Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Jam Productions, Ltd. of Chicago after 33 years of excellence and dedication to their work in music promotions.

Jam Productions was co-founded in 1971 by Jerry Mickelson and Arny Granat, and has since become one of the country's leading promoters of concerts and shows, including public concerts, theatrical performances and private and corporate events.

During this time, Jam Productions has made Chicago proud through its efforts working with organizations and businesses in the community. They have worked with top names in the music industry, like U2, Frank Sinatra and Paul McCartney.

They have produced meetings and events for Fortune 500 companies including Ameritech, Philip Morris Companies, Miller Brewing, Ford Motor Company and HBO Entertainment.

Jam has developed close relationships with their clients by working through the entire production process for each individual project. This determination has made them the preferred production house at both Soldier Field and the United Center in Chicago.

In addition, Jam Productions, Ltd. has been continuously involved with organizations and events such as the Illinois state Gubernatorial Inauguration, the Democratic National Convention, the Grand Opening of Chicago's Museum Campus, the Chicago's AIDS Foundation annual gala benefit, the 100th Anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Grand Opening of Chicago's Navy Pier.

The staff of Jam Productions is considered an expert at each process of design and logistics, pre-show planning and production. Their valuable experience working with audiences both large and small continues to be a model for both Chicago businesses and for the entertainment field.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the people of Chicago in congratulating Jam Productions, Inc. on their achievement, and wish them continued growth and accomplishment in the future.

Mr. Speaker; I rise to congratulate Gerald E. Baker on his recent retirement from the Airline Pilots Association.

Jerry Baker is a graduate of North Park College, now North Park University, located here in Chicago's Fifth Congressional District. He received an M.A.T. from Northwestern University and a J.D. from the National Law Center at George Washington University before embarking on a distinguished career spanning 35 years promoting the airline industry, its workers and their important interests before the U.S. Congress.

From 1968 to 1976, Jerry served as the legislative representative for American Airlines, and has served as the legislative counsel for the Airline Pilots Association since 1976. During his 28-year tenure with ALPA, Jerry has been involved in virtually every piece of legislation that affects the professional interests of commercial airline pilots.

From the deregulation of the airline industry in the 1970's, the turbulence of the 1980's, the relative prosperity of the 1990's, and the devastating events of September 11th, Jerry Baker has served the airline industry with competence and professionalism.

Jerry also enjoys a solid reputation for developing personal relationships that he has fostered on both sides of the aisle. Leaders in both the House and Senate look to Jerry for his experience, diligence and his bipartisan approach toward advancing the interests of the airline industry.

Away from Capitol Hill and downtown Washington, one of Jerry's principal interests is The County Club of Woodmore in Mitchellville, Maryland, where he has served for the last four years as the president of their Board of Directors. Here's hoping that Jerry gets to spend even more time there with this family and many good friends in the coming years.

I have tremendous respect for Jerry's knowledge of the industry, his integrity and his firm advocacy for airline workers and their families. He is a shining example of leadership and commitment to hard-working Americans and their values. I am grateful for our friendship and mutual support for a strong airline industry in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I join with all of the airline pilots he represents and on behalf of the Illinois delegation in congratulating Jerry Baker on his retirement. I wish him, his wife Barbara and their three daughters all the happiness and continued success into the future. His presence will certainly be missed by all of us here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I missed rollcall votes 58, 59, and 60. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Marilyn Bickel of Chicago on her recent retirement after seventeen years of excellence and dedication as Chief of Staff to Alderman Patrick J. Levar of the 45th Ward.

Marilyn Bickel has served the Chicago City Council and the Jefferson Park neighborhood ever since Alderman Levar was first sworn in on April 16, 1987. She met the Alderman when he was a junior attending St. Patrick High School and began working for him during his first election.

During this time, Marilyn was asked to work with the Polish-speaking community in the St. Constance Parish area and was later given a permanent place on his staff.

Marilyn worked hard to develop close relationships with the many Chicago departmental representatives and always knew the right person to contact for a constituent in need. Marilyn always went out of her way to provide assistance to those who were unable to access alternate means of assistance.

In addition, Marilyn has served as a liaison to local chambers of commerce for Alderman Levar. She calmly dealt with many difficult circumstances, most notably the period following the terrorist attacks of September 11th. In a time of apprehension and doubt, Marilyn worked to console the fears of her fellow Chicagoans, and the residents of the 45th Ward.

Marilyn's family has also been a priority in her life. Her two children, Robert and William, are the proud parents of her grandchildren Bob, Ashley, Debbie and Bailey. In retirement, she will join her husband, Bill Bickel, who retired after a 32 year career with the Chicago Police Department. Marilyn and Bill will now have the opportunity to travel more, something Marilyn has long been waiting to do.

Mr. Speaker, I join with all of the residents of Jefferson Park and the 45th Ward of Chicago in congratulating Marilyn Bickel on her

retirement, and wish her, and her wonderful husband Bill, all the happiness in the future.

Mr. Speaker, last year Congress created a zone of privacy that blacks out the transfer of personal medical information. There should be a sign above one's medical information that reads, ``Do not enter.'' It has been a bipartisan effort.

On Monday, a Federal judge interpreted that law to mean that the Justice Department's demands for medical records from university hospitals, like Northwestern University in Chicago, was an undue intrusion on patients' rights.

Federal and State laws already on the books prevent that kind of intrusive breach. Congressional action last year to black out sharing confidential health records further solidified bipartisan support for medical privacy for all Americans, and I am pleased that in the last 48 hours, the Justice Department has decided to withdraw their subpoena and information request from the hospitals who have stood strong in the face of this intrusion of privacy by the Federal Government.

As William Safire of The New York Times this morning noted, ``a balance must be struck between protecting all of us and protecting each one of us.''

Mr. Speaker, guaranteeing Americans their medical privacy is a critical first step toward that goal.

Mr. Speaker, in 2 days, the House Committee on the Budget will introduce and start to mark up a budget for the United States. This budget is being drafted by the majority, reflective of the President's budget submitted in early February.

I thought it would be an opportune time to discuss and go over the review of this budget and the economic policies that have resulted from the President's past budgets here at home, with also the type of priorities that have been claimed for the people of Iraq, and compare, in my view, the tale of two budgets.

