Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, Americans remain frustrated and fed up with the liberal lopsided media. Worse than their decisive liberalness, Americans are tired of the media's pessimism: we cannot have democracy in the Middle East. We have to have the permission of the U.N. We will never get out of there without France and Germany.

One man in my district has taken matters into his own hands. At his own expense, O. C. Welch has taken out the following ad which he calls ``The Rest of the Story.'' He lists all the good things that have happened in Iraq, from building schools to getting small businesses up and running, to getting hospitals open again, to bringing electricity back. He says, ``There are many, many people in Iraq that want us there, and want us there bad. They say that they will never see the freedom we talk about, but they hope their children will. Our troops have performed brilliantly and have done a great job both during combat and reconstruction.''

That is O. C. Welch's contribution to the cause. I think it is a good one. I know Mr. Welch. He is a self-made man. He started out selling used cars at the old Plantation Nightclub lot. He moved to Claxton, Georgia. Now he is in Beaufort. He is a family man, he is a generous giver to the Catholic church, but above all O. C. Welch is a great American and an optimist.

[From the Savannah Morning News, July 5, 2004]

The Rest of the Story

this is a list of some of the positive things that have happened in

iraq recently

Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.

School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.

Girls are allowed to attend school.

Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the

weapons stored there so education can occur.

The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-

loaded from ships faster.

The country had its first two billion barrel export of oil

in August.

Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the

first time ever in Iraq.

The country now receives two times the electrical power it

did before the war.

100% of the hospitals are open and fully-staffed, compared

to 35% before the war.

Elections are taking place in every major city, and city

councils are in place.

Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.

Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.

Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the

country.

Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side-

by-side with U.S. soldiers.

Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time

ever.

Students are taught field sanitation and hand-washing

techniques to prevent the spread of germs.

An interim constitution has been signed.

Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for

the first time in 30 years.

There are many, many people in Iraq that want us there, and

want us there bad. They say that they will never see the

freedom we talk about, but they hope their children will. Our

troops have performed brilliantly and have done a great job

both during combat and reconstruction.

God bless all of them and the job they do.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bonilla amendment and believe that the chairman of the committee is moving in the right direction. The Common Computing Environment program I think does render very valuable technical assistance, but I understand the pressures that we are under to try to get money out on the local level to the farmers.

One of the things that has always disturbed me as a Member of Congress is when we allocate money for anything, military, education, health care, whatever, it is astounding the amount of the dollars that stay in Washington, D.C. As I drive around this beautiful city, I do not see too many farmers. I see a lot of monuments and some lakes and some parks, but I do not see many corn fields or cow pastures or hog pens. Yet if we support the Bonilla amendment, we are pushing the dollars out of town towards those agencies, the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Development Agency, towards the farmer, towards the local people.

It is interesting, as somebody who represents rural southeast Georgia with 29 different counties in it, as I go around visiting my farmers and those in the agriculture community and the agriculture family, they speak highly of these agencies and the work that they do. The rural development folks, they do all kinds of housing opportunities in my area and some other much-needed projects that we think are very important for economic development in the smaller towns. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is very important for erosion control and best cultivation practices and good technical assistance to the farmers. Of course, the Farm Service Agency delivers the farm credit program to farmers all over the country.

But what I like best about these folks is they are Federal Government, USDA employees, 100 percent on the USDA salary, but they answer 100 percent to the farmers back home in Bacon County and in Appling County and in Coffee County, the folks who I am trying to serve and represent in Washington. That is the same people that these agencies are serving.

As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) said earlier today, these are the people that our farmers ask for assistance from; and they really do not ask for more money in the USDA bureaucracy as much as getting it back home to rural Texas, rural Illinois, rural Iowa, rural Georgia and so forth.

I stand in strong support of the Bonilla amendment and hope that our colleagues give it a majority.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4755 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to present the Legislative branch appropriation bill for fiscal year 2005 to the House for consideration, and I want to start by thanking not just the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my ranking member, but I wanted to say thanks to all the subcommittee staff who have worked hard to make this bill possible: Liz Dawson, who is our Chief Clerk; Chuck Turner, our Staff Assistant; Kathy Rohan; Celia Alvarado; Tom Forhan; Tim Aiken; Bill Johnson; Heather McNatt; and Jennifer Hing.

I wanted to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, that I have enjoyed working with him and working with all the subcommittee members. We have put together I think a good bill. We have had a number of amendments, some committee debate on it, and I think the product is a better bill because of that.

It is a bipartisan bill and somewhat noncontroversial. I am not aware of any angst that Members have; although I know everybody would improve it here or there, given the opportunity.

This bill actually funds the House of Representatives and all the various support agencies, including the Capitol Hill Police, the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office and the General Accounting Office.

The bill is $2.7 billion, which does not include the Senate items; and traditionally we do not fill in the blanks for the Senate. They do not fill in the blanks for us.

The bill came in below the budget request and is basically flat, meaning that the size of it is about the same as what it was last year. It does, however, provide for the current staffing levels. It includes cost of living increases and other increases here and there for inflationary reasons. There are no deductions in force, and yet we have kept new initiatives off it and tried to defer funding on certain projects.

Overall, the bill started out with a request level of $3.1 billion, and we were able to work that down to the $2.7 billion,

My colleagues may also recall that the fiscal year 2004 bill was brought to the floor with a decrease from the 2003 levels. So the Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations has done its best to practice fiscal restraint and try to keep the President's goal in mind of a 1 percent increase for nondefense and homeland security discretionary spending, and we are actually below that.

There are a number of important things in this bill, but what I might do is I see some Members are here to speak on it. At this point, I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, is here; and I will give him an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that we have a lot of good things in this bill. We had some good subcommittee-and committee-level debates and a number of amendments. One such amendment actually encourages Members of Congress to lease or use hybrid fuel-efficiency cars. This amendment was debated and offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and successfully put on it. He is here, and he is going to address that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to respond to my friend from California a little bit.

Number one, this, as we all know, is an appropriation bill; and the proper place to deal with a franking issue, of course, would be on an authorizing bill. I hope that our friend is taking his concerns to the proper committee, which would be the Committee on House Administration.

But I also wanted to say, in the spirit of good government, what I would like to see is Members of Congress and the institution going out into America, into the States a little bit more. As I understand it, talking to some committee chairmen, they actually use this franking privilege in their field hearings.

