Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, since everybody wants to talk about the 1997 plan and what we did, just so we can all have a rendezvous with the record here, in fact we cut taxes on middle-class families with the introduction of the $500-per-child tax cut for people making $100,000 or less. We increased spending in higher education. We created the Children's Health Insurance Program, a $24 billion program for the children of uninsured parents who worked. We invested more dollars in environmental cleanup. We made long-term investments in the health of this country, which is in health care, education, and the environment. We expanded charter schools up to $2,000.

So we in fact paid for those spendings because they were good investments. We reduced the deficit down to a balanced budget, and we cut taxes for middle-class and working class families.

What we did not do was say every tax cut is good and every spending increase is bad. Some tax cuts are good. The $500 per child, which was the introduction in 1997, was a very good tax cut.

In 1993 we cut taxes on working families with the doubling of the earned income tax credit, which was originally created by Ronald Reagan in the 1983 budget.

So, in fact, not all tax cuts are bad; but when you have a tax cut for corporate jets and yet you put a squeeze on middle-class families, those are bad choices. As President Kennedy once said, to govern is to choose. When you make investments, not all spending by government is good; there is a lot of waste. But when you invest in uninsured children of working parents, 10 million of them who finally get health care and you pay for it, you are a better country and those are good investments.

When you expand the investments in opening the doors of college education, doubling the size of Pell grants as we did in 1997, that is a good thing. When we provided for middle-class families a tax deduction for a college education, we created the lifetime learning, the HOPE scholarship for continuing learning, those are good tax cuts. They led an investment boom, an economic boom which all incomes enjoyed, not just the top 1 percent, as is happening now.

So to compare what happened in 1997, to think fondly of your memory, we increased our investments and government spending in the areas of health care, education, and the environment, we cut taxes for middle- class families, and used the rule of putting our fiscal house in order. And all of those investments, all of those tax cuts started with the notion that we had to have a balanced budget.

The difference today is our tax cuts are skewed not to middle-class families, not to working families; they are skewed towards people who make money from money where the burden on people who work for a living are carrying more of the tax burden than those who do not.

So not all tax cuts are good and not all spending is good. We have to make choices based on an economic strategy.

Today, we have had the most anemic wage growth for middle-class families:

1 percent. College costs this year went up 14 percent; last year, 10 percent; and the year before that, 11 percent. Health care costs have gone up by a third, and people's savings have lost their net value by $200 billion in the last 2 years. That is the economic condition of our middle-class families, and we need an economic strategy that puts our fiscal house in order, reflects the priorities that American families are facing by making sure we invest in health care, invest in education, invest in the environment, and give middle-class families, rather than corporate jets, which your budget and your economic plan does, give middle-class families the type of tax cuts they deserve because they are trying to raise their children. That is where we should invest our limited dollars.

This PAYGO rule begins by putting the budget of the Federal Government back in order, as the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) voted for in 1997 and made sure every tax cut was paid for, made sure every investment in spending was paid for. Those were good economic times. They created 22 million jobs. We need to go back to that strategy. It was good in 1997, and it will be good in 2004.

Mr. Speaker, the past 3 years show a tale of two economies and an unprecedented redistribution of wealth in this country resulting in one economy for middle-class families and one for the special interests.

While there is a profits boom for corporations and a compensation boom for the CEOs, there is a growing wage and benefits recession for the middle class. To those who say redistribution of wealth is wrong, I agree. I say redistributing the wealth to the wealthy is wrong and bad economics.

The tale of two economies is a contrast fueled by executive compensation that too often bears no relation to performance and regressive tax policies that punish work and reward wealth, creating an upside-down economy that has shifted the tax burden from wealth to work, burdening middle-class families already facing skyrocketing health care costs, skyrocketing and rising tuition costs, job uncertainty, and retirement insecurity.

