Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey- Emanuel amendment which is part of the en bloc amendment proposed by Chairman Regula. Our amendment is simple and straightforward. It requires patients to be notified if their medical records contained in the new national health information network are lost, stolen or used for unauthorized purposes.

While a national health information network could provide significant benefits for the entire medical community, that network must come with guaranteed privacy protections. As the revelations by MasterCard and Visa that the personal information of as many as 40 million customers was compromised demonstrates, identity theft has become an epidemic.

A national health information network without strong privacy protections would undermine all of its other benefits. Without privacy protections, patients won't have confidence that their medical records will be kept confidential, which is essential to quality health care.

In the 108th Congress, I introduced legislation to protect credit consumers' sensitive medical information. That bipartisan legislation was signed into law last year. By ``blacking out'' health information, we created a zone of privacy and gave consumers the confidence that their medical records are being protected. We should do the same thing here.

Mr. Chairman, major data security breaches are occurring on a daily basis and identity theft is the fastest-growing white collar crime in the country. It's essential that we get this right at the beginning by making strong privacy protections a part of this health information network.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 160, a bill recognizing Juneteenth Independence Day as an important event in our Nation's history.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in commemorating the end of slavery, and I believe Juneteenth Independence Day provides the people of the United States a unique opportunity to look back and reflect on the experiences that have shaped our national history.

This year marks the 140th commemoration of Juneteenth Independence Day, which was originally celebrated by slaves in Galveston Texas on June 19th, 1865. On that day, Union general Gordon Granger read aloud Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, signed more than two years earlier. With the arrival of Union troops in Texas, the Proclamation's promise of freedom was finally fulfilled and the last American slaves were freed.

Juneteenth Independence Day is the oldest known celebration of the end of slavery. It is intended to honor not only African-American freedom, but also promote respect for all cultures, and remind us of what it means to be an American.

Juneteenth Independence Day commemorates a moment when the United States took an important step towards achieving the vision established in the Declaration of Independence, an America which recognizes that we truly are all created equal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for introducing this important resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Senate we heard testimony of blatant fraud masquerading as a legitimate lobbying operation. And also yesterday, the Washington Post ran a front page story detailing the excesses of K Street, known as Lobbyists Avenue.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that these are gold rush times for professional lobbyists in Washington, DC. Since 2000, the number of professional lobbyists has more than doubled, to 34,000. Professional lobbyists have become the full service ``back office'' to Congress, arranging lavish fact-finding trips, writing legislation, and functioning as an employment agency for Members and staff.

Just as we put distance between donors and Members of Congress when they run for office, we need to do the same when it comes to professional lobbyists and Members of Congress who write the laws. Our bill, the Meehan-Emanuel bill, slows the revolving door between government and lobbying, enhances disclosure and transparency, curbs privately funded congressional junkets and gives teeth to enforcement mechanisms. With congressional approval at all-time lows, we must act now to restore public confidence.

Mr. Speaker, when your gavel comes down, it should mark the opening of the people's house, not the auction house.

Mr. Speaker, there are 1,917 American military personnel who have given their lives in the service of our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe these brave men and women, and their families, a debt of gratitude that can never fully be repaid.

It is our responsibility to honor the ultimate sacrifice that our men and women in uniform have made while serving our country. We often invoke their sacrifices in general. Seldom do we take the time to thank them individually.

My colleagues and I would like to take this hour and recognize these individual heroes on the floor of the people's House, their House. Over the next hour, and continuing next week until we finish, we will read the name and rank of each servicemember who has fallen in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of war.

By reading these names into the Congressional Record, we hope to ensure that our Nation never forgets their sacrifice, and their families will know that their loved ones will be part of the official Congressional Record.

As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, your loved one, ``stands in the unbroken line of Patriots who have dared to die that freedom might live, and grow and increase its blessings. Freedom lives, and through it he lives, in a way that humbles the undertakings of most men.''

