Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

LIHEAP, which provides crucial heating and cooling assistance to millions of hardworking, low-income families all across America, grows more important as fuel prices continue to skyrocket and we head toward another hot summer. Already families who qualify for LIHEAP spend, on average, a fifth of their income on energy costs. For hundreds of thousands of Americans, that figure will continue to rise until the electricity is simply shut off.

Still, rather than rising to the occasion, this government has backed away from our responsibilities to those families. Even as prices soar and LIHEAP applicants have increased by 20 percent, the average LIHEAP grant has

dropped by 20 percent, leaving millions without the full assistance to which they are entitled and millions more without any help at all.

In my hometown of Louisville, I hear from people who work hard every day with less to show for it. Seniors, who deserve to live out their golden years comfortably, now face the choice of paying for medicine, food, or energy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding for this crucial program so that millions of LIHEAP-qualifying Americans won't be left alone to face potentially life-threatening heat this summer.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here once again speaking on behalf of the majority makers, the freshmen Democrats elected in 2006 to bring change to Washington and who have worked very diligently over the last 16 months to begin to reverse the damage done to this country over the last 7\1/2\ years.

It is interesting, I was planning to talk about what I saw as a very encouraging sign over the last few days, the encouraging sign that we had actually solid bipartisan participation in trying to come up with solutions to some of the very daunting challenges that face this country today, including energy prices.

We had a bipartisan vote, an overwhelming bipartisan vote, to restrict additions to the strategic petroleum reserve, something which the President opposes but which overwhelming numbers of both bodies of Congress supported. And I was going to talk about the farm bill in which we had significant Republican participation in coming to grips with a new solution to our farm policy in this country. And I was going to talk about our housing initiatives, how we had significant Republican support last week in trying to craft policies that would help alleviate the serious housing situation we have and to try to keep things from getting worse.

But after listening to the partisan attack that I just heard, I have to respond because what we have heard is something that is almost in a parallel universe. It is interesting that my colleagues from the other side speak as if the last 7 or 8 years didn't exist, as if the Republicans weren't in charge of the entire government from 2001 until 2007, as if the national debt did not increase by $5 trillion during their stewardship of this government, as if earmarks had not been developed into an art form under Republican leadership. It is almost as if there is no history that they choose to remember.

I can understand why they don't want to remember what went on from 2001 to 2006, and before that many of the policies that were developed under Republican leadership in this Congress prior to George Bush's presidency because they don't want the American people to be reminded.

But we know from all of the polls and the voter turnout that we have seen in the last few months, we know that the American people remember what has gone on in these last few years. We know because, as we have seen in a poll over the weekend, when asked which party does the American people trust to deal with the challenges we face as a country, the American people prefer the Democratic policies by a margin of 20 percent, one of the largest margins ever recorded. It is not hard to understand why. What we have seen are failed policies from people well meaning, no question about it, but people who do not believe that government has a role in solving our problems.

We see it when people come to the government, when the average citizen comes to the government for help. We see them in our offices every day, and we talk to them at home on weekends. We know that the American people are hurting. They come to us for help. We know that nurses come to us for help. Teachers come to us for help. Social workers come to us for help. They are dealing with the pain of average American citizens every day, and we are trying to do what we can to help them.

We know that the other side does want to come to the help of American citizens from time to time if they happen to be the CEO of ExxonMobil, if they happen to be the CEO of Chevron, if they happen to be the insurance executives. Those people can always find assistance from the Republicans. But when the average citizen comes for help, no, no, no, we don't want to do that. Government is not in that business.

Well, that's why the American people turned to the Democratic Party in 2006 and said, We have had enough, it is time for a change. We believe that the Democratic Party can help working Americans solve some of the problems that face them.

I think we have made a very, very good start. From the very beginning of our leadership in the 110th Congress last January, we took steps immediately to raise the minimum wage which had not been raised in 10 years. We took steps to change the rules under which drug companies dealt with Medicare. We took steps to end the subsidy of oil companies with huge tax breaks when they are making more money than they had ever made in their history. We worked very diligently, and we talked about earmarks.

My colleagues on the other side want to make it sound like we invented earmarks, which we certainly didn't. We actually provided for the first time some transparency in earmarks. We said if you are going to put an earmark into a bill, then you have to identify that you sponsor that earmark and you have to attest and swear that you did not reap any personal benefit. You had no personal connection with the recipient of that earmark. Those were not the policies under the Republican Congress when they had in their last budget year 16,000 earmarks. No, you could slip them in there. Nobody knew you got the earmark. You could take credit for it if you wanted to, but if you tried to find out who gave money for XYZ, you couldn't find that unless the person actually took credit for it. We changed that. We required accountability in the earmark process.

So it is interesting to listen to my colleagues talk about the horrible leadership that they contend of this Democratic Congress as if the last decade had not occurred. I think the American people have seen through that. I think there is no question that the recent results, not just in polls but in special elections for Congress, reflect the fact that the American people understand that the Republicans are out of ideas. They just are out of ideas. The idea that government will play no role in solving some of the challenges that we have has proven to be a bankrupt idea. They persist in that philosophy, and they persist as of earlier today, and we have to call the attention of the American people that these are not the facts and that there is a very distinct difference between our policies, the Democratic majority, in which we are trying to use government to help the American people while maintaining fiscal responsibility, while maintaining our PAYGO rules so we make sure that we don't add to the Federal deficit and the national debt and that we pay for what we do when we do it.

Now, there is a huge exception to that policy, as we all know. We are going to see it on the House, on this floor in the next few days. We are being asked once again to allocate billions and billions of dollars to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are being asked by the President, who now has the lowest job approval in modern history, we are being asked by him to give him a blank check, once again no constraints on his activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, no restrictions on his troops, no new regulations regarding the deployment of troops, just give him the money and let him try to accomplish the mission which he said was accomplished 5 years ago but which has not only not been accomplished in 2008 but which is something, a mission which we still can't define.

I would like to ask the administration, and we have on many occasions, if you want our support, if you want us to continue to fund this failed policy in Iraq, tell us what the mission is. Tell us once and for all what the clear objectives are, and we will listen and we will use our judgment and see if that is the type of thing that the American people will support.

But as always, we still don't have a clear idea what the mission in Iraq is. It changes on a day-to-day basis. We are being asked once again to spend billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars for a policy which no one really can explain.

I think my colleagues, and several have joined me here now, are in the same situation as I am. On a daily basis I speak to people from my district, Louisville, Kentucky, and they say, we need money for this. We have been cut this way. We are going to have to cut services, why can't we just spend a little less in Iraq. Every day I get that question. I probably got it six times today. Why can't we take some of that money we are flushing down the toilet in Iraq and spend it on the American people who are in desperate need of the things that government needs to do. These are some of the issues we are confronted with today.

It is my great pleasure to be joined by two of my colleagues from the class of 2006, the majority makers, Mr. Keith Ellison from Minnesota and Dr. Steve Kagen from Wisconsin, and I am going to yield to Mr. Ellison and have him continue this discussion about what we in the majority makers and we in the Democratic majority are trying to do on behalf of the American people.

I thank the gentleman. And now it's a pleasure to welcome Dr. Kagen from Wisconsin, someone who has been a steadfast advocate for not just the veterans of this country, but for working families everywhere, and has been a champion in trying to bring attention to the serious flaws and opportunities in our health care delivery system.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I want to pick up on two of the things that he mentioned because I think these are fascinating contrasts and put into perspective some of the challenges that we face.