What we have here, which I think would be a rude awakening for the American people, is what has resulted here at home for the people of the United States and their jobs, their healthcare, their education, their housing, versus what we are doing in Iraq. If you really go through it, what you really have is the tale of two budgets, of two economic programs.

I think the American people would be surprised to find out that of the $87 billion we voted on last year for the funding of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and for rebuilding the communities of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is more than the combined investment in the United States in the areas of education, job training and employment, the money in one shot for Iraq. Remember, that does not count the $70 billion we spent on the first stage of the war with Iraq.

The $87 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan for the war part, as well as for the rebuilding of their healthcare system, their job training, their physical infrastructure, roads and bridges and water system and water treatment, that is more than the entire combined investment in the United States for education, job training and employment services.

To me, the reason we have a $3 trillion debt, additional debt on the books, nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs, as well as 43 million Americans without health insurance, 2 million more Americans who have gone from the middle-class to poverty, and nearly $1 trillion worth of bankruptcies, both corporate and individual, is we do not have an economic policy and focus coming from the administration.

The $87 billion?

The administration came out and said it would be wrong to do it as loans. We needed, because of the international community, to make it a U.S. taxpayer-funded $87 billion investment.

No.

If I may, we have voted in this Congress on $160 billion of investment in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rebuilding of those countries, healthcare, housing, jobs, roads, bridges. As the gentleman wanted to remind me of a point in that debate less than a year ago, at that point, Secretary Powell said the $168 billion is a down payment, that they would need an additional $50 billion, which they will probably seek, just for that exceeding the $200 billion in Iraq, which we will never see, or, when I say ``we,'' the U.S. taxpayers will never, ever see. That is $200 billion.

One can argue whether we are better off or not in Iraq, with Saddam Hussein having been deposed from Iraq, but the taxpayers will never see that investment back. Those are all dollars we are being told on a series of fronts, when we do not have the resources here at home.

My purpose here, before we mark up this budget, and spend the next 3 or 2 months discussing the budget is to draw the parallel between what we are investing in Iraq. On housing, we have 7,000 units of housing planned for Iraq, yet only 5,000 for the United States. We have a water irrigation system, well over $800 million for a new irrigation system in Iraq, for water treatment; in America, in the President's budget, a $500 million cut in water and sewer treatment facilities here in the United States. That goes on and on.

As the gentleman probably remembers, last year when we voted on our budget for the United States, they projected a deficit at that point of a little north of $300 billion. Then they brought up the investment of $87 billion in Iraq after the fact, so it was not included in the budget, because it would have made the deficit look far worse.

So this year we are going to vote on a budget that has a $500 billion-plus deficit, nearly half a trillion dollars, and then we will get the request for the war in Iraq, an additional $50 billion put on.

It is basically playing real quick with the hands.

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Massachusetts, we do not know when we are going to get that.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this evening, because this administration has two books, two sets of values, two priorities, and two budgets, one for Iraq and one for the United States. And the American people, with 43 million Americans without health care, 2.7 million additional Americans without jobs, 9 million Americans without jobs, close to 12 million Americans now living below the poverty line, are being told on a repeated basis that they do not have the money for schools, for police, for health care clinics. Do my colleagues know in the United States that every year the President's budget cuts, cuts health care clinics and community health care services to the United States to the tune of $600 million to $700 million a year? Yet in Iraq, and we will get to the statistic later, in Iraq since the end of the war, 52 new hospitals and clinics have been opened up, 5 million children have been given vaccines. In the United States, cuts in health care services to the tune of $600 million a year, in the President's own budget. He has a vision, a focus, and an agenda for Iraq not matched or paralleled or equal to the vision for the United States. The United States people are very generous.

Yes.

Two values.

One source.

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question. I think that the budget that we are submitting, and one of the things I want to talk about and start off with is that it is not just a budget, and it is not just a set of values, and it is not just a set of priorities. But the President's own cabinet, six members out of 15 have been to Iraq to praise and laud the work of our reconstruction in Iraq. I am going to bring up a couple of things that they have said on their trips to Iraq, because I think it highlights not just the type of dollars we are investing, but what we are saying.

My first is in October of 2003, Secretary Evans of Commerce, the Commerce Secretary said, and I quote from October 16, 2003: ``Americans need to come here and see the opportunity.'' This is about Iraq. ``This is great economic opportunity.''

Three months after that in Ohio, the President of the United States announces that he is going to have a

manufacturing czar. Today, 5 months after that, that job goes unfilled; and since that time, 250,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the United States. Yet Secretary Evans is over in Iraq praising the economic opportunity in Iraq; and yet here in the United States, a job for a manufacturing czar to oversee what has happened to the 2 million- plus lost manufacturing jobs in the United States has yet to be appointed. In every budget the President of the United States has submitted to this Congress, the manufacturing extension program, which helps small manufacturers in the United States compete in the world market, has been cut.

We had a prior speaker who noted the fact that the budget is supposed to have $130 million; the President submitted $36 million or $10 million, way off the mark. This helps 50 workers or less in manufacturing and in places of employment. We do not have a manufacturing czar. The budget of the United States eliminates manufacturing opportunities, yet the Secretary of Commerce of the United States is in Iraq praising the economic opportunity.

In January of 2004 Labor Secretary Elaine Chao visits Iraq. Quote, on January 28: ``Democracy is an essential part of creating a new Iraq, and for democracy to move forward in a positive fashion, finding employment for the people is very important.''

It is interesting, because at that point it was one week before the President's budget was submitted to Congress, just a few days after the President's State of the Union; and yet the President's budget for the United States has dislocated adult training and dislocated worker programs, cut by $150 million in the United States, yet opening job training in Iraq.

Baghdad is doing well.

The President's budget also freezes job training. We have a cut, as I said, of $151 million in dislocated worker problems, dislocated from economic trade and globalization. Yet, at that time, with one week to go in the President's budget, the Secretary of Labor is not in her office, is not over in the White House negotiating on behalf of American workers. She is talking about the employment opportunities in Iraq.

In Iraq.