God bless, and keep each of the brave Americans whose memory we now honor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

1. Specialist Steven Daniel Conover

2. Staff Sergeant Daniel A. Bader

3. Private First Class Rayshawn S. Johnson

4. Sergeant Francisco Martinez

5. Specialist Robert T. Benson

6. Sergeant First Class Jose A. Rivera

7. Sergeant Paul F. Fisher

8. Specialist James A. Chance III

9. Specialist James R. Wolf

10. Sergeant Scott C. Rose

11. Command Sergeant Major Cornell W. Gilmore I

12. Chief Warrant Officer Kyran E. Kennedy

13. Captain Benedict J. Smith

14. Staff Sergeant Paul M. Neff II

15. Staff Sergeant Morgan DeShawn Kennon

16. Chief Warrant Officer Sharon T. Swartworth

17. Private Kurt R. Frosheiser

18. Staff Sergeant Mark D. Vasquez

19. Staff Sergeant Gary L. Collins

20. Sergeant Nicholas A. Tomko

21. Specialist Genaro Acosta

22. Specialist Marlon P. Jackson

23. Specialist Robert A. Wise

24. Staff Sergeant Nathan J. Bailey

25. Private First Class Jacob S. Fletcher

26. Sergeant Joseph Minucci II

27. Specialist Irving Medina

28. Sergeant Timothy L. Hayslett

29. Sergeant Warren S. Hansen

30. Private First Class Damian L. Heidelberg

31. Specialist Ryan T. Baker

32. Specialist William D. Dusenbery

33. Sergeant Michael D. Acklin II

34. Specialist Eugene A. Uhl III

35. Sergeant First Class Kelly Bolor

36. Chief Warrant Officer Erik C. Kesterson

37. Chief Warrant Officer Scott A. Saboe

38. Sergeant John W. Russell

39. Specialist John R. Sullivan

40. Second Lieutenant Jeremy L. Wolfe

41. Specialist Jeremiah J. DiGiovanni

42. Private First Class Joey D. Whitener

43. Captain Pierre E. Piche

44. Private First Class Richard W. Hafer

45. Chief Warrant Officer Alexander S. Coulter

46. Captain James A. Shull

47. Staff Sergeant Dale A. Panchot

48. Captain Nathan S. Dalley

49. Private Scott Matthew Tyrrell

50. Captain George A. Wood

51. Specialist Joseph L. Lister

52. Corporal Gary B. Coleman

53. Private First Class Damian S. Bushart

54. Specialist Robert D. Roberts

55. Specialist Rel A. Ravago IV

56. Command Sergeant Major Jerry L. Wilson

57. Staff Sergeant Eddie E. Meny-weather

58. Chief Warrant Officer Christopher G. Nason

59. Corporal Darrell L. Smith

60. Specialist David J. Goldberg

61. Specialist Thomas J. Sweet II

62. Sergeant Ariel Rico

63. Staff Sergeant Stephen A. Bertolino

64. Specialist Aaron J. Sissel

65. Specialist Uday Singh

66. Chief Warrant Officer Clarence E. Boone

67. Specialist Raphael S. Davis

68. Sergeant Ryan C. Young

69. Specialist Arron R. Clark

70. Private First Class Ray J. Hutchinson

71. Private First Class Jason G. Wright

72. Specialist Christopher Jude Rivera Wesley

73. Specialist Joseph M. Blickenstaff

74. Staff Sergeant Steven H. Bridges

75. Specialist Todd M. Bates

76. Staff Sergeant Richard A. Burdick

77. Private First Class Jerrick M. Petty

78. Staff Sergeant Aaron T. Reese

79. Specialist Marshall L. Edgerton

80. Private First Class Jeffrey F. Braun

81. Sergeant Jarrod W. Black

82. Staff Sergeant Kimberly A. Voelz

83. Specialist Rian C. Ferguson

84. Private First Class Kenneth C. Souslin

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) beginning with the names reading from 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Speaker, recently some Senate Republicans have unveiled a proposal to dedicate the Social Security surplus to private accounts. Having worked in an administration that not only proposed saving Social Security first, but having dedicated the Social Security surplus funds to strengthening the system, I assume that this new idea has some concepts of how to pay back the $800 billion that has already been taken out of the surplus over the last 6 years. All of a sudden we have discovered we are going to dedicate the Social Security surplus to Social Security.