First, on the subject of oil prices and gasoline prices, he mentioned that 300, the price of gasoline has gone up 300 percent since 2001. What's interesting is, when you look at what we're now paying in Iraq for gasoline, this is one of the truly astounding and very disturbing aspects of our involvement there.

And again, as my colleague, our colleague, Mr. Ellison said, we're going to be voting on more funding for the Iraq war tomorrow. The American people need to know that right now we are spending $153 million a month on gasoline in Iraq, $153 million a month. And we're paying $3.23 a gallon for that gasoline. It's probably up since then, but the time that we have the statistics, $3.23 we're paying for gasoline in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi people, and Iraq is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world, the Iraqi people are paying a subsidized cost of $1.30 a gallon. Now, wouldn't we all love to pay $1.30 a gallon?

Now, that's unrealistic, but it's interesting that we're paying for the entire reconstruction cost of Iraq, we have up to this point; we're spending all this money to try and stabilize their country, and we're paying $2 more per gallon for gasoline than the Iraqi people are. That's just one of the strange quirks of our involvement there.

I would be happy to yield.

Well, certainly. And again, I referenced the fact that not only are we being allowed to, or being asked to write a blank check for hundreds of billions of dollars, as we've been writing for some time now, somewhere over $500 billion total in direct appropriations for the war in Iraq, but we're also being asked to give the Iraqi government a blank check; do whatever you want, no accountability, you get to it when you get to it, you'll decide when things are right for us to be able to leave. It's all up to you. We're helpless.

It's a very uncomfortable position for us to be in.

Of course.

It's a reasonable question which we are addressing in legislation. And I think the American people are totally justified in demanding that the Iraqi people pick up some of the tab when they're running a $70 billion surplus per year.

And I was actually encouraged to hear one of the representatives of the government over the weekend talk about the fact that they intend to do that. But just their intentions don't seem to be much because, again, as you said, there is no accountability method in place.

But I want to reference one other thing. And it's getting off on a little tangent, but you talked about the merger between Delta and Northwest, and that's being examined by the Transportation Committee now, and I'm glad it is.

One of the things that I've been talking about more and more when I'm talking to the good people of Louisville, Kentucky is, you know, we've allowed, over the last couple of decades, maybe 3 decades, companies to get bigger and bigger and bigger in this country. We really haven't enforced the anti-trust laws in this country in 30 years. And we did it because they said, oh, you know, it's a global economy. We need to be able to get big so we can compete.

Well, unfortunately, what they generally mean when they say they want to get big is they want to get big in revenues. They don't want to get big in job creation. They don't want to get big in many things that are the goals that we hold for this country. And when they want to get big, it generally means they want to save money. So they merge, and then they eliminate jobs, and they close facilities, and they destabilize communities, all in the name of being able to compete in the global economy.

And what concerns me is--and we had a hearing not too long ago in the Oversight Committee in which we talked to several of the CEOs of very large corporations, and this was about corporate executive compensation. And I asked three of the executives, When you have these compensation committee meetings when you're deciding what your CEO is going to be paid and what your top management is going to be paid, do you ever talk about the impact of these huge salaries and compensation packages on the morale of your employees? Do you ever talk about how you could make life better for your working people, your employees? Do you ever talk about how you can improve the communities that you occupy, that you serve?

And the answer was very candid, and they said, No. It's always about just how we get the stock price up and how we compensate our executives.

So the question I ask, and it's one that I hope we continue to ask in this Congress, if you want to get big, we need to make sure that your goals are the same as the American people's goals; and I think people on both sides of the aisle would say we have the same goals for the American people.

We want good jobs, we want stable communities, and we want secure families. And if we have a corporate world that has goals that are antithetical to that, then we need to revise our policy on anti-trust allowing these mergers and try to say if you want permission from us to get big and you want to operate in a certain way, we want you to operate in a way that benefits the American people and not just your CEOs and your stockholders.

Absolutely.

The gentleman makes some very good points, and one of the things I just mentioned before you arrived was that over the past few days, we've actually done three things in a bipartisan way; and you mentioned one of them. We passed a farm bill with substantial Republican support. The housing bill, we had a number of Republicans join us; and when we dealt with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in which we said we don't need to be adding any more fuel to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, taking it off the market, decreasing supply when we're at 98 percent capacity; we've never been, in recent history, below 600 million gallons of our 727-gallon capacity; and the bill, the freshman class, we asked the President to do it by himself. The President refused.

So what happened? The Senate yesterday voted 97-1; the House voted 385-25. I think it shows it was a pretty solid idea. There can't be that many people who have bad judgment. Maybe there are. But 97-1, 385- 25 are pretty good odds. So we spoke to the President in a bipartisan way.

So there are situations in which we have found ways to work together, and as you said, that's the way it should be; and I think that's a very encouraging sign. Unfortunately, we have a President who doesn't recognize this body as having any say in policy in this country. He believes he is the decider, and despite provisions in the Constitution in article 1 to the contrary which says the American people are the deciders of policy and the laws through their representatives of Congress.

I think we are doing the people's business, and we're doing it in a very responsible way. And I agree totally that it will be wonderful to have a new chief executive in the White House who maybe understands that government is a partnership and the Constitution was written so that it would be--we would have three branches who are not constantly in conflict but who are working together for the American people.

Exactly.

I would say you made the right statement. We will never drill our way out of the energy crisis, but we can invent our way out of the energy crisis; and the private sector is in the process of doing that. We need to give them the boost. We need to give them the incentives. We need to provide the tax credits, and in fact, we have tried to do that. And if anything, I think, represents a clear distinction--there is probably nothing that represents a clear distinction between the President's party and ours than the way we have handled the ideas of incentives.

The Republican Congress in 2005 voted a 15--well, the number is vague--but it's around $15 billion a year in tax incentives to the oil companies to drill. We've tried to take that tax incentive away, that subsidy, and put it into the types of innovative technologies that will be the answer to our energy crisis, will make us independent of imported oil, and oil totally, and will stimulate and create new economies and new economic opportunity in this country.

That didn't make since in 2006 when they made $38- or $39 billion. It didn't make sense last year when they made $40 billion. It doesn't make sense when they made over $40 billion. Record profits every year since we gave them this huge tax subsidy.

Well, ironically, in a way, this President did say that because in 2004, when he was campaigning for reelection, he said once oil passes $55 a barrel, the oil companies will not need any incentive to drill. That was his campaign statement in 2004.

There's another element to the philosophy that I think we need to talk about now, and I see it in discussions that we have in our caucus meetings, and I think it's a growing realization that we have to embrace as a philosophy in this body that we can't think just to the next election cycle. We have to start thinking very long-term, and we have to start thinking about investment and investments that will pay off over the long run but will not get us any immediate gratification or recognition so that we can get votes at the next election.

And you mentioned health care, and that's certainly an area in which we have to start investing because every dollar we spend on early childhood health care we know pays off 10, 20 times down the road. You can't see it today. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, won't score it and say, okay, you can take credit for that, but we know that it happens. If children are tended to early on, preventive care, diagnostic work, we catch a hearing problem, a sight problem, you catch them before they get obese, we know how much that returns in savings down the road.

The same way with infrastructure. We've neglected infrastructure in this country for far too long. We know we have to make investments in infrastructure, but those are the types of investments that do pay off. It's not like Iraq where every dollar, once you shoot a bullet, once you shoot a rocket, that's money gone. There's no investment there, no return on investment.

But infrastructure, health care, medical research, if we could spend, let's say we spent $100 billion over the next 10 years and we were to cure cancer and diabetes, you're the doctor, it would save trillions of dollars long-term.