Where there is 16 percent unemployment rate.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman probably knows, right after the war, we were paying hundreds and thousands of Iraqis for no- show jobs, literally paying them; but they did not have to work, just to put money into the economy of Iraq. Now, I am from Chicago. I think we know something about no-show jobs. We think we have written the book on no-show jobs. There are so many no-show jobs in Iraq where people do not have to show up for work, but get paid, you can make an alderman in Chicago pretty jealous; but that is what is going on with U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Let me tell my colleagues another thing. Just recently, less than a month ago, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, visits Iraq, and I quote: ``The U.S. aid to provide universal health care to Iraq should not be compared to the efforts in the United States to guarantee the same thing. Even if you don't have health insurance in America, you get taken care of. That can be defined as universal health care.''

What a fascinating, insightful take on universal health care. We have 43 million Americans without health insurance; yet we have universal health care provided in Iraq, but not here in the United States.

It would be a government-controlled program.

So my colleagues understand, as we have opened 52 hospitals and clinics in Iraq, just a month earlier than the President's budget, he froze the National Institutes of Health's budget; rural health care was cut by $638 million, and $785 million the next year; a 64 percent cut from health professionals training programs. We have 33 million Americans who work full-time without health care, and we have underfunded the Children's Health Insurance Program.

My last count says in Iraq there have been 52 hospitals and health care clinics that have opened up since the end of the war.

It is very good, a very good record. I am impressed. I am very, very impressed. They have done a great job. There has been in Iraq free training provided to 22 Iraqi health professionals and 8,000 volunteers. Yet a $278 million cut, 68 percent, to the health professionals training program here in the United States.

Now, what is it that Iraq needs about the health care training of doctors and nurses and technicians that is not necessary here in the United States? Any thoughts?

Mr. Speaker, $793 million for health care facility construction and medical equipment replacement throughout Iraq. Yet there has been a $94 million cut to community access programs here in the United States, a 90 percent cut in that budget. Mr. Speaker, $28 million in Iraq for operation and staffing of 150 clinics for 3 million Iraqis. Yet there has been a 78 percent cut, that is $789 million in all health activities to provide health care access in rural America.

Mr. Speaker, I did not get to it, but let me continue. The agricultural Secretary, Ann Veneman, was in Iraq on November 13, 2003, praising our investment, she calls it how our government can help. Need I remind her, it is our taxpayers, not our government. But yet, in the President's budget, $198 million has been cut from USDA farm loans, crop insurance, disaster relief, and field offices, representing about a 4 to 5 percent cut in the agriculture budget.

There have been a total of 6 cabinet Secretaries who have visited Iraq. Do my colleagues get a feeling that the cabinet Secretaries have been outsourced to Iraq in the many ways that our jobs have been outsourced to India? They are focused. We have the Commerce Secretary there, the Labor Secretary there, the Agriculture Secretary there, the Secretary of Defense is there, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is there, the Secretary of State is there, not counting the deputies. Yet in every area corresponding, and we are going to go through that in a little more detail, we have seen cuts here at home in the President's budget.

Let me, if I could, to take back a little time here, I have put up another chart dealing on education in Iraq and education in America and job training.

In Iraq, we have renovated a little over 2300 schools in all of Iraq. 1.5 million secondary school student kits have been sent out. 800,000 primary school kits have been sent out. In America, the President's Leave No Child Behind has been underfunded by $8 billion.

Teacher quality impact aid and after school programs have been frozen in his budget. Reading programs are cut by $8 million. And 38 other educational programs in the President's budget have been eliminated.

In Iraq, 2,300 schools nationwide have been either rebuilt and opened since the end of the war. Not that Iraqi children do not need an education, not that they do not need their books and textbooks, but I would hearken, and I would hope others remember in the United States, we have teachers who are paying for school supplies out of their own salaries, because the school budgets, educational system has been cut so bad we do not have resources for our kids. Teachers are paying for it. Not the government taxpayers, which is funded.

Iraqi children are going to have a great future. We should have the same type of future, same commitment to American children.

I want to point, if I could, to a few things we did here on the chart. Job training in Iraq. $60 million for demobilizing and job training for 130,000 enemy combatants. $353 million for American Iraqi enterprise fund and job training.

That is exactly what it is.

The gentleman took the words right out of my mouth. Yes, that is correct, former soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tale of two budgets. Let me point to one thing: $353 for an American Iraqi enterprise fund and job training. $353 million. Yet, the President's budget cut $316 million in the vocational education program. That represents a 24 percent cut there.

Let me go on. There is a $20 million grant for higher education and development projects creating U.S. Iraqi university partnerships to expand access to higher education for all Iraqis. $100 million cut for the Perkins loan, which represents a 60 percent cut in that program here in the United States for college education, a $327 million cut in Pell Grants for low and moderate income children, closing the door to higher education for those children. We got a grant for Iraqi children going to college.

In Illinois, my home, the average graduate from the University of Illinois gets a diploma and $20,000 in debt because of the cost of higher education in the United States. Yet, in Iraq job training and higher access to universities.

Expanding literacy. We have $40 million dedicated to Iraq for rebuilding 275 schools and training 10,000 teachers for Iraqi schools. Yet, we have cut $8 million from reading programs in the Department of Education for American children.

Another statistic. USAID accelerated learning program provides intensive personal education to low income and at-risk Iraqi children. At-risk Iraqi children and low income Iraqi children. The President's budget, $177 million cut in funding for Head Start, even though Head Start could only serve a 13.5 percent of the eligible children because of funding restrictions. Children who are eligible for Head Start. We do not have the resources for Head Start, yet we have funding for at- risk Iraqi children.

This is just an example of the types of education cuts we are making here at home and the types of investments we are making overseas in Iraq.

These are not the priorities of the American people. These are not the values of the American people. These are not the economic investments the American people called on. And our result, all these cuts in education and here at home, all these cuts at at-risk children here at home, all these job training cuts here at home, as Ronald Reagan once said, facts are a stubborn thing. 2.7 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Bush has been President. Two million more American children have entered the levels of poverty who have left the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to spend $3 trillion, I would think we would get more than 21,000 jobs out of it. And of the 21,000 jobs that were created last month, not the 200,000, unknown, but it is right there in the statistics, of the 21,000 jobs, 20,000 of those jobs were government jobs. So in the private sector of the United States only created 1,000 jobs last month.