I sit on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. I used to be on the Committee on Agriculture. What is more important than our food policy out there? If we had the Committee on Agriculture going out and talking about the dairy program or the peanut program or whatever, sending out letters to people to say, come to this congressional hearing that is going to be in your neighborhood, come raise Cain with your Congressman, I think that would be a good thing.

Certainly the Committee on Ways and Means, the taxing committee, my folks down in the little briar patch that I represent would love to go out and, frankly, raise hell with everybody that writes our tax policy.

Then there is the Committee on Energy and Commerce. They control telecommunications. We passed several years ago the slamming bill. That is something that I know has affected a lot of people. If there was an opportunity for the common, everyday citizen to go to a field hearing and raise Cain about how slamming was done on their phone service, I think that would be a healthy thing.

I am not sure that a $25,000 limit would be good enough to have people come, but I think what we need is more sunshine and more public input. That is why I am hesitant to accept the $25,000 limit just on face value because I know that these notices are important. But I also know, Mr. Chairman, that the committees who use these have them signed off by the minority and the majority party and so there is a system of fairness.

Again, in terms of fiscal restraint, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California for getting an endorsement from the National Taxpayers Union, but I also want to say that this bill, we are very happy to say, is flat funding, if not a little less than last year. So we are with him at least on that angle.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who has come up through the ranks as a former staffer and worked very hard and continues to work hard on staff quality of life. One of the issues that we are facing, we lose lots of staff here on Capitol Hill. The gentleman from Illinois has worked tirelessly to protect the quality of life for somebody who works here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), another distinguished member of the subcommittee who is also a former staffer, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) said, and has worked on not just the issue of quality of life for staffers and the gym but also one that has to do with our security around here, the Capitol Hill police, the use of horses, among other things.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend from California, I understand he has a motion to recommit, and we will debate it a little bit more then, but I certainly think there is a lot to say about it. Again, one of our things is that the Committee on House Administration needs to be doing the authorizing on that.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does have a lot of good things in it. It includes one thing that I did not mention, that we are asking the Architect of the Capitol to contract out the management of the Capitol power plant as a private entity. We are doing that in the spirit of how can we lead the way to continue to make the Capitol a little more efficient.

We are also asking for a review of the legislative branch agencies. Some of the heads of these agencies are appointed by the President. Some have a 10-year term. Some have a 14-year term. Some have the approval of the Senate. Some have the approval of the Senate and the House. We just think that it is time to review some of these things. They have a different retirement program.

There are a lot of proposals out there. The Capitol Hill Police Chief, for example, for whom I have a lot of respect, has suggested that we build a wall around the U.S. Capitol. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), among others, has made sure that we have language in our bill to say that we do not want a wall around the U.S. Capitol compound. We want people to be able to get in here.

We have taken a look at everything under our jurisdiction in a very serious way and just asked the questions, can we do it better? I will submit many of the changes that we have recommended for the record.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to certainly thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this up, as he has spoken to me many times about it. However, I am unable to support it at this time, but I wanted to compliment him. I understand in his district there is a popular bumper sticker that says: ``My congressman is a rocket scientist,'' and I think probably the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and maybe the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), who is our one member of the Fulbright Scholarship Alumni Association, have some of the greatest intellectual capacity of this body.

However, some background in terms of the Office of Technology Assessment. In 1995 on a bipartisan level, we eliminated it, and the belief at that time was that there were other committees that we could turn to to get technology studies and technology assessment. Some of these, for example, are the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council. All of them have hundreds of people who are technically educated. And then in addition to that, there are 3,273 people at the General Accounting Office and 729 at the Congressional Research Service. We have not suffered because of the loss of technology assessment. It is perhaps true that we could rearrange some of the food on the plate and make sure that it does not get shuffled to the back burner; but if my colleagues think about it, Mr. Chairman, we actually have thousands of people out there

doing studies, and we just need to make sure that this does not fall through the cracks.

As a result of eliminating the Office of Technology Assessment, we have saved $274 million, which is serious money in tight budget times, and that is money that we can put into many other worthy causes; and, of course, that is what the debate is all about.

In terms of the specifics of the Holt amendment, it reduces the Architect's office $15 million and the printing office another $15 million; and the problem with that is in terms of the Architect, we are actually almost 13 percent below their budget request. If we did cut them an additional $15 million, it would be a 19 percent reduction, which would result in the RIF, or the reduction in force, of about 67 people, and this comes from the Architect's office; and it would slow down a number of the projects that they are working on. And goodness knows, one of the projects that we want to get finished as a committee is the Capitol Visitors Center. We want to get that done as quickly as possible. A reduction of 67 people could hurt making those deadlines.

In terms of the printing office, we have reduced this account by about 2 percent below last year's level. If we accept the Holt amendment, it would result in an additional cut of 17 percent. And these are things that have to be done anyhow, Congressional Records, bills, resolutions, amendments, hearing volumes and reports and so forth; and that is what the printing office does with that.

So with those words, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to reject the Holt amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend from Colorado that, as he knows, I always appreciate his ``let's go at it one more time and try to find some more money to reduce,'' and I have in the past supported a number of the Hefley amendments. This one, however, I find myself on the opposite side of and have to oppose.

The reason I have to oppose this, Mr. Chairman, is that we on the House control the House side. The Senate controls the Senate side. If we were to accept the Hefley amendment, this would tie one of our hands behind our back in terms of a level playing field with the Senate. This would result in a $10 million cut to the House.

One of the problems that we have as House Members is we often lose our staff to the Senate because they see bigger responsibility, bigger title, but most importantly, bigger salary, and we have to keep our salary levels up in order to maintain good people on the House side. That alone makes me say I think we have to hold off on this.

There are other reductions that would come from this bill, I think approximately $27 million total, so another $17 million would come out of the Architect and the Library of Congress and so forth. But we have already cut those from their requests, in many cases from their last year's funding level, and I am not sure we could get another $17 million out of there. If we could go back and find it, though, I would certainly support the Hefley amendment, but at this point we are not able to do so.