I welcome their new-found conviction, but I assume it also includes an idea of how to pay back the $800 billion that we have already diverted from the surplus already diverted from Social Security. What I did not read is how they are going to do that.

The Democratic position has been consistent since 1998: Save Social Security first. The President lacks a plan

on how to do that. The half-baked plan being touted in the Senate fundamentally misses the goal here, which is to strengthen Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not fools. They have rejected the President's proposal for privatization, and they will undoubtedly reject this new proposal. People like the security that comes with Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, today some Members of the Republican Party, House and Senate, unveiled a proposal to use a surplus in the Social Security trust fund for private accounts. And they said that in their words, we are going to keep the Social Security surplus Social Security.

Well, that is interesting. For the last 3 years my colleagues on the other side said there was never ever a surplus in Social Security; there were no accounts in Social Security. In fact, just a month ago or a little more than a month ago, the President of the United States went to West Virginia, unveiled an old filing cabinet, if I am using his words correctly, and said, look at it. That is the Social Security surplus. As I quote him, and this is the President, ``There is no Social Security trust fund. Just IOUs stacked in a filing cabinet.''

All of the sudden now they want to say they have discovered there is a surplus in Social Security. Well, to tell you the truth, we have always known there was a surplus in Social Security. In fact, the Republican Party over the last 5 years has taken $650 billion out of the Social Security trust fund. And now they want to act like recent converts that we are going to keep the surplus for Social Security.

Democrats have said for well over 70 years, and as recently as 1998, save Social Security first. Do not go waste it on tax cuts for the wealthy. Do not waste that money. It is dedicated. It has been paid with the commitment for Social Security; and so now today under a new discovery, Republicans have realized that there is a surplus in Social Security. They are going to dedicate it, they say, to Social Security. But the problem is the President of the United States was in West Virginia just a short time ago, less than 2 months ago and said there is no surplus in Social Security.

I am sure within short order they will all collectively get their stories straight and figure out whether there is or is not a surplus. But whatever you do, do me one favor, just pay back the $650 billion you have taken out of that Social Security trust fund that good, hard- working Americans who rely on it just like my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), just a moment ago spoke about they rely on the Social Security checks. Forty percent of the households in America have no other retirement plan plus Social Security; 80 percent of small business employees in this country have no other retirement account plus Social Security. They rely on the checks they pay and the money they pay every month or bi-monthly into the trust fund.

So as you become recent believers that there is a surplus, you have been practicing some of the great absconding of resources; $650 billion over the last 5 years you have taken out of that account.

I did not see anything about that in today's paper as some were touting that in their plan, but I am sure as they come to figure out their math that they will realize they owe some money back before they talk about integrity of the Social Security surplus.

Clearly, the American people understand that. So before we try to privatize Social Security or do anything fundamentally to alter the Social Security trust fund, the first thing we should do is guarantee that Social Security is there for future generations. To date, the President has yet to make a proposal, and the half-baked plan being out touted by the House and Senate today fundamentally misses the same objective.

The goal here is to strengthen Social Security. The head of the General Accountability Office, when testifying in front of the Committee on Ways and Means, said the President's plan on privatization would actually exacerbate the issue of Social Security's solvency. The goal is not to change Social Security. The goal is not to exacerbate its solvency. The goal is to strengthen Social Security.

That is why the first order of business is return the $650 billion. Both the President's past ideas and the plans talked about today would exacerbate the problem of Social Security solvency.

