Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a friend, respected elected official and distinguished constituent, Louis J. Eves, who passed away on Friday, April 16, 2004.

Known as the father of Mason, Ohio, Lou will be remembered for his dedication to Mason and was the longest serving mayor in the city's history--sixteen years. Appointed to the Mason City Council in 1973, Lou was reelected five times. His vision for the city could be summed up as growth with control, and he helped Mason become the growing and prosperous city it is today. He also paved the way for toll free calling from Mason to Cincinnati; urged additional park funding; and pushed for construction of a municipal swimming pool, which was eventually named for him.

A Mason resident for more than thirty years, Lou was the owner of Mason's Houston Inn Restaurant, a Warren County landmark for many years. Lou bought the restaurant in 1959, expanded it three times, and it is still run by his family.

Lou was also an Army Master Sergeant who served his country honorably. He served in Korea and completed multiple tours of duty in World War II. The first life member of the Landen Kings Chamber of Commerce, Lou was one of only four lifetime Mason Kiwanians.

Lou is survived by his devoted wife, Frances; his children, David, Michael, Lou and Kathy; eleven grandchildren and four great- grandchildren.

I am grateful to have had his friendship and counsel, and all of us in Southwest Ohio have benefited from Lou's leadership and his strong example in our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Rev. Dr. L.H. Mayfield, a friend, fellow member, and retired pastor of Hyde Park Community United Methodist Church in Cincinnati, who will receive the Wesley Foundation United Methodist Campus Ministry in Cincinnati's 2004 Spirit Award on May 4, 2004.

Although he will be recognized by the Wesley Foundation for his work with young people, some say that Dr. Mayfield is best known for his attention to the needs of the poor, disadvantaged, and elderly. We can all agree that he celebrates life and has made a difference in all that he does.

The Wesley Foundation United Methodist Campus Ministry in Cincinnati has been serving Cincinnati's young adults in higher education since 1925. The Wesley Foundation's ministry is a welcoming, affirming community that nurtures spiritual growth and empowers students to explore, enrich, and practice their faith.

Dr. Mayfield was a member of the Wesley Foundation Board of Directors for 10 years. He was chairperson of the board while pastoring the Mt. Auburn United Methodist Church and serving as chaplain at Christ Hospital. Dr. Mayfield was instrumental in expanding Wesley Foundation to a full-time campus ministry with a building close to the university.

Dr. Mayfield has committed his time and energy to the Wesley Services Organization (WSO), a ministry that provides services to the elderly. WSO ministers to the elderly through Wesley Hall and Lincoln Crawford, both skilled nursing and rehabilitation facilities, and Wesley Community Services, which serves seniors in their homes. Dr. Mayfield has been a member of the WSO Board of Directors since 1965; and in 1980, he helped to raise the funds to build a new nursing facility for Wesley Hall. He also led the effort to regain Lincoln Crawford's financial stability.

Dedicated to many organizations in our area, Dr. Mayfield has volunteered with Hospice of Cincinnati, the Elizabeth Gamble Deaconess Home Association, the American Cancer Society, Cancer Family Care, and prison ministries.

Dr. Mayfield has received numerous awards for his community service. In 1999, he was the recipient of the Greater Cincinnati Foundation's prestigious Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award, which is presented annually to an outstanding volunteer in the community, who then awards the money to a nonprofit organization. Dr. Mayfield designated WSO.

All of us in the Greater Cincinnati area thank Dr. Mayfield for his service and congratulate him on receiving this well-deserved honor.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote Nos. 118 and 119, I was unavoidably detained at the White House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' for each bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his comments. I have enjoyed working with him over the years. He works closely with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) who we will hear from in a moment on pension issues.

I would say I cannot agree exactly with his analysis of this bill. This is a very strong bill that I strongly support. I commend those who played a role in putting it together, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) was there in the conference helping put it together.

The bill that came through the House, as my colleagues will recall, had no help from multi-employers because it was a 30-year bill. That was the issue that we started with, and that is the source of the legislation, also the reason for the legislation, and that legislation then got added to. But it is interesting that all but I think two Members of this House voted for the bill last go-around without any multi-employer relief and now somehow the bill is not good enough because it does not have enough multi-employer relief.