I want to point out one example. We are trying to privatize the power plant, which we think it would be a good thing in terms of streamlining the Office of the Architect. Things like that we are doing in the spirit of fiscal restraint, and we are going to continue on that pathway. But, unfortunately, at this time we have to reject his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise tonight to talk a little bit about the upcoming election, which I understand is on everybody's minds these days.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a position in America now

that, with 50 States, the Presidential election actually seems to boil down to 12 to 18 States that are still in contention. I guess my home State of Georgia they have decided is probably going to go to Mr. Bush, and your home State of Texas certainly is going to go for Mr. Bush. And then there is other States, like California, that will go for Mr. Kerry. And then, of course, there is North Carolina, which is wide open, despite the fact that Mr. Kerry has chosen a running mate that is from that State.

I think it is interesting as we contrast the two tickets to see what one stands for and the other one stands for. But never before has the Democrat party chosen the first and fourth most liberal Members of the Senate to represent it in the Presidential campaign. It is even more liberal than the disastrous Mondale-Ferraro ticket of 1984.

Here we have, if you think this through a minute, John Kerry scored a 97 percent liberal rating in 2003. He beat out Barbara Boxer from California. He beat out Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton got an 89 percent liberal rating. And Ted Kennedy. Now, if I was to ask the good folks in Texas, well, who is the most liberal Member of Congress, of the Senate, they are always going to say Ted Kennedy. Well, not so. John Kerry has the 97 percent rating, and Kennedy is sitting at a mere 88 percent, almost a moderate by John Kerry's standards. And then Tom Daschle, a guy we like to curse quite often back home for his stances, he is at 80 percent. So here is John Kerry, 97 percent; Tom Daschle, 80 percent.

The Florida Times Union pointed out that, ``While Kerry is from the North and Edwards is nominally from the South, there is absolutely no philosophical balance whatsoever.'' I think that is true.

Edwards has made a lot of money practicing law, and so he is heavily supported by the trial lawyers. In fact, he has received over $11 million from law firms, and that was per the Kennedy campaign. You can find that on www.newsmax.com. The trial lawyers are weighing in heavily on this race, and for those of us trying to make healthcare more affordable and more accessible, we know what a problem frivolous medical lawsuits are. Yet that seems to be what John Edwards has made his money on.

It is interesting what John Kerry said just a couple of months ago, in February, during the campaign. He said, ``Edwards says he is the only one who can win the South, yet he can't even win his own State.'' I guess things have changed.

It is interesting also, and I will often say about Mr. Bush, he takes the NASCAR crowd and the mom and dad with 2\1/2\ kids and two income families, people who are out there working.

There was an article in the New York Post, actually, I think it was in USA Today and a number of other newspapers, that showed John Kerry's five houses, and they were five mansions, and it had this picture of John Kerry snowboarding.

I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, how many guys do you know over 60 years old who know how to snowboard? There just are not too many of them. Yet Kerry is shown very proudly snowboarding. I guess since he bought five ski resorts to learn how. He wanted to flaunt it a little bit. But, to me, if you have a guy that age and he knows how to snowboard, he has not only too much money, but he has too much time on his hands as well.

So where did these people, men of the people, make their announcement? In a union hall? Certainly the Democrats get a lot of good support from unions. Did they make it in an African American church? They said over and over again, we want the African American vote. Did they do it in Boston or North Carolina?

No, they made the announcement at Mrs. Kerry's estate in Pennsylvania. Just for those of you who come from middle-class backgrounds, an estate is what rich people call their houses.

It is interesting that John Kerry wanted to get a middle class, regular guy to be his running mate, somebody who was just like us. And I guess in his world, a guy like John Edwards, who is worth a mere $50 million, that is middle-class. After all, when you got a net worth of a billion, what is a guy at $50 million?

So, these two small town guys got together at the estate at Pennsylvania and they broke tea and crumpets to tell the masses that they were ready to lead the world.

Well, I will say this: I would rather have my President know NASCAR from a church softball game than know Sauvignon Blanc from brie and merlot.

The House Democrats' leadership has announced that one of the Democrat campaigns for the fall will be to repeal the Medicare prescription drug plan. Now, does that make any sense whatsoever? I do not know why Mr. Kerry would want to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill.

This is the first time in history that low-income seniors are getting up to $600 in free prescription drugs. It is the first time that seniors are getting about a 50 percent discount, once we get the program going, on their prescription drugs, and I think it is a good first step. Prescription drug coverage is very, very important to the lives of seniors these days.

If you go into almost any audience, almost any age, and you say how many of you in this room have to take or have somebody in your family who has to take five to six to seven to eight pills each and every day to survive, well, about 70 percent of the hands go up. But if you asked that same question to a similar audience back in 1965 when Medicare started, no one would raise his hand, because it was not out there then.

Now we have these miracle drugs, and these miracle drugs help us to live longer with less pain and do more things, stay active and stay out of hospitals and nursing care. And yet we get from the House Democrat leader that they want to repeal the prescription drug bill. That does not make sense.

But I guess if you are worth $1 billion like John Kerry, millions of dollars like John Edwards, it does not matter to you what the cost of it is. They are not the kinds of people who, when the gas goes from $1.60 to $1.72, they do not drive around the next block looking for the best deal so they can pump it themselves.

Several House Democrats have asked that the United Nations monitor the Presidential elections. Now, you know, you could understand that maybe at Tammany Hall, the Chicago machine, or maybe down in Texas when LBJ was running against Coke Stevenson, you might want somebody to come in to monitor the election.

But here we are Americans. We do not need the United Nations to come in and tell us anything. We want to cooperate with the United Nations where it is mutually in the best interests of everyone. But can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, Members of the United States Congress writing Kofi Annan and asking him to send election monitors to the United States of America? I would be embarrassed to go home and, despite my partisanship, try to spin that to a constituency. I think that is just such an insult to people.

We are getting a lot of complaints that we are not spending enough on intelligence, and yet if you look at what our budget has done since 9/ 11, it spiked. What I see as an appropriator is that a lot of people are getting their budgets I think in many cases overswelled or overgrown because they are saying it is in security.