While this administration creates tax loopholes for corporate jet use and has reduced the audits of millionaires, it is auditing hundreds of thousands of people and families earning $30,000 or less. This is the essence of class warfare. And as the famed investment adviser, Mr. Buffet, once said, ``There is class warfare and my class is winning.''

A report this week, recently out and reported by Bloomberg in the Chicago Tribune showed U.S. corporate profits have increased by 87 percent between the third quarter of 2001 and the end of 2003. Compensation for the average CEO got a big raise of 8.7 percent while salaried employees have seen an anemic increase of 1.5 percent. That is the lowest salary and wage growth since World War II in the beginning of an ``economic boom.''

Bill McDonough, the former chairman of the New York Fed, and now chairman of the Public Accounting Oversight Board, describes the gap between CEO and worker pay as ``immoral.'' That is his quote. And the New York Fed is not a bastion of liberalism. He notes that in 1980, CEO pay was 40 times higher than the average salaried employee and now is 500 times higher. He sums it up, and I quote, ``I know a lot of CEOs from 1980, and I can assure you the CEOs of 2000 are not 10 times better.''

The performance of Ken Lay from Enron, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom bear his statement out. At every turn the administration tells us the economy is coming along. That may be true in the executive suites and board rooms, but the other economy has created the largest income disparities in this Nation.

David Rosenberg, chief economist at Merrill Lynch, one of the leading investment banking firms on Wall Street, said, and I quote, ``The income from the recovery has been locked up in the corporate sector. We have had a redistribution of income to the corporate sector.''

This redistribution has been accelerated by the President's economic and tax policies. A study cited by The New York Times this week found that Americans are being taxed more than twice as heavily on earnings from work as they are on investment income, even though more than half of all investment goes to the wealthiest 5 percent of taxpayers.

While this administration has been cutting taxes, the rest of working America have been literally going from paycheck to paycheck and having a tax increase. As paychecks have often been effectively frozen for many, what has happened to their lives? Health care costs have gone up from $6,500 for a family of four in 2001 to $9,000 today. College tuition costs have gone up 10 percent in 2001, 10 percent in 2002, and 14 percent in 2003. $180 billion worth of retirement securities locked in 401(k)s have lost their net value.

We have literally put a squeeze on the middle-class family, and what we have today is the end of the middle class as we know it.

As President Bush seeks reelection, he can say he kept his commitment to the top 1 percent of America. The other 99 percent has not made out quite so well. This administration has two books, two sets of values, two sets of priorities, and a single economic strategy that divides the country along class. Compared to how Americans view their futures, we cannot deny the middle-class families the same dreams of affordable health care, quality education, a safe place to live that the most fortunate in this country have today.

A government that pays no heed to the yawning gap between rich and the middle class does it at its own peril.

As Louis Brandeis, a famous Supreme Court Justice, once said, ``We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of House Resolution 622, ``Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day.'' Now more than ever our nation relies on the valor and commitment of our peace officers to protect our families and communities each day and in times of crisis. I am privileged to know many fine police officers, including my Uncle Les, a dedicated and long time officer with the Chicago Police Department.

Last year, 145 police officers were killed in the line of duty. While this is a significant drop from previous years, the death of any officer is a tragedy and loss felt deeply in our communities. I join with my colleagues in honoring the memory and sacrifices of these heroes, and I applaud the continued service of law enforcement and all public safety workers who face danger every day to protect our streets and our schools.

As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to support our nation's law enforcement officers and supply them with all of the tools and resources they need to ensure their safety and ours. Our support means action, not just empty rhetoric. The men and women in blue have asked us to take action on renewing the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, set to expire on September 13th. Indeed, a broad coalition of law enforcement advotates, including the membership of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the American Probation and Parole Association are among many others who have urged Congress to pass an extension of this legislation, which has proven an effective and life-saving law. To date, their call for this common sense remedy to gun crimes has gone unanswered.