It does solve the 30-year problem, and that is extremely important to 34 million American workers. It is only a 2-year short term bill, as the gentleman knows; and in those 2 years the idea is that we will reform all of the pension rules and regulations, including the funding rules, the accounting rules, the disclosure rules, something that is long overdue, and including within that, of course, the multi-employer rules, which I believe do need to be altered. But this was never meant to be the bill to do that.

My colleague talked about problems that might come up in the next 5 or 10 years for these plans. We will have time to deal with that in the next 2 years. That is the whole idea. The critical thing here is, before April 15 when these quarterly payments are going to be made or not made, that we make a decision to save millions of employees from having their benefits frozen, from perhaps losing their benefits altogether, new entrants into the workforce. We know we had 300,000 new jobs last month. Let us be sure those people have an opportunity to get into a pension.

What is happening out there, as we know, is we not only have seen a precipitous drop in the number of plans that are insured by PBGC, meaning these traditional guaranteed, defined benefit plans, we have gone from roughly 114,000 plans to 32,000 plans just in the last 18 years.

More disturbing to me is that recently we have seen a lot of these plans freeze benefits for existing participants and not allow new participants in. The best study we have got shows that we have about 27 percent of plans that are not offering benefits to new hires as they do to existing hires. We have about 21 percent of plans, that is more than one in five, who are scaling back benefits through a freeze or other similar mechanisms.

We have got a crisis, and we need to deal with it. We have spent 2 years talking about it. I am delighted this bill is before us to finally correct the major reason that plans are freezing and cutting benefits and that is the fact that the interest rate they have to use, called the 30-year rate, is not accurate.

My colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who I see is on the floor, and I introduced legislation to correct this problem. It is bipartisan legislation, strongly supported in this House. It provides for a long-term, conservative corporate bond rate to be used instead of this 30-year Treasury, as the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) said earlier, which is now defunct and no longer a good interest rate. It provides a slightly higher interest rate, which allows companies to make the adequate and accurate contribution but not overcontribute. And this will help, again, 34 million American workers.

I am pleased to see the conference report we have before us incorporates that model. It only does it for 2 years. I wish we could have gotten 3 or 4. I would have loved it to be permanent. It would give the plans the predictability they need. We were not able to do that. But to have the 2-year change in the 30-year is extremely important to those 34 million workers, including, by the way, 12 million union workers.

To my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), he talked earlier about the fact that this somehow does not take care of union workers but it takes care of non-union workers. I would just remind him there are 9 million union workers in multi-employer plans, but there are 12 million union workers who get a very direct benefit from the 30- year Treasury fix in this bill.

I would also say that, for those folks who are concerned about who this covers and does not cover in terms of the multi-employer plans, we really do not know. It may be three 3 or 4 percent. It may be more than that. That is not what we intended to do, was to choose a percentage. We tried to put in place some screens to be sure that the benefits that were added to, again, the 30-year Treasury bill that went through this House with all but two votes, to be sure that those plans that were added to that were those plans most in need. That was the only criteria.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for all of his hard work and his support today and make that commitment with him and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and others. We will work together on this issue for the next couple of years. We do need to reform our entire defined benefit pension system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just briefly, I say to my colleague who just spoke, I appreciate his support. Last time through he said he did support the legislation without any multi-employer provisions. He should know that no one who has spoken on the floor today mentioned the multi-employer issue when it came to the floor last time. In fact, when we look

through the debate, not one Member of Congress on either side of the aisle mentioned the multi-employer issue or suggested that it be added.

I would also say with regard to all these small businesses, 23 million small businesses in America, let us assume all the multi- employer employers are small businesses which, of course, they are not. Let us assume they were, that would be .2 percent of our small businesses in America. So let us be careful about saying we are talking about 20 percent of the small businesses here.

We are talking about at the most .2 percent and of course, not all multi-employer employers are defined as small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just wanted to say again that I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from New Jersey. I look forward to working with him on multi- employer relief over the next 2 years. This is a short-term bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Speaker, because of a previous commitment I missed the recorded vote today on rollcall No. 117, final passage of the conference report on H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for my Drug Impaired Driving legislation, which is included in the H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.