Jay Leno had a funny joke and I must repeat it. He says, ``You know why President Bush is in such trouble? He is overseeing more gay marriages than he has jobs created in the United States.'' And it captures pretty much what is going on. We have a jobless economy and an endless occupation in Iraq. It has resulted in the fact that the American people are calling for a new direction and change in our priorities. And these budgets reflect the problem we have here at home because of what people are seeing is that our future is being promised to Iraq, and the people of Iraq, and that the same commitment is not being held here at home.

The American people have been very generous. They will continue to be generous, but not at the expense of their future and their children's future.

I would like to turn to health care, since we have done job training and education. In the area of health care, as I mentioned just the other day, Secretary Thompson visited Iraq opening hospitals. In Iraq, 52 hospitals have been renovated. Three million children under the age of 5 have been vaccinated in Iraq. And the President's budget, health care centers for the second year in a row have been cut $638 million this year, next year, $785 million.

I want to read a couple numbers. Iraq, free training provided to 2,200 Iraqi doctors and nurses and 8,000 volunteers. In the United States, $278 million cut to the health professionals training program for doctors and nurses and other specialists. Free training in Iraq for 2,200, $278 million cut here in the United States.

In case anybody has missed it, 43 million Americans without health insurance. Inflationary costs rising at 10 to 20 to 20 percent a year. $793 million for health facility construction and medical equipment throughout Iraq. A $94 million cut to community access programs to coordinate health care services to the underinsured here in the United States.

In case you are missing this, kind of one strategy for Iraq, one strategy for the United States. $28 million for operation and staffing of 150 health clinics for 3 million Iraqis, a $78 million cut in all health activities to provide health care access in rural America.

Let me ask a question. Is there one group that works on the budget for the United States in this administration and another group that does the budget for Iraq? I mean, does the right hand not know what the left hand is doing? We have a health care crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I know this sounds horribly rude and sarcastic, but could David Kay be appointed to coordinate these two budgets together? I mean, he is available after all.

If one looks at this, $44 million in community development projects including child care centers and youth centers in Iraq. $44 million for child care and youth centers. The President's budget for the United States, a funding freeze for all child care programs for helping parents who want to go to work and put their kids at places that are safe and secure. And it is projected to climb to $53 million in 2006. That is a fascinating way to leave no child behind in Iraq. I wonder what the strategy is behind that.

Let me add one other thing. Ensuring a nation of healthy children. This is the last point on our health care chart; 4.3 million Iraqi children have been immunized, yet the maternal and child health care block grant has been frozen. Prenatal care in Iraq and food provisions for 240,000 pregnant women, full funding. Yet we have cut WIC here and frozen it and frozen the Healthy Start program. 100 percent of prenatal and infancy needs of all Iraqi citizens, and yet we have frozen, which means a cut of care in the pediatric graduate medical education and Title 10 family planning here in the United States.

Now, why is it that 4.3 million Iraqi children need to be immunized. I assume that is a good idea. Any thoughts?

Why would you freeze then the maternal and child health care block grant, which basically does the immunization programs here in the United States? What would make you freeze it here in the United States, but somehow think that 4.3 million Iraqi children deserve that type of aid? I think it is a good idea. My father is a pediatrician. I am the son also of a radiologist nurse. I happen to think these investments are good. Guess what, the administration is right about one thing, the Iraq of tomorrow will be better than the Iraq under Saddam Hussein, because it is being funded by the taxpayers of the United States.

I want to again remind us of one of the headlines here. Training of health care professionals, 2,200 Iraqi doctors and nurses will get free training, $278 million cut in the United States' budget in this area.

We will go on to the next chart of the area of security and justice and investment in what we call safety of our streets versus what we are doing in Iraq. In that area we basically have, I think, an interesting, very interesting set of priorities. And again, it is a tale of two budgets, two values, two priorities.

In Iraq, we have placed 150,00 police and security personnel on the street. I do not know if you know this and it may come as a surprise to everybody. But in New York City, there are 3,000 less police on the street since 9-11, because the President's budget we have cut a billion dollars in the police program to keep police doing community policing in the United States. Three thousand less police on the streets of New York since 9-11. That is a fascinating way to execute a high school strategy. Yet, in Iraq, 150,000 police and security personnel.

Let me add, as I said, that we have 150,000 police being paid by the United States taxpayers for 150,000 police officers and security personnel in Iraq. I would like that to be noted that in my hometown of Chicago, we do not have an additional bio-terrorist center that we were seeking for fire department.

In veterans, in Iraq, we pay the salaries and benefits for 170,000 Iraqi military and security personnel. In America, 260,000 children of active duty military personnel have been dropped from the earned income tax credits. It is a very interesting strategy. Again, two budgets, one for Iraq. One for the United States. Here, helping the police and fire departments combat terrorism. In Iraq, a $500 million fund to counterterrorism policing program in Iraq; $50 million for emergency global peacekeeping operations; $80 million for disaster assistance. In the United States, a $648 million cut in the Department of Homeland Security for funding of police, firefighter and emergency personnel. In Iraq, you have made an investment close to $630 million. In the United States, a cut of $640 million for the same activities, the same type of strategy.

We have also had a $246 million cut in the firefighter assistance grants.

Protecting ports, we have made $150 million investment for border protection in Iraq. The port of Umkasar has

been completely rebuilt. It is a deepwater port in Iraq. Yet, here a $79 million cut to port security upgrades, representing a 64 percent cut in the budget for port security here in the United States.

Supporting law enforcement, police departments, $76 million investment in Iraq's defense corps, training and development, $25 million for counter-drug assistance in Iraqi police, $200 million for Iraqi security for judges, prosecutors and courthouses, a $500 million investment for facility protection and demining in Iraq, $35 million for nonproliferation anti-terrorism demining in Iraq. Yet, a $659 million cut to the Department of Justice programs to assist local communities in hiring, training and equipping police officers for America's streets.

Again, a juxtaposition where one is getting invested in because you need the resources to deliver the types of services of police protection. Here in the United States we are making corresponding cuts in the same areas.