These organizations and the police officers they represent support the ban because it works. Before the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, one in five police officers killed in the line of duty were attacked with assault weapons. The year after the ban passed, that figure dropped to zero. This single statistic speaks volumes for its effectiveness. Another case in point: In 1991, assault weapons were used in eight percent all gun crimes. By 2003 it was only one percent. If we allow the ban to expire, our peace officers will be subjected to the proliferation of assault weapons and their lives will be needlessly placed in greater danger.

This past Sunday--Mothers Day 2003--thousands of women gathered on the west lawn of the Capitol to mourn the death of children lost to gun violence. This coming Saturday, 20,000 peace officers will gather at the same place to remember their fallen brothers and sisters. What better way to express our support for them than by renewing the assault weapons ban. I believe Congress should go a step further by closing the gun show loophole and enacting sensible safety protections. We owe it to the families of our fallen heroes to pass these life-savings measures.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Gentleman from Colorado for introducing this important resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it. I also urge the leadership to bring the Assault Weapons Ban to the floor for a vote. That would be the most meaningful and effective demonstration of our support and to honor America's peace officers and their invaluable role in the safety of our families and communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lake View High School for its outstanding commitment to educating our community on the occasion of its 130th anniversary celebration.

Lake View High School opened its doors on May 4, 1874, with an enrollment of eight students. A larger school was built after a fire destroyed the main building in March of 1885. After several more additions in the following decades, the school now covers an entire square block and is home to over 1,000 students.

After opening its doors 130 years ago, Lake View High School continues to advance its vision of motivating students toward excellence and responsibility in learning. With these tools, students are provided with a backbone of literacy and competence for later in life.

As the oldest high school in Illinois, Lake View has set an example of educational excellence. Accepting students from throughout Chicago, the school cultivates the growth of accelerated learning opportunities through its Scholars program and Academy Programs in Math, International Languages, and Science and Technology.

Lake View High School's continuing record of accomplishment is also due in no small part to the vision of the administrators who have guided the school through the years. Lake View's 13th principal, Mr. Scott Feaman, has managed the school with distinction for the past nine years. Lake View's consistent record of scholastic achievement is testimony to the passion of both students and administrators.

I have had the honor of participating in several events at Lake View High School, and I have been consistently impressed with the maturity and thoughtfulness its students possess. Lake View continues to do an excellent job of grooming the leaders of tomorrow, and I have no doubt that some of Lake View's current students will join Chicago Alderman Gene Schulter, Reverend George Rice and screen star Gloria Swanson in Lake View's annals of distinguished alumni.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to join with the people of the Ravenswood neighborhood and all of Chicago in congratulating Lake View High School on their 130th Anniversary, and wish them continued growth and success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, since April 1 this body has been in session 11 days. In those 11 days of legislative activity, we have named eight post offices and other Federal buildings, authorized the use of the Capitol grounds for the Soap Box Derby, congratulated the University of Connecticut, the University of Denver and Kennesaw State for their sports achievements.

Mr. Speaker, since April 1, 163 soldiers died in Iraq, bringing the total to 767.

Yesterday, the administration announced that it will keep our current troop level through 2005, and that we will need another $25 billion on top of the $112 billion already spent.

But while we name post offices and congratulate sports teams, our constituents are asking us the whys and the hows of Iraq. When the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the majority leader refuse to hold hearings, they are failing America.

As President Kennedy once said, ``An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it. Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive.''

Mr. Speaker, to govern is to choose. We can name post offices, or we can ask the hard questions about the direction of our country, and we might even be able to do both in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to honor the contributions that Ms. Nora Butler, one of our most active community members, has made to the 36th Ward in the 5th Congressional District and Chicago's North Side.

At 91 years young, Ms. Butler still is going strong. She is an instrumental volunteer at Alderman William J.P. Banks' service office, and still serves as a precinct captain for the ward. Her boundless energy and enthusiasm during this past March's primary election would have been remarkable for someone even half her

age, and I cannot wait to see the results that her renewed efforts will bring in November.