And so we have to start thinking I think in that long- term, let's invest money now. You're right, you can't spend your way to solve these problems, but you can invest your way. And I think there's sound, solid, predictable results that we can get from these types of investments.

Well, the gentleman makes a wonderful point, and I'm reminded in a very kind of maybe indirect way of a movie that came out back in the early seventies, and it was called ``Rollerball.'' It was remade several years ago in a very different way. But the movie early in the 1970s was a science fiction movie, futuristic, looking to an era in which geopolitical boundaries had ceased to exist. And the world, instead of being divided into countries, was divided into economic entities.

So James Caan, who starred in that movie, played Rollerball, a futuristic game, for the Energy Corporation, and they played against the Communications Corporation. And then there was the Food Corporation, and that's the way the world was divided.

And sometimes when you see ExxonMobil with its volume of revenue and profits and some of these other enormous corporations, you say maybe we're not too far from that.

So we have to decide, as a Nation, it's one thing to say the world is flat, but that doesn't mean the world has lost its distinctions yet and its delineations into Nations that have souls and have people who believe in their commonness, their common mission, their common ambitions. And that's something that I think every American wants to retain. We don't want to lose that.

And I think when we essentially wash our hands in Washington and say corporate America, corporate world just go at it, do what you want to do and we'll take whatever you give us, we're not too far from that unfortunate scenario in ``Rollerball.''

That will be a nice day. And, you know, just following up a little bit on that thought, the image that I get in my mind when I look out over the economic landscape sometimes is that we have a lot of very wealthy, very powerful people who are just playing Monopoly with America, that this is just a game for them. And there are the little houses and the little trains and all the little pieces that are on the Monopoly board, and it's funny money. Unfortunately, it's funny money that many people are being deprived of because of the great concentrations of wealth in this country.

And I don't want to sound like somebody who's saying, oh, we've got to redistribute the wealth, we've got to make sure everybody has the same thing. That's not what any of us are talking about. But as Mr. Ellison pointed out before, we have seen the greatest separation of wealth, disparity in wealth in this country than we've seen in almost 100 years. And we've let the pendulum swing much too far to one side so that we've allowed the very wealthiest people to become incredibly wealthy, and almost everybody else has been treading water.

As we said, we have not been floating everybody's boat; in fact, we've been drowning a lot of people. And we've got to make sure that everybody has a boat. And I think that's one of the things that this Congress is committed to.

So I would like to yield to my friend, Dr. Kagen, for some closing remarks as we wind down this version of the majority makers.

Thank you, Dr. Kagen. It's wonderful to be here with you tonight, and also with Mr. Ellison.

And one of the things, I guess if I could capsulize what we've said tonight and what the majority makers feel more than anything else, that in this country every person matters. Every individual matters, and every individual deserves our attention, our concern, and our action. And that's what we've been doing for 16 months and pledge to be doing for the rest of our tenure in office.

So with that, once again, thank you for joining me tonight.

Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Sullivan University's National Center for Hospitality Studies, in Louisville, Kentucky.

Nearly four thousand students have graduated from NCHS and gone on to impact the culinary, travel, and hospitality fields. The impact of Sullivan's exceptional program can be felt throughout the nation, from Las Vegas to New Orleans and many lucky cities in between, but nowhere--I am pleased to say--has NCHS and its alumni had a greater influence than in my hometown of Louisville.

On any given weekend night, there are over 600 Sullivan students working in our community's hotels and restaurants. Alumni include many of our city's finest chefs and restaurateurs, who have helped ensure that Derby week, when our town becomes the nation's top tourist destination, visitors will leave raving about more than just horse races.

But while I certainly recommend it, one does not need to come to Louisville to recognize the excellence of the program. President and CEO A.R. Sullivan has assembled an award winning faculty, including program director Chef Tom Hickey, a Culinary Olympics medal winner who has overseen culinary operations for presidential inaugurations; catering department chair chef Kimberly Jones, who has developed nationally renowned recipes and catered some of the world's highest profile events; chef John Castro, our local celebrity chef who bested the competition on the TV Food Network's Throw Down with Bobby Flay and has been featured on the Travel Channel; and baking and pastry department chef, the nationally ranked Derek Spendlove, who won a gold medal in the 1988 Culinary Olympics.

That faculty and leadership has helped Sullivan's Culinary Competition team win 291 medals, including Southeast Regional Pastry Chef of the Year in 2008 and Southeast Regional Champions in 2001, 2004 and 2005. The school was the first culinary school in America to be invited to cook at New York's prestigious James Beard House.

The alumni list of four-star chefs has the length of a school celebrating its centennial. Still for all that has been accomplished through NCHS in a quarter century, the promise for the future is equally bright. The program now builds on a proud tradition where students and alumni never cease to exceed our highest expectations.

I urge my colleagues to join me in commending Sullivan University's National Center for Hospitality Studies on the last twenty five years of distinction and to wish the center the best as it continues to satisfy our taste for excellence in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell the story of Jonell Stinnett from my district in Fairdale, Kentucky. Here are her words:

``My story is about my brother and his wife who died last September. Carol, my sister-in-law, had colon cancer for over 7 years. She took chemo for the last 5 years of her life.

``My brother had a heart attack 2 years after she was diagnosed. A week after his heart surgery, he had a massive stroke which paralyzed his right side, and then he got a diabetic ulcer on his foot and finally had to have his leg amputated.

``Needless to say, their medical bills were massive. They lost everything they had worked for their whole life. I take care of him now, and he needed to file bankruptcy. He needs a ramp to get out his front door, a safe way to take a shower, but there is no help anywhere.

``I believe as an American citizen who has worked, paid taxes, and served his country in the Armed Forces, there should be some sort of help. I don't know what, but with all the intelligent people in Washington, it seems they could come up with some kind of plan for people like these so they don't lose all they have made.''

That was Jonell Stinnett, one voice from Kentucky's Third District.

Mr. Speaker, this week Congress has an opportunity to change the course of the war in Iraq by supporting an amendment to the emergency supplemental that would not only direct the President to immediately begin bringing our troops home but would also force the Iraqi Government to start paying their own reconstruction costs.

The amendment calls on the Bush administration to begin redeploying our troops out of Iraq one month after it is signed into law, with the goal of having all of our troops out by December of next year.

Another year of the status quo in Iraq is unacceptable. April was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in seven months, and the political reconciliation that President Bush promised when he implemented his troop escalation plan has not become a reality.

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant step in the right direction, but for some reason, congressional Republicans want to once again send President Bush a blank check. Blank checks have not worked in the past and they will not this time.

We all know that there is no military solution to war in Iraq. It's time we let the Iraqis know that our days there are numbered.

Mr. Speaker, this story comes from Kathryn French in my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky:

``John, I am a 51-year-old female. I was released from my third job in the past 9 years 8 months ago. I have a business degree from U of L. I have held management and sales positions for over 25 years, making about $50,000 a year. I also have a husband of 25 years who, thankfully, has always worked hard, and we are getting by, but we have a mortgage and two sons in college at U of L, not to mention telephone, cell phones, cable, heating, air conditioning, car payments, insurance, et cetera. I'm not getting many interviews; too qualified, or too old. And it's hard to start over again. Then I hear Republicans say things like ``if you extend unemployment then they won't look for a job.'' I already had to

cash out my 401(k)--and suffer a 10 percent penalty on top of taxes and losses in the stock market. If I'm having a hard time, what are others doing without the support I have from family and friends?''

That was Kathryn French, one voice from Kentucky's Third District.