I know it would probably surprise most of my colleagues to learn that up to 20 percent of drivers involved in motor vehicle accidents were under the influence of illegal drugs, or that in 2002 almost 11 million people drove a car or truck while under the influence of drugs.

Over the past decade, our Nation's aggressive response to the problem of drunk driving has greatly reduced the number of drunk drivers on the road. But the Nation's 16 million current users of illegal drugs have faced no similar effort as they continue to drive under the influence of drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin.

I believe a more effective public policy for detection and prosecution will not only improve traffic safety and create a deterrent, but would get those drivers who violate the law into treatment.

The Drug Impaired Driving Research and Prevention Act, which I introduced with my colleagues Sander Levin, Jon Porter, Mark Souder, Jerry Costello, Steven

LaTourette, Jim Ramstad and David Hobson, will provide assistance and guidance to States as they begin to address drug impaired driving. The language calls on the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to craft a model State drug impaired driving law and helps ensure that drivers in need of drug treatment are identified and provided with the appropriate assistance. The legislation enhances the training of police officers and prosecutors to detect, enforce, and prosecute drug impaired driving laws and also funds research to develop field tests to be able to identify drug impaired drivers.

This legislation will greatly improve traffic safety and reduce traffic fatalities as has been the case with drunk driving laws. It is time to deal with these undetected dangers on our roads and highways before more damage occurs and more lives are lost. I thank Chairman Young for including this important legislation in the Highway bill.

Madam Speaker, being a member of the Committee on the Budget, I have to say that the budget that we passed in the House I do not believe is a fraud at all. It does two things that are very important. One, it restrains spending, which we need to do in order to get the deficit under control; and it also helps the economy to keep the government's spending down. For the first time really since 1995, when Republicans took control of the House, we are actually going to be freezing spending in many accounts. In fact, other than the security accounts and domestic discretionary spending, we will be getting spending under control and restraining spending, which I think is exactly what we should be doing. Second is that it puts in place measures to ensure that the economic growth that has begun continues. The gentleman may not have seen that in his district in Washington State, but we have certainly seen it around the country.

In fact, during the last 6 months, our economy grew faster than it has grown in the last 20 years, and jobs are coming back. Every month, over the last 6 months, we have seen job increases. Not as much as we would like to see, and all of us would like to see more, but the way to do that, obviously, is not to raise taxes on the American people, particularly some of those people the gentleman talked about, who he described as the wealthy. These are people who are businesses. Because a lot of small businesses in this country, in fact most small businesses are not incorporated, they are subchapter S, or partnerships, or sole proprietors; and they pay taxes at the individual level. Those are the people who are creating most of the jobs, our small businesses; and so we do not want to tax them at this point just as the economy is getting back on its feet.

So I think it is a good budget. I wish we could reduce the deficit even more, but it reduces the deficit in half by 4 years; the Senate version reduces it in half by 3 years.

Madam Speaker, I am actually here tonight to talk about another part of the budget, and that is the part that leaves room to provide for a new benefit under the Medicare program for prescription drug coverage.

After years and years of talking about this in this House, over in the other House, around the country, politicians have had a good time telling seniors we are going to give you prescription drug coverage, it is going to be great; but we have not delivered. Finally, late last year, this House voted on a bipartisan basis to provide prescription drug coverage, and I am very proud of that.

Is it perfect? No, it is not what anybody would think would be the perfect bill based on their situation. Is it a good benefit? Absolutely, yes. And it is a substantial commitment by this Congress to be sure we modernize Medicare. As the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said earlier, we need to modernize the program. She talked about in addition to prescription drug coverage all the wonderful new preventive benefits, all the new help for people with chronic disease.

It was time to take a 1960s program and be sure it added this important element of prescription drug coverage, which was not a big part of anybody's care back in the 1960s. Now it is a huge part of seniors' care. And seniors back home in Ohio, where I am from, are delighted they are going to get some help with their prescription drug coverage, because they rely more and more on prescription drugs, and people rely on prescription drugs to stay out of hospitals and not to have to have procedures. Instead of having a very expensive heart operation, now you can take Lipitor and keep your cholesterol down, and that should be covered by Medicare. And it will be now.