What we should deal with is the shortage of savings in this country, by the fact that Americans are stretched thin, they do not have the capability to save for their retirement because they are meeting their housing needs, their educational needs, their health care needs that are becoming more and more stressful on the paycheck, to get them from the 1st of the month to the 31st of the month.

There are ideas that exist out there. As I told you, 80 percent of all small business employees have no plan outside of Social Security. Social Security is their retirement plan. In 40 percent of all households in America, Social Security is the only retirement they can rely on, and I will tell you this as a Member of Congress, who represents people in the airline industry, specifically United Airlines, after what happened to their retirement plans that they saved for, one thing I can tell you about that is the United Airlines employees are happy Social Security is there. They like the security that comes with Social Security.

The ideas that we as Democrats have offered, let me run through them quickly, Mr. Speaker, if I can: automatic enrollment in 401(k)s for all Americans; direct deposit of tax refunds into personal savings accounts; a government match for the first $2,000 you save, matching it 50 percent; a universal 401(k) to simplify the 16 different savings plans that exist on the Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not fools. They rejected the President's privatization of Social Security. They will reject this half-baked plan. To put it simply, people like the security that comes with Social Security.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for standing up for democratic principle, for finally saying what needed to be said. During a speech in Cairo yesterday, Secretary Rice criticized Middle East leaders for failing to encourage democracy.

My colleagues in this Chamber know well that when I disagree with this administration, I let my opinion be known. I disagree with their proposals for Social Security, their stewardship of the economy, their plan for the Iraq war and occupation, and how they treat critics. Yet, on advocating Mid-East Democracy, I do not disagree. I agree with the Secretary of State and her comments.

Unfortunately, when it comes to our allies in the Middle East, America too often turns a blind eye to their failings of leadership. We rightfully denounce countries with repressive regimes like those in Iran and Syria, but others such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia receive a pass.

Yesterday, Secretary Rice spoke up on behalf of America; she represented the best of American ideals and our steadfast belief in basic human rights and democracy. This will serve America well as we battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.

Madam Speaker, I do not often agree with this administration, but I know a good thing when I see it. When it comes to democracy and all that comes with democracy, no one gets a pass.

Mr. Speaker, we often hear that the American people have a negative opinion of the job we do here in Congress. In fact, recent polling indicates that 53 percent of the country disapproves of the way Congress handles its job.

In a recent CNN poll, 71 percent of the American people said Congress fails to share their priorities and values. Some around here may wonder why that is. Could it be because while American families struggle to pay their education bills, their medical bills, save for their retirement, this Congress has come to be handing out special favors, and that is all they see of this Congress?

Could it be because ours has become a government of the special interests, for the special interests? Mr. Speaker, when your gavel comes down, it is to open the people's House, not the auction house. What have the American people seen of late?

They have seen that when we had a tax bill problem of $4 billion on the corporate side, we were trying to fix a $4 billion problem, it ended up costing the taxpayers $150 billion in special interest favors. Only in this Congress, only in this country could you stick the taxpayers with a $150 billion bill to bail out corporate interests, when you were trying to fix only a $4 billion problem.

And rather than creating jobs as the bill was intended, it is creatively named the Jobs Creation Bill, it was nothing more than a multi-billion dollar giveaway to special interests. Or consider last year's prescription drug bill for Medicare.

It is about an $800 billion handout to the prescription drug industry after having been one of the largest contributors to the campaign committee, both for Democrats and Republicans; and it actually ended up with producing an additional $153 billion in profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

While we were working on that legislation, a Member of this body was actually negotiating a job to go to work for that industry and represent it. Or now that we are talking about the energy bill, we are talking about a $14 billion taxpayer giveaway to the energy industry, and oil is now being charged at $59 a barrel.

If it is not profitable at $59 a barrel, what more do we have to give them? Neither does it ever reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And the pundits here in Washington wonder why the American people out in the country do not like their Congress?

But it is not just the administration and their congressional allies that have worked to craft legislation benefiting a single industry. In some cases the special interests actually sit at the table drafting the legislation that impacts them.