I want to turn to transportation. In Iraq, the President has budgeted $835 million for three new Iraqi airports, $240 million for road and bridge repairs. Last year, the President's budget cut 10 percent of the Corps of Engineers. This year an additional 5 percent. We are struggling beginning with a highway and transportation bill here in the United States, that are investments that everybody knows in this Chamber, in this body, both in a bipartisan consensus, that it is essential to our investment and our economic strategy.

Iraq already has a highway and mass transit bill. They are getting new airports, three of them. Chicago, we are trying to rebuild our O'Hare Airport, which provides 150,000 jobs. They have $240 million for roads and bridges. Yet, the President's budget for the United States cuts $300 million in Federal highway funding, $50 million in essential air service program, $318 million cut in Amtrak, $600 million cut in mass transit funding. These are not the investments that lead to an America ready to seize the 21st century and make it as great as the 20th century. These are not the type of economic strategies.

I know there is bipartisan consensus. The one thing you would think if you produced only 21,000 jobs last month when you need 200,000 a month just to stay even, the economy has lost 3 million jobs since the date the President was sworn in. You would think the one thing this Congress could do is create a transportation and investment bill because you know it will create jobs, and we cannot do that. We are talking about a 1-year extension. Maybe 2-year extension.

We do not have that for Iraq. We have a strategy for Iraq. We have three new airports. We have roads. We have the Umkasar Port so it can move goods. It is an economic strategy. We do not have that for the United States. We cannot get the Republicans in the House and in the other body and the White House to agree on an economic strategy. The one thing we would have is a highway bill for the United States, and the President of the United States threatened to veto it. You would think with 2\1/2\ million additional Americans out of work since the time you have been sworn in, you are the only President since Herbert Hoover who will have job losses under your watch, and your only strategy is to veto a bill that would put people back to work.

It takes a unique insight to economic strategy to come up with that strategy for the United States. And to submit a budget that has cuts in mass transit, cuts in Amtrak, cuts in air service, cuts in the Corps of Engineers, so we can invest in our waterways, and yet in every corresponding area in Iraq, they will get a new deport which they got, three new airports, many new roads and bridges so they can move their goods and services, it is a bright future in Iraq, and yet, that same strategy seems to have failed us here at home.

It boggles the mind how one could see how here at home we cannot get an agreement on an investment strategy for the United States. One thing that we know for sure, because you cannot build roads in the United States built by Japanese, Chinese or other people, it would be only to be built by the United States, workers who get paid good wages and we cannot get an agreement, and the only reason is because we are sitting there with Presidential veto over our neck. It is a unique job strategy to threaten to veto a bill that would produce jobs in the United States. It comes from the same strategy that thinks outsourcing is a full employment program; and yet in Iraq, God bless them, they are going to get three new airports and about $250 million in new investments in roads and bridges.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that we go back to the fact that for many months we paid Iraqis wages who never showed up for their jobs. Nothing like that has ever been envisioned here at home; and so as my colleague said, we are stuck and we have America stuck in a jobless economy, in an income recession, and what has resulted is it will be the first President in the United States since Herbert Hoover who has a net loss of jobs in the United States under their stewardship, and yet the Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Commerce were sent to Iraq to praise and come up with an economic strategy that would have a better tomorrow than the one they have.

I want to bring up two other areas before our time is up because I think it is important.

In Iraq, we are investing close to $3.5 billion for water and sewage services repair. In the President's budget there is a $500 million cut representing close to 40 percent for a clean water State revolving fund. It provides loans to local communities to rebuild their sewer system and their water treatment facilities. Every community in this country has borrowed from that fund, the revolving fund. It is how we keep our water system and drinking

water safe in this country. We have a $500 million cut in that area for the United States and a $3.5 billion investment in Iraq's, in water, drinking water. It is one of the great standards in which you decide whether a country is part of the developed world or developing world, and yet we are making a $3.5 billion investment in Iraq's water system and a $500 million cut here at home for America's drinking water.

It is a fascinating strategy. I have never thought of it. I think it takes unique insight to come up with those two conflicting strategies. Yet the one administration, two sets of taxpayers, two different investment strategies.

On top of that $3.5 billion, there is $153 million invested in Iraq for solid waste management treatment and $775 million for water resources improvement. The United States, we get cut in those programs. $875 million in Iraq for irrigation and wetlands restoration; $2.8 billion for safe drinking water programs. In the United States, we have had many of the programs dealing with our environmental protection cut.

That is not, both the drinking water and environmental protection, what I would consider a consistent and thoughtful strategy. The only place consistency exists is in Iraq and the investment in Iraq's future, not one here at home. That has been the strategy of this administration.

Would my colleague want to add?

Mr. Speaker, as the world celebrates International Women's Day today, I am proud to rise with Representatives Burton of Indiana, Andrews, Cardoza, Chandler, English, Frost, Hoyer, McCarthy of Missouri, Miller of Florida, and Sandlin to introduce the Juvenile Protection from Sex Slavery Trafficking Act of 2004. Today, we recognize the female struggle for equality, justice, peace, and development in the political and economic process. The legislation we introduce today represents a step toward achieving those goals.

This bill takes an important step toward increasing penalties against individuals convicted of trafficking predominantly girls who are bought and sold as sex slaves. This bill treats kingpins of such trafficking networks just like drug kingpins responsible for the destruction of the futures and lives of our children.

The bill allows for capital punishment of kingpins who organize and operate child sex trafficking networks in the United States. These kingpins who engage in the most contemptible behavior often lure underage victims through befriending their families, many of whom reside in the poorest developing countries, and prey on their hopes for a better life. In an effort to kidnap their victims, kingpins convince parents that their children will be taught a useful trade, or they falsely promise marriage to daughters who are ultimately forced into prostitution. These broken promises often result in ruined lives and considerable suffering for the victim and the families.

Mr. Speaker, in response to this despicable behavior, the Juvenile Protection from Sex Slavery Trafficking Act of 2004 makes available the strongest possible punishment against perpetrators of these inhumane crimes against defenseless children. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation as a powerful step to protect the world's children from this despicable crime.

Mr. Speaker, what is known around here as business as usual would make a Chicago alderman blush. In Chicago we have a pretty high standard. If we look at today's Washington Post and New York Times editorial page, they talk about the relationship between two lobbyists and the Republican majority. Roll Call's headline: ``Revolving Door Snags Hill Aide: Staffer Negotiated Lobby Contract While on House Payroll.''