The Medicare bill does involve some trade-offs. We had limited resources. We spent $400 billion over a 10-year period, which is a lot of money, given the deficit that we have. But we thought it was so important to do it. But it does not provide 100 percent coverage. What it does provide is a real benefit, though; and let me talk about what it does and does not do.

A lot of what I have seen in the national media and what opponents of the law have said just is not accurate. Some have said that seniors will be forced into this new prescription drug plan and forced to pay premiums they may not want to pay. That is not true. It is entirely voluntary. If seniors do not want to sign up for it, they do not have to.

It will be roughly $35 a month for most Americans. But for about 35 percent of Americans, those who are under 150 percent or 135 percent of poverty, there will be no premium at all. But for those Americans who will pay a premium, it is about $35 a month.

The Department of Health and Human Services, the nonpartisan experts there, the Congressional Budget Office, again nonpartisan group, think the vast majority of Americans will sign up. But they do not have to. It is a voluntary program.

Opponents are also saying that this new voluntary benefit will cause employers to drop retiree coverage for those fortunate enough to have it. Well, there are seniors, maybe a third of seniors, who have coverage from their spouse or from themselves working for an employer. We want to be sure those people continue to get coverage, and this legislation absolute has just the opposite effect. It will not drive people away from it. In fact, it will give people the ability to keep that coverage because it provides an incentive for employers to keep people covered. We have never done that before, including the other Medicare bills that just about everybody in this Chamber has voted for in one way or another.

That is extremely important, because we want to encourage people to continue to have coverage. Over 20 percent of the cost of the bill, $85 billion, is set aside just for that purpose. AARP supports this bill. And one reason they support it is this provision was important to them, and it is in the bill.

Some opponents are also saying that the legislation would have been less costly if it had focused on those who really need it. That is exactly what it does. Most of the benefit goes to low-income seniors and those who have high drug costs. As I said earlier, those who are low-income seniors, under 135 percent of poverty, do not pay a premium, do not pay any copays, and are able to get prescription drugs with only $1 or $5 at the prescription drug counter.

This is a good bill focusing on those who need the coverage the most.

Mr. Speaker, on March 29, 2004, I was in my congressional district due to a death in my family. I missed the recorded votes on rollcall No. 94, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2584, the Utrok Atoll Conveyance; rollcall No. 95, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3723, the Vaughn Gross Post Office Building. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 94 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 95.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the Committee on the Budget chairman, for bringing forward a budget that this House could support which does, in fact, get spending under control and does grow the economy.

And let me respond briefly to my friend from Texas who just spoke and my friend from Tennessee who spoke before that about spending. Because they seem to be saying that somehow the Republicans do not care about deficits, do not care about spending. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let us talk about the truth. The Democratic substitute, which my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for, has not less spending, it has more spending. In fact, in 2005 alone it has $21.6 billion more spending. Over 5 years, it has $135 billion more spending. And that is more spending on education, they want more spending on the environment, they want more spending on health care, they want more spending on science, they want more spending on homeland security, they want more spending on international commitments. More spending, not less spending.

Now, they will say in response, well, we pay for our spending. How do they pay for it? By raising taxes. And who do they raise taxes on? They raise taxes on what they say are the wealthy. Turns out a lot of the wealthy are small businesses. Because most small businesses in this country pay their taxes through the individual tax system. Therefore, you are not an entrepreneur. You are an innovator. You are the person out there creating jobs. Because most jobs are created by small businesses, you are going to get taxed for more spending.

Now, I know people do not like to hear the tax and spend characterization, but that is what it is. It is more spending, and it is more taxes. And all the budget enforcement in the world is not going to help if you take this approach of more taxes and more spending. That is what they have chosen to

take. That is the honest truth. That is the difference that we are talking about here.

Now the question is, how should we enforce whatever budget we think is right? We think there ought to be less spending, and we think there ought to be a continuation of the tax relief. And, incidentally, we think that for a very simple reason, because we know when we look back at history the only way to get the deficit under control is by growing the economy and restraining spending.

That is exactly what the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) has rolled out in his budget that this House has supported. It is the only way it works.

In 1997 we learned that. On a bipartisan basis we stood together and said we are going to get this budget under control. We said we will get it under control within 5 or 6 years, by 2001 or 2002. It happened in 2 years. Why? Because the economy grew.