But if you look at it, candidate Kerry not only has voted for amendments to cut intelligence, they have often authored amendments to cut intelligence, and that does not quite make sense to me for somebody turning around and saying that we are not spending enough.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go on with this fascinating Democrat Presidential ticket, although I will say, while it is fascinating, it certainly has no diversity of philosophy whatsoever. If we look at where they are on certain things, they voted pretty much down the line together. They opposed many of the Bush initiatives on fighting terrorism, and they opposed Bush initiatives for reducing taxes. They have supported pretty much across the board any kind of pro-abortion legislation. Just to give an example, they both voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. They voted against the full marriage tax penalty relief. They voted against the child tax credit. They voted against fully repealing the death tax, and they both voted against the energy bill, and they both oppose free

trade agreements. Litigation this year in America alone will be $233 billion, that is 2.23 percent of our entire GDP, yet these are the most pro-trial lawyers candidates that we have ever had run for office.

Mr. Kerry has voted at least six times against banning partial-birth abortion. While on the campaign trail, he skipped a vote on passage of the partial-birth abortion bill. I always feel strongly that when one is in office, one is paid to vote and one should be there for their votes, but he skipped a heck of a lot of them.

He was one of 14 Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which would have banned the Federal recognition of gay marriage and same-sex partners. And in 2003, he said he might eventually support gay marriage if it became publicly acceptable. Well, I guess that is kind of couching his words.

Edwards said in response to President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment, I am against the President's constitutional amendment on banning gay marriage.

I am going to skip around. There are a lot of things here. But our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), has actually written something about the qualifications of a Vice President. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has a BA in American history from Hanover College, so he is a bit of a historian. But he looked into what was the average years of experience that Vice Presidents had, and he found out that out of 46 previous Vice Presidents, only three engaged in public service for less than 10 years prior to being elected. One of them was a Secretary of Agriculture during the Great Depression, another was a Governor of Indiana, and another was a war hero who turned Congressman and was offered the mission to Spain by President Pierce. So these guys have all had a lot of experience.

The Democrat nominee John Edwards has not served a single term in one Chamber of one branch of our Federal Government. If elected, his 6 years, or 5 at this time, I do not think we could give the guy 6 when he is not there all the time, would represent one of the fewest years of preparations to serve as President of the United States as anybody has ever had. His experience would be 20 percent of the average years of experience of previous Vice Presidents. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has given us a pretty good list.

Now, what is interesting is we are not going to hear much from the media about this. The media is going to ask him such tough questions as: Is it true your dad worked in a mill? Whereas when Dan Quayle was appointed by Mr. Bush Senior, all kinds of questions: Senator, what makes you think you are qualified to become President in the event something unfortunate should happen to Mr. Bush? What is it that would make you qualified? He spent 12 years in Congress with a special emphasis on national security work, but that was not enough. What executive experience do you have? I once worked in the Governor's office in Indiana, Quayle said. And I would admit, not that much. Reporters asked about Quayle's nonservice in Vietnam. Others asked if Quayle had any connection to the Iran-Contra scandal. Others asked about a lobbyist who apparently donated to a golf trip that he had, even though there was no other connection. That is what they wanted.

Then they asked questions about his money: Senator Quayle, it has been quoted that your net worth is $20 million, is that correct? And if so, isn't this going to put off the blue color vote and the low-income vote. One reporter said to Mr. Quayle: ``Since you don't want the Republican Party to seem like the party for the rich, why pick another millionaire for a running mate?

All of these I would say, they are fair questions; but it is interesting that the press is not going to ask these questions of the Democrat candidate. We can say liberal media, but of course that would be being redundant.

One would have to say that Edwards in 2004 does not measure up to Quayle in 1988. Quayle had 12 years in Congress. He ran for the House in 1976 and won. He was reelected in 1978. He ran for the Senate in 1980, at that time beating Democrat Senator Birch Bayh. He was reelected in 1986, winning 61 percent of the vote which, by the way, was the largest landslide ever in the Indiana Senate race.

For his part, Edwards has never run for public office before winning the 1998 North Carolina race, and he only got 51 percent in that. As the 2004 race approached, Edwards faced very iffy prospects with reelection; and we know that our colleague, Richard Burr, was running for that seat with or without Edwards as the incumbent, and all the pollsters and experts said this guy is vulnerable. He has not been home. And as for money, the reporter who asked if Quayle's net worth was $200 million, he was way off. It turns out that Quayle's net worth at the time was less than $1 million.

Now, I know that his wife had wealth and I am not sure how the trust reads, so I am not going to say that is just $1 million versus $50 million or whatever Edwards is worth, but Edwards is a very successful trial lawyer who has led the life of Riley, and I think to say that he is just a regular middle-class guy is silly, if nothing else.

Edwards' youthful experience and the Vice President's age and demeanor, the two men were not that far apart in age when they were chosen for the job. Edwards is 51. Cheney was 59 when George Bush chose him as his running mate. And if we go on down the list, it is interesting that the questions and the scrutiny that Dan Quayle had to live up to, we are not hearing anything from the folks in the media in terms of Edwards, and we hope that we will.

Jumping around a little bit and getting back to Kerry, some of his more outstanding votes of note lately was Kerry voted against the $87 billion to fund American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that included programs like additional body armor. And, Mr. Speaker, we have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. We know how important that is. We heard lots of complaints by folks, making sure that everybody had all the body armor that they wanted. In fact, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democrat leader, tried to make a big issue that we did not have enough body armor going around, and yet it is her party's nominee who voted against it.

And then in 1994, this is very disturbing, right after the first attack on the World Trade Center, this was when Mr. Clinton was President and chose to not do anything, or not do much about it, Kerry had proposed to gut the Select Committee on Intelligence budget by $6 billion, and that was right after the first attack on the World Trade Center. If we go back to 1990, Mr. Kerry wanted to cut $10 billion from the defense budget.

The other thing, and I do not have the quote right in front of me, but Mr. Lieberman who ran against Mr. Kerry said that we do not need a flip-flopper. And there is all kinds of evidence of him flip-flopping.

There are some ways, though, a group called the Black Five, and I am not sure what that is, but they came up with a way to decide if you should vote for John Kerry. They said, How do you know for sure, and one way to do it is you could take this test. If you believe that the AIDS virus is spread by the lack of Federal funding, you might want to vote for John Kerry. If you believe that the same school system that cannot teach fourth graders how to read is somehow the best qualified to teach those same kids all about sex, you might want to vote for John Kerry. If you believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese Communists, you might want to vote for John Kerry. If you believe there was no art before Federal funding, John Kerry is your guy.