The pharmaceutical industry was working the halls, working on the pharmaceutical prescription drug legislation. The energy lobbyist got an energy bill.

Let me do a case in point. Four Indian tribes paid $45 million in 3 years to buy access.

Mr. Speaker, there are good people on both sides of the House with good values. It is unfortunate the conduct of a few brings shame on this institution. The Speaker's gavel is intended to open the People's House, not to close the Auction House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a respected journalist and good friend, Steve Neal. Steve was a strong and intelligent voice in Illinois politics for over two decades as a writer for the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune. We lost that voice when he died on February 17th at the age of 54.

Politics was fun to Steve. He enjoyed the game more than anyone I ever met. He enjoyed taking a story and finding an angle that had not yet been reported on. And, I for one can tell you that he knew how to praise as well as criticize. But, Steve was always willing to look at an issue or a person and give you his honest opinion.

I will always remember Steve as the toastmaster of the greatest political discussions in Chicago, hosted over a great plate of food at Gene and Georgetti. It was at these Friday lunches, where scholars, historians, and elected officials of all backgrounds discussed everything from our thoughts on an upcoming election, to a discussion of a new book on philosophy.

Steve's table did not discriminate along party lines and neither did his column. His weekly analysis addressed all sides of the political spectrum and every level of government with the same uncompromising objectivity and directness.

Steve was born and raised in Oregon. He began his career covering sports for local papers, and after earning a graduate degree in journalism at Columbia University he moved to Chicago to work as a general assignment reporter for the Chicago Tribune.

After six months, he was sent to Washington, DC to cover politics at the national level. Many journalists come to this town and never look back, but when the Tribune offered him a chance to return to his adopted home to write a column covering local politics, he took the opportunity and Chicago has benefited from his insight ever since.

The column was always about politics, but the focus could easily be the American Revolution one day, ward level conflicts the next. The late Senator Paul Simon noted that he was one of only a few political writers with a sense of history. He knew the history behind each office, and was even more familiar with each office holder. He always looked for the story behind the story, and his writing reflected this sense of perspective. He also wrote several history books, on topics including Wendell Wilkie, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. He recently finished writing a book called Happy Days are Here Again, about the early days of the Franklin Roosevelt administration.

Among his last columns was an assertion that James Madison was the most important founding father, and he provided the facts to back it up. Another column provided a historical perspective on the current Presidential primaries by citing specific details about the campaigns of Adlai Stevenson and Thomas Dewey. You always learned something more than his opinion when you read his column. You learned about our city, our state, and our country.

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are with Steve's wife, his two daughters, and the rest of his family today, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of this important and talented journalist.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has decided to make credibility an election year issue. Yesterday the Vice President announced if the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last 2 or 3 years, we would not have had the kind of job growth that this economy experienced.

Really? What a fascinating take. In the last 3 years, $3 trillion have been added to the Nation's debt and 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. And they want to make credibility an issue. Since 5 months when he announced the creation of a manufacturing czar, which has not been appointed, 250,000 additional manufacturing jobs have been lost. And they want to make credibility an issue.

They have an economic report that says outsourcing is good for American workers. And they want to make credibility an issue. It is a fascinating take on the economy. Today we have a jobless economy with a wage recession in America. In fact, flipping hamburgers is now a manufacturing job in America. And they want to make credibility an issue.

Mr. Speaker, the President and the Vice President think everything is just fine in America. What we need is a new direction to put American workers, American families and their values at the center of our agenda and for somebody to wake up every morning thinking about their jobs, their children and their future.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has announced that his campaign strategy will be to make credibility an issue. Just last night, the Vice President said that if the Democrats had been in charge for the last 2 or 3 years we would have endangered the job creation of the economy.

Really? What a fascinating take, that Democrats would have endangered the job creation and the economy. Under this administration, $3 trillion has been added to the Nation's debt, and nearly 3 million American jobs have disappeared. And they want to make credibility an election year issue?

In the ``Meet the Press'' interview, the President could have talked about his foreign policy accomplishments and his record, but what does he have to offer but an endless occupation. He could have chosen to talk about the economy and the jobs he created, but then he would have to point to the jobless economy and the wage recession Americans face. And this is a President and an administration that wants to make credibility an issue in this campaign?

The administration announced 5 months ago, on Labor Day, that they were appointing a manufacturing czar. That position remains empty. There is not even a nominee. And they want to make credibility an issue? Interesting.

Since that date, 250,000 Americans have lost their manufacturing jobs. And they want to make credibility an issue? After 5 months, there is not a single person to fill that job.

Now, the President does not take advice from me, but as far as I can see David Kay is available. He did the weapons of mass destruction research. Maybe we can help him find where the 2.7 million American jobs have gone. And they had the gall to announce it under a banner of American jobs and American values. And they want to make credibility an issue?

Every year the President submits a budget, and he has submitted time and again the elimination of the Manufacturing Extension Program, which helps small businesses, small manufacturers in this country. And he wants to make credibility an issue?

Not only is the President not interested in the issue of jobs and job creation in the United States, his own economic report that he submitted the other day to Congress say that

``outsourcing of jobs is good for the American economy and good for the middle class,'' especially the middle class in India, not Indiana. And they want to make credibility an issue?

In that report, they envisioned 2.7 million jobs being created in the United States. Then they had to walk away from it. And they want to make credibility an issue?

They also in that report cited manufacturing would now be defined as flipping hamburgers. And, again, they would like to make credibility an issue.

Since we have decided to make credibility an issue, I would like to say that not only does this administration have a big fiscal deficit; it has a huge credibility deficit.

Let me give some other highlights of the issue of credibility.

One month steel tariffs are on; the next month steel tariffs are off. There was $3.5 billion in new police funding, and yet the President's budget cuts $1 billion from the police funding. Prescription drugs one month cost $400 billion, the next month, with nothing changed, not a single benefit, we send a bill to the taxpayers for $550 billion. And they want to make credibility an issue.