Born in San Bernardino, California, Ms. Butler was raised in Springfield, Illinois, and moved to Chicago after high school seeking employment. During her younger years, she served in a variety of posts for the Chicago Park District.

For the last 40 years, Ms. Butler has worked as a precinct captain and assistant precinct captain for the 36th Ward. She loves reaching out to people and is willing to do whatever it takes--from placing lawn signs to driving residents to and from the grocery store--all to make her community a better place.

Alderman Banks' staff at the 36th Ward Office look toward Ms. Butler as an inspiring example of a truly dedicated public servant through her spirit of volunteerism and her commitment of time two days per week to provide assistance to the staff with correspondence, answering phones, and constituent service.

Mary Aiello, an aide to the Alderman, put it best in her description of Ms. Butler's personality and grace: ``No matter where you go with her, she is always friendly, gracious and interested in helping anybody who needs or wants anything. She is always conscious of other people's needs and concerns.''

Ms. Aiello also provided an example that underlines Ms. Butler's selfless dedication. Each year she is charged with the important assignment of organizing Alderman Banks' annual senior citizens' function. Instead of just relaxing and enjoying the event, Ms. Butler serves food and does everything she can do to make sure the other seniors are having a good time. She is also involved with the monthly senior citizens' meetings at the Mont Clare Baptist Church.

Ms. Butler's positive outlook and uplifting sense of humor are evident to all who know her. Although residents of the 36th Ward are often surprised to learn that the woman helping them is 91, she recently said, ``They always tell me I should run for office.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Butler for her many years of dedicated service and for the assistance she has given to so many residents of the 5th Congressional District. I hope her uplifting spirit, warm smile, and infectious personality will remain a presence in the 36th Ward for many more years to come. I am very proud to represent Nora Butler.

Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy once said, ``An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it. Without debate, without criticism no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive.

Today, Members of this House and this Chamber have refused and said it is not time to have hearings in this Congress over what we have seen recently in Iraq. The men and women over there serving their country, our country, our friends, our neighbors, our constituents, are making us proud. This Congress has an obligation to ask questions of how and why this occurred, no matter where the criticism leads.

Our troops should not be used as scapegoats. Our civilian leaders need to be asked the questions, the Congress, all of us who got elected, all of us who take a pledge have a requirement to ask questions and seek the answers that our constituents sent us here.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), for yielding me this time.

What we have here is what never has been tried in history. We are waging three wars with three tax cuts that have resulted in $500 billion of annual deficits and a $3 trillion increase in the debt.

What has passed here in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003 are record tax cuts for the special interests that have produced record deficits and record national debt. There is an economic program here that basically we followed in the 1990s.

In 1993 we cut taxes and reduced the deficit. In 1997 we cut taxes for middle-class families and balanced the budget while investing in children's health care, the environment, and also in job training and education, higher education access. We threw that book out

that led to record job growth of 22 million jobs, a decrease in poverty, an expansion of the middle class, incomes going up for all people. And now what we have is record deficits and record debt, all because we followed an economic strategy that threw out the book of putting our fiscal house in order, investing in the priorities of tax cuts for middle-class families, and investing in the areas of education and health care.

What do we have to show for it? We have $500 billion in annual deficit. We have a record deficit while the economy is growing. You all have said if the economy grows, the deficit will disappear. Well, the economy is growing and we have record deficits. Why? Because your economic strategy lacks any logic to it. And that is you cannot follow and have three tax cuts and three wars at the same time and get any other result than the one we are getting today. And to repeat the same mistake and expect a different result is a sign of somebody who is not facing reality.

