Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has served his country and who remains a role model for his family and community.

I speak of Louis P. Bartolotta, Sr. Louis is a veteran of the Second World War. He was born the son of immigrant parents in 1918. He married his wife Ida in 1941, just three months before Pearl Harbor. This year they will celebrate their 63rd wedding anniversary.

On November 26th, 1943, he was aboard a British transport ship, the HMT Rohna, when the vessel was attacked by a German bomber off the coast of North Africa. Over one thousand United States service members and more than 100 British and Allied officers and crewmembers lost their lives in the attack. Louis is a survivor of that tragic day. In October of 2000, Congress recognized the heroic sacrifices made by those who lost their lives, the survivors and their families in House Concurrent Resolution 408.

Today Louis and Ida live in Boynton Beach, Florida. At the end of May, as we dedicate the World War II Memorial, they will visit Washington, D.C. to participate in the Rohna Survivors convention.

Mr. Speaker, as we honor the veterans of World War II please let us add to those tributes those who lost their lives on the HMT Rohna as well as those who survived, like my dear friend Louis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of repealing the penalty on people who choose to marry. It seems strange that the tax code discriminates against married couples. It's even stranger that there are many in this body who are opposed to fixing this problem.

The President and the Congressional majority have worked hard to enact marriage penalty relief. Because of demands from the other side, this relief will end next year. That means an automatic tax increase in an economy that is coming out of a recession. Mr. Speaker, we must pass this legislation to permanently extend this relief.

As we attempt to eliminate this discrimination in the tax code, I will continue my work to repeal the marriage penalty that affects many couples on Social Security. Yes . . . there is also a ``marriage penalty'' that occurs when Social Security benefits are taxed. As a result, I have introduced legislation to increase the income threshold for couples to double that of individuals to end this unequal treatment in the tax code that discourages marriage among seniors.

Certainly our seniors should not have to worry about losing Social Security benefits because they are married or want to marry.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the ranking member and the chairman are trying to do relative to truck safety, but this is a very unique issue. As chairman of the House Entertainment Task Force, we have been working consistently to try to keep jobs in America. We are talking about jobs not only about movie stars, but for the grips, the caterers, the production folks. This is a totally different issue.

The truck arrives on the set of a production in the morning, having driven maybe 50, 75 miles, and remains on the set for the remainder of the day before it moves back to its location. This is not long-haul shipping.

Mr. Chairman, we have had enough runaway productions leaving to Canada and other locales. This is one more impediment to keeping film production in the United States. It is a jobs opportunity provision. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Tauscher), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), I appreciate their sentiments on this. So, please, as we get ready to vote for this amendment, this is not contrary nor trying to be argumentative with our great chairman and ranking member on safety. We all join in the safety of our streets and highways. But we have to be very careful and make this unique distinction to protect jobs.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday in Punta Gorda, Florida, I attended the funeral services for one Specialist Michael Woodliff who was killed in Iraq. He was laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery on Monday.

At the ceremony there was no bitterness, but fond memories for a fallen hero. His friends and families describe his credos as faith, family, country. His father said to me, ``Michael died serving his country with pride in defending his homeland.''

Michael would not want the political debate that has taken place in the last 24 hours of acrimony and division. Michael would want us not to question the merits of the war in Iraq. He would want us to track the terrorists who killed him and others who killed those in New York on September 11.

Iraq has changed the world as we know it. Libya is cooperating on nuclear weapons. North Korea is talking about peace. Pakistan and India are trying to settle their longstanding skirmish over Kashmir.

Michael Woodliff died defending the honor of this country. Politicians should think of him when they utter words on this floor. His sacrifice to this Nation is a lot better than the speeches I have heard by some.

God bless you, Michael. Thank you for serving your Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor outraged and disappointed at the conduct of the Presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry. To issue a term about our Commander in Chief and calling him a liar is disgusting, despicable; and we reject this kind of politics.

Today, it was reported on Fox News that the Saddam Hussein government stole over $4 billion from the Food-for-Oil Program to help the poor people in that country of Iraq. They spent the proceeds of that $4 billion bribing and paying off officers all over the world. 400,000- plus people died at the hands of Saddam Hussein, and the candidate running for President is calling our Commander in Chief a liar.

I think that is regrettable, think it is disgusting; and they have consistently used this kind of terminology throughout this entire campaign. America is tired of negative politics.

I challenge the Senator to talk about what you will do for the people of this country rather than tearing down the institution of the President. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it both ways, and I am sick and tired of this kind of language polluting political airways and making our children wonder why they should vote.

He did not think he was miked. What you say in silence is what you will say everywhere you go. So whether you thought the mike on or not, Mr. Kerry, you were wrong.

Mr. Speaker, as Paul Harvey says on his radio show, now for the rest of the story.

It is interesting, many of the Democrats have talked about job loss in America, but they do not mention the fact that trade has actually brought jobs into America. In Ohio, the Honda plant now paying high wages for its employees assembling Honda automobiles. In South Carolina, I know the Democratic governor was very instrumental in getting BMW and other companies to come to their State to create jobs for their citizens, high-wage, high-paying jobs.