For instance, recently we were all shocked to learn that Philip Cooney, the former chief of staff for the White House counsel on environmental quality and a former lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, consistently changed government reports on global warming.

After leaving the White House, and having been discovered having literally changed government reports on the impacts of global warming, where does he end up with a job? Exxon, a company opposed to any legislation on global warming. Then there is the tobacco lawsuit. The U.S. Government won its case handily against Big Tobacco; but rather then seeking the maximum penalty of $130 billion, the government suddenly decided to only ask for $10 billion where Philip Morris' attorney said they were very surprised at this decision.

Nobody seems to know how the decision was made, but in the past weeks it

has become clear that the associate attorney general, Robert McCalum, a former employee at a firm representing tobacco executives and industry, forced the government to reduce its own penalties to pennies on the dollar.

But if Americans are not turned off by the corporate goodies dished out by Congress, and if industry execs crafting the policies that benefit their own companies do not get them worked up, maybe it is the revolving door between the public and private sector.

As I mentioned, a colleague of ours went off to represent the prescription drug industry known as Big Pharma, after having passed an $800 billion prescription drug bill.

And, by the way, the chairman of the health subcommittee dealing with the very same bill is now employed by other drug companies. Mr. Speaker, the American people are concerned that Congress does not reflect their priorities or their values. Sadly, they are right.

We have a government that has become beholden to the special interests; and their voices, the voices of the American people have been quieted by the voices of the special interests.

And as far as the government special interests are concerned, this is the best government money can buy. Mr. Speaker, the gavel marks the opening of the people's HOUSE, not the auction house. This election is about returning that gavel to its rightful owners, the American people.

The President and his advisors tout the fact that they do not pay attention to polling data. Well, maybe, it is time they did, because the message is loud and clear, the American people want their House back.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the President said, ``Those who obstruct reform, no matter what party they are in, will pay a political price.''

Ironically, it is not the Democrats that are slowing Social Security reform, but the President's insistence on the privatization of Social Security. The privatization of Social Security has become the poison pill to progress.

In a world where retirements have become less, not more secure, people like the security that comes with Social Security, as the United Airlines employees have just told us. The American people have overwhelming rejected the President's proposal for privatization of Social Security. It is time to move on.

We Democrats have retirement security ideas, such as a 401(k) automatic enrollment, direct deposit of tax returns into 401(k)s, a 50- percent government match for savings. Republicans have ideas as well, and we are not all that far apart. But before we can move forward, privatization of Social Security has to come off the table, just like it was removed in 1983, that led to a 75-year security of Social Security.

We can choose to lead, or we can endlessly debate the privatization of Social Security, a plan the American people have already rejected. Let us not allow the President's privatization to stand in the way of progress.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Justice Department's decision to launch an investigation into whether or not the political pressure played a role in their decision to only seek a fraction of the possible penalty against the tobacco industry.

The U.S. Government won its case against Big Tobacco; but rather than seeking the maximum penalty of $130 billion, the government suddenly decided to ask for only $10 billion. Funny enough, that was equal to the amount of the taxpayer bail-out of the industry last year approved by this Congress.

The stunning reversal shocked everyone, including Philip Morris' lawyer, who said the company was very surprised.

Nobody seems to know how the decision was made. Some are saying that it had something to do with the $40 million tobacco companies have given to the Republican Party since 1990. Or that it could have something to do with the $170,000 they gave to President Bush last year. But that would be cynical. After all, what does $40 million really get you nowadays?

Mr. Speaker, Americans want their justice unfiltered. Maybe we will even be able to get to the bottom of this Keystone Kops situation.

Mr. Speaker, in discussing the collapse of his retirement plan and pension plan, United Airlines pilot Klaus Meyer said, ``I call it legalized crime. I lost almost all my United stock value in the bankruptcy, and another part of the retirement I was promised is gone. And now my Social Security is at risk. Where does it all end?''