Today, what we need to do and what this proposal does is it begins to get us on a road of putting our fiscal house back in order and setting the priorities straight that if we want to invest in education, if we want to finance wars overseas, if we want to have tax cuts, we have to make sure that we live within a balanced set of priorities. We cannot leave to other generations and steal from Social Security and steal from Medicare to live today in bacchanalia and happy times. We have to put our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, today in Iraq, 138,000 American troops are putting their lives on the line. Despite the President's ``Mission Accomplished'' declaration, more of our brave service men and women died last month since any month since the war in Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz does not know how much the war costs, or that 764 Americans have died, but that is typical of an administration that refuses to admit its mistakes or explain its policies.

The images of tortured prisoners, broadcast throughout the world, have done irreparable damage to our mission and credibility in the Middle East. Still the majority of the House and the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services said congressional hearings are unnecessary.

Let me quote President Kennedy. ``An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it. Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive.''

President Kennedy possessed the kind of leadership that allowed him to acknowledge mistakes and accept responsibility. But now there is a different standard, and today America received this response from House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), commenting on the possibility of a congressional investigation into the scandal of Iraq and the torture of its prisoners, ``A full-fledged investigation, that is like saying we need hearings on every case of police brutality. I do not think they are warranted.''

This Congress has an obligation to our constituents, to our country, to ask the how and the why about Iraq and seek answers. While refusing to hold hearings on Iraq, here is a list of what Congress has passed since the Easter break: Named, the John J. Pershing Post Office; named, the Wilkie D. Ferguson Courthouse; named, the Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office; named, the Rhode Island Veterans Post Office; named, the Richard G. Wilson Postal Facility; named, the Paul Simon Federal Building; named, the James V. Hansen Federal Building; named, the Ronald Reagan Federal Building; commended the Garden Club of America; urged the release of Wang Bingzhang; recognized the importance of music education; congratulated the University of Connecticut basketball teams; congratulated the University of Denver men's hockey team; congratulated Kennesaw State University men's basketball team; authorized the use of Capitol grounds for the Soapbox Derby; authorized the use of Capitol grounds for the Police Officers' Memorial; honored Melvin Jones and Lions Clubs; supported the goals of Financial Literacy Month; supported the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act; authorized the Congressional Medal for Math and Science Education; supported Taiwan's entry into WHO; promoted freedom and democracy in Laos; recognized the importance of increasing autism awareness; increased Capital Access for Growing Business Act; and congratulated charter schools, to name a few.

As worthy as this legislation may be and while we passed all of this unanimously, here is what our brave men and women we all love to acknowledge and respect, here is what their headlines said: Insurgents kill 12 Marines in Sunni Triangle; al Qaeda claims responsibility for attacks in Iraq; As multifront uprising continues, U.S. loses control of Najaf, Kufa to Shiite Militia; Marines were Ambushed in Ramadi; Three more Marines killed in Iraq; Two U.S. troops killed; Sanchez declares current troop strength adequate as casualties mount; Fate of American hostage in Iraq still unknown; Apache helicopter reported

down; Nine Americans missing; Thirty-four foreign civilian kidnapped in Iraq; Five soldiers killed; April worst month for U.S. casualties; Pentagon extends tour of 20,000 troops in Iraq; Violence delays reconstruction projects; Ten U.S. soldiers killed across Iraq; U.S. troops in Iraq say Pentagon is failing to keep them equipped; Coast Guard seen as underfunded; General says Humvees are not up to the job in Iraq; Baghdad sniper kills American soldier; Ten U.S. troops killed on Thursday; Treasury agency has more employees tracking Castro than bin Laden; Eleven U.S. soldiers killed in four separate attacks by insurgents.

That is what our troops face and that is what Congress has done. We have an obligation to ask questions about Iraq and seek the answers. The Nation's standing in the world and people's lives are at stake. We have spent $112 billion to date on the war and reconstruction of Iraq. We owe it to our constituents to ask questions and seek the answers that they are asking and seeking.

And the breaking news this afternoon, the Bush administration is asking for an additional $25 billion without taking responsibility for what has happened to date.

As President Kennedy once said, to govern is to choose. While Congress has named its Post Offices and used the facilities for the Soapbox Derby here on the Hill, Americans at home have faced these headlines: Dow Chemical plans to cuts 3,000 jobs; Winn-Dixie plans to cut 10,000 jobs.