Madam Speaker, I rise today because I'm very concerned about statements I've heard from all three Presidential candidates over the last few weeks. We hear constantly, I will do this, I will do that, I will do this, all referring to matters that have to be adopted by the United States Congress. And I would remind them that article I, section 1 of the Constitution says, all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.

So while we certainly look to the President as a partner in our policies, we know, as we've seen over the last couple of years, that this President, this White House ignores, the first article of the Constitution.

I would urge all three candidates, whoever is President, whoever he or she may be in 2009, re-read the Constitution, because this is the people's House. The founders' brilliance said that the people will speak as to the laws that they will obey through their representatives in Congress.

I again urge the President, the next President to re-read the Constitution and adhere to article I. Many of us wear this button because we're very concerned that people forget that this is their House.

Madam Speaker, as our constituents put the finishing touches on their tax returns, many of them are probably wondering just how much we will be sending to Iraq.

Taxpayers are rightfully outraged, as are many Members of this body, by the massive levels of waste, fraud and corruption documented in large government contracts to well-connected firms. Under the Bush administration, the use of no-bid contracts has doubled and the Defense Contract Audit Agency believes that $10 billion of the taxpayers' money has been spent on questionable or unsupported costs in Iraq contracts.

Madam Speaker, House Democrats are bringing much-needed accountability to the government contracting business by cracking down on no-bid contracts, protecting Federal whistleblowers, and withholding Federal contracts from tax-delinquent companies.

While Democrats would like to see a change of policy in Iraq, we, like the average taxpayer, want to prevent our money from being wasted. We are taking the steps necessary to ensure that no longer happens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 838 to welcome His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on his first apostolic visit to the United States, and to honor a key reason for his visit: The bicentennial of the Archdiocese of Louisville.

Only Baltimore and New Orleans retain older Archdioceses than the four created by Pope Pius VII 200 years ago yesterday. It was on that day, April 8, 1808, that His Holiness created a diocese in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Bardstown, Kentucky. To be Bishop in Bardstown, he tabbed an exile of the French Revolution, Benedict Joseph Flaget, a name revered in Louisville to this day.

Dubbed the ``First Bishop of the West,'' Bishop Flaget was responsible for an area that now covers more than 40 dioceses. He immediately led a spirited period of growth in the area, establishing numerous seminaries, churches, and schools where none had existed before. For many, these institutions provided the lone opportunity to pursue a quality education and reinforce one's faith.

And it was Bishop Flaget, in 1841, who moved the Bardstown diocese to the burgeoning city of Louisville. With the diocese at its core, a strong Catholic community grew in Louisville and in the surrounding areas; one united not only by a shared faith, but by a mutual moral sense of community, education and service.

That community grew and thrived for nearly a century, and in 1937 became the Archdiocese of Louisville as we know it today, now serving over a million people and 24 Kentucky counties. It was in service to the Archdiocese of Louisville that Thomas Merton, one of the most influential religious authors of the 20th century, had his legendary ``Louisville Epiphany'' that led to an impassioned and inspired quest for peace and social justice.

The Archdiocese of Lousiville also operates Catholic Charities of Louisville which offers countless services to people of all religious, ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds throughout our community. The efforts of Catholic Charities can be seen in every corner of Louisville, giving hope to disadvantaged youth, assisting the elderly, lending support to those who need help to stand on their own, and revitalizing neighborhoods that have fallen into disarray.

We also have the Archdiocese to thank for one of the truly outstanding parochial school systems in the Nation. For more than a century, and through every stage of a young person's development, Louisville's Catholic schools have helped to foster generations of great citizens, role models and leaders.

During my tenure representing Louisville in Congress, I have had the pleasure of serving alongside two Archbishops. Archbishop Thomas Kelly retired this past year after a quarter century defined by interfaith outreach, multi-cultural ministry, and a commitment to social services. Archbishop Joseph Kurtz now leads the Archdiocese, and in his first year, he has shown the leadership abilities and initiative to build upon the incredible foundation already in place in Louisville.

The theme for this year's bicentennial is ``Serving God's People: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.'' It is a fitting tribute to an institution that has always done and continues to do exactly that: Serve all of the people of the Louisville area through acts of faith, peace and kindness.

Extraordinary is nothing new for the Archdiocese of Louisville. Still an Apostolic visit to the United States from His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to mark the bicentennial is a recognition that will be forever treasured by our community. I join my colleagues in thanking and welcoming His Holiness to the United States of America, and know they join me in honoring the Archdiocese of Louisville on its bicentennial and thanking our Catholic community for two centuries of faith and service.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor once again to come to the floor of the House as a representative of the landmark class of 2006 known as the majority makers, a group of 41 Democrats elected from 23 States who were sent here by the American people to change the direction of the country.

Of course one of the primary issues that was at the heart of the campaign in 2006 was our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. And this week that effort, national effort, has taken greater significance because we once again heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about the progress or the situation, I should say, in Iraq. They testified before two congressional committees, two Senate committees yesterday and the House committees today. Their testimony, I think, raises two issues that I want to address tonight.

Of course the first is what the situation is in Iraq and what the prospects for success are in that part of the world. And, secondly, what is the cost to the American people and to the American economy because as we all know, the costs are varied and they are significant. They rise to magnitudes that we are not used to discussing in this country, both in human cost which of course is our top priority, and also the economic cost. And then there is the future cost as well because what we are doing is incurring obligations for our future generations that are real, that are incredibly large, and that the American people need to focus on because as we go forward and try to establish policies and have a national debate about what the appropriate course of action is in Iraq, we have to discuss again not just the human costs but also the cost to future generations of the American people, juxtaposed against the benefits and potential benefits of our continued involvement.

There are two things I think we need to say from the outset that really underlie all of these discussions and that is everyone in this body, in the Congress and in the country wants the United States to be successful, wants there to be a peaceful and beneficial result in Iraq. We all want a stable Middle East. We all want a stable, peaceful world. No one in this body or anywhere else that I know of is rooting for us to be unsuccessful in Iraq.

The second thing that we need to focus on is that it is unavoidable that we have to talk about economics and it is sad that we even have to talk about money because already we have lost 4,000 American men and women in Iraq. We have had virtually 30,000 wounded, many seriously, many with life-altering injuries; and the cost to the Iraqi people, of course, is also extraordinary with 2 million people having left Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Iraqi civilians dying, and many more dislocated throughout the country, families torn apart and lives ruined.

So the human cost of the U.S. involvement in this effort in Iraq and also in Afghanistan cannot be minimized, and nobody is trying to. That of course is the ultimate cost. But we do have to talk about the economic cost of this war because we are looking at a situation in which we have potential exposure throughout the world. We have a military that will be called on to be deployed in other situations, not just in the Middle East. We have by almost everyone's estimation a much more serious and ominous threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan that will require continued involvement of American forces, and where it is clear to everyone that terrorists, including particularly al Qaeda, are much more active and we need to focus much more intensely on Afghanistan and our involvement in Iraq is, of course, preventing us from doing as much as we could and probably should in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These are all of the dynamics that we face as we discuss these issues. Two things in particular concern me about the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker yesterday. And, of course, everyone quite justifiably honors their service and their commitment to their duty, and they are certainly fulfilling their obligations well.

But two things in particular disturb me greatly, and one was when asked continuously by a number of Senators and House Members to describe the conditions under which we might be able to withdraw a substantial number of our forces from Iraq, General Petraeus basically said we will know them when we see them. He could not identify them. And he said, Well, we will look at it again in a few months. We will look at it in September. Maybe we can start withdrawing them then; maybe we can't.