You can look at one-half of the spectrum and say we have real problems. We are trying to find employment for every American. But they seem to ignore, they seem to ignore the fact that trade has brought jobs to this country, good jobs to communities that were desperately in need of those jobs.

This morning in a 1-minute, I was extraordinarily critical, rightfully so, of the Democratic candidate for the presidency. I am not allowed under House rules, I was admonished today, for using the name of a Senator, so most of us know who I am talking about.

But the word and phrase used yesterday on an open mike was that this administration is corrupt and is lying. That is the charge by the Democratic nominee for President about the sitting President of the United States of America. I called it this morning despicable and disgraceful, and I stick by that terminology, because that is the truth.

Now, look at who they are talking about. We are talking really about Iraq, because they keep using that as the reason they are calling this President a liar. They are saying Iraq is the reason he should be called these derisive terms, which I believe are disrespectful for any sitting chief executive President of the United States.

So what does that say ultimately, that we should not have done anything in Iraq, we should not have gone to Iraq, we should not have dealt with Iraq? That is their conclusion.

Well, today in the New York Times, ``Saddam team skimmed billions in aid projects. Cash in suitcase.''

In its final years in power, Saddam Hussein's government systemically extracted billions of dollars in kickbacks from companies doing business with Iraq, funneling most of the illicit funds through a network of foreign bank accounts in violation of the UN treaties.

Millions of Iraqis were struggling to survive on rations of food and medicine, yet the government's hidden slush funds were being fed by suppliers and oil traders from around the world, who sometimes lugged suitcases full of cash to ministry offices.''

That is who they are defending. Saddam Hussein, who killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, we should not have gone there and interrupted his killing spree. We should not have done anything to stop the demonic leadership of Saddam Hussein.

I reject the comments, and I am entering the entirety in the Record, because I want people to be able to read in the Record what the New York Times discovered about the cash-skimming operations of this ugly regime.

Now, another article that I will enter in its entirety in the Record, because it talks again about an outside observer's view of this President, an outside observer. It happens to be Bill Sammon of the Washington Times. The headline, ``Bush's Grand Strategy Overlooked by Liberal Historians.''

``An influential Democratic historian has credited President Bush with instituting one of only three grand strategies in the history of the U.S. foreign policy, by trading in the doctrine of containment for preemption. John Lewis Gaddis of Yale said his fellow historians have not paid sufficient attention to the importance of Mr. Bush's sweeping overhaul of U.S. foreign policy because they are blinded by their liberal bias. He also accused former President Bill Clinton of failing to adequately address global threats that gathered on his watch,'' the World Trade Center first bombing, Khobar Towers, the two embassies, all during the watch of Clinton.

``The Bush team really did, in a moment of crisis, come up with a very important statement on grand strategy, which has not been taken as seriously as it should have been taken, particularly within the academic community.

``Mr. Gaddis writes that America's three grand strategies were instituted by Mr. Bush,'' this President Bush, ``John Quincy Adams and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. All three strategies were prompted by rare, catastrophic attacks on America by foreign enemies.''

He goes on to quote, ``The Clinton administration was somewhat like the Harding and Coolidge administrations after World War I, Mr. Gaddis said. There was the sense that the war had been won, the fundamental processes in world politics were favorable to us, and therefore we could sit back and let them run. But these processes of globalization and self-determination during the Clinton administration did nothing to stop terrorists from using minimal resources to inflict massive death and destruction against the United States and its interests. The former President did not act decisively to head off a gathering threat.''

I bring you to September 11. I bring you to the carnage of September 11 as a result of our not being willing to take on any enemy.

Look at what has happened because of his leadership: Iraq. Look at North Korea turning over nuclear documents. Look at Libya surrendering nuclear hardware. Look at Pakistan and India, finally talking over Kashmir. These are the results of a determination by this President to root out terrorism.

I conclude by saying this, and this is important in context to this article. Mr. Gaddis, who describes himself as a very long-term disillusioned Democrat who still has hopes for the Democratic Party, disputed the liberal stereotype of the President as a lightweight. There certainly have been tendencies to underestimate President Bush himself and to view him in the way that Reagan was viewed when he first came in, as being a cipher, manipulated by his own advisers. That turned out not to be true of Reagan, and it is turning out not to be true of George Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I will at this time enter the entirety of this article into the Record, along with other documentation referred to earlier. I salute our President. I am proud of our President and proud to stand with him in Florida in the coming months.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 2004]

Saddam Team Skimmed Billions in Aid Project Cash in Suitcases/UN

Sanctions Violated

(By Susan Sachs)

Baghdad.--In its final years in power, Saddam Hussein's

government systematically extracted billions of dollars in

kickbacks from companies doing business with Iraq, funneling

most of the illicit funds through a network of foreign bank

accounts in violation of United Nations sanctions.

