Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 400 through 403. The reason being that I had a prescheduled meeting with the Secretary of Defense at the same time the votes were taking place.

However, had I been present, I would have voted in the following fashion: Vote No. 400, ``yea''; Vote No. 401, ``yea''; Vote No. 402, ``yea''; and Vote No. 403, ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 13, I missed rollcall votes No. 363 through No. 370. The reason being that my district was hit with nearly a foot of rain and as a result of this 1000-year flood, my presence was needed in New Jersey to ensure cooperation with and assistance from FEMA during this disaster.

However, had I been present, I would have voted in the following fashion: vote No. 363, ``aye''; vote No. 364 ``aye''; vote No. 365 ``aye''; vote No. 366 ``no''; vote No. 367 ``no''; vote No. 368 ``aye''; vote No. 369 ``no''; vote No. 370 ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Indiana for not only introducing this important piece of legislation but for taking the lead in this Congress on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has visited Israel on several occasions and viewed the security fence, it is abundantly clear that it was built out of necessity. On my last trip, I was reminded once again, that the drive from the beautiful beachfront in Tel Aviv, to the Palestinian town of Qualqilya in the West Bank took less then 25 minutes. That same 25 minutes is all the time it would take for a suicide bomber to find his or her way to a bus stop, a shopping mall, or a discotechque.

Earlier today I had the honor of hosting 20 victims of Palestinian terrorism. As I met with them I was reminded of a simple but gruesome fact: everyday for nearly 60 years Israelis have awoken in the morning to a constant threat of terrorism. Terrorism is what built the security fence. The Government of Israel has said on numerous occasions that if after more then 10 years of empty promises and bold face lies by Yassir Arafat and his cronies, if the Palestinian leadership would finally crack down on terrorism and work to reform the Palestinian territories, then perhaps one day the fence would no longer be necessary.

Mr. Speaker, echoing my friend from Indiana I would like to commend President Bush and Secretary of State Powell for taking the lead in marshalling opposition to the use of the International Court of Justice as a forum to solve the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The decision by the ICJ will do nothing politically or legally to help destroy Palestinian terrorism or reform the Palestinian Authority.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again commend my friend from Indiana for introducing this bold resolution and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2828, the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the action of the House just taken.

Mr. Speaker, each month the Joint Economic Committee has the opportunity to receive job growth data from the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. This month, the JEC was pleased to receive good news; fortunately, good news of two kinds: First, many good paying jobs are being created in large numbers in the U.S. economy; and, second, job growth continues at a rapid rate.

The June payroll employment increases pushed the total employment gains since August to 1.5 million jobs. According to the new data released a week ago by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job growth continues today as the payroll employment increased by 112,000 jobs in June.

During the past few days, however, some have contended that most of the recent employment gains are in low wage jobs. Quite the contrary is true. Occupations that are relatively well paid accounted for over 70 percent of the net increases in employment between June of 2003 and June of 2004.

Although this does not mean that all of the jobs that were created in these categories were high-paying, most of them were. The jobs in these occupational categories are generally highly paid. It does indicate that most of the recent employment gains have not

been disproportionately in low-wage occupations, as some in this House have claimed.

Specifically, according to the statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Survey, between June 2003 and June 2004, 71.4 percent of the net increase in employment was in three relatively well- paid occupational categories: Management, professional and related occupations, that category comprised 23.1 percent of the job gains; construction and extraction occupations, that is, mining occupations, accounted for 36.1 percent; and installation, maintenance and repair occupations accounted for 12.2 percent.

The earnings in these occupational categories are higher than the median and much higher than the earnings of the typical low-income worker. Most of the workers in well-paid occupations have earnings in the middle range or higher.

These employment figures indicate that most of the new jobs are not at low wage levels, but at higher levels of earnings. We have been hearing assertions about ``hamburger flippers,'' jobs dominating employment for about 20 years now. Those stories have not come true. It just is not happening. We are not about to become a Nation of hamburger flippers.

The data shows that most of the recent employment gains have been in relatively well paid occupations. This is good news for the American worker and is good news for the American family. It means that the low- paying job problem that accompanied the economic downturn which began in the last half of 2000, during the Clinton administration, has been rectified.

It further means that the economic policies of the current administration are working to bring pocketbook issues into a positive state.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while I believe misguided, is nonetheless a very important amendment because it changes the parameters, or at least it seeks to change the parameters, of the definition of enemy combatant.

It seeks to force in this case the United States to treat enemy combatants as criminals rather than as enemy combatants, and it fails to recognize, therefore, one very significant change that has taken place, something that is very different about this war that then existed in any war in modern history, and that is that there is no doubt that the attacks of September 11 constituted acts of war, and, therefore, by definition the United States territory, the 50 States and our territories, are part of the battlefield.