Mr. Meyer's statement is a stark reminder of what is at stake as we continue to debate the future of Social Security. The sad fact is that for many Americans retirements are less, not more, secure and any debate about Social Security should be about how to secure its future rather than make it more risky. In fact, the head of the GAO announced that the President's plan would in fact exacerbate the financial stability of Social Security, rather than strengthen it.

The whole task is to do two things: strengthen Social Security for future generations and help Americans save for their retirement. Make no mistake, Social Security and the debate about retirement is key to the future of Americans' retirements. For United Airlines employees, and the steel industry that came before the airline industry, and probably the auto industry that will come after them, Social Security is the linchpin of their retirement security.

Our task before us is how to strengthen both aspects as Americans plan to retire and save for their retirement.

As John Pinto, another United States airline employee put it, ``Social Security is the cornerstone of my retirement.'' That is our task here. Every American is asked to plan for their retirement with personal savings, employment-based savings, and Social Security. Those are the three legs to the stool of any retirement plan and any retirement security. The privatization of Social Security would exacerbate the stability that Social Security has created for millions of Americans as they plan for their retirement.

Benefits for United Airlines employees would be cut up to 40 percent, retirement benefits that they have put money away for, they have saved for, they have done everything that we as a country advocate that they do; 120,000 employees have now been cut up to 40 percent. As I always say, go ask a United Airlines employee what they think of Social Security. They are glad that it is there and they can count on it. It is the linchpin, it is the foundation for all of their retirement security.

Two-thirds of seniors and 40 percent of widows rely on Social Security as their entire retirement plan. It may come as a shock to some, but the American people like the security that comes with Social Security.

A few weeks ago, the President said, ``Those who obstruct reform, no matter what party they are in, will pay a political price.'' Ironically, it is the President's insistence on privatization of Social Security that is slowing the reform and progress we could have in our retirement security. He is, in fact, the reason we are not making progress. Privatization has become the poison pill to progress when we discuss retirement security for Americans.

We need to broaden the debate on privatization of Social Security into a discussion on retirement security. I proposed a series of ideas, Republicans have proposed a series of ideas, Democrats have ideas. If we put away privatization, we can make progress.

I would like to remind everybody that in 1983, when we had the commission that developed and planned for the future of Social Security and gave it security for 75 years, President Ronald Reagan took privatization off the table, and you secured Social Security for 75 years. If you take privatization off the table today, you can secure Social Security for another 75 years, and we can make progress on 401(k)s, employer-based retirement, defined benefit pensions, as well as personal savings. We can do it all. But as long as privatization is on the table, it will become the stumbling block to progress, and the President's insistence is stopping the progress we can make.

Here are the four ideas I have introduced, separate pieces of legislation: Automatic enrollment to 401(k)s. Rather than the pressure being on an employee to line up and sign up for a 401(k), have them automatically enroll, and the pressure is, if you do not want to participate, the onus of responsibility is on you to get out, not in. RR Donnelley, a big corporation in Chicago, Fortune 500, set up automatic enrollment. Participation went up to 92 percent of employees, and the participation rate increased dramatically among basically support staff and others who do not have a retirement plan. Also, you would have the automatic step-up so as you were there longer, your pay went up, the participation in your plan increases.

Direct deposits from your tax refunds into your savings plan. About 100 million Americans get a refund on their tax return. The average tax return is $2,000. When you fill out the 1040, you can decide, do I want $1,000, $750, $2,000 to go to my retirement plan? That is the one day we should organize for retirement security rather than just for consumption. And if you have direct deposit, more Americans would participate.

Third, there is the fully refundable credit for people earning $60,000 or less. The government would match 50 percent on every dollar.

Lastly, we have 16 various different vehicles for retirement savings. You could, in fact, unify that to one single, universal pension and get rid of all of the paperwork that comes with 16 different versions of savings.