Millions of Iraqis were struggling to survive on rations of

food and medicine. Yet the government's hidden slush funds

were being fed by suppliers and oil traders from around the

world who sometimes lugged suitcases full of cash to ministry

offices, said Iraqi officials who supervised the skimming

operation.

The officials' accounts were enhanced by a trove of

internal Iraqi government documents and financial records

provided to The New York Times by members of the Iraqi

Governing Council. Among the papers was secret correspondence

from Saddam's top lieutenants setting up a formal mechanism

to siphon cash from Iraq's business deals, an arrangement

that went unnoticed by UN monitors.

Under a UN program begun in 1997, Iraq was permitted to

sell its oil only to buy food and other humanitarian goods.

The kickback order went out from Saddam's inner circle three

years later, when limits on the amount of oil sales were

lifted and Iraq's oil revenues reached $10 billion a year.

In an Aug. 3, 2000, letter marked urgent and confidential,

the Iraqi vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, informed

government ministers that a high-command committee wanted

extra revenues from the oil-for-food program. To that end, he

wrote, all suppliers must be told to inflate their contracts

by the biggest percentage possible and secretly transfer

those amounts to Iraq's bank accounts in Jordan and the

United Arab Emirates.

Iraq's sanctions-busting has long been an open secret. Two

years ago, the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated that

oil smuggling had generated nearly $900 million a year for

Iraq. Oil companies had complained that Iraq was squeezing

them for illegal surcharges, and Saddam's lavish spending on

palaces and monuments provided more evidence of his access to

unrestricted cash.

But the dimensions of the corruption have only lately

become clear, from the newly available documents and from

revelations by government officials who say they were too

fearful to speak out before. They show the magnitude and

organization of the payoff system, the complicity of the

companies involved and the way Saddam bestowed contracts and

gifts on those who praised him.

Perhaps the best measure of the corruption comes from a

review of the $8.7 billion in outstanding oil for food

contracts by the provisional Iraqi government with UN help.

It found that 70 percent of the suppliers had inflated their

prices and agreed to pay a 10 percent kickback, in cash or by

transfer to accounts in Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian banks.

At that rate, Iraq would have collected as much as $2.3

billion out of the $32.6 billion worth of contracts it signed

since mid-2000, when the kickback system began. And some

companies were willing to pay even more than the standard 10

percent, according to Trade and Oil Ministry employees.

Iraq's suppliers included Russian factories, Arab trade

brokers, European manufacturers and state-owned companies

from China and the Middle East. Iraq generally refused to buy

directly from U.S. companies, which in any case needed

special licenses to trade legally with Iraq.

Iraq also created a variety of other, less lucrative,

methods of extorting money from its oil customers. It raised

more than $228 million from illegal surcharges it imposed on

companies that shipped Iraqi crude oil by sea after September

2000, according to an accounting prepared by the Iraqi Oil

Ministry late last year. An additional $540 million was

collected in under-the-table surcharges on oil shipped across

Iraq's land borders, the documents show.

A lot of it came in cash, recalled Shamkhi Faraj, who

managed the Oil Ministry's finance department under the old

government and is now general manager of the ministry's oil-

marketing arm. I used to see people carrying it in briefcases

and bringing it to the ministry.

UN overseers say they were unaware of the systematic

skimming of oil-for-food revenues. In any case, they add,

they were focused on running aid programs.

The director of the Office of Iraq Programs, Benon Sevan,

declined to be interviewed about the oil-for-food program. In

written responses to questions sent by e-mail, his office

said he learned of the 10 percent kickback scheme from the

occupation authority only after the end of major combat

operations.

As the details of the corruption have recently emerged, law

enforcement authorities in several countries said they had

opened criminal and civil investigations into whether

companies violated laws against transferring money to Iraq.

Treasury Department Investigators have also been helping the

Iraqi authorities recover an estimated $2 billion believed to

be left in foreign accounts. So far, more than $750 million

has been found in foreign accounts and transferred back to

Iraq, said Juan Zarate, a deputy assistant Treasury

secretary.

To some officials of Iraq's provisional government, what is

perhaps most insulting is how little their country got for

its oil money. Taking stock of what was bought before the

U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam last spring, they have found

piles of nonessential drugs, mismatched equipment and

defective hospital machines.

You had cartels that were willing to pay kickbacks but

would also bid up the price of goods, said Ali Allawai, a

former World Bank official who is now interim Iraqi trade

minister. You had rings involved in supplying shoddy goods.

You had a system of payoffs to the bourgeoisie and royalty of

nearby countries.

Everybody was feeding off the carcass of what was Iraq.

The UN Security Council first imposed a trade embargo on

Iraq on Aug. 9, 1990, one week after Saddam's invasion of

Kuwait. It has kept in place after the Gulf war in 1991, with

the provision that sanctions would be lifted after Iraq

destroyed its unconventional weapons and ended its weapons

program.

But as living conditions deteriorated, the council made

several offers to let Iraq export limited quantities of oil

to buy food and medicine. The two sides agreed on a mechanism

only in 1966.

