law obligates us to do so. Clearly, we as a body have not shown sufficient restraint in holding or reducing spending in meaningful ways.

The second measure is to realistically attack waste, fraud, and abuse here in government. The Heritage Foundation notes: ``If congressional waste cutters had reduced mandatory spending by just 1 percent in 1980, taxpayers would have saved $190 billion through 2003, more than $2,000 per household.''

The 2004 Budget Resolution called for a 1 percent cut in programs to be identified by targeting waste, fraud, and abuse. That is an important step both for this year and for future years. However, we should not stop just at 1 percent. The Medicare program alone could be spared up to $150 billion over

10 years if we effectively could target waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. Speaker, our constituents are expecting fiscal restraint. They understand that concept much better, it seems, than even the Federal Government. They understand it from both a business and an individual family standpoint. The recession forced Americans to curb their spending at home. Businesses curbed their spending to hold down costs. They understood that ever over-spending would result in severe problems in the future.

Short-term deficits will not harm our economy. In fact, our economy is improving. However, if we continue to follow an alarming increase in Federal spending, the government will be faced with much more difficult choices in the future and with much more dire consequences.

We must, Mr. Speaker, maintain fiscal discipline and hold down this Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard much in the press regarding weapons of mass destruction and the former Iraqi regime. I think it is important to note that both the Clinton

and Bush administrations realized the powerful capacity for terror that Saddam Hussein openly wielded.

In 1998, President Clinton said, ``If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.'' In this statement, it is clear that the Clinton administration acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to end Saddam Hussein's control of them. Even former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted an Iraq capable of using ``nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.'' The threat of Saddam Hussein has been clear for decades. Finally, that threat has been eliminated.