If you believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the Earth's climate and more affected by Americans driving SUVs; I got a laugh when I saw the SUVs. What was it that Kerry was speaking to, Mr. Speaker? Who was the crowd? It was a Detroit group. I think they were auto workers or maybe a chamber of commerce in the Detroit area, and he was saying, I am proud that we have SUVs. And actually, it is interesting, he had a fleet of cars.

I guess if you have five mansions around the world, you need a fleet of cars because, heaven knows, you would not want to rent. By the way, on that subject, his main residence, this man of the people we are talking about, his

main resident in Beacon Hill, Massachusetts, is valued at over $6.6 million. That is his main residence. I do not know if my colleagues know this story, but one time Mrs. Kerry got some parking tickets for parking over in front of a fire hydrant. Now, what would you do if you were a liberal Democrat? Under that circumstance, you would think, I would pay the fine. In fact, I would send a little more because I believe in government, and I want to help subsidize government. This is a great chance. No. Instead, they simply moved the fire hydrant.

Now, I am telling my colleagues, that is some serious money. When your wife gets a ticket for parking in front of a fire hydrant and you have the fire hydrant moved, you have some money. But that is the approach to government.

They also, though, have a 90-acre family estate near Pittsburgh. That is valued at $3.7 million. Then they have a ski vacation home in Idaho that is a $5 million job purchased in 1988, and then there is the waterfront estate in Nantucket Harbor. This beachfront property is valued at about $9.1 million, and Kerry tools around the sound in his 42-foot power boat that is worth $695,000. What a guy of the people. I mean, I can just see him driving around in the pickup truck, going down to the little cafeteria down the street and joining the coffee club and talking about how gas prices jumped from $1.75 to $1.78, and how that is going to set them back.

And of course here in Washington a 23-room townhouse in Georgetown valued at $4.7 million, I do not know why the guy wants to move in the White House. That is certainly a cut in lifestyle, although I think it has got a pretty cool plane and your own police force and things he would like.

Getting back to this Blackfive thing, if one is against capital punishment but supports abortion on demand, John Kerry is your guy. If one believes that businesses create oppression and government creates prosperity, John Kerry is your guy. If one believes that hunters do not care about nature but loony activists in Seattle do, John Kerry is your guy. If one believes that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it, John Kerry is your guy.

There is a number of other tests that this group has, and I might just recommend that people look at www.blackfive.net and just take the test for themselves.

We have been joined, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), and I wanted to yield the floor for him.

And is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) with us? Well, I apologize for overlooking the gentleman. I thought the gentleman just wanted to hear some brilliance and was waiting for the next speaker to give it.

Let me yield to the gentleman from Florida.

If the gentleman would yield, I wanted to underscore

that. I have some of Mr. Edwards' rating groups, and the gentleman has established already that Mr. Kerry is more liberal than Mr. Kennedy, with a 97 percent liberal rating compared to Mr. Kennedy's 88 percent. But here was NARL, which is the National Abortion Rights League, they gave Mr. Edwards 100 percent for the last 4 years in a row. The National Right to Life has given him a 0. The AFL-CIO prounion vote, 100 percent for the last 3 years. The Federal Employees Union, 91 percent, then 100 percent, 100 percent.

National Taxpayers Union, Mr. Edwards, 22 percent, but that is up from 12 percent 3 years ago; Americans for Tax Reform, 0 percent, down from 5 percent last year; and then Citizens Against Government Waste, 13 percent in terms of being probusiness. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, small businesses, has given Mr. Edwards a 0 percent. Privately, if one shows up, they get a 70 percent on their rating, but he has got a 0 percent. U.S. Chamber of Commerce has given Mr. Edwards 15 percent.

Why are these important? These are important because these are folks who help job creation, job impact, and if we are interested in jobs, we do not want somebody with a 15 percent U.S. Chamber rating and a 0 percent National Federation of Independent Businesses.

And at the same time blocked the energy bill that would have given us more affordable energy in alternative energy sources, fuel cell, hydrogen cell research and a lot of good stuff. He helped block that bill because the travelers did not like it.

Let us yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) a minute. He wanted to talk.

I thank the gentleman for joining us. We have been joined by another physician, member of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), and wanted to point out, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was a practicing OB-GYN until his election to Congress.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us tonight and also for giving your perspective. I wanted to ask the doctor a few questions, if I could, before he leaves. How long did the gentleman practice medicine?

What was your specialty?

In that field, how big is the problem of malpractice as you the gentleman know it firsthand?

As the gentleman talks to physicians, if someone said, name the top three problems physicians are faced with right now, would malpractice be one of them?

So unless we address the frivolous medical liability suits in

our country, the cost of medicine will skyrocket and the availability is going to shrink?

I thank the gentleman. If we have the Edwards-Kerry trial lawyer ticket, we probably will not have any serious medical liability reform, would we?

Madam Speaker, I think we had a good discussion here today. I notice my friends on the other side of the aisle are here chomping at the bit and I know are eagerly awaiting freedom of speech, equal time; and my friend from California is grabbing the mike right now for a discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until midnight Friday, July 2, 2004, to file a privileged report, making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put in my comments on this very good debate here, and it is a debate that is good, because it shows clashing two philosophies: one of higher taxes for more spending, versus lower taxes for more private sector growth, more jobs through the private sector.

The proposal in front of us today is for a $270 billion tax increase over a 10-year period of time. So taxes would go up in a fashion like that, $270 billion; and the justification that we are hearing is so that we can spend more money.

But I want to say this as a fiscal conservative: if you look at what we have been doing since 1994, we have in fact been spending a lot of money, and, ironically, in the very areas where we are being accused of not spending enough.

But this is a Committee on the Budget chart, and it shows since 1994 how much our spending has in fact increased. We are being accused of not spending enough on education; but here is one education program alone, title I. Since 1999, it has gone up this much, nearly, I am going to guess, about $6 billion. The exact math is available, but I just want to show the chart to illustrate.

Pell grant funding, an important scholarship program, has increased in a similar fashion of about maybe $5 billion. The gentleman from Iowa can correct me if my quick, on-the-spot-math is wrong.

No Child Left Behind. The irony about No Child Left Behind, an important Bush initiative on education, is we hear a lot of critics say, you are not funding it. Yet look at No Child Left Behind. Growth in education under President Bush has increased 40 percent.