In 1999, Iraq was permitted to sell as much oil as it

wanted, with the proceeds going into an escrow account at

Banque Nationale de Paris, supervised by the United Nations.

The new rules also allowed Iraq to sign its own contracts for

billions of dollars in imported goods.

As ministry officials and government documents portrayed

it, the oil-for-food program quickly evolved into an open

bazaar of payoffs, favoritism and kickbacks.

The kickback scheme worked, they said, because the payoffs

could be included in otherwise legitimate supply contracts

negotiated directly by the former government and then

transferred to Iraq once the United Nations released funds to

pay the suppliers.

We'd accept the low bid and say to the supplier, ``Give us

another 10 percent'' said Faleh Khawaji, an Oil Ministry

official who used to supervise the contracting for spare

parts and maintenance equipment. ``So that was added to the

contract. If the bid was for $1 million, for example, we

would tell the supplier to make it $1.1 million.''

The contract would then be sent to the U.N. sanctions

committee, which was supposed to review contracts with an eye

only to preventing Iraq from acquiring items that might have

military uses. The kickbacks were paid into Iraq's accounts,

and designated ministry employees withdrew the cash and

brought it to Baghdad on a regular basis, according to

Khawaji and Iraqi financial records.

U.S. and European investigators said they were trying to

determine whether the banks knew they were being used for

illegal financial dealings with Iraq.

Under the oil-for-food program rules, the United Nations'

oil overseers had to certify that Iraq was selling its crude

oil at fair value. Until the overseers changed the pricing

formula in late 2001, Iraq's oil sold at a discount compared

with similar oil from other producers.

At the same time, Oil Ministry officials said, purchasers

of Iraqi oil were required to pay a surcharge, either in cash

or by transferring money into Iraqi accounts in foreign

banks.

When oil companies complained to the United Nations about

the per- barrel surcharges, Iraq levied higher charges on

ships loading at its port.

When Dr. Khidr Abbas became Iraq's Interim minister of

health 6 months ago, he discovered some of the effects of

Saddam's political manipulation of the oil-for-food program.

After a review of the ministry's spending, he said, he

canceled $250 million worth of contracts with companies he

believed were fronts for the former government or got

contracts only because they were from countries friendly to

Saddam.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a saddened heart that I come to speak to this Chamber today. Last week our Nation was again rocked when we learned of another senseless death of an innocent child. Carlie Brucia, a beautiful young girl from Sarasota, Florida, was violently kidnapped and brutally murdered on her way home from a friend's house, not too far away from her own.

There is nothing I can say that will bring comfort to her family today. No parent should ever lose a child, and all communities throughout the country should shiver at what has happened in Florida this past week. This crime happened in daylight, on a major thoroughfare and in front of passersby. Carlie's death is not just her family's loss but a loss to us all.

This fallen angel's death must not be in vain. Police and prosecutors must ensure that her murderer will never see the light of day again, but that is not enough. We must come together as a community, and as a State, to make sure we never let such a crime happen in our backyard again.

The AMBER Alert system is the best tool we have, but it is just a tool. I wish there was something I could do to undo this terrible crime, but I cannot. What I can offer is my promise to Carlie's family that I will never stop working to ensure that law enforcement has the tools necessary to capture these pedophiles and that families are fully armed with the information they need to protect themselves and their children.

Mr. Speaker, all I can wish for is that I will never have to come to the House floor to talk about the murder of another child ever again. I want to offer my deepest condolences to Carlie's family. I hope that with the help of their family and friends they will be able to get through this terrible time. God bless Carlie.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, let me give Members the following quotes: ``Sometimes the United States has to act alone, or at least has to act first. Sometimes we cannot let other countries have a veto on our foreign policy.'' That is a debate quote spoken by President Clinton.

Madeleine Albright: ``I am going to explain our position, and while we always prefer to act multilaterally, we are prepared to go unilaterally.''

President Clinton: ``Would the Iraqi people be better off if there was a change in leadership? I certainly think they would be.''

In the last couple of days, we have heard a lot of people questioning the President's veracity. Let us talk about the successes: Libya is cooperating and disarming; Charles Taylor has been forced out of Liberia; India and Pakistan are talking about Kashmir and reducing tensions; and as Senator Lieberman said, ``Saddam Hussein was a walking weapon of mass destruction.''

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of this President. I am proud of standing with him and our military as they combat terror and tyranny around the globe. Shame on the Democrats for suggesting that the President is not truthful.

Mr. Speaker, I see there are a few Democrats on the floor today; they are busy preparing their ``I hate George Bush'' speeches for the day. We finished last night with a message from the President of the United States about the hopeful optimism this country has and the things that we can do together if we only stop bickering and start working towards our common goals.

The war on terrorism is his single focus; and since September 11, our homeland has been safe. Liberating the world has been his hallmark, and today we can claim that Libya is now negotiating with the United States. North Korea is finally talking about putting aside their hatefulness. India and Pakistan are joining together for conversations that are hopeful and helpful for solving the world's problems.