What's the measure for success? He wouldn't specify. He couldn't specify. And I don't think he was being coy. I think, in fact, his unwillingness to specify or identify the conditions under which we might be able to leave was purely a function of the fact that we don't know what the conditions are, and we have never known exactly what we were trying to accomplish in that country.

The goalposts have been moved continuously. There have been dozens of different reasons for our involvement mentioned over the last 5 years. And it is, I think, quite indicative yesterday when asked on numerous occasions again what would you see, what would you have to see before you would recommend withdrawing more troops, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker said, Well, we'll know it when we see it; it is a matter of what the conditions are.

That is an important point to make.

Another answer that he gave to a question asked by Senator Biden, I think, was quite revealing. When Senator Biden asked when you come back and make your evaluation and assessment in September of this year, at that point do you think there is any chance that we could be within 30 days of having troops withdrawal?

General Petraeus said at that point, Well, it might be that very day. Of course he went on to say it could be a month later, it could be many months later, it could be years later.

When I heard him say that it occurred to me if he was willing to say there was a possibility that we could be out, be able to start withdrawing significant numbers of troops in September, if that was a possibility, he should know what the metrics are, what the conditions he would have to be looking for in September to allow us to do that. And yet when asked what are the conditions, he couldn't identify them.

So again, I think all of these points, reading between the lines, indicate that we are not getting the full story about what we should look for as a measure of success in Iraq because the people on the ground don't know what the measures are. I think they would tell us if they knew, but I don't think they know. And that is a pretty frightening thought because we are being asked to carry the burden of an incredibly large cost as a society.

Now many of us are not asked, unfortunately, I think in many ways, we are not asked to bear any of the burden. Most of the burden is being borne directly by the military families and the soldiers who are overseas in deployment, many for several deployments. They are bearing the hardest burden; but we are also bearing a serious cost, and it mounts by the second.

As a matter of fact, every minute that I spend speaking here, we are spending, the American taxpayers are spending $230,000. Every minute, $230,000 is being spent in Iraq; $4,000 a second. That mounts up. It becomes real, real money. It becomes $14 million an hour; $340 million a day; $2.5 billion a week, $10 billion a month; and while some estimates are higher, $125 billion a year, and that is just in Iraq.

Now I know, believe me, that many people have a hard time grasping what a billion dollars is, what $120 billion are, but there are a couple of easy ways to describe it. With $120 billion in 1 year, you could give every teacher in the United States a $20,000 a year raise. Every teacher. Every one of our 6 million teachers in the United States, and I think most people agree teachers are drastically underpaid, we could give them a $20,000 a year raise with what we are spending in Iraq.

We could pay for the health care of about 16 or 17 million people every year. That 47 million people we have uninsured, we could cover 16 or 17 million of those people with that $125 billion that we are now spending in Iraq.

We all know we have huge infrastructure needs in this country, bridges to repair, highways to repair, schools to rebuild. Throughout the country we face trillions of dollars of needed repairs and new construction on our infrastructure. This would make a considerable investment in that seriously needed national agenda. But that is going overseas. And, unfortunately, it is going to where it is not an investment, it is money that is irretrievably lost.

We could also, and this is taking what we spend every day, that $340 million or so we spend every day in Iraq, we could hire 2,000 more Border Patrol agents; 18,000 more students could receive Pell Grants to help them attend college for an entire year; 48,000 homeless veterans could be provided a place to live; 317,000 more kids could receive recommended vaccinations for a year; almost a million families could get help with their energy bills. The list goes on and on. This is the cost of this war in economic terms to the American people. This is the lost opportunity, the lost opportunity for our American people.

What is even worse is it would be one thing if we had this money, but we don't have this money. We know we are running a deficit of almost $500 billion this year, so we are borrowing this money. We are not just saying we have $125 billion lying around, we can allocate this to Iraq, no problem. We are borrowing it. At least half of it we are borrowing from foreign countries. So we are having China and other nations who are financing our debt, who are actually paying for this war, but it is not free. China is going to want to get paid back some time, and that is going to be on future generations. So again, whatever we feel about this war, we have to understand the cost, and the cost is real. The American people understand that this cost is real.

A recent New York Times CBS poll, 89 percent of Americans surveyed said that the war in Iraq is a drain on the U.S. economy; 66 percent said it is a big drain, and 22 percent said it is some drain.

So the American people understand this. The American people understand that while we have a housing crisis, while we have a crisis in our financial markets, where we're having trouble actually making, having funds made available to make student loans, we understand that there's a connection between the economic problems we face and our involvement in Iraq.

And again, I don't think any of us would argue if this were a war where there were clearly defined goals, and if there were an existential threat to the United States, our security. But our national intelligence estimate, our 16 agencies said no, that's not the case, that we don't face an existential threat in Iraq. We are, essentially, refereeing, as we know, a sectarian dispute.

And I think what is most frustrating, again, reading between the lines, listening to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, is that there was never a mention that I heard of anything that we could do to change the outcome there; that the implication was we were just sitting there, and that we had to wait until they decided that they were going to make it okay for us to leave. And that's a very, very frustrating position to be in.

And I wish somebody, maybe somebody did ask that and I didn't hear it, but I wish that they had been asked that specific question; is there anything we can do to change the dynamics there to improve the conditions that would allow us to begin withdrawing our troops and to reduce this incredible cost to the American people?

So I would hope that as we go forward, and you hate to say, as we go forward, because we've been going forward, now, for 5 years, and the outlook is not any brighter. The prospects for resolution in Iraq are not any greater.

And unfortunately, listening to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker yesterday, I think it's, unfortunately, true that the people who are in charge don't know where we're going and most importantly, why we're going.

So these are things, as the months roll by, while the cost accumulates, and while, unfortunately, we will suffer, no doubt, as we have suffered, just in the last few days, 13 new American casualties, that the American people understand and demand, both of us and the administration, that we get a clear picture of what the objectives are, what the cost is, and will be, because we have estimates, Professor Joseph Stiglitz has estimated the total cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, ultimately, of $3 trillion.

But we need to understand what our goals are, what our objectives are, what the possibilities are, what the risks are, what the potential benefits are, and of course, what the costs are, because we're not playing with small numbers. We're not playing with insignificant lives. And this is the greatest challenge facing this country.

And I hope that we can have the type of dialogue, continuously, which focuses on these points, because the American people, rightfully, are looking for leadership and progress on Iraq.

So once again, I thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been a great privilege to stand in the House and represent the freshman Democrats who came to Congress to change the direction of the country, who are, in many ways, changing the direction of the country. And I think we will continue to ask the questions that need to be asked, and try to bring a much quicker resolution in Iraq and a new direction for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 10, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, how much longer do the American people have to bear the financial burden of the war in Iraq? Between 2001 and 2008, Congress has appropriated nearly $700 billion for the Global War on Terrorism, most of that money going to fight the war in Iraq.

Investing in Iraq rather than our own country has contributed to our Nation's economic downturn. According to Columbia University Professor Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University Professor Linda Blimes, ``The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion, yes, $3 trillion, on a failed war abroad, and not feel the pain at home.'' And Americans are definitely feeling the pain.

Mr. Speaker, during the minute that I have been speaking, the Bush administration has spent $235,168 on the war in Iraq. It is time that we once again invest in America. Our focus now should be on helping those Americans who face foreclosure, who can't pay their gas and heating bills, and who continue to watch their finances erode, while funding for the war grows every minute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the 40th anniversary of the week Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed to commemorate his legacy as continued by Service for Peace.