We can handle the Post Office naming and hold hearings into the whys and the hows of Iraq. We owe it to the people we represent. We are here to ask those questions and seek those answers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to review this week as it relates to the Medicare prescription drug bill.

It started with the Secretary of Health and Human Services announcing on Monday, given the confusion over the Web site that they had put up, that they were going to think about taking it down because there was such confusion out among seniors about the pricing and among the pharmaceutical companies about actually what, in fact, they were offering and whether there was a discount. The Web site was intended, as Tommy Thompson said, to drive prices down.

There was such confusion in the marketplace that on the first day, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said we are thinking of taking the Web site down. Then they launched the big discount card that is supposed to provide somewhere between a 10 to 20 percent discount on prices.

Every year for the last 6 years, prices of prescription drugs have gone up, on average, 17 percent, somewhere around five times the rate of inflation; and this year it is projected to go up 18 percent, and next year it is projected to go up 20 percent. The card was so confusing that at the Speaker's own town hall meeting, he got into an argument with a senior citizen who said, why do we not just do what Canada does and offer and, in fact, allow us to buy drugs in Canada where they are 30 to 80 percent cheaper? In fact, if you compare the discount that the drug card would offer like on Lipitor versus what the price is in Canada or Europe, even with the discount card, the prices for Lipitor in Europe are 129 percent cheaper than they are even with the discount card. Celebrex, another common drug, even with the discount price from the card, in Europe and in Canada, the price is 85 percent cheaper. Seniors know that.

Third, just this week, the Congressional Research Service found that, in fact, the cost of the bill for prescription drugs was never $400 billion, but $534 billion, and that the administrator, Mr. Foster, who intended to tell Congress, was told he was not allowed to and withheld the information from Congress; that in fact the Members who told him that have broken the law; broken the law.

I will tell my colleagues today, if that bill was on the floor, it would go down in resounding defeat, because people in Congress who thought they were getting all of the protection from the pharmaceutical industry have realized finally, having talked to their constituents, what is wrong with this bill. It does nothing to affect price. So we can have all the discount cards we want, we can have a Web site that is a failure, and now we have information out there that, in fact, people broke the law trying to pass this bill, and we now know what seniors have always told us. Since the bill did nothing to affect price, nothing to affect affordability, nothing to give them world-class drugs at world-class prices, which is the cheapest prices we could get, that in fact Congress was deceived and not given the information that was required to deal with that legislation.

Just today, at 5:30 in the evening, Secretary Tommy Thompson, having fought tooth and nail to oppose the notion of allowing people to buy drugs in Canada and in Europe and to bring competition to the market and bring choice to the market, at 5:30 this evening Tommy Thompson announced that he believes in the reimportation of prescription drugs, that we should pass legislation, and he would recommend that the President sign that legislation. So in the last 48 hours, I just want my colleagues to review this with me.

The Congressional Research Service has found out that members of the administration broke the law by withholding information from Congress. The Web site that they put up to help bring competition to the market, they

are going to bring the Web site down because it is confusing and they have the wrong prices up there. The discount card is so confusing that on a report on NPR this morning, if you listened to the official trying to listen to the senior citizen, the official said, ``A mail order's around a 90-day. That's a 3-month supply.'' Senior: ``Oh, okay.'' Official: ``So to compare the prices, multiply.'' The senior: Multiply the 3?'' The official: ``The 30-day by 3 to get your 90 days, yup. And not all of them have mail orders, so.'' Senior: ``Mm-humm.'' The official: ``And then this will tell how many pharmacies are in your area. How far would you like to go from our ZIP code to look for a pharmacy? You want to keep it within a mile?'' The senior starts laughing. The official: ``We do have other choices, there's a range here.''