This President has led effectively, honorably, and with distinction.

At the end of the State of the Union speech, the minority leader went on to describe how reckless, basically, this President has been. I disagree vehemently and strongly. I applaud our President. I applaud the state of the Union. The economy is growing stronger, unemployment is reducing itself and we are finding ourselves in a better place, thanks to his leadership.

God bless this great Nation and, as the chaplain said, God bless our President.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for bringing in resolution to the floor and to my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), hopefully our next Senator from the great State of Louisiana, for proclaiming the importance of Catholic parochial education in our society and in our lives.

As a product of Sacred Heart School in Lake Worth, I remembered returning to that very classroom where the shock of my life at that time had been the assassination of President John Kennedy. We were in 4th grade. We were asked to pray and pray for our nation and for our assassinated president.

And after September 11th when I was equally shocked as the Nation was watching in horror the events unfolding in New York City, I returned that classroom for solace, for comfort, and for guidance.

Catholic education was a lot to me and to our family. My father started at Sacred Heart himself as a teacher, went on to Cardinal Newman to be a coach and earth science teacher, and then went on to the public school system where he retired from a school for troubled children.

Through his leadership and our parents' guidance and the church's blessing, it has meant a lot to all of our family as we learned life's lessons.

I recently attended St. Ann's school in West Palm Beach. Their students undertook on their own initiative an effort to send memorabilia and messages to our troops in Iraq. They gathered and worked together to do handiworks and crafts and essential items, care packages, if you will, to our troops only to find that nobody would take the packages. Not UPS, did not fly there, not FedEx. There was no way to get all of their hard work accomplished. They called our office. Thanks to the hard work of our staff, they repacked the boxes, asked the Department of Defense for permission and were able to load those packages on to a flight heading to Iraq.

I recently went to the school and thanked the children for their extraordinary efforts and thinking of our troops first over the holiday period. And they read for me a number of the letters that were sent back by our personnel in the field. It was heartwarming to see the interaction between soldier and student.

Ave Maria is a new university contemplated and soon to be constructed in Ft. Myers, Florida, the first Catholic university to be built in the country in 40 years. I commend our community for being lucky to have a Catholic University soon in our presence.

Catholic schools are important to the fiber and foundation of our Nation. They give every child a chance to pray in class, which is a unique and novel thing, one I welcome and urge other non-parochial schools to participate in. Because, after all, after September 11th the one thing that lifted the soul of the Nation and gave us courage to fight on in the days ahead was, in fact, our collective prayer, our willingness and wishes for a better world for all Americans and all inhabitants of the world.

So I salute the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, and all who will join with us today in, again, saluting the importance of Catholic education in our daily lives.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be back here in our Nation's capital for the opening of the 108th second session of Congress.

As we start a new year, we often pray for hope and optimism to help lift the Nation, to help guide the Nation, to help give it strength and to honor the character of this Nation that we all love so dearly.

So it is troubling that when, in the first hour of the first day of the 108th second session, the negativity ringing in this Chamber is deafening, the criticism, the constant carping, the antagonism towards this President knows no boundaries. Yet the American public remains optimistic and hopeful because that is in our core nature. That is our core; that is who we are as people.

There is a reason Howard Dean went down in ashes, in flames in Iowa yesterday, because for the last 11 months he has done nothing but characterize and criticize the President of the United States in negative tones. Consequently, John Edwards comes in second because he was at least talking about hopeful optimism, a spirit that is imbued in the character of this Nation and its people.

As we proceed in this year of trials and tribulations, you have to look back at the past year and look forward to the future and hope that, rather than fighting one another, we can join together in finding solutions to our common problems.

In the last hour and a half I have heard how bad the economy is. Yet at this time our Dow Jones Industrial Average is over 10,500; NASDAQ has passed the 2,000 threshold. Unemployment is dropping. Statistics prove it. Last month was not the best month; but anyone who follows the economy recognizes there is a lag behind employment and robust employment numbers and optimism in the sector that is gauged by Wall Street. Factory orders. Sale of durable goods. Light trucks. Look at the numbers. Real estate. First time home buyers. People's 401(k)s now back to where they were pre-1999. Their IRA's are gaining momentum again. Their financial status is better. Not perfect, not perfect, but better. And what fuels that basic surge in investor confidence? Well, that is the term. Investors' confidence.

In order to have confidence, you have to have some optimism, and you have to have some hope that times will in fact get better. But if you listen to the cacophony of voices from the other side of the aisle, woe is me, and how desperate we are.

It was telling, one of the speakers offered the President an olive branch moments ago. Why is it when they offer the olive branch, they always hand it to you with the thorns exposed?

Can there not be a generous offer of helping together, solving Americans' problems? It has to be about criticizing virtually everything this administration has done.