During his short life, Dr. King marched in my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, on his way to touching millions of American lives throughout this Nation and inspiring the masses with his message of freedom and of peace. Today, I am proud to say that, in no small part thanks to the efforts of Reverend Peter Hayes, our local Service for Peace, and programs like 40 Days of Peace, the MLK Season of Service, and the King Memorial Walk and Peace Fest, the spirit of Dr. King is alive and well in our hometown.

Each year, Service for Peace reminds us that though King was taken from us far too early, the gifts he gave to us, his lessons, his passion, his legacy, remain and continue to inspire within us a deep sense of justice.

Nationwide, half a million volunteers took part in this year's MLK Day of

Peace, contributed to their communities and committed themselves to peace and justice.

This Saturday for the second year in a row I will join with members of the Louisville community for the King Memorial Walk and Peace Fest. We will gather at the Muhammad Ali Center to share stories of yesterday's struggles and a vision for tomorrow's successes, before walking as one to the north side of the Ohio River. Crossing that boundary once was a journey between slavery and salvation, Jim Crow and justice, oppression and opportunity for far too many Americans. But this weekend, when we return to Louisville, we will enter a community proud of its diversity, alive with the spirit of peace, and working toward a more just future for all.

While it is true that we cannot bring Martin Luther King, Jr., back, by promoting his teachings, Service for Peace ensures that we will never really lose him, either. The activism of Service for Peace is so much more than a tribute to a great American hero; it is a practical and proven strategy to reduce drug use, crime, violence, and murder in my community and others throughout our great Nation.

I know my colleagues will join me in honoring Service for Peace, just as Service for Peace honors the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

And you raised a very important point, and that is that while much of the headlines today talk about a recession and the debate over whether we are technically in a rescission, those of us who campaigned in 2006 and were talking to our constituents at that point knew that this was on the way. We saw the gathering storm, if you will. We saw the ripples in the ocean that became the tsunami. We talked to our constituents. We knew that they were hurting. We knew that their standard of living was not increasing even though they were working harder and harder. We knew they were scared about their retirement and scared about their ability to afford health care. That's what I heard throughout my campaign in 2006.

Yes, people were concerned about the war in Iraq. But, Mr. Speaker, that wasn't really what they were talking about on a day-to-day basis. It was, ``I'm really having a hard time.'' And while the President wasn't talking about it at that time and the majority leaders and the majority party in the Congress weren't talking about it, they were talking about it. They were saying, My friend, his company just went out of business or his plant was moved overseas and he had a pension that had accumulated $150,000 and now it was down to $30,000 because his company hadn't adequately funded it; so now what's he going to do? So we heard these problems day after day after day.

And I'm proud to say that when we came to the Congress in January, 2007, we didn't wait for somebody to declare that there was a recession. We started immediately. We said the middle class is hurting. We have people at the very lowest ends of the income scale who are working very hard, who are working at or near minimum wage, and we haven't raised the minimum wage in 10 years in this Congress. That's an outrage. And within the first few days of this 110th Congress, we raised the minimum wage. We put it on track to get to the point where, hopefully, there will be a living wage for everyone who works in this country.

And we set about looking at college costs. We said that college costs have been inflating at a very, very dramatically high rate, in my State 8 or 9 percent each year for the last 4 or 5 years. People trying to put their kids through college or people trying to put themselves through college are having a harder and harder time. No increase in the amount of financial aid that was available. No increase in the Pell grants. We passed the College Cost Reduction Act, $21 billion in additional aid to help college students get their degrees. So we understood the problem. We were dealing with it early on.

It has not been an easy fight. It has not been an easy fight because we have an administration that has this theory that the marketplace is sacrosanct, that it's infallible, that nothing ever goes wrong, that everything will even out, and that we just need to get out of the way. We just need to get out of the way and let these big corporations do whatever they want to do because the marketplace will force them into doing the right thing. And we now, of course, know that's not the case. We now, of course, know that, as we looked at, in kind of the aftermath of the Bear Stearns situation, an astounding fact coming from Wall Street that one-third of all the income in New York City was on Wall Street. One-third. The average wage, including all of the clerical help and all of the support staff on Wall Street, was $380,000 a year. Those are enormous salaries. And when something goes bad to deflate that bubble, it doesn't just hurt those people, as we have seen; it ripples through the entire economy.

So, yes, we have some problems that have just hit us now because, again, the bubble has burst. But it wasn't that we were asleep at the switch because, again, we heard these complaints, we sensed these signals 2 years ago when we were out in the campaign trail. I certainly did in my community, a wonderful community that never quite experiences all the booms but never has the busts. We have two Ford plants making vehicles that consume a lot of gas. There's a lot of stress on those because sales are down for those vehicles. We knew that then. We knew that they were negotiating constantly, the company with the union, trying to drive those wages down. People who were making $25, $30 an hour negotiated down so that they were making $15 an hour because they said that they're having hard times, that the company is

suffering. Well, yes, we know the company is suffering. But, meanwhile, the same people doing the same hard work day after day with the same expenses, the same obligations in their life, and now their income has been cut by 10, 20, 30 percent.

So we have been at this battle for now 15 months, since we have been in Congress, and we are going to stay in this battle because this is a battle for the very essence of American society. And I'm very proud to be part of a Congress that is committed to making sure that this economy works for every American and not just for the very elite Americans. And that's why I came to Congress. That's why my colleagues came to Congress. And I think over time, given the commitment that we have, we are going to make a difference for the American people.

Will the gentleman yield? We have been joined by another colleague. But I just have to follow up on something that Mr. Klein said because I almost thought he was telepathic there when he talked about the Great Depression.

None of us wants to be alarmist here. But when I was in college, I did my senior thesis on speculation in the 1920s. In fact, there is some remarkable parallels between the situation today with the housing crisis and what happened in the 1920s that led to the Great Depression.

The similarity is that back in the 1920s, if you wanted to buy stock, you only had to put up 10 percent of the price of the stock. You could borrow the rest of the money. The theory there, because the stock market was going higher and higher and higher, and everybody thought it was going to continue to get higher, happy days are here again, before they disappeared, and that was the psychology. So nobody ever thought about regulating that. Everybody thought that was an endless gravy train. So people would keep buying stock, paying 10 percent down, 10 percent down.

When the stock dropped 10 percent, their equity was gone. This happened time after time after time. The same thing has happened now with the housing market when people are lured into markets with low interest rates and then they borrowed against the equity and then when the value started to slip a little bit, they were in a negative equity situation, and that is what precipitated this crash.

I am hoping, and I don't believe that the situation in terms of the overall economy is as threatening as that situation was. The parallels are the same. After that situation in the 1920s, we created the SEC, we went to an environment, because the pendulum had swung over to the side of absolutely no regulation, and we saw the problems with that.

I listened to Senator Obama today on the campaign trail, and he made I think a very profound statement, and that was: Things go wrong when nobody is looking. That is what we have had over last 8 years, maybe more than that. We decided we didn't need to look at all that stuff. We found out now we need to pay attention. We need to hold all these institutions accountable. We need to set up certain rules.

We don't want to swing the pendulum to the other side, as my good friend Mr. Hodes said, but there is a happy medium. In order to avoid the pitfalls that we have experienced in the past, this is the time. I think this Congress is committed to that.

I yield back.

I will defer.

Obviously in the Robber Baron Era of the 1920s.

I thank the gentleman. It is good to see our colleague Mr. Hall here as well, and I thank him for his comments.

You know, it becomes almost a cliche, and actually an overly used one these days since we have a big presidential campaign, to talk about the contrasts between Wall Street and Main Street. But it has never been more apt, and particularly with the situation we have seen on Wall Street very recently.