Special education, something that has a lot of bipartisan support, since 1999 we have gone from about $4 billion in spending to nearly $12 billion in spending. So where is the cut in education? There is not one to show.

Veterans programs. Often the liberals hide behind veterans programs and say, you are not spending enough. But here, again, since 1985 to 2004, budget authority has gone from $27 billion to $60 billion. The gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) have worked hard to champion that and done it on a good bipartisan basis. Spending per veteran during that period of time has gone from $950 to $2,400. Veterans spending has in fact increased.

Another criticism we are getting is spending to combat terrorism has not increased. Here we are, from 2001, spending about $20 billion, to $87 billion today. So where are these cuts that we are suffering from? There are not any cuts.

Now, as I said, I am a fiscal conservative. I wish these charts did go in a different direction in many cases. I wish that I could honestly be accused of cutting a lot of government programs. Unfortunately, we failed in that. But the will of the House, the will of the Senate takes a long time for the process to go through. I am just saying that the spending cuts are not there.

But who do we propose to get the income from? We keep hearing about these big, bad, horrible people called millionaires in American society today. Let us examine who these millionaires are.

These millionaires, for the most part, are small business owners; people who are farmers, people who own bicycle shops, people who are contractors. They have $1 million in revenue, and therefore they are taxed in the 35 percent bracket. How many? Is that just a few? Hardly. It is 73 percent of them.

What about in the group that earns from $200,000 to $499,000? 68 percent. What about in the big bad group that grosses from $500,000 to $1 million? 76 percent. And $1 million in revenue and above, 82 percent of them are small business owners.

So what are we talking about doing? What we are talking about doing is beating up on the small employers out there, the folks who are turning this economy around.

Here we are looking at the job charts, what is happening in the economy. Right now we have nearly 140 million Americans working, the highest level in history. Yet we want to reverse that trend by killing the goose that is laying the golden egg, and that is the small business owner.

If you are for jobs, the correct vote on this is ``no.'' If you want to kill economic prosperity, if you want to kill

the small business employer, if you want to kill jobs, vote ``yes,'' because that is exactly what will happen.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to the Nussle budget reform proposal, but I do so with great respect for the Committee on the Budget and his leadership on that, and I want to say that this is the proper discussion and a discussion which we should be having.

As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I see it a little bit differently. I think that we are both going towards the same goal, the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations; yet we are taking a different course. What our concern is about is the so-called statutory caps in the Nussle proposal give the executive branch, the President, three different bites of the apple: one when he submits the budget, the next using his veto pen, and then another one forcing his will on Congress. He will very much be at the table. And as our Founding Fathers established the separation of powers, I believe that there should be a little more than a philosophical firewall between the executive and the legislative branches. That is our view on it.

I believe, as an alternative, what the Committee on Appropriations would like to see is a little more cross-pollination between the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations and perhaps the Committee on Ways and Means.

I come from the State legislature. I was a member of the Ways and Means Committee of the Georgia legislature for 8 years, and it seemed ridiculous to me when I got here that we split up our budget process into three dynamic committees all with a point of view and yet none of them with the franchise and the final responsibility of getting the job done at the end of the day.

I would like to see us work not just more closely with the Committee on the Budget but actually have some voting influence on each other, and I think there are some things that we can discuss in that vein.

I am also a supporter of a bill by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) that would set up a BRAC-type Base Realignment and Closure Commission for spending that would sort of pick up some pieces of some of the Grace Commission thoughts, but something of that nature where we could take a step outside the process and say, okay, how do we get this together?

Another alternative is the Istook Balanced Budget Amendment, which I have supported. We need to get that on the floor. We need to get the other body to pass it and the President to put it into law.

We also need to have good old-fashioned fiscal discipline. As the chairman of the Legislative Subcommittee, I am proud I have worked with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). We brought in a level funding bill this year; and in addition to that, we had a lot of other reforms, some outsourcing, some privatization, some reduction of committee spending and agency spending, some cuts, real cuts. Not just reductions in the projected increase, but less money than last year. We did that after a lot of debate back and forth. We want the other body to hold the spending on this. I believe that we as a legislative body could have even more cuts. We offered other amendments for cuts, and they were not approved by the committee. But perhaps on the floor we can get those done.

We are in the same church. We are only in a different pew when it comes to controlling spending.

Mr. Speaker, while there is still a lot of work left to do in Iraq, it is very significant that on June 30, the new government takes over. This is a step that is largely accepted by the international community as a good thing.

Progress is being made, but America is still going to have to stay in there for security reasons to help rebuild the infrastructure and to get the international community to continue to support the new government. We need to stick together on this.

Meanwhile, domestically the economy is picking up. Three hundred thousand jobs were created last month. It bring us to, I believe, something like 900,000 jobs this year. Huge economic growth, lots of opportunities are out there.

For our senior citizens, Medicare cards are now available that give up to a 20 to 25 percent discount on prescription drugs, very helpful for those who are on a fixed income and those who are in retirement.

This administration has taken significant steps to continue to make

America strong and free internationally and domestically and while not turning our backs on those who need the most help.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Bush administration for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, last week on the evening news, Dan Rather, nicknamed ``Rather Biased'' by those of us who are conservative or those of us who just like fair reporting in general, spent 2 minutes reporting a story about 1,300 layoffs in Ohio. That certainly is something that is of concern, and yet at the same time he only spent 20 seconds reporting that 947,000 new jobs have been created in the last 3 months.

I realize that the media loves to dwell on the negative, but they also completely can ignore the fact that the unemployment rate is down to 5.6 percent, which is a lower rate than it averaged in 1970s, 1980s and 1990s; home ownership has risen to its highest level at 68 percent; and real disposable income is up nearly 4 percent this year. The economy is coming back and coming back strong, and yet the media still wants to dwell on the negative.

But then again it is no surprise. Their real goal is not journalism, but to get John Kerry elected president. No wonder Fox, ``fair and balanced news,'' has come on as one of the strongest cable networks that there is, Mr. Speaker. I think Americans have absolutely had enough with biased, liberal, shoddy reporting.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I first heard about Ronald Reagan in probably 1970, when Joan Baez, on my Woodstock album, referred to the Governor of California as Ron Ray Gun. And this was a young person, so I thought if Joan Baez is against him, it is probably a good thing. Yet as I went through my years and got in college, I had an opportunity to hear Mr. Reagan speak at the Kansas City Republican convention in 1976. And in his concession speech on the nomination going to Gerald Ford, he gave a great speech and he talked about what we have to do as Americans to preserve the great life-style that we live. I was very impressed with that speech. So in 1980, when he ran for President and was the nominee, certainly I was very enthusiastically in support of him.