Look at Iraq and look at the strength of character that this President displayed in challenging one of the most evil dictators of our time. He is met with negative sound bytes and poll-driven babble about why we should not be there and why we should leave immediately. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and Mr. Dean eloquently made that point. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) came in last and Mr. Dean was third. So clearly I think others, based on if you are taking polling statistics, 65 percent of the American public thought it was the right thing to do to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

The President stood alone on that precipice trying to decide what was best for the people of this country, stood alone. And yet with the wind at his back, he has now been able to change fundamentally the way other nations look at us. Fundamentally. Libya is now in negotiations to turn over its nuclear secrets and arsenal and weaponry and technology. Libya. It was not that long ago that Muammar Khadafi was heading Libya, obviously with an eye towards destroying the Middle East. And now Libya is at least, hopefully, brokering negotiations as we speak.

North Korea is sounding more conciliatory rather than beating their chests and threatening the annihilation of Japan or South Korea or other places. North Korea is now starting to talk about containment.

Pakistan and India, who have been at odds for a long time, are talking about constructive engagement to solve their mutual problems relative to Kashmir.

Think about it. Think about just those hot spots in the world where because of the President's strength of character in pursuing the evil of Saddam Hussein have we now started to recognize that only peace can be achieved through strength. Yes, it must have been lonely for this President when the rest of the free world was saying, I am not interested; let us not do that; let us not upset the apple cart; let us not bother Iraq. They are quiet now.

To the contrary. If you are one of the 1 million people that have died in Iraq, I am not sure you consider it quiet. If you had your tongue cut out by Saddam Hussein's henchmen, I do not think you consider Iraq peaceful. If you were starved or imprisoned or murdered by the regime, I do not think you consider Iraq a place you would call home. Yet, because of the President's insistence on pursuing the course of action that would free and liberate the people of Iraq, we now have the dominoes falling in other areas of the world that are showing that the United States' strength is what is solving the perplexing and difficult challenges we face as a Nation and as a world power.

I can remember during the last administration when there was a problem in Haiti, and I believe the U.S.S. Harlan was heading for Haiti, and because of a band of malcontents and miscontents and misfits who were on the dock waving brooms and pitchforks, our Commander in Chief then ordered the U.S.S. Harlan to turn around and not head into Haiti to bring peace and stability to Haiti.

We turned around a naval vessel because we were nervous about the gathering of dissidents on a dock at Port au Prince. That visual image of our naval vessel turning around from a group waving brooms at our military power

was a shot heard round the world because people looked at that as an abject instance of failure on behalf of diplomacy and democracy and America's commitment. So why would people be fearful of the United States?

The first World Trade Center bombing was met with loud voices but no follow-up. Khobar Towers. The U.S.S. Cole. The war on terrorism was gathering strength for years before this President became our Commander in Chief. But only because of his leadership have we now seen progress in the theater and in the fight against terrorism. It seems like I turn on the TV every other day, and there is a critical commentary about homeland security; and yet we have not had another instance of terrorism in this country since September 11.

September 11 remains vivid in my mind as I left that City of New York that morning, minutes before the first World Trade Center was struck by that aircraft. I had passed only 4 or 5 minutes before that first plane struck and had noticed those gleaming towers in that New York glorious morning. After that strike on American soil, this President knew his obligation and his duty was to protect the public, and he has done that.

There is no perfect plan; but this President has marshaled his team, whether it be John Ashcroft or others, to help mobilize our law enforcement agencies for the fight ahead. Tom Ridge of Homeland Security and Asa Hutchinson have done a masterful job of bringing our Nation together to focus on our domestic tranquility.

The economy, as I mentioned earlier, is improving steadily. And that optimism will bring jobs for the American people. This President will talk about jobs because it is important to him. He has mentioned it time and time again. He never gets credit from those on the other side of the aisle, but he consistently believes that full employment and a robust economy go hand in hand.

This economy has improved. We were down at 7,200 on the Dow. We are now at 10,551, I believe, an hour ago. That is good news for the American investor. And it is good news for the American economy.

Medicare. People keep moaning about the bill. Most have not read it. Most of the benefits of the bill will not become effective for a while, but there is an improving opportunity for seniors through the Medicare delivery of prescription drugs to their communities.

I woke up this morning to the moveon.org campaign commercial with soft money. It is interesting. They raising soft money with reckless abandon. George Soros gave $5 million to an organization headed by Democrats to destroy this President and demean him and demean the office, but they have moved on. Remember, they have moved on. They were there for the past President and they are there now as a vehicle to spend soft money, that old bugaboo that was so reviled by the other side of the aisle. Now they have found other ways to move money into new different camps and run the same negative ads but just not run by the political committees here in Washington. They are just committees that are closer to home, I guess.

Health care is something we are concerned about, and the President will address that as well. He is concerned about health care. The President's concerned about health care, the delivery of health care, the availability, the affordability, and that will be discussed tonight.