We have a very serious orientation problem in this country. For many

years, going back probably three decades now, we have taken the position in this country that we are going to let companies get as big as they can get because they say ``we need to get big so we can function in the global economy.'' But the ramifications of letting them get so big with no regulation has been that if they make a mistake, then it doesn't just affect their stockholders and their employees, it affects the rest of the country. Now we have seen that. As you said early on in the opening remarks, the chickens have come home to roost. That is where we are.

This Congress, this government, has to start standing up for Main Street, not for Wall Street, understanding that Wall Street provides great benefits for this country at times. But we have to make sure that ultimately we protect the average American working family. That is what this Congress I think has been committed to doing since day one, and we will continue to be committed to that as we move forward.

I yield back, and thank you for your leadership, Mr. Hodes.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be here speaking on behalf of the American people and the class of 2006, the class that was elected to Congress to change the direction of the country, and that's what we've been set upon to do during these last 14 months.

And I appreciate very much the comments of my distinguished colleague from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the great efforts he has made week after week to address the American people on the issues that are of critical importance to them.

We are going to talk tonight about the budget resolution as well because this is, above all things, the fundamental responsibility of the House of Representatives, the United States Congress. This is how we deal with all of the tax revenue that we generate in this country and how we essentially steward the funds of the population that depend on us to make good judgements for them.

And I'm joined tonight by my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) who has been a frequent participant in these sessions and someone who joins with us in our commitment to making life better for all Americans, making this an economy and a society that works for everyone and not just for the wealthiest.

There are lots of ways to frame budget debates, and there's always a risk that we get much too deep in numbers and we get way too deep in the weeds, and we don't talk about the big picture because the big picture is what most Americans want to deal with. They want the small picture of how it affects their daily lives. But they also want to know what we're about here, what our goals are, what our ambitions are for the American people, what we are trying to do as we work through this $3 trillion budget that we have to do each Congress.

And it's been interesting to sit and to stand and to listen to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, those Members who have been in charge of this body and in charge of the Federal budget essentially for the last 6 years and even in the Congress before that for another 6 years, and listen to them try to frame the issues in ways that understandably try to benefit their position.

But it's fascinating to listen as they talk about our budget, and somehow, because we don't plan to keep all of the Bush tax cuts in effect ad infinitum, that that somehow represents a tax increase.

And I have to remind everyone when I talk about issues that you remember what the Bush administration did and this Congress did when they enacted these tax cuts. They basically provided a sunset. They provided in the legislation that these tax cuts would end, and the reason they did that was because they wanted to be able to project somewhere out in the future that there would be a balanced budget in spite of the fact that they knew they were destined for huge deficits.

So they put a sunset, they put an end on those dates. Just as if you were in a business and you say, Okay, for 2 days only we are going to have a sale. We are going to give you 30 percent off. And that's the terms of the deal. So you come in on the fourth day and you say, Wait a minute. I want to pay that lower price. And the store says, Wait a minute. No. This was two days only 30 percent off. So you didn't raise the prices. You can't argue that we raised the prices. This was the way the deal was set up.

So now they're trying to have it both ways. They're trying to say we provided a tax cut, most of which went to the very wealthiest Americans, and now we are going to, because you are not willing to extend that tax cut, you are going to raise our taxes. No. We are going to end that two-day sale.

But what is really more disturbing than anything else, and I listened earlier to one of our colleagues from Wisconsin, one of your colleagues, Mr. Kagen, that when he was talking about what this budget would mean if we did not extend the Bush tax cuts, it said the average American would have their taxes raised by $1,000 or $1,200 or $3,000 when, in fact, that is kind of the magic of numbers and what you can do with them. Because if you take someone who is making $10 million a year and you raise that person's taxes by 4 percent, which would be essentially restoring the maximum tax rate, pre-Bush tax cut rate to that person, and then you average it over thousands of people, yes, you are going to get an average tax hike of $1,000 per person. But the average American, the average person who is making $30,000 a year is not going to see his or her taxes increased at all under this budget.

But you put that person with the person who's making $10 million a year whose taxes might go up a couple hundred thousand dollars, you average all of that in, yeah, you can come up with an average tax increase on all Americans. But that's not the way it works, because the average American will not have his or her taxes increased under this budget. The average very wealthy American will have his or her taxes increased.

But that's the way we play games with numbers around here, and it's very disturbing.

So it's important that when we discuss these important issues, $3 trillion worth of Federal budget, $1 trillion dollars, essentially, that this Congress has to deal with in discretionary funding, that we be honest, that we be candid, that we paint the accurate picture for the American people and what it means to them.

And I would like now to yield to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin who I know is very much focused on what this budget does and every budget does for the people he represents, everyday Americans in his district. So I'm proud to yield to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

I thank my distinguished colleague.

He raises an important point because there are two different types of expenditures that we make in this Congress and that everyone makes. You can spend money that basically goes down the drain and never yields any kind of positive return, or you can invest money that pays back in manifold times over the years.

I know that I call my colleague Mr. Kagen; in fact, he is a physician. I should say Dr. Kagen. I raise that because one of the things that the President's budget did, it would do if we were to enact it, which of course we won't, but is to cut funding for the National Institutes of Health. It seems to me that we're facing, as a country, this enormous exposure financially over the next several generations because of health care costs. We can try to tax our way out of it, raise more money to pay for it; we can try to use cost containment measures, which probably are not going to be that effective because every time you try to cut down on what you spend for health care, you reduce access to it; or we can invest money now in the type of research that will cure the very diseases that are going to cost us the most down the road. So if we spent $20 billion and we're able to cure cancer within the next 5 years, that would save us trillions of dollars long term as a society. The same with diabetes, the same with almost every disease we can mention. Yet the President's budget reduces funding on an inflation basis from the last year's budget. This is the type of thing where we should be investing more money because down the road these will pay off, not necessarily for us, in fact, but for our children and future generations.

It's the same way with energy and it's the same way with infrastructure. These are the types of investments and expenditures which this budget, the Democratic budget, emphasizes. This is our focus. And this is the type of expenditure that the President's budget

ignores. And that represents a very fundamental difference in our approaches.

Clearly, we have one big elephant in the room. I don't say that in partisan terms. I will use gorilla. We have one big object in the room, and that is our expenditure in Iraq. If we continue to spend $150, $170, $200 billion a year in Iraq, that is money that doesn't represent an investment. It represents money being flushed down the drain. That's something that we have a serious policy dispute with and that's a very controversial subject around the country, but it's the type of expenditure that is keeping us from doing the type of investment that will yield returns down the road.

I'm very happy that my colleague mentioned infrastructure and investment because that is where we're going to have to focus our activity, our attention. Because unless we do that, we are destined for the same type of borrow-and-spend society and economy as opposed to an invest-and-reap-the-reward society that we can have otherwise.

We have a fundamental debate with our colleagues from across the aisle and with the administration in the White House and we're going to have to continue to fight this until we can convince the American people that the long-term approach, investing in people and infrastructure and research, are the answers to our long-range problems. And the Republican budget, the President's budget, is something that takes us in the wrong direction.

With that, I would ask my colleague to respond to or react to those comments.

Thank you. This is kind of a tangent, but it's important to mention because we hear from the other side so many times, I think from the Presidential candidate as well as so many Members, that the answer to the health care crisis is to give families a $5,000 or so tax credit so they can pay for their health insurance. You've framed the issue extremely well; how many families of moderate income can afford to pay? The $5,000 tax credit doesn't mean anything when their health insurance is costing them $14,000 a year. First of all, they don't have the money to spend, so they probably are not paying a lot of tax to begin with. A tax credit is kind of a myth. It's just something that maybe sounds good, but in the real world doesn't work.