Getting the economy to grow is absolutely the reason we put the tax relief in place in the first place and it is working. We had the fastest economic growth in the last 6 months in the most recent data we have than we had in 20 years. Jobs are coming back, not as fast as we would like; but jobs are coming back as we see the economy is growing. It is working

Why would we want to at this point go back to raising taxes just as things are beginning to turn around, as we are getting the economy back on its feet? As the economy grows and as you keep spending under control, you get the deficit down. It is a very simple calculation. It happens to be one that works, and we know it works.

I would just like to say, with regard to the concerns about then how do we enforce the budget, and I have explained why I think our budget is better than the approach that my friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed, how do you enforce it, absolutely we should enforce it. I am all for PAYGO, as are the Members of my side of the aisle; and we have a commitment, as my colleagues know, from our leadership to bring a PAYGO bill, meaning you pay for spending as you go, before Memorial Day. We will do that, and that is very important. If you do not have a budget, though, you have nothing to enforce.

What we are saying is we ought to have a budget that allows the economic growth to continue, that restrains spending and then put in place the PAYGO rules.

They would like to have PAYGO rules include taxes. I would ask my colleagues, let us say a few years from now we go into another economic slump, as this President inherited from his predecessor. Would we not want to be able to put in place pro-growth tax relief as we have done three times in the last 3 years? I think we should be able to do that. I think we should be able to do that in a way that indicates that tax relief, appropriate tax relief is the way we grow the economy. So we need to be very careful not to equate spending and taxes.

I commend, again, my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for a great budget; and I commend him for encouraging our leadership to bring a PAYGO provision to the floor which will happen before Memorial Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say I am looking forward to voting on the budget later today. This budget is a good document because it does what we know works to get the deficit under control. First, it restrains spending, extremely important. Second, it allows the economy to continue to grow, as my friend from Montana just talked about, by not raising taxes on the American people. Significantly, the budget also provides for the prescription drug benefit this Congress passed late last year. After spending 5 years talking about it, a lot of rhetoric, a real political football, we finally on a bipartisan basis provided prescription drug benefits in a meaningful way.

What numbers will we be relying on in the budget? We will rely on the Congressional Budget Office, as under the rules of the House we are required to do. There has been a lot of discussion about what numbers we should use. Of course we are going to use the Congressional Budget Office as we must. There are other estimates out there. Some may be right, some may be wrong; but this Congress is doing the right thing by providing a prescription drug benefit and providing under the rules of the House for the right estimate of those costs.

Mr. Speaker, following on the comments of my colleague from Florida, I will say that this Medicare bill that the House passed last year, which adds a prescription drug benefit, is good medicine. It comes after years and years of this Congress talking about adding a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. Lots of rhetoric, no action. Finally, late last year, this House got together on a bipartisan basis and passed a benefit that truly helps seniors.

It is a good bill because it adds prescription drugs, but it is even better than that because it adds another great, exciting new tool for our seniors, but also for all Americans, to be able to save tax free for their health care: health savings accounts. You make a contribution tax free, it builds up tax free, and when you pay for your health care needs, it is tax free.

This will help in a few different ways. One, it will encourage preventive health care, people taking care of themselves, reducing costs in Medicare as a result. Second, it will add more competition to the health care system. It is your own dollar now that you are spending. That also will reduce costs in Medicare. Finally, it will help with the uninsured.

Many small businesses who do not now provide coverage for the uninsured will now be able to provide that coverage and individuals will be able to make contributions to an account like this to be able to cover their own health care needs.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good part of a good bill.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding me time.

I would like to talk about that second pillar of our budget which is growth of the economy. Let me briefly address the comments from my friend from Wisconsin who just spoke in terms of the spending.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has told us, as the ranking member of the Committee on Budget, there is more spending in their budget. So if anybody is out of control on spending, the gentleman just outlined he has more spending for education, more spending for the environment, more spending for defense, more spending for veterans, more spending for science, more spending for health care, more spending, more spending, more spending.

How is it paid for? Tax increases.

We have got a deficit problem, but we will not get our hands around it unless we get spending under control as well as grow the economy. That is what I wanted to talk about today.