Now, I am not the one to give advice to this administration, or unsolicited advice; but if the President or this administration thinks we are going to cut Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, I got a bridge over the Tigress they can buy. Let me say this: the only people that think that is a good economic plan are pioneers and rangers who think cuts in Social Security is what this economy needs so we can pay for tax cuts for the well-off.

What we need is a President who wakes up every day and who rolls up his sleeves as he goes into the Oval Office and thinks about the American workers, their families, and their values, not somebody who, for a press headline, announces a manufacturing czar and 5 months later, 250,000 jobs later that have disappeared, has that position remaining unfilled. That is not an administration that every day sees the American family and its values at the center of what it does in the Oval Office.

I only wish that they would spend as much time thinking about the American family, their values, their children, their jobs, their health care, their security, and their retirement security as the focus they give to those on K Street and the lobbyists in this town.

On policy after policy this administration says one thing and they do another, and yet they have the gall to say credibility will be an issue.

So to quote one Senator: If they would like credibility to be an issue this election year, Democrats say, bring it on.

Mr. Speaker, in addressing the Republican Governors Association fund-raiser on Monday evening, the President, in a much- touted speech, decided to question the Democratic front runner's credibility. This speech, it was touted, was to launch the President's reelection campaign; but it began with the theme of questioning the front runner of the Democratic Party's credibility.

Let me just start off by saying it is a good thing that the White House is not made of glass. I think it is very interesting that the President decided that the credibility of our front runner was in question, when after only 3 years of governing, this is a President who has America stuck in a jobless economy and an endless occupation.

Now, the President could have spoken about his foreign policy record, but all that offers is a growing and expensive prospect of endless occupation. He could have spoken of his leadership on the economy, but all he could point to is an economy that is not producing jobs. So the President decided that it was his right in a speech the other night to the Governors to lead off with a discussion of credibility.

I think the credibility gap of the administration at this point is a good thing, given that his budget will widen the deficit gap. The deficit he has created will not be as lonely now that he has a credibility deficit that continues to grow.

The President wants to question the consistency of our potential nominee's record, yet within 18 months he flip-flopped on steel tariffs. This is a President who wants to question credibility, yet in a book recently published by Paul O'Neill, his former Treasury Secretary, he questioned the legitimacy of a second tax cut he was going to propose because, he said, ``Haven't we done enough for the top end?'' Yet he went out there and accused Democrats of class warfare for asking the very same question he had asked, Had the first tax cut not done enough to take care of the top 1 percent?

After 3 years, his economic record is $3 trillion added to the Nation's debt and 3 million Americans have lost their jobs, and yet he wants to run this election on credibility.

He went to Ohio to talk about the importance of manufacturing jobs to the economy, given that 2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in America since 2000. His budget, 3 years in a row, has cut the manufacturing extension program, which helps small manufacturing businesses compete in the world market. And he wants to talk about credibility?

His economic report of last week praised outsourcing of jobs to India. This is a President who wants to talk about credibility? It was his economic report that cited 2.7 million new jobs would be created this year in the United States. In less than a week, before the ink was even dry, he needed to retract that, because the economy will not produce 2.7 million jobs. And this is an administration who wants to make credibility an issue?

On the issue of foreign policy, regardless of what your position is on the war, we went to war on the notion of dealing with weapons of mass destruction, and now we have a report questioning whether weapons of mass destruction were ever in Iraq, which was the legitimacy and the principle of going to war. Yet this is an administration that would like to make credibility of our nominee the issue in this campaign.

The President pledged in his recent budget $3.5 million in new money for police and firefighters to help communities here in the United States, but his budget cuts $1 billion for police and firefighters. But he would like to make credibility an issue.

His plan to halve the deficit by 2009 is an ``accounting fiction'' to Goldman Sachs. But he would like credibility to be the issue.

He said the Medicare bill would cost $400 billion. Within 3 weeks after the ink was dry, the report came out that it would cost $550 billion to taxpayers; $150 billion in errors in addition to the $400 billion for the prescription drug bill. And he would like to make credibility an issue?

He promised to clean up the Great Lakes, but he cut water quality funds by $400 million. Yet he would like to make credibility an issue in this campaign?

On policy after policy, this administration says one thing and does another to benefit its corporate and special interests. If we are going to make credibility an issue in this campaign, to quote one Senator, bring it on.

Mr. Speaker, in addressing the Republican Governors Association fund-raiser last night, the President, in a much-touted speech, decided to unveil his reelection strategy. He pointedly accused the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination of having a record of flip-flopping, waffling and temporizing.

Since the State of the Union and since Meet the Press, I have been waiting for this President to offer a vision and an agenda for this country. His strategy has got America stuck in an endless occupation and a jobless economy. I thought last night we were going to hear a strategy of how to move forward, yet the President of the United States, after 3 years of governing, has decided his strategy is to tear down his opponent rather than to offer America a vision of tomorrow and what we can do to build something tomorrow.

I thought it was very ironic for a President of the United States, who has a growing credibility gap, where people question the validity and the very truthfulness of his words, to begin to question the consistency of the front-runner for the nomination of the Democratic Party. I thought it was very interesting because, if I am not mistaken, this was the President of the United States who has flip-flopped on steel tariffs. That has been this President's record. He flip-flopped within 18 months of having imposed the tariff.

This is a President who, although promoting tax cuts for the very wealthy, called them a middle-class tax cut. We now find out, in Paul O'Neill's book and Ron Suskind's book, the President of the United States knew that his tax cut went to the top end. He went into a meeting, said, ``Haven't we done enough for the top end?'' And yet he went out and sold his tax cuts as something else and then accused Democrats of class warfare for asking the very same question he had asked. And he wants to accuse the Democratic nominee, or near nominee, of being a flip-flopper?

He has a very interesting economic strategy. He is trying to wage three wars with three tax cuts and tell us the deficit is a result of something else; spending on veterans, police, education, and health care. Ever since his tax cuts for $3 trillion, America has added $521 billion to the deficit, 3 million Americans have lost their jobs, 5 million additional Americans are without health care, and over $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on.

His economic report has now told us that the middle class of India, where they are outsourcing jobs, is the primary concern of the President's economic report rather than the shrinking middle class in Indiana. This is a President who then walked away from that. In Ohio, he said manufacturing was his top priority, yet year after year his budget cuts the manufacturing extension program which helps small businesses.