The gentleman from California's (Mr. Sherman) amendment does not seek to curb the definition of enemy combatant as it applies to Guantanamo or as it applies to Iran or Afghanistan, just the United States. So the gentleman makes a difference between the part of the battlefield that is offshore and the part of the battlefield that is onshore in this case. And I think that goes to create a mistake, because it places 30- day limits on the detention of an enemy combatant by the Department of Justice. What that means is that if the FBI apprehends an enemy combatant in the process of trying to carry out an act of terrorism in the United States, and he is charged by the Department of Justice and imprisoned, he can only be held for 30 days, and that seems to me to go in the wrong direction. It means that if Mohammad Atta were picked up and identified as an enemy combatant, that he would have to be released in 30 days.

The Sherman amendment kind of reminds me of when I chaired the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans for 6 years, and it sounds like what the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) really wants to do is he wants the war on terror to be run like a catch-and-release fish tournament, and that obviously is something that we do not want to see done here.

So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this well-intended amendment, but which takes us in exactly the opposite direction we should be going.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Moorestown Ecumenical Neighborhood Development, Inc. (MEND), a nonprofit MR. organization celebrating its 35th anniversary of service to the low and moderate-income citizens who have been and still are in need of affordable housing in Burlington County, New Jersey.

The Federal Government has worked hand-in-hand with this organization, a significant contributor to the vitality, diversity and growth of southern New Jersey, helping it meet the region's affordable housing needs,

On October 15, 2004, MEND will celebrate its 35th Anniversary with a Gala Dinner Dance. This private, non-profit, faith-based corporation was founded in 1969 by 9 Moorestown churches to provide affordable rental and for-sale housing to low and moderate income individuals, families, senior citizens and the disabled.

The concerned people of MEND who strive to help their Burlington County neighbors are deserving of recognition for their selfless concern for those in need, and for their efforts to improve the lives of the residents of Burlington County.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution, a fitting tribute to a personal hero of mine, the fortieth President of these great United States, President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, President Reagan was and is today the personification of all that is good in America. All that knew him have commented on the eternal optimism he exuded, much like the hope America presents to the rest of the world.

He was a beacon of light for freedom and for freedom loving people everywhere. The fact is that today there are not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of people in the world who live in freedom, and these people are free because of the leadership of President Ronald Reagan. He had a vision that set this nation down a path of greatness that historians shall look back on as a vital turning point for not only this country, but indeed the world as well.

There is an old military axiom that there are no bad battalions only bad leaders. As a corollary, I propose that there are no great nations, only great leaders.

President Reagan was indeed one of this country's greatest leaders. During the eight years he was President, he turned this country around militarily, economically and diplomatically. And as a result, he stands with many of the great leaders of our country's past--like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

What he left most importantly was a legacy of optimism and a restored faith in the American presidency. In 1984, the year I was elected to Congress, President Reagan said while speaking to students at Fudan University in Shanghai, China, ``We're an optimistic people. Like you, we inherited a vast land of endless skies, tall mountains, rich fields, and open prairies. It made us see the possibilities in everything. It made us hopeful.'' He made us hopeful even in the face of adversity.

Who can forget that cold, grim day the hours after the Challenger disaster, when our nation was stunned and weeping? He comforted us with a poem:

``We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them this morning, as they prepared for their journey, and waved goodbye, and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.''

And today, we as American people, are comforted for it is most certain that as he heads on his final journey, we wave goodbye to our fortieth President and he ``slips the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.'' Well done, Mr. President. I will miss you and America will miss you, but we will never forget you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), has made the point that Congress is not investigating. That is simply not true.

Both the Senate and the House, particularly, have held particularly contentious hearings, and the country has seen those hearings because they have been public. But in addition to that, on a frequent basis we have held closed hearings because much of this information is classified. And we ask tough questions in those hearings, Republicans and Democrats together.

But in addition to that, General Antonio Taguba just days after it was discovered, after these events had taken place, was tasked to do an investigation. That was in January. And through January and February and March and April that investigation went forward resulting in something that has become known as the Taguba Report, a report every bit this high with a 58-page summary.

That report and six other military investigations which are still under way have led to a conclusion that this situation is being well taken care of. The conclusion is that there are a few people who committed some horrific acts and that the problem was the result of the collapse of leadership in one battalion, possibly two, and that some misdirected people got out of control.

While this is going on, there is much good going on in the Middle East, in Iraq. Our troops are fighting to secure the peace in support of the CPA. They are fighting to secure important sites, important to economic growth and the welfare of the Iraqi people. They are fighting to build an Iraqi security service, border police, site police, security police and a police force.

They are fighting to secure hospitals and schools. They are fighting to promote local caucuses, to elect local individuals, and they are fighting to control foreign fighters, insurgents if you will.

So there is a big job to do in the Middle East, and I was taken yesterday as I read in the press of another investigation that is ongoing by the 9/11 Commission when they interviewed Rudy Giuliani. Let me conclude with this. This is not an exact quote, but this is the meaning of what Rudy Giuliani said yesterday. He said words to this effect: There is only one enemy in the war on terrorism and it is not us. It is those who attacked us and murdered our loved ones.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Our country is at war, Mr. Speaker, and this rule and the underlying bill reflect the needs of a country at war.