This, to a senior citizen who is looking for a lifesaving drug on arthritis, heart, blood pressure, bone strengthening. They are supposed to sit there and try to figure this out. Rather than giving them a benefit and rather than trying to organize and bring prices down in the market, we drive them crazy.

So to top it off, Tommy Thompson now has come around to the view that in fact what we need and to deal with this is what all of us know who dared talk to any of our constituents, that we have got to deal with price. That is the only way to affect and help our senior citizens and our taxpayers, who now are going to be asked not to pay $400 billion, but $535 billion for a bill that if it was brought forward today would go down in resounding defeat.

I welcome Tommy Thompson's open mind and bipartisanship to come to realize what all of us knew in this Congress, that we need reimportation to bring down the prices of prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago President Bush and Senator Kerry received their reviews from their respective commanders.

Lieutenant Kerry, from Lieutenant Commander George Elliott: ``Lt. Kerry frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta. Involved in several enemy-initiated firefights, including an ambush during the Christmas truce, he effectively suppressed enemy fire and is unofficially credited with 20 enemy killed in action.''

The evaluation from Lt. Bush's commander: ``Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report.''

Now, we can debate what these two men did 30 years ago, or we can debate what this country is going to do on

June 30 in Iraq in finding a government to hand to the people of Iraq that they respect and that will give them a sense of where they are going.

It is worthy of having a debate of what happened 30 years ago, but I think it is very important to the people of this country that we debate what we are going to do on June 30.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time.

In 1993 and 1997, we both reduced the deficit and in 1997 balanced the budget by cutting taxes for working families and middle class families who were trying to meet their obligations to their children and their families. We did not make a choice between tax cuts and deficit reduction. We did both effectively, resulting in 22 million more Americans having jobs, half the poverty rate in this country cut, incomes at all levels going up and the ability of families to send their kids to college being achieved and realized.

Today we have two proposals but also two different visions, both providing tax relief. One, I believe, the Democratic alternative, more equitably, more fairly and more progressively and being paid for, that does not literally in my view provide a head fake to future generations who will be left the obligation to pay for this tax cut.

I note in the Republican proposal that they do finally have in 2008 the earned income tax credit extension. My view is if it is good in 2008, let us do what the Democratic proposal does and bring that tax cut forward to 2005. Because if it is good in 2008 and if it is a good enough tax cut in 2008, let us extend to working families that tax cut in 2005. It always surprises me, they never use the opportunity to be progressive and to be fair.

Second, the notion that there will be 10 million families earning $75,000 to $200,000 who will get no tax cut under this proposal. In my view, we can cut taxes for middle class families and reduce the deficit, which will be good for the economy, producing jobs, and good for American families. There is a right way to do it and a wrong way. That is the wrong way. Our Democratic proposal and Democratic agenda has a right way without making choices; that is, to give a tax cut to working families while reducing the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, Congress is now working on a final budget, a $2.3 trillion budget with a $521 billion

deficit. That deficit shows that it is impossible to finance three wars with three tax cuts and expect a different result. Never before has anybody waged a war with a tax cut. What the result is, we have three wars going on, and we have three tax cuts, and we have $521 billion in deficit.

The budget proposed by the President and the Republican majority repeats the same mistakes that resulted in a jobless economy and a wage and benefit recession for Americans with the lowest growth in wages in the last 30 years.

This budget, the $2.3 trillion budget, continues the same failed economic policies that have given us 43 million Americans without health insurance, 2 million more Americans who have moved into poverty out of the middle class, only a growth of 1 percent in wages in the last 3 years, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs, and nearly $1 trillion worth of corporate and individual assets have been foreclosed on.

During the 2000 Presidential campaign, President Bush declared he was against nation-building. Well, who knew that he was talking about America when he said he was opposed to nation building.

This budget and the President's vision are really the tale of two budgets: one for America and one for Iraq. We have spent nearly $150 billion in Iraq on the occupation and war, but without promising America the same future we are now committing to Iraq. I am not against rebuilding Iraq, we need to do that, but I am against taking dollars away and not investing in the education, health care, and environment here at home that we need to do for Americans.