But you also mentioned a very important element to this, and that's the issue of education. The President and the Republicans have continued to underfund education in this country at almost negligent amounts for a number of years now.

We just had a press conference a few weeks ago in my district because we were able to get enough money, a Federal grant to provide scholarships for 500 citizens of my district that would enable them to get an associate's degree. We calculated the amount of increased earning capacity based on that $1 million worth of scholarships and it ended up being $13 million worth of increased revenue earning capacity based on a $1 million investment. Because if you take somebody from a high school degree and you give him or her an associate's degree, all of a sudden their income potential increases by 50 to 100 percent. You're talking about over a lifetime of earning capacity, $250,000 to $300,000 just for that small investment.

These are the types of decisions that we have to make, that we're called on to make in these budgeting processes. And I think that represents the real distinction between our party and the party that has controlled this House up until 2007. They want to spend money in very different ways. We want to invest tax dollars to improve the lives of those people who can really generate increased activity in the economy, increased earning.

Just on the basis of the question of stabilizing Social Security and Medicare, if you increase somebody's salary from $25,000 a year to $50,000 a year, you've doubled their contribution to Social Security. You've doubled their contribution to Medicare. This is the way we dig ourselves out of the hole that we have been in. It's to make sure that every American is earning a decent living and, therefore, can contribute to these programs. It's not to

sit there and say we're going to continue to give Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and many of the wealthiest Americans in this country tax breaks and hope that somehow that results in a better way of life for every other American.

I think we have seen enough of trickle-down economics. They tried to sell us that under the Reagan revolution. They've tried to sell us that under two Bush administrations. I think the American people finally realized that that's not the answer to our economic problems and that's not the answer to our economic future.

We have seen, and not just in New Orleans with Katrina, that when you have trickle down, unfortunately, it doesn't lift all boats. It drowns a lot of people. And that chart demonstrates, as vividly as it can be demonstrated, what has happened in this country under trickle-down economics. We have drowned those people who are represented in red. Their boats didn't float. Our position is we want to make sure that everybody has the right kind of boat so that when the storms come, they're floating with everybody else.

And I think that is something that the American people are catching on to. I think that's why every survey of American attitudes, when you ask people, Who do you trust more to handle the economy, taxes, education, health care? they have said, We prefer the Democrats by substantial margins now.

That doesn't mean we're off the hook. That doesn't mean just because people think we have the right answers that we don't have to respond and that we don't have to perform. But I think they have recognized that the other answer is empty, and they have said, we put our faith in your philosophy. We put our stock in you. Now perform for us. That's what we're trying to do with this budget. That's what we hope to do as we move forward into the 111th and 112th and 113th Congresses.

I'll yield to my colleague on that.

I thank my colleague. And as we wind down, I want to do two things. One is to thank him for dinner, because that was very nice of him to be willing to stand in for me, not that I couldn't have paid, but he was generous enough to treat tonight; and, secondly, to talk about the concept of unity and community.

And on the dais to my colleague's right, there are several terms inscribed in that dais, but on my far left the term ``union'' is inscribed. And that's really what I think we have lost track of and lost awareness of in this country, that we are part of something that is very special. But it is a union. It's not 300 million individuals out on their own.

And we had an interesting hearing the other day in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and basically the subject was on the subprime mortgage crisis, but it was also related to CEOs' salaries. And I'm not sure it was quite a good idea to combine the two, although they do provide kind of a stark contrast in which many of these companies, namely, Countrywide, had lost lots of money, and yet the CEO had left the company and was still making millions of dollars, $37 million he left the company with.

But we also had the former chairman of Citigroup, the CEO of Time Warner, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch; so we had some of the giants of American industry there. And the topic of discussion kept alternating between the subprime mortgage crisis and also the question of CEOs' salaries. And it occurred to me, as we went through this discussion, that many of these CEOs make tens of millions of dollars a year in compensation, much of it related to stock options that they are given, so their compensation ultimately is related to their stock price.

And as the conversation went on, it finally came my turn to ask questions. And I addressed these giants of American industry, and I said, I can see how in a comparative market situation that the CEO of Citigroup, which is a $35 billion company, may be worth $10 million a year in salary. I don't have any complaint about that. And even if you lose money in a particular year, I mean if it hadn't been for the talents of the CEO, you might have lost more money; so maybe that was justified.

But what the American people see is CEOs making tens of millions of dollars, at the same time feeling, if not knowing explicitly what's on that chart, that their standard of living, even though they are working as hard as they have ever worked, is not improving. And if they are working for one of those companies at a relatively average position, while they are working hard, their standard of living is staying the same and the CEO's salary is increasing.

And we all know the data about the disparity between CEOs' salaries and their employees' salaries. It's gone from an average of 30 times in the early 1970s to now 400 or 500 times. And it doesn't matter whether you lose money; they still make these huge salaries. And I asked them, When you have these meetings in your compensation committees and you're deciding and discussing the salaries of your CEO and your upper management, is there ever a conversation or have you ever heard of a conversation that related to how you might improve the lives of your employees, how you might stabilize the communities where your businesses are, how you might help to make this country a better place, or is all the conversation related to how you get the stock price up?

And the retired chairman of Citigroup said, very candidly and honestly, No, we only talk about share price. I said, That's a very unfortunate disconnect between what I think we all think is the objective, the ambition of this country, this Union, which is to make life better for everybody, to create jobs, to have everybody realize the American Dream, and yet our largest corporate citizens are only thinking about how they raise their stock price.

And I wonder, and I hope to be able to pursue this conversation with other CEOs of big corporations as I serve my terms in Congress, Do you ever talk about raising your standard of living of your employees? How do we get their wages up? How do we improve their benefits? How do we improve their health care situation? How do we stabilize that community and what can we do? And I know there are companies out there who are great corporate citizens. I have some in my own district who do that.

But if you don't have the corporate mentality that thinks about the same goals that the American people have, then we have a problem in this country. And I am not exactly sure how to go about it. But I know that the policies that are represented by our colleagues on the Republican side and by this been White House have been ones that say, we're going to do everything we can to facility that strategy of letting those companies do whatever they need to do to jack their stock prices up, and meanwhile we hope that it helps everybody else.

And I think that our budget says that we are not going to rely on just an abstract hope. We are going to take steps to invest in the American people, to put money in education, to put money in health care and to put money in infrastructure that will allow those people to make sure they improve their own standard of living.

So, we are going to have this debate for a long time. We will have it in this particular context in this budget debate, but as we go forward in this Congress, and in future Congresses. And I look forward to it because I think that the American people want us to do everything we can to help them realize their individual ambitions, and, again, to make ourselves a better Union.

So with that, I would just like to ask my colleague if he has any closing remarks, and then we will let everyone go home.

I thank my colleague. And as I close, I just what to repeat what I have said to many people, and that is that it is such a great honor to be in this wonderful group of people, men and women, elected in 2006, because most of us came to Congress well past the age of 50. We came because we had done what we wanted to do in our professional lives or our business careers, and we said we wanted to make a difference.

We weren't here because we expected to spend 25 or 30 years in Congress. We didn't want to be professional politicians. We came because we wanted to see what we could do to change the direction of the country. And nobody is a better example of that than my colleague from Wisconsin, and I thank him for joining me tonight. I look forward to further discussions as we move forward.