We have addressed in this bill in particular the needs of the soldier. In fact, the bill is entitled The Year of the Soldier, and to support our soldiers we have addressed issues that have to do with technology. We have addressed issues that have to do with armor, both body and vehicle. We have addressed additional needs that our Special Operations Command has, and we have addressed the need to defend ourselves in terms of chemical and biological protection.

But one of the most important provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is a provision that addresses a need in terms of our military's transformation. Our committee found during a hearing on April 21, 2004, that the DOD acquisition process would not respond in an expeditious manner to the urgent force protection equipment needs of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is something that the bill seeks to change.

At the hearing, the HASC found that it required 6 months from the time a combatant commander made his request to the time that the production for such equipment commenced, 6 months from the time the combatant commander said he needed a device and the time we began to produce it; not when it got to the field, but when we began to produce it.

This provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to publish a streamlined acquisition process for use when combatant fatalities have occurred. The combatant commander has an urgent need for equipment and the delay would cause the continuation of combat fatalities. This rapid acquisition authority will allow a rapid response to emergency combat situations.

This rapid acquisition authority would allow a rapid response to emergency combat situations, would allow a rapid response to changes in our opponents' battlefield tactics and, most important, this provision would help minimize combat fatalities.

This is a process to be used as a quick-start bridge to the normal acquisition process. The provision is limited, however, limited to $100 million per fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker from the minority I think misrepresented the situation. This process started in January. We have been through the subcommittee process. The gentleman went through the subcommittee process, had ample time to make his arguments, went through the full committee process.

We forged a document through that process where everybody had ample time, including a debate that started at 10 o'clock in the morning last week and ended at midnight, to make our points; and following that debate, this bill was reported by a unanimous vote. So those who are crying foul today because of this rule are the same people who have worked since January to make their points, 12 hours last week to make their points, and a 9-hour debate today. It seems pretty fair to me.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking and congratulating the chairman and the ranking member for the great leadership that they have each shown in bringing us through this process beginning in January, working through February, March and April; and here we are on May 20 taking another step forward in this process of making sure that we provide the resources that are needed by our troops in this, The Year of the Troops, which is what this bill is named after.

I rise in strong support of the bill, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Last week the Committee on Armed Services approved this bill unanimously, continuing the committee's tradition of bipartisanship in addressing the defense needs for our Nation. The bill contains several initiatives that will aid the armed services and the Federal Government as a whole in the ongoing war against terrorism and contains several promising provisions that will help to transform the military services.

At the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), we adopted the theme The Year of the Soldier and emphasized initiatives that would directly assist our deployed forces. We are aware of the challenges they face in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to do everything we can to make conditions safer for them and to make it possible for them to be ever so effective. An important element in the committee's Year of the Soldier theme is force protection, and that is a concern that influenced all we did this year.

We have taken a number of actions in this bill to provide the resources and direction to better equip our men and women who are serving selflessly in dangerous conditions overseas. In this bill, we provide for our valiant warriors in the Special Operations Command. We have authorized funds, for example, for several items in the SOCOM commander's unfunded requirements priority list and have authorized additional funding that would provide some necessary operational flexibility for special operations forces on the ground.

We continue to believe that the best way to fight terrorism is to keep terrorists far from our shores. I continue to believe that the Special Operations Command is one of our most effective weapons in this mission. This bill bolsters the command's capabilities in several ways.

Next, the bill provides increased funding to accelerate the development and fielding of advanced technologies for emerging critical operations needs, including projection of our forces against improvised explosive devices and rocket and mortar attack and to provide real-time surveillance of suspected enemy activities.

I could add here, Mr. Chairman, there is a very strong provision which we added late in the game because at a hearing on April 21 it became apparent that it took just too long to field new kinds of technologies. We have provided a special program to provide capabilities for the chief of staff of the Army and his staff to provide in a more quick fashion the capabilities that are needed by our soldiers.

In addition, this bill provides increased funding for combating terrorism in terms of technological support to accelerate the development and fielding of advanced technologies for the fight against terrorism.

Finally, we continue to expand our successful initiative of last year to develop chemical and biological defense countermeasures.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not say a word about something that we are doing for those who have fought in previous wars. We have found the resources this year to add $7 billion over a 10-year period to bolster and bring up to date the survivors benefit program that retired individuals and their spouses are able to avail themselves of.

We move the percentage of survivors benefits, that is, generally widows, from a 35 percent level to a 55 percent level.

This SBP program is an extremely important program because what happened was that in the past, when a member who served in the military passed away, his surviving spouse, usually, of course, his widow, would receive 55 percent of his retired pay up until she turned 62 and then that percentage would drop to 35 percent.