This is a President of the United States who on foreign policy took the Nation, regardless of whether you are for or against it, to war based on weapons of mass destruction, yet we have now found out in two State of the Union Addresses that he raises threats that are not true; in the State of the Union to the United States, where the world was listening.

The President's credibility gap is stretched even wider by his budget that is filled with flip-flops and inconsistencies. He has pledged $3.5 million in new money for police and firefighters, yet his budget cuts $1 billion out of existing grants to local police and firefighters. He told us the budget deficit would be manageable, but his plan to halve it by the year 2009 is an accounting fiction. Even Goldman Sachs and the IMF have blamed the Government of the United States for being a danger to the world economy, let alone employment growth here in the United States.

The President told conservatives of his own party that Medicare would cost only $400 billion. Within 2 months, the bill was for $537 billion. He promised to clean up the Great Lakes on one hand, so he increased the funding for $35 million, but with the other hand he cut the State Revolving Fund for water cleanup by $400 million. And this is an administration that wants to challenge people on the word of credibility, on their flip-flops and waffling?

The only thing this White House never waffles on is when you are a special interest and you need a special favor. They have been quite consistent if you are a pharmaceutical company, you are a polluter, or you are an insurance company or an HMO. So when this President says he wants to campaign on somebody's credibility and on their consistency, I as one Democrat welcome that, because we have 3 years of a record. This President has done a phenomenal job of getting America stuck in a jobless recovery and an endless occupation in Iraq.

This is an election about America's future, not offering the status quo that has put America in the position it is. So if credibility is a question we are going to have in this campaign, let us bring it on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend, colleague and leader of Chicago's business community, John A. Canning, Jr.

On February l, 2004, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made an exemplary choice when he appointed John A. Canning, Jr. as a Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

John A. Canning, Jr. is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Madison Dearborn Partners. Based in Chicago, Madison Dearborn Partners is one of the largest and most experienced private equity investment firms in the United States.

Prior to co-founding Madison Dearborn Partners, John spent 24 years with First Chicago Corporation, most recently as Executive Vice President of The First National Bank of Chicago and President of First Chicago Venture Capital. Mr. Canning has more than a quarter century of experience in private equity investing.

John's service to Chicago's business community is matched only by his commitment to Chicago's philanthropic community. He currently serves on the Boards of Directors of Jefferson Smurfit Group plc, Norfolk Tides Baseball Club, LaSalle National Bank, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and Children's Inner City Educational Fund.

In addition, John lends his vast experience to the Boards of Trustees of The Big Shoulders Fund, The Chicago Community Trust, Denison University, Dublin City University Educational Trust, The Field Museum, and Northwestern University. A common thread among John's contributions and the goals of these organizations is their shared dedication to community service.

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of his first board meeting, I want to wish John Canning continued success as he puts his vast knowledge and wide- ranging expertise to work for the American people. The citizens of Chicago and indeed the country are fortunate to have him at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Mr. Speaker, last week the President of the United States introduced a budget with a $520 billion deficit. If we look across the spectrum, not only does this budget have a fiscal deficit of historic highs of $521 billion, the budget has a credibility deficit, blaming 9/11 and corporate scandals for the creation of this deficit. In fact, the Bush administration is continually facing a growing credibility problem not just in fiscal terms but also in policy terms at home and also overseas. America's word must be respected abroad as well as here, but the administration's word is coming under question.

If we take it from issue to issue, whether it is on the deficit, and we are running a record-high deficit, and the President wants to claim to be a fiscally responsible President, but not once in any of his budgets has he introduced a budget that is either balanced or gets to a road to balance. Not once.

In November, this House debated a $400 billion prescription drug bill, and yet we learn that all along the administration knew it cost $550 billion. That is for a program that we debated and understood to be $400 billion, and not the $400 billion, not even the $500 billion, is paid for, driving the American taxpayer as well as our seniors further into debt.

The other day they talked about the importance of manufacturing jobs, yet they cut the manufacturing extension program which has helped small- and medium-sized manufacturers compete in the world market and add jobs.

The other day, a senior adviser to the President for economic policy announced that outsourcing of jobs was a good thing for the economy.

Mr. Speaker, the outsourcing of American jobs are a good thing for the Indian economy, not the American economy. Any administration who has a top economic adviser who believes outsourcing of jobs is a good thing is an administration with a record that has lost three million jobs in 3 years.

Whether it is on the budget that is out of whack with our values and our principles and our priorities, and as Goldman Sachs and the international monetary funds have announced, it is not even a credible budget. There is not a cent or direction in how we are going to reduce this deficit.

This President, from day one when he came into office, had a surplus north of $100 billion. In his last budget before his reelection, he submits a deficit of $521 billion.

In the area of jobs, three million Americans since he has been President have lost their jobs. They fake an interest in offering a manufacturing extension program and then call for its election or cuts by two-thirds.

Take the funding of police. They have advocated the importance of helping police and firefighters, talked about funding them, and in the President's budget a billion dollars was cut from the police and over $500 million from helping our firefighters.

If we take it from area to area, from section to section, this administration says one thing and then does another. The budget is a blueprint and a document representing the values, principles and priorities of the administration as well as for the United States. I cannot think of a worse example, to have a policy in which we are presented a budget with a $521 billion deficit, record numbers for the country. They are numbers that in my view put us at grave economic risk. We are now beholden to the Chinese and Japanese to continue to buy our securities where, God forbid, at any moment if we need their support they hold our economic security and determine our economic future, which puts us in a terribly vulnerable position.

Across the board on any number of subjects, we can watch how this administration continues both here at home to have its word questioned and also overseas has its word questioned. When a President of the United States has a credibility gap like that, it is not only endangering in my view his administration but our own economic security as Americans. We can see from the value of the dollar and the way it is falling people's judgment about the importance of our word and credibility.

On the issue of weapons of mass destruction in the recent report, that, too, is another example, and a glaring example, where the word of this administration now will be questioned rather than heeded.

In closing, as written in Time magazine, ``Any of those challenges may have been manageable. The problem was that each news cycle brought a new question about the President's judgment and candor, which Democrats lost no time exploiting. Fiscal conservatives had been howling for months about a budget that seemed totally out of control.''