He is talking about the space program, and yes, there are those that question whether the space program has, or do we have the funding to move forward in the corridor of space, and let me challenge everyone to recognize what has occurred because of the space program. Whether it is the cellular phone or the Blackberry, it is the heart pacemaker, the microwave oven, Internet technology, all has come from a genesis of discovery of space. From the scientists and astronauts, from the team leaders, whether it is Johnson Space Center in Texas or Kennedy in Florida, these have been the pioneers that have brought about incredible opportunities in technological corridors to bring about a better way of life for all America. The discovery of cells and cancerous genes and things that may stem the tide of devastating illnesses and disease have been discovered in space. So this President, true to his mission of being an innovator and a leader, is challenging us to move forward. The clarion call to all, this final frontier, as was mentioned by John Kennedy, has not been conquered and will not be given up because of tight budget years.

The President talks about immigration, and a lot of people are nervous about immigration. Obviously, again, they have not read the bill. They think there is a blanket amnesty. The President's leading on an issue that, yes, is politically polarizing but is an issue once again that he is not willing to have just out there in the abyss and not be discussed in practical solutions, rather than political sound bytes.

Education. I have mentioned many times on this floor my father was a principal and a schoolteacher. So education is important to this Member of Congress, and this President has worked to make education the hallmark of his administration.

So rather than continue to take the time of the Congress today, I just ask the other side of the aisle if rather than snappy sound bytes and eloquent rhetoric all directed to demonize this President, that if half the energy was going into developing constructive proposals to bring to the floor, we may be able to solve America's problems.

In today's Roll Call, a newspaper that is all over the Hill, David Winston has the headline ``Democratic Hopefuls' Sniping Souring Their Images With Voters.'' It talks about, ``Twenty-four hours after the Iowa caucus grabbed the national spotlight for the Democrats, President Bush takes center stage tonight for the annual ritual of the State of the Union address. As Bush heads to Capitol Hill with the power and prestige of the presidency behind him, the Democrats are licking their wounds and heading to New Hampshire, some on CPR.

``In contrast, the President will report to the nation as a strong wartime leader,'' and I emphasize strong, wartime leader, ``as the economy comes roaring back, creating jobs, as his education centerpiece, No Child Left Behind, remains popular with the public, and as a President who kept his promise to pass a prescription drug benefit for seniors. As Ronald Reagan said when he left office, `Not bad. Not bad at all.'

``Meanwhile, the Democratic presidential contenders have gone to the mattresses in the biggest family feud since the Hatfields and McCoys. The Democratic primary has become little more than a nasty snipe-a- thon, leaving none of the candidates looking statesmanlike, much less presidential.''

If my colleagues happened to watch Mr. Dean screaming at the TV today, they will realize this may not be the man we want close to the nuclear button. I added that. That is not in Mr. Winston's column.

``The endless bickering and name calling is beginning to take its toll on everyone in the race.

``The latest polls show not only that the Democratic presidential candidates are losing ground with voters overall,'' but they are also losing Democratic voters who have an increasingly unfavorable view of their own field.

Let me continue because I think it is important to just lay this out as an observation made by Mr. Winston.

``A comparison of the two most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls, taken January 2-5 and November 10-12, spells bad news for Democrats in two key measurements. First, with all voters, every one of the six candidates tested . . . saw little or no movement with their favorables since November, while their unfavorables increased.'' Why? Because America rejects pessimism, negativity and nastiness, and that is what we have had hurled at those in Iowa and we witnessed through the reporting of Fox and CNN and others.

Let me finalize with this one. ``Dean led the pack in this dubious category with his unfavorables increasing more than his favorables by 13 points to reach an unenviable 28 percent favorable, 39 percent unfavorable rating by all voters. But, every one of the Democratic candidates saw their favorable-unfavorable ratings get worse among the overall electorate.''

They are running for the highest office in the land, and as time goes on

and people get to know them more, they like them less, not because they are not pleasant people to look at and not because they are not educated. I am sure they all qualified in their educated endeavors, but why is America rejecting them? They are rejecting them because of their nastiness and their negativity and their pessimism because America, after all, is about optimism, about hope, about opportunity, about equality, about engagement, about being part of a bigger picture, a bigger world, a bigger place.

So I do pray that as we conclude today that the minority party, that may be the permanent minority if they keep it up, rather than promising in speech to extend an olive branch, that they actually do it and give this President a chance. We will not always agree with this President as Republicans or Democrats, but I think in the final analysis, as we look at the man as a person, I have come to really admire his determination.

When I heard those comments by Paul O'Neill, I thought back of several meetings we have had with multiple Members of Congress in the Cabinet room of the White House, and one foretelling day was about the Patients' Bill of Rights, a subject that I had worked on with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and others in this country for a long time. As we sat around the room I was really taken aback by the depth of knowledge that President Bush had relative to the Patients' Bill of Rights. The discussion with lawmakers, the back and forth, the questions, the probative questions, the responses, whether we wanted to hear the answer or not, he gave it to us with what he believed was the best course of action for this particular piece of legislation. This was a President engaged in the minutia of debate, not a scripted card that was given to him by an aide, but something that inherently he understood, both intimately and through research and through interest.