We have fixed that in providing $7 billion over 10 years to bring that 35 percent back up over a 4-year period to the 55 percent level. This is important. It is a way of saying thank you to those who have served our country and is a very important part of our bill.

In closing, I just want to express my appreciation to the members of the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, who contributed so mightily to this bill, and particularly thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the ranking member, with whom I have worked closely over the years.

This is an excellent bill. I congratulate the chairman for bringing it here. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. Chairman, during the 1980s, and during the 1990s, there were many of us who warned that some day terrorism would be an issue that we would have to deal with in this country. Today, reports indicate that terrorist groups are functioning in parts of South America, as well as Mexico, in an effort to cross through the U.S.-Mexican border. It is clear that all possible steps must be taken in order to prevent this.

I would point out that both in Colombia and in the tri-border area, which is an area where the borders of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil meet, there are large numbers of people who offer the potential to become a serious problem in our country. If anyone doubts that, there are two books that have recently been published by the Rand Corporation: ``Arms Trafficking and Colombia,'' and ``Colombian Labyrinth: The Synergy of Drugs and Insurgency and Its Implications for Regional Stability.''

These are serious issues. This amendment will accomplish the desired goal by providing the Department of Defense and our Commander in Chief the option of using military force to secure the border if it becomes necessary.

This amendment does not require the use of troops on the border, and will, most importantly, not affect force-readiness or overburden our military. Instead, it will enable the Secretary of Defense to respond to a request by the Secretary of Homeland Security to allow the use of military personnel to defend against this national security threat.

Just as many people did not want to hear it in the 1980s and people did not want to hear it in the 1990s, and then 2001 occurred, this is a new area of concern which must be dealt with.

The Secretary will also have the ability to authorize assistance for the U.S. Customs Service to prevent entry of weapons of mass destruction, drugs and other terrorist items.

Finally, this amendment is a commonsense approach which will give the highest levels of our government an important tool necessary to combat threats against our national security here at home.

I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) for bringing it forward, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I take some exception to the polite assertion of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that the Congress of the United States perhaps in his view has not done enough or is not on a track to do enough; but at some point we have to decide to come to a conclusion that a few people committed some very horrendous, bad acts.

The events that have occurred since then, and I would remind Members this occurred in late December or January, or became evident in January, and immediate actions were taken by our trusted military leaders, and I am not talking about our civilian leaders necessarily, I am talking about our military leaders, people who swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States while carrying out their military duties. Since then, General Taguba and his staff have carried out a very extensive investigation.

I saw a copy of the report. It was that high with a 50-page executive summary. While it is classified, somehow or another it happened to appear on the Internet so anyone that wants to know what is in it can click on the Internet and look at it, and you will have to fairly conclude that there was nothing in that report that would suggest that we need a broader investigation.

But in spite of that, there are currently seven ongoing investigations being carried out by our military leadership, trying to find out if there is anything else that ought to be looked at, any other criminal investigations that ought to be entered into, any other processes to clean this mess up.

Now, we have 140,000 people doing good work, protecting the national security of our country while trying to put that country back together, positive work supporting the Provisional Coalition Authority, positive work working with Iraqi families, positive work monitoring caucuses where Iraqis are electing their own local leaders, controlling traffic, positive work securing ammo dumps that are sometimes miles square.

Our Special Forces are there operating, 140,000 people doing good works; and we are asked by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to concentrate on the bad acts, throw Congress into an oversight overdrive, concentrating on the bad acts of a handful of people.

I do not buy into the notion that we should do this, and I think the chairman's amendment is exactly what we need to do. I would hope the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) would rethink his position.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to introduce an important piece of conservation legislation, the Weather and Oceans Resources Realignment Act. This bill will transfer the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Department of the Interior.

An issue to which I have devoted a great deal of time and one that I feel is very important is the protection of the diverse range of fish stocks that inhabit our world's oceans, many of which are very close to disappearing forever. The National Marine Fisheries Service, the agency tasked with the protection of these species has failed to do so. I have never been able to comprehend why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is housed within the Department of Commerce, which has nothing to do with the protection of our natural resources. For this reason, I have introduced this legislation, which simply moves NOAA to a more appropriate agency, Interior.

Given the release of now three studies essentially stating that what I have been talking about is likely to happen, I am more convinced than ever that we need to take aggressive action immediately. Many of our oceans' fish stocks are now reportedly 90 percent depleted, meaning only 10 percent of the stocks that once existed remain. And many of these stocks are in grave danger of extinction if we proceed down the same path we are on now--that is, continue to study these stocks and do little to mitigate the damage that has already been done.

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, created from my Oceans Act of 2000, released it's report in April of this year, with many of the same findings. We need to take immediate aggressive steps to prevent the disappearance of these fish species, before it's too late. These studies should be a wake-up call that the process through which our world's fisheries is managed is broken and needs to be fixed.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has demonstrated repeatedly they are incapable of doing the job they have been tasked with as the primary federal agency responsible for monitoring and protecting our Nation's fisheries. To place them within the Department of the Interior would serve to strengthen the two agencies goals of resources conservation.