Those are just four ideas, but when it comes to retirement security, let us remove privatization from the discussion, secure Social Security and, therefore, secure for Americans and generations to come retirement security and the dignity that comes with Social Security and with retirement.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, this Congress approved an additional $82 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is on top of the other $220 billion that we had appropriated, raising the total cost of this war to more than $300 billion. If that was not enough, this week we are about to approve another $45 billion as a bridge loan for the operations in Iraq, bringing the cost up to $350 billion. What have we gotten ourselves and what have we accomplished in the last 2 plus years and after nearly now $350 billion of American taxpayer money?

We defeated Saddam Hussein's regime, but today we find ourselves mired in an endless occupation with the inability to find a way out of our occupation of Iraq. In fact, the generals there say we are years off from ever being able to extricate ourselves from Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of choice. As President Kennedy once said, ``To govern is to choose.'' One can only hope that the war in Iraq was the right choice.

Every President in the middle of a war has thought and laid out a vision of America after that war, how to see of all the sacrifices that America made, how the benefits of the war would come home. President Lincoln thought of the land grant colleges and the transcontinental railroad system in the midst of a civil war. He saw a way of building America when it became clear we were going to win that war. President Roosevelt, the GI bill and universal health care; President Truman, the minimum wage, universal health care; President Eisenhower, on the heels of the beginning days of the Cold War as well as the closing days of the Korean War, the Interstate Highway System today. President Kennedy, in the midst of Vietnam and the early days of his administration of a cold war, envisioned a man on the moon and NASA, where America would dominate space and all the benefits that would come from that. President Johnson saw health care as his vision, Medicare and Medicaid.

While we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Americans have lost 1,700 of their fellow citizens, over 10,000 who have been wounded and cost us $350 billion of taxpayer-funded entities and a taxpayer- funded war, what is our vision? What has this President said? How does he see America down that horizon, that point out there on the horizon as you look forward? What are we going to build? What vision do we lay for the next generation for all the sacrifices Americans have made, not just in blood and in treasure, but for our sense of our country?

As I said, President Lincoln saw an intercontinental railroad system. This President wants to eliminate Amtrak. President Eisenhower built highways. The highway system we have today was laid out by President Eisenhower. President Bush is threatening to veto the highway bill. President Kennedy saw a man on the Moon. The President has walked away from his vision of putting a man on Mars. President Roosevelt saw a GI bill for the troops to come home. Just this last week we cut or eliminated the opportunity for our National Guard and reservists to get health care.

Every President during the midst of a war has had a vision of America after that war that was bigger, grander and worth all the sacrifice that said the benefits of that war, America's prestige, would come home in material benefits to America. That is why we have an intercontinental highway system. That is why we had a railroad system. That is why we had the land grant colleges. That is why we put a man on the Moon. We saw a vision, every President that led this country both through war and then through peace.

It is at this time that this President needs to lay out a vision, and, let me tell you, it needs to be larger than a tax cut. That is not a vision. Somehow, do we have a universal broadband, so America leads again technologically? Would you see in the midst of a war a President who submits a budget that cuts the National Institutes of Health, a President who eliminates from the National Science Foundation $100 million from its budget, yet we placed 16th for the first time in computer sciences? That is not a vision of America that goes forward. That is a smaller, a reduced America, an America that does not see itself in the grand scheme of things.

When President Bush ran for the nomination in 2000, he announced that he was against nation-building. You look sometimes at this budget, you look at what he has done, and who knew it was America he was talking about when it came to nation-building? It is time for this President to lay out a vision that says, with all the sacrifices, his vision for America, what we are going to do. We are going to build in the science, we are going to build in the medical field, we are going to provide universal health care. What is it? It has got to be more than a veto of a highway bill, and it has got to be more than the elimination of 60 vocational programs. It has got to be more than walking away from landing a man on Mars. It has got to be a vision that says the sacrifice was worthy of this country and its great commitment to democracy around the world.

Mr. Speaker, we have a tax system that is needlessly complicated and burdensome to the middle class. It is time for fundamental tax reform that reflects the values and the interests of all Americans, not the special interests.