He was elected in a year when we had hostages in Iran, the economy was in the tank, and the spirit of America was in the doldrums. He won by a landslide, with great expectations, though, and a great mandate. He needed to cut taxes, and he did. He moved along and created an economy that gave 19 million new jobs over the next 8 years. Inflation was reduced, as well as interest rates. He built defense to the extent that we got over, finally, Vietnam. He talked about things like the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union and peace through strength. And he said things that were politically incorrect at the time, like ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall,'' even though people in our own party did not like him saying those things.

He was very basic. Nancy Reagan led the Just Say No to Drugs campaigns, and I think it was very effective in getting young people to think twice about it.

He had that Irish twinkle in his eye. And when he got shot, even though it was a very serious wound, he said, gee, I hope you are all Republicans. He had that kind of calmness and happiness about him as he went through things. And I, as so many young people, were inspired by him. So when I ran for the State legislature in 1984, I pulled out a photograph that Libby, my wife, and I had taken with Ronald Reagan in 1980, and I ran an ad that said, ``Reagan/Kingston: Face it, we need conservatives at all levels of government.''

But I believe that was a key factor in helping me. He had those kind of coattails. He believed in family, America. He loved Nancy. He showed us a husband-and-wife relationship at its finest. He was kind. The Carter-Reagan, Mondale-Reagan campaigns were not nasty, mean or vicious. In fact, he would say to Jimmy Carter if he disagreed with some of Mr. Carter's facts, ``There you go again.''

He liked joke-telling and told the jokes about the Soviet Union and got his point across, but when he was in the Oval Office, he always wore his coat out of respect for the Oval Office and the office of the Presidency.

In his final speech as he left Washington, D.C., he said, and I quote, ``As I walk off the city streets, my final words to the men and women of the Reagan revolution: My friends, we did it. We were not just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city freer and left her in good hands.''

The lights of this city shine, but the future will burn brightly because of men and the leadership of Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, on this day of Memorial, I rise in honor of the soldiers and airmen in my district who were killed while fighting to stamp out the tyranny of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. They died while protecting freedom and liberty--and for the hope of democracy. Their purpose was just, and we are deeply indebted to them. These brave soldiers were uniquely courageous--they gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and our Nation will forever honor them. Our thoughts and prayers are continually with their families and loved ones.

As a humble token of my appreciation, I recognize them and request that their names be submitted to the Congressional Record to demonstrate our permanent gratitude:

Captain Tristan N. Aitken, United States Army, age 31, from Savannah, GA, assigned to the 1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery. He died on April 4, 2003.

Captain Edward J. Korn, United States Army, age 31, from Savannah, GA, assigned to 2nd Armored Tank Battalion, Fort Knox, KY. He died on April 3, 2003.

Sergeant First Class Wilbert Davis, United States Army, age 40, from Hinesville, GA, assigned to 3rd Battalion, 69th Armor, 3rd Infantry Division. He died on April 3, 2003.

Sergeant First Class Ricky L. Crockett, United States Army, age 38, from Broxton, GA, assigned to Company D, 51st Signal Battalion, 35th Signal Brigade. He died on January 12, 2004.

Staff Sergeant Nathaniel Hart Jr., United States Army, Age 29, from Valdosta, GA, assigned to the 416th Transportation Company, 260th Quartermaster Battalion. He died on July 28, 2003.

Technical Sergeant Bruce E. Brown, United States Air Force, age 32, from Coatopa, AL, assigned to Robins at 78th Air Base Wing Logistics Readiness Squadron. He died on September 3, 2003.

Sergeant David T. Nutt, United States Army, age 32, from Blackshear, GA, assigned to the 494th Transportation Company. He died on May 14, 2003.

Specialist Christopher J. Holland, United States Army, age 26, from Brunswick, GA, assigned to Battery A, 4th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Armored Division. He died on December 17, 2003.

Private Benjamin L. Freeman, age 19, from Valdosta, GA, assigned to K Troop, 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. He died on October 13, 2003.

Senior Airman Jason Cunningham, age 26, from Camarillo, CA, Pararescueman, 38th Rescue Squadron, Moody AFB. He died March 5, 2002.

Lt. Col. John Stein, age 39, from Bardolph, IL, HH-60 pilot, 41st Rescue Squadron, Moody AFB. He died on March 23, 2003.

1st Lt. Tamara Archuleta, age 23, from Los Lunas, NM, HH-60 Copilot, 41st RQS, Moody AFB. Lt. Archuleta died on March 23, 2003.

Staff Sgt. John Teal, age 29, from Dallas, TX, HH-60 Flight Engineer, 41st RQS, Moody AFB. He died on March 23, 2003.

Staff Sgt. Jason Hicks, age 25, from Jefferson, SC, HH-60 Flight Engineer, 41th RQS, Moody AFB. He died on March 23, 2003.

Master Sgt. Michael Maltz, Pararescueman, age 42, from St. Petersburg, FL, 38th RQS, Moody AFB. He died on March 23, 2003.

Senior Airman Jason Plite, Pararescueman, age 21, from Lansing, MI, 38th RQS, Moody AFB. He died on March 23, 2003.

Specialist Edward John Anguiano, United States Army, age 24, from Brownsville, TX, Fort Stewart. He died on March 23, 2003.

Specialist Gregory Paul Sanders, United States Army, age 19, from Hobart, IN, Fort Stewart. He died on March 24, 2003.

Sergeant Roderic Antoine Solomon, United States Army, age 32, from Fayetteville, NC, Fort Stewart. He died on March 28, 2003.

Private First Class Michael Russell Creighton-Weldon, United States Army, age 20, from Palm Bay, FL, Fort Stewart. He died on March 29, 2003.

Corporal Michael Edward Curtin, United States Army, age 23, from Howell, NJ, Fort Stewart. He died on March 29, 2003.

Private First Class Diego Fernando Rincon, United States Army, age 19, from Conyers, GA, Fort Stewart. He died on March 29, 2003.