This is an issue that resonates with anyone who has ever been to the beach in States like New Jersey, or watched a television program involving the deep blue sea. And given that 50 percent of the population of the United States lives within 100 miles of a coast, there are many who are personally affected by this issue. We have a unique opportunity to do something amazing and I think we owe it these wonderful resources that are our oceans to do all we can to bring them back to a healthy and sustainable level, for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my long-time friend, Anna B. ``Peg'' Jacobi, a resident of the Borough of Tuckerton for more than a half century.

Peg served as Tuckerton's Mayor from 1994 to 1998, after retiring from 36 years of public service. She served as Tuckerton Borough registrar, and secretary for the Board of Health, tax collector, treasurer and executive director of the Tuckerton Municipal Utilities Authority. She was also a member of the Pinelands Regional Board of Education for a decade.

A charter member of both the Tuckerton Historical Society and the Tuckerton Seaport, Peg was the first president of the New Jersey Association of Rural Water and Watershed Utilities, and is currently president of Rural Water. She is also the current chairman of the Ocean County Utilities Authority, the Ocean County Board of Social Services, the Board of the Southern Ocean County Hospital Foundation, and finance chair of the Lutheran Church of the Holy Spirit and Ocean County Girl Scout Council, where she originated the community Christmas Tree on Lake Pohatcong.

Married for 48 years to the late Egbert M. ``Jake'' Jacobi, Peg is the mother of four, grandmother of two, and great-grandmother of two fine boys.

It has been a pleasure and a privilege working with Peg Jacobi through the years, and I am proud to recognize her for her many, many contributions to her community, county and State. I am proud, too, to call her my friend.

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

Mr. Chairman, much has been said here today with regard to the subject of our budget and fiscal policy and its effect on economic growth.

I would like to show as clearly as I can as the vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, which of course is made up of Members of the House and Members of the Senate, the actual effect of budgetary policy over the last few years, monetary policy as carried out by the Fed, and tax policy implemented at the request of the administration and carried out by this House and the Senate.

Actually we have found that there are some very positive effects that have accumulated over the past several years in terms of a variety of good economic trends.

For example, lower inflation that has resulted from various policies actually has improved economic growth through the appearance of lower interest rates directly as a result of lower inflation which can be primarily attributed to the policy of the Federal Reserve. It reduces unnecessary uncertainty and volatility in financial markets, it causes the price system to work better, it acts like a tax cut to have lower interest rates, especially for those portions of the Tax Code that are not indexed for inflation. The Fed's policy of inflation targeting has worked.

I can remember many years ago when the Fed's policies of today were not in place, when we felt good when inflation was at 6 percent or at 5 percent. Today, inflation is at historic lows, probably today under 2 percent. As a result of that, these lower interest rates have worked, as I said before, as tax cuts to help rally economic growth.

Lower marginal tax rates as well as lower interest rates remain in place today, and we are reaping the long-run effects of lower tax rates despite two increases, one in 1990 and one in 1993. Marginal tax rates remain lower today than they were in the 1950s or the 1960s or the 1970s. This is very important.

It is also important not to revise the tax rates that are already in place. We have seen the results of these as demonstrated on this chart, for example. Here, in 2001, when the tax rates were put into place, we see that real economic growth, of course, was bad during the three quarters of 2001, but then the economy started to grow. Real gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2001 began to grow, and we had seven straight quarters of economic growth, culminating, as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget said, in the last two quarters that we have just experienced where we saw 8.2 percent economic growth in one quarter and 4.1 percent in the next quarter.

There has been good reason for optimism and, of course, the stock market has rebounded during this period of time, but there have been other factors that have been holding the economy back.

National security and homeland security are two general areas that are essential for securing our peace and security and stable, sustained economic growth. This economic growth is not possible without both security from foreign adversaries and security from adversaries who threaten the homeland. And so spending on our national security and on homeland security is absolutely essential. Investment spending will not occur without stable property rights or security for investment and investors as well as lenders.

While national security and domestic security are essential, they also depend on what weapons the adversaries employ. In a sense, they depend on the adversary and not entirely on some absolute standard of security.

Investment, on the other hand, is essential to fostering economic growth. Increases in investment improve both supply and demand so it fosters growth without causing inflation. Investment is needed to improve productivity, raise real wages and increase living standards. Productivity-enhancing investment increases economic growth without inflation.

Let me just turn to the next chart we have here which shows fixed private nonresidential investment. Again, beginning in the third and fourth quarter of the year 2000, which coincidentally was before President Bush took office, we see that fixed private nonresidential investments fell sharply. And then as the recession ensued in 2001 and through the first two quarters of 2002, fixed private nonresidential investment was actually in the negative.