When President Bush announced his tax reform commission, he said his core principle was that it should not hurt government revenues.

Democrats believe that the core principle of tax reform is that tax reform should help the middle class achieve their goals. Tax reform is about the middle class and economic growth, not about government revenue.

In the last 4 years the Tax Code has been filled with special breaks for special interests. At the same time, the tax burdens have shifted from the wealthy to those who work, from dividend to wages.

What should we do?

Combine the five educational tax breaks to one tax break for higher education for $3,000 for everybody going to college; unify the various child credits and earned income tax credit to a single simplified tax family credit; simplify the 16 different versions of the Tax Code for savings to one universal 401(k) pension; and, finally, encourage homeownership. We should create a universal mortgage deduction for all taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, we need a tax system that reflects the American values and fosters the American Dream, not the current system written by and for the special interests.

Madam Speaker, today in the Committee on Ways and Means we are holding a hearing on tax reform. We have a tax system that is needlessly complicated, inequitable, and burdensome to the middle class. We need fundamental tax reform that reflects the values and the interests of our middle-class families, not the special interests.

President Bush when he announced the commission said his core principle is that tax reform should not adversely affect government revenues. The democratic core principle of tax reform is it should not adversely affect the middle class, not the government. It is the middle class that is our taxpayer.

In the last 4 years, the Tax Code has been filled with special breaks for special interests. At the same time, the tax burden has shifted from wealth to work, form passive dividends to daily wages.

Madam Speaker, four objectives of tax reform:

Take the five different educational tax breaks for college education and make it one $3,000 credit per child going to college.

Second, simplify family credit. Take the earned income tax credit, the per child and the dependent care and go from 20 pages of code down to 12 questions.

Third, on retirement, bring the 16 different versions of the Tax Code on savings down to a universal pension.

Madam Speaker, these things would help the middle class eliminate burdensome paperwork and eliminate pages and pages of Tax Code and help the middle class achieve a middle-class dream.

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for her great work.

Madam Chairman, this year, just like last year and the year before, an amendment banning the use of funds to stop reimportation of prescription drugs has been added to this legislation. It does feel like Ground Hog Day around here. We all know the next part of the story. So if you are going to stay up late at night watching C-SPAN, just put it on TiVo. You do not have to stay up.

Once again, after we pass it here, and we are going to stand and give our speeches, the conferees from both parties, both Chambers, are going to go to the conference, and in the dark of night this provision is going to be stripped from the bill that would help our senior citizens and our taxpayers get affordable drugs at affordable prices. The pharmaceutical companies will come in and do their bidding, and this Congress will turn around and heed their interests.

After the American people have spoken clearly, this Congress last year when we voted for this overwhelmingly, just as recently as 2 weeks ago 221 bipartisan Members of Congress sent a letter to the Speaker asking for an up-or-down vote on this legislation. Here we have an attempt to make sure that the Congress and the voice of the American people is clear on the issue of funding for reimportation; and in the dark of night, mark my words, they will strip this out, as they did last year, as they did the year before, and Ground Hog Day will come to the United States Congress.

Instead of using the money and the limited resources we have to help develop a system to allow for drug reimportation, the FDA has insisted on using their time and the precious resources of the American people to crack down on elderly Americans who purchase affordable prescription drugs from Canada, England, Ireland, and the rest of Europe because they cannot afford those medications here.

The FDA has even seized the drugs purchased through the State- sponsored programs like the Illinois I-Save Rx program. As Senator Frist would say, all we are asking is for an up-or-down vote, and that is what we would like on reimportation.

Let us listen to the American people, to the will of the bipartisan Members of Congress and allow a vote on this comprehensive prescription drug importation legislation this year.

I would like to thank my colleague from Connecticut for her leadership on this. For the Members who want it to be clear, I would just hope the American people have an opportunity to watch what happens in the dark of night so we do not repeat Ground Hog Day around here.