So as we hear the State of the Union tonight, as we enter 2004, let us hope that the optimism that I know will be contained in the speech becomes contagious, and let us hope that all of us as Members of this deliberate body can join together in trying to figure ways to make every American safer, Democrat, Republican or Independent, bringing together a better world where we are talking and communicating and helping each other in the Nation, whether it is the fight against AIDS in Africa or whether it is terrorism in the Middle East or whether it is freeing people from tyranny.

Let us join together in a pledge that in order to form a more perfect union, we must be organized together as citizens first and politicians second. Our political parties are not the most important credential on this floor. Our most important credential is citizens, Americans, and hopefully patriots.

I wish the President well tonight because his guidance and his expertise is needed by the American public, and I hope as young children hopefully are allowed to watch history and democracy in action here on the floor, we will see a President whose character cannot be questioned, whose administration has performed admirably, whose people have been at the forefront of the fight. I wish him well and I wish him success, and I know together, as Americans, his leadership, his vision will help every American find work in the new year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing the rule to the floor and for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, there is a commercial on these days that has a catch line, and it says, ``What is in your wallet?'' Well, I ask Members of Congress to ask themselves that very question, what is in your wallet?

I will tell you what is in mine. It is a card that I get as a Member of Congress. It says BlueCross BlueShield Federal Employee Program. It is a PPO. It has a prescription drug benefit attached to it, a $35 copayment. Certain attributes of this plan work for Members of this Congress.

In my congressional district I have the fifth largest Medicare- eligible population of 435 Members of this body, the fifth largest Medicare-eligible population. When I go home to my town hall meetings, they say, ``I want what you have. I want choice. I want opportunity.'' Interestingly enough, they do not say, ``I want it all, and I want it free.'' They want fairness, because they want the system to continue.

The harangues on this floor the last couple days are amazing. We have heard repeatedly, speaker after speaker, ``We haven't seen this bill; we haven't read this bill.'' But we have spent hours of time talking about what is bad about what is in this bill, so either they have not seen the bill, or they are just guessing what must be in the final work product.

For 4 years I have been on this committee, and I have met over on the other side of the Chamber with the respected Senator Bob Graham, Senator Harry Reid, at that time Senator Chuck Robb and a number of Members of the Senate as we tried to work out an opportunity to find a prescription drug plan that would suit the test of time and be financially equivalent, if you will.

In our bill there is a wellness provision which allows us to do diagnostic testing for cardiovascular disease, allows us to test for diabetes early, before the onset of these diseases. There is, in fact, a drug discount card that will be offered to those lower-income individuals who need assistance. That drug discount card will have, much like an ATM, $600 of purchasing power so they will have an opportunity to buy the vital drugs they need.

Many people on the other side of the aisle decided politically to sign the AARP pledge. If you read the pledge, it says all Medicare beneficiaries will have access to a stable prescription drug benefit on a voluntary basis. Not forced, not coerced, not mandatory. Affordable prices will be the rule, not the exception. We are trying to do that.

To those who suggest just reimport drugs from Canada, let me ask the basic question; read the articles in Florida in the newspapers where there have been numerous arrests because of counterfeit drugs coming from Canada.

Reasonable premiums, deductibles and copayments. Those are in the bill. Prescription coverage will leave no individual with extraordinary out-of-pocket costs. There is a catastrophic provision written into this legislation. Reduction in soaring drug costs will keep the program affordable. Extra help for low-income individuals. Help for rural communities that I represent with their hospitals, their ambulances, their doctors. We talk about a number of things in the bill that I think provide relief for every American. Increased fees, if you will, for physicians, increased index for the hospital what we call the market basket.

So if you look at the Medicare bill, yes, there may be problems for some. But AARP, which was, up until last week, described as the ``gold standard'' of senior lobbying organizations, has decided to take this first step with us.

Will this be a perfect vehicle? No. No legislation I have ever worked on in this process has ever been perfect. We have had to come back, work it, amend it, and deal with some of the consequences. And if we fail to make this critical step and pass this rule and pass this legislation, we will have surrendered our ability to bring seniors a necessary improvement to the Medicare health delivery system that they so vitally need.

So I urge my colleagues, support the rule and support the underlying legislation. Let us do for seniors what Claude Pepper and Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to do to enhance their safety and security.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I learned in the real estate business, you never leave the negotiations for fear they may fail and you do not get your commission. Today, I understand the Democrats are planning a walkout from this floor to protest Medicare legislation. Yesterday, uniquely, the Democrats were burning their AARP cards down the street. The only thing missing from that scene was Jane Fonda.

Mr. Speaker, the seniors of our country deserve a Medicare program that is updated for the 21st century, including prescription drugs. It is an opportunity to help our seniors with new technology, diagnostic tests for osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, diabetes. But no. If the Democrats do not get their way, they take the highway. That is discouraging for American seniors. And for them to ridicule and criticize AARP that just last week was the gold standard for senior lobbying organizations is somewhat a tremendous stain on the Democratic Party. Where are the leaders like Claude Pepper and Franklin Roosevelt?

I urge them to come to the floor today and work on Medicare legislation. Let us pass a bill for all seniors.