But then as the effect of the tax cuts kicked in and as the effects of low interest rates brought about by the control of inflation kicked in, we see that fixed private nonresidential investment begins to improve. This was a very positive thing for the economy.

The U.S. economy currently is expanding at a healthy clip. A wide spectrum of sectors of the economy are contributing to this advance. Consumption, housing, investment, and production among others have all made notable contributions. Fourth-quarter real GDP was up by a brisk 4.1 percent and, as I said before, the third quarter of last year was up 8.2 percent, which certainly again is demonstrated here on the chart that we have.

For the future, the consensus view of economists is that the economy will continue to expand at a robust pace over the next several quarters. Specifically, the consensus is for better than 4 percent growth in the near term. This current and prospective performance of the U.S. economy is superior to most other world economies, including both Europe and Japan.

Business investment, as well, has been a leading sector fueling these healthy economic gains. Real business investment has been up sharply in the last three quarters. A key reason for this strength was the progrowth tax policies adopted by this Congress and by the administration.

Further, gains in profits, the stock market as well as capital goods orders all point to additional advances in investment. Although the stock market has had its ups and downs, particularly as measured by the Dow Industrials,

the stock market has regained much of the ground it lost in recent years. The stock market gains not only encourage investment activity, but because of widespread ownership in stocks, mutual funds, IRAs and other savings vehicles, we have fostered household wealth gains as well. The latest figures indicate that about 50 percent of American households own stock shares in some form, and stock market capitalization was up significantly last year. The tax cuts and expectations of continued economic advance have propelled stock prices to continue to rise until just a couple of weeks ago.

Manufacturing activity, as well, as measured by the Institute for Supply Management, ISM, the ISM index, is also making significant gains. The index shows that manufacturing gains have been quite widespread. Manufacturing production as measured by the Federal Reserve's Industrial Product Index is up sharply as well. We have another chart here which shows that the ISM index fell during the recession, and it shows how we have grown today to the point where 61.4 percent of our businesses are actually expanding.

Employment is one area, however, that has lagged behind output growth. It is quite clear that manufacturing employment softness began in July of 2000. The impacts of investment and stock market weakness were concentrated in manufacturing. Nonetheless, recent payroll employment is up 364,000 jobs since August and payrolls have advanced the last 6 months in a row. During a comparable time period, household employment was up 604,000 jobs.

Let me turn to the unemployment rate which we hear so much about in regard to our economy. The unemployment rate has fallen from a high this year of 6.3 percent to 5.6 percent in recent months. The 5.6 percent rate is lower than the average rate in the 1970s, lower than the average rate in the 1980s, and lower than the average rate in the robust 1990s. It has not been characterized as such, however.

Further, the recent peak in the unemployment rate is considerably lower than the peaks of earlier business cycles. Let me show my colleagues what I mean. In the 1970s during a recession, the unemployment rate peaked at around 9 percent. In the 1980s during a deeper recession, the unemployment rate peaked at just under 11 percent. In the 1990s during a recession, the last quarter of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991, we had an 8-month recession, and the unemployment rate peaked at just under 8 percent. In this recession, the unemployment rate peaked at 6.3 percent and is now at 5.6 percent, as I said, lower than the average rates of unemployment in the 1970s, the 1980s or the 1990s.

Inflation has also remained low during this period. As can be seen on this chart, core CPI inflation has continued to trend down for the past several years. This is good news for all income earners and all consumers. This is the result of the Fed's persistent anti-inflation policy. Currently there are few, if any, signs of inflationary expectations re-emerging in any significant way. This line speaks for itself. Inflation is historically low today as a result of Fed policy.

Likewise, the Misery Index, we all remember the Misery Index that we got so accustomed to hearing about in the 1970s, the Misery Index measures the sum of the unemployment rate and the core CPI inflation rate. It is premised on the notion that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation create economic costs for a country. The index is used unofficially to assess a nation's economic health.

Currently the Misery Index is relatively low, lower than it has been for most of the past 35 years. Once again, the red line here speaks for itself, the Misery Index is very low today.

Long-term interest rates have continued to trend down as well and remain at near 40-year lows. What is particularly relevant is that long-term rates remain low or even declined in the face of increases in the budget deficit. These low long-term rates are more importantly determined by the rate of inflation than by budget deficits. Again, we have a chart here that has a line on it that shows the 10-year Treasury bond yield at consistent maturity, and once again we see that we have historically low interest rates.