Sergeant Eugene Williams, United States Army, age 24, from Highland, NY, Fort Stewart. He died on March 29, 2003.

Staff Sergeant George Edward Buggs, United States Army, age 31, from Barnwell, SC, Fort Stewart. He died on April 3, 2003.

Private First Class Wilfred Daveyrussell Bellard, United States Army, age 20, from Lake Charles, LA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 4, 2003.

Specialist Daniel Francis Cunningham Jr., United States Army, age 33, from Lewiston, ME, Fort Stewart. He died on April 4, 2003.

Private Devon Dimilo Jones, United States Army, age 19, from San Diego, CA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 4, 2003.

Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, United States Army, age 33, from Tampa, FL, Fort Stewart. He died on April 4, 2003.

Staff Sergeant Stevon Alexander Booker, United States Army, age 34, from Apollo, PA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 5, 2003.

Staff Sergeant Lincoln Daniel Hollinsaid, United States Army, age 27, from Malden, IL, Fort Stewart. He died on April 7, 2003.

First Lieutenant Jeffrey J. Kaylor, United States Army, age 24, from Clifton, VA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 7, 2003.

Private First Class Anthony Scott Miller, United States Army, age 19, from San Antonio, TX, Fort Stewart. He died on April 7, 2003.

Specialist George A. Mitchell Jr., United States Army, age 35, from Rawlings, MD, Fort Stewart. He died on April 7, 2003.

Sergeant Henry Levon Brown, United States Army, age 22, from Natchez, MS, Fort Stewart. He died on April 8, 2003.

Sergeant First Class John Winston Marshall, United States Army, age 50, from Los Angeles, CA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 8, 2003.

Private First Class Jason Michael Meyer, United States Army, age 23, from Swartz Creek, MI, Fort Stewart. He died on April 8, 2003.

Staff Sergeant Robert Anthony Stever, United States Army, age 36, from Pendleton, OR, Fort Stewart. He died on April 8, 2003.

Private First Class Marlin Tyrone Rockhold, United States Army, age 23, from Hamilton, OH, Fort Stewart. He died on May 8, 2003.

Sergeant Michael Tyron Crockett, United States Army, age 27, from Soperton, GA, Fort Stewart. He died on July 14, 2003.

Specialist Joel Lin Bertoldie, United States Army, age 20, from Independence, MO, Fort Stewart. He died on July 18, 2003.

Private First Class Charles Marques Sims, United States Army, age 18, from Miami, FL, Fort Stewart. He died on October 3, 2003.

Specialist Andrew Lee Tuazon, United States Army, age 29, from Chesapeake, VA, Fort Stewart. He died on May 10, 2004.

Captain James F. Howard, United States Army, age 21, from Springfield VA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003.

Specialist Matthew George Boule, United States Army, age 22, from Dracut, MA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003.

Chief Warrant Officer Four Eric Nders Halvorsen, United States Army, age 40, from Bennington, VT, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003.

Chief Warrant Officer Two Scott Jamar, United States Army, age 32, from Abilene, TX, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003.

Sergeant Michael Francis Pederson, United States Army, age 26, from Flint, MI, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003.

Chief Warrant Officer Three Eric Allen Smith, United States Army, age 41, from Rochester, NY, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003.

Specialist Ryan Gene Carlock, United States Army, age 25, from Macomb, IL, Fort Stewart. He died on September 9, 2003.

Private Gregory Paul Huxley Jr., United States Army, age 19, from Forestport, NY, Fort Stewart. He died on April 6, 2003.

Private Kelley Stephen Prewitt, United States Army, age 24, from Birmingham, AL, Fort Stewart. He died on April 6, 2003.

Sergeant Terry Wayne Heminway, United States Army, from Willingboro, NJ, Fort Stewart. He died on April 10, 2003.

First Sergeant Joe Jesus Garza, United States Army, age 43, from Robstown, TX, Fort Stewart. He died on April 28, 2003.

Sergeant Todd James Robbins, United States Army, age 33, from Hart, MI, Fort Stewart. He died on April 3, 2003.

Sergeant First Class Randall Scott Rehn, United States Army, age 36, from Longmont, CO, Fort Stewart. He died on April 3, 2003.

Specialist Donald Samuel Oaks Jr., United States Army, age 20, from Erie, PA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 3, 2003.

Private First Class Jeremiah David Smith, United States Army, age 25, from Independence, KS, Fort Stewart. He died on May 27, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, effective June 1, each senior on Medicare who would like one could get a Medicare prescription drug discount card. This card will be good for about a 20 percent discount in most local pharmacies.

What the senior could do is dial 1-800-Medicare or go to WWW.MEDICARE.GOV and find out which of the local drugstores has the best deal on Lipitor or Glucophage or whatever he or she uses on a regular basis, and then, if it works, if it is a good idea, invest anywhere from $20 to $30, in that neighborhood, and choose which card is the best and start enjoying a 20 percent discount.

This is a program that precedes the 2006 voluntary program which was signed by President Bush, passed by this House and the Senate and endorsed by the AARP to give seniors on Medicare a prescription drug benefit.

It is a voluntary program, it reduces drug costs by about 50 percent, and it is something that we did not have in Medicare as an option before. It is a very good program, and I invite seniors to call 1-800 Medicare and take a look at it.

Mr. Speaker, the prescription drug benefit addition to Medicare, which was passed by the Republican Congress, Republican Senate, and signed by the Republican President, mostly over Democrat objections, has four aspects we need to remember:

Number one, this very popular program, endorsed by the AARP and most senior groups and health care groups, starts officially in the year 2006.

Number two, it is voluntary.

Number three, it reduces the cost of prescription drugs by approximately 50 percent after the premiums and the deductibles are met. It is about a 50-percent reduction, not as much as many would want; yet it is still affordable.

Number four, effective yesterday, June 1, many seniors, and those who voluntarily have decided to buy a prescription drug card similar to this, will enjoy a 20 percent discount on their drugs.

That means that my mom and dad, and yours too, perhaps, can start getting about a 20 percent discount on Glucophage or Lipitor or whatever prescription drug they need. All they need to do is dial 1-800 Medicare or www. Medicare.gov in order to see how they can immediately start saving 20 percent on their prescription drugs.