Take the area of health care. We have opened 150 clinics in Iraq and have provided 3 million Iraqis 100 percent prenatal and infant coverage. In America, 44 million Americans go without health care, 33 million Americans work without health care, and 10 million children do not have health care.

In the area of jobs, in Iraq there is universal job training. In America, in the President's budget job training programs have been either capped with no increase or zeroed out.

In the area of veterans, in Iraq, $60 million was spent to train Iraqi veterans of former wars. In America, we are cutting veterans medical care by $257 million.

In the field of education, in Iraq we have built 2,300 new schools, or rehabbed 2,300 schools. In America, Leave No Child Behind is underfinanced by $8 billion. In Iraq, the universities are receiving $99 million for higher education partnerships. In America, Perkins loans have been cut by $99 million and Pell grants have been frozen for 4 years in a row while college costs have gone up 10 percent a year.

In the area of law enforcement, $500 million is being spent in Iraq for a new police force. In the United States under the President's budget, the police program, the COPS Program, is being cut by $659 million.

In the area of housing, in Iraq we are spending $470 million for public housing. In America, we have cut $791 from public housing homeownership.

In the area of the environment, we are paying $3.6 billion for new water treatment facilities in Iraq. In America, $500 million has been cut for water treatment and our drinking water here in the United States.

As President Bush seeks reelection, think of this: after his vision for Iraq and what is happening here at home and our own economy, he can say he kept his commitments against nation-building. The problem is, it is in America that he is opposed to nation-building.

We need to invest here at home. We cannot have the tale of two budgets; the tale of two values; the tale of two sets of books, one for Iraq and one for America. Yet those are the wrong values for here at home.

The American people are the most generous people in the world. They have committed to doing something in Iraq. They have done it over the years in Germany and Japan after World War II. We did it by welcoming other Eastern European nations into NATO and into the EU, leading that effort.

We will continue to be the most generous people in the world, but we will not do it at the expense of the future of our children. We can do better. We do not need to make this an either/or choice. But we have an economic vision and balance that is put in place in the budget of this President and economic priorities and values that have literally left Americans today with less opportunities in education, less opportunities for health care.

Think of this: today, health care costs cost $9,000 for a family of four, compared to $6,500 just 3 years ago. It has gone up 30 percent. College costs have gone up 10 percent, and yet we have not increased our benefits.

We can do better for the American people. We need to do better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate ten-year-old Jacob Anish of Chicago for his recent act of bravery and for the honor of receiving the Heroism Medal awarded by the Boy Scouts of America.

Jacob achieved this accolade for the courage he demonstrated on the evening of May 21, 2003 when a fire broke out in his family's home. Awakened by the smoke, Jacob maintained his calm despite the danger all around him. At a time when many boys of Jacob's age might have panicked, his first thought was not to run for safety but to save his sleeping younger brother, Gary.

As the smoke thickened, Jacob swiftly found his brother, then lifted him up and carried him from one side of the house to the other. The house faded into darkness as Jacob fought through the danger to find the rest of his family.

Jacob did not hesitate, nor did he waver from the Anish family fire plan which called for him to carry his younger brother to the neighbor's house and out of harm's reach. He maintained his composure throughout the fire like a young hero and natural leader.

Though their home was lost, Jacob's steadfast courage and sharp instinct made the difference in saving each of his family members, including their pet Dalmatian. Jacob's selfless act of valor is why the Boy Scouts of America are honoring him this year.

Mr. Speaker, I join his family, his Cub Scout Pack 3943, and all the people of the fifth district of Illinois in recognizing Jacob for his courage and for receiving the Heroism Medal. I am confident that Jacob will continue to set a strong example for his brothers and sisters, his peers, and young men and women across Chicago. I am very proud of Jacob Anish.