In sum, the economy is currently advancing at a healthy pace. Most key sectors of the economy have contributed to this healthy growth. The consensus of economic forecasters project continued healthy economic growth for the foreseeable future. The policies that have supported this growth, namely, tax relief and accommodative monetary policy as carried out by the Fed, appear to have been quite appropriate. Accordingly, so long as inflation remains subdued, a continuation of these policies and making certain that tax cuts are permanent seems quite appropriate.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised, but I am somewhat troubled that the previous speaker did not recognize that the economic downturn was well under way well before President Bush took office. The administration's critics blame President Bush for his policies for the loss of about 2 million jobs since January of 2001. However, all of this employment decline is accounted for by falling manufacturing employment, and manufacturing employment started declining well before President Bush or his policies were in place. Manufacturing employment has been falling since March of 1998. From this point through January of 2001, over half a million manufacturing jobs had already been lost. It is hard to blame that on President Bush. Thus the trend was well under way before the President ever took office. And it was the policies that were in place during the 1990s that caused that decline.

Manufacturing employment has been falling steadily, well before President Bush took office. The respected Institute for Supply Management employment index plunged in 2000. By January of 2001 most firms surveyed indicated that manufacturing jobs were falling or stagnating, according to these indices. That was the year President Bush took office. So according to your theories, President Bush's policies that had not even gone into effect yet caused all that unemployment. It is just not true. It cannot be true. President Bush was not here.

After the bursting of the stock market in the first quarter of 2000, there was a sharp fall-off in investment. Because much of this investment is comprised of machinery and equipment produced in the manufacturing sector, manufacturing employment began declining every month since July of 2000.

We know President Bush was not the President before July of 2000 when the policies of the previous administration caused these declines.

In the last month of the previous administration, manufacturing employment declined by 82,000 jobs. That was President Clinton, not President Bush. However, with a strong rebound in investment in the last half of 2003, manufacturing output is growing today at a healthy pace, and monthly manufacturing employment declines have been slowed dramatically because since President Bush took office, he has made it a priority to institute policies that provide for economic growth.

Since last August, payroll employment has gained 364,000 jobs, not declined. We all want to see more job growth, but strong productivity gains have made this harder. Strong productivity growth is good for the majority of the workers who have jobs because it enhances their job security and earnings potential. However, in the short run, it does slow job growth. We had a technological advance during the 1980s and 1990s that was good. It made our workers more productive. The use of computer technology, the use of communications technology, and many other increases in technology across the board made our workforce the most productive workforce in the history of our country. But it had a negative side as well because when the recession hit and the decline started, while President Clinton was President, when the decline started and people lost their jobs, the inclusion of more technology continued to go forward. And when the economy began to grow and people went back to seek their jobs, they had been replaced by technology, adding to the productive nature of our workforce.

The upward productivity trend started in the second half of the 1990s and has been under way for at least 8 years. By the second half of the 1990s, investments in new technology and equipment changed the economy and its relationship to employment. The cumulative effect of these investments was that the economy could grow quite quickly without greatly increased employment. Productivity growth, not outsourcing, is the primary cause of slow employment growth in the short run. With healthy economic growth now under way, most economists expect employment growth to continue in the future.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the facts bear out that the economy is growing. Like the previous speaker, I wish that jobs were growing faster, and I believe they will. But the previous speaker's examples were not exactly examples that I would have used.

For example, to compare this recession to the Great Depression I find, I guess I would say amusing to a certain extent, because while we know that the unemployment rate today is at 5.6 percent and topped out at 6.3 percent in this recession, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression was 25 percent. So I think that is a rather poor example, and I think goes to show the extent and the lengths to which the minority will try to bend things to make their story look like the one that they would like the American people to believe.

A lot has been said about tax rates. One of the charges that has been made about our tax policy and our tax cut, and the last speaker repeated it again for the last of many times today, is that when we reduced taxes for the American people, when we did away with the marriage tax penalty, when we created the child tax credit, when we passed the other tax cuts that provided for economic growth, we created the deficit.

Well, I would like to show one final chart which demonstrates that that is not true either. This chart to my left shows, and the Congressional Budget Office, which works on a bipartisan basis, came up with these numbers, it shows that the projected surplus in 2001 was $281 billion, and shows in the first year that the tax cuts went into effect the static cost. ``Static'' is a word we use around here to mean as exactly as we can the amount of money that will not flow into the Treasury if you assume no economic growth at the same time because of the tax cuts.

We assume that there is a static loss of revenue to the Federal Government, and it is shown here in blue. This is what the tax cut cost. Out of the $281 billion surplus that was projected to exist, only $70.2 billion went for tax cuts, and we actually would have had a surplus of $210 billion, after the tax cuts. The actual surplus turned out to be $127 billion because, as I pointed out before, during the last year of Bill Clinton's administration, the economy began to decline. So less growth in the economy, less people working, less people paying taxes, less revenue.

And then, if I move on to the next year, the projected CBO surplus was $313 billion, and the actual cost of the tax cuts that year, $73.7 billion; and for the first time in 4 years, we went into a deficit situation of $158 billion. We had a $158 billion deficit. So if we go from a $313 billion projected surplus to a $158 billion deficit, it is a swing of $471 billion, from surplus to deficit. The cost of tax cuts: $73.7 billion.

I will not bore everybody with the third year, but the same trend continues: the cost of the tax cut, $172 billion out of a $359 billion projected surplus, and we ended up with a deficit of $375 billion, a big swing from a $359 billion surplus to a $375 billion deficit.

The fourth year is the most dramatic. We went from a projected surplus of $397 billion to a deficit of $477 billion, a swing of $874 billion, and the actual cost of the tax cuts: $264.8 billion, which would have left us with a surplus of $132 billion if it were the fault of the tax cuts. Other factors mitigated to have that tremendous swing. The war was taking place, the economy fell, and other factors played into it, such as the loss in the stock market.

So as is evident from this chart and the CBO numbers, and the numbers from the Joint Tax Committee, all of which are bipartisan, the tax cut did not cause the deficits at all, unlike what our minority opponents would like America to believe.

One of the most important accomplishments of our budget policy, and this budget reflects this, in this year, in the past few years, is the enactment of this tax package for families all along the income spectrum. The budget before us today continues and preserves the key elements of this tax relief, allowing families to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Over the 4-year period, from 2002 to 2004, just three key tax reductions out of the dozens enacted have produced savings for American taxpayers. These three provisions are a new 10 percent tax bracket. Previously, low-income people paid 15 percent in the bottom tax bracket. Pursuant to these tax cuts, that 15 percent dropped to 10 percent. We enacted a child tax credit worth $1,000 in 2003 and $1,000 in 2004; and we enacted a marriage penalty relief through an increased standard deduction for couples filing joint returns. For married couples with two children and who use the standard deduction, the savings from these tax reductions total approximately $5,500 over these 4 years, according to the Joint Economic Committee report that was published recently.

If one is interested in that report, click on our Web page. It is there for everyone to see.

Consider these figures for 2004 from the JEC report. First, the child tax credit, now $1,000 per child, double what it was back in 2000. For a two-child household, the increases translate to $1,000 in tax savings. Second, thanks to the 2001 and 2003 tax relief cuts, there is now a new 10 percent tax bracket, which applies to the first $14,300 of income this year for joint tax returns. Without this new bracket, that income would otherwise be taxed at 15 percent. These are for the lowest wage-earners. This tax cut is for the lowest wage-earners. In 2004, this 10 percent tax bracket will save taxpayers $715.

Third, married couples have finally received some tax relief on the marriage tax penalty. A quirk in the law required married couples to pay more taxes than the same individuals paid if they were single. Tax legislation enacted in 2001 now provides new tax relief such as a standard deduction for married couples that is double the standard deduction for single couples. Families taking advantage of this increased standard deduction will save $233 this year. Total tax savings from these three provisions alone amount to $1,948 in 2004. Over the 4-year period, 2001 to 2004, combined savings total $5,480 for low-income and middle-income American families.

Mr. Chairman, these tax cuts are not for the rich. These tax reductions benefit everyone who pays income taxes. In fact, the threshold to receive all the dollar savings described here is just $36,400 for a married couple with two children claiming a standard deduction.

Mr. Chairman, this budget, while all of us would have written it differently, is a budget that deserves to pass; and the tax cuts and the economic growth provisions provided by this budget are important for the future of America's families and for America's economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 958) to authorize certain hydrographic services programs, to name a cove in Alaska in honor of the late Able Bodied Seaman Eric Steiner Koss, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 958.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, is responsible for the United States navigation services programs. These include the collection of hydrographic data, the production and distribution of nautical charts, the maintenance of geodetic reference systems, and the measurement and prediction of tides and currents.

In the 1990s, years of budget cuts and a revolution in technology left NOAA decades behind in meeting its mission goals and made it unable to provide the up-to-date products needed to assure safe and efficient marine transportation. In response to this problem, Congress enacted the Hydrographic Services Act of 1998. Coupled with increased appropriations, the 1998 act has reduced the nautical charting backlog for areas critical to navigation and modernized NOAA hydrographic, geodetic, and tide and current measurement programs.

To build on that reauthorization, H.R. 958 creates four regional navigation response teams which will conduct activities related to navigational safety and the validation of hydrographic data. The bill allows the Secretary of Commerce to accept volunteer services and create a volunteer program.

Section 103 of the bill names a cove in Alaska for a sailor who drowned while on a nautical charting mission. The bill requires the Secretary to provide Congress with a plan to depict shorelines consistently on NOAA and the United States Geographical Survey maps. It makes technical modifications to the Hydrographic Services Panel. It also clarifies that $2 million of the funds authorized each fiscal year are for the Great Lakes Water Level Observation Network.

Finally, Title II of the bill reauthorizes the Fishery Survey Vessel Authorization Act of 2000 for 2 years and authorizes the Secretary to provide Congress with a plan detailing requirements for the cost for the construction and equipping of the hydrographic survey vessel.

H.R. 958 will continue the progress we have made to get our coastline surveys up to date and to make our ports and waterways safer. This is a noncontroversial bill and I urge all Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.