Back in 1997, I stood down here on this floor, as did many of my colleagues, and talked about our great balanced budget agreement of 1997, which was a wonderful, bipartisan exercise in trying to get some spending discipline. We said we would balance the budget in 5 or 6 years. We were very proud of that.

Within 2 years, the budget was balanced. Within 3, we were in surplus. Why? Yes, because we restrained spending, which was very important; but much more importantly, the economy grew and the economy grew rapidly because we had pro-growth policies in place including tax relief, which some people forget about at that time. And we learned as a Congress, I hope, a very important lesson which is, the way to get back to balance is to grow the economy and restrain spending. It is really pretty simple.

Now, the next couple of years forward when we got into a deficit, how did we get into a deficit? Well, same thing. We did not restrain spending. We allowed spending to grow too fast and the economy took a nose dive. George Bush, when he was sworn in as President of the United States, inherited a failing economy. Within 60 days after he was sworn in, something like that, the economy actually went into a recession, negative economic growth. That is one of the main reasons we are here.

Then we were hit with 9/11, costing the Federal Government billions and billions of dollars and, of course, a bigger hit on our economy. The corporate scandals then hit us, the biggest we have had in our Nation's history. All of

this hurts our economy which decreased the revenues to the Federal Government and we are trying to get back on our feet.

And what I love about this budget, and I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for it, is it does those two very simple things. It restrains spending and it grows the economy.

The remarkable changes we have seen in the last year we need to continue. Since last March, a year ago from this time, when we were in the early stages recovering from that 2001 recession, the terrorist attacks and their aftermath, we have had incredible growth in this economy. In fact, the past two quarters, which is the last two quarters of 2003, we had the fastest growth in our economy in 20 years.

We had 8.2 percent growth in the third quarter, and in the fourth quarter, 4.1 percent. Chart 8 shows the GDP growth we have had. This is over the last couple of quarters. That big line there is the third quarter; 4.1 percent, the fourth quarter.

The blue chip forecasts are for continued growth. In fact, the new forecasts are even more optimistic than that. They show a 4.7 percent growth last year; if we continue these policies that are in place, including the tax relief we just passed in 2001, 2002, 2003.

The Democrat budget again increases spending. It also increases taxes, throws balance off, but the fact is, they are going to hurt the economic growth and that is the key, growing the economy, restraining spending.

We have got some more good news. Over the past year, housing starts are running at their highest levels in 20 years. Mortgage interest rates continue to run at their lowest levels in over 3 decades. The prime rate is at its lowest level in 45 years. Inflation is at its lowest rate in four decades. Exports of goods and services rose in the fourth quarter rose at 20 percent, the fastest pace they have been at in 7 years. And we have seen significant increases in the stock market since a year ago as well.

Chart 10: Very importantly, labor markets are beginning to improve. For the past 20 straight weeks unemployment insurance claims have remained below the benchmark that is established by economists as a sign of an improving labor market. Jobs are beginning to come back. This is key. We do not want to change course now that we are finally making progress.

As chart 11 shows, the unemployment rate is now down to 5.6 percent from 6.3 percent last June. That is lower unemployment than the average in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s. Maybe not the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s; it is lower than the average unemployment in those decades.

We are making progress. We are going in the right direction. We are getting this under control both on the economy side and with regard to jobs. And jobs are incredibly important. This budget will help us to be sure that every person that wants a job can get a job by continuing to grow that economy.

Over 300,000 new jobs in the past 6 months, we are on the right track. We have a clearly improved economic picture. There is more to do, of course, there is. But the absolute wrong thing to do is to get off that track and to get back on the track where the economy is going down, where we are losing jobs.

The speed and strength of the economic recovery has been, in large measure, due to the tax relief we put in place in 2001, 2002 and 2003. What this budget does is, it continues that tax relief.

Again, my friends on the other side of the aisle choose to increase the taxes, $146 billion over the next 5 years. That is what is in the budget. That is what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) talked about, more spending, more taxes.

So one of the guiding principles of this budget is that the economy must grow and we must continue to create jobs if we are to remain the world's strongest economy and get the budget under control.

The second way we do it is, we make sure that we keep spending under control.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that in order to get this economy to continue to grow as it has, we need to continue the policies that are in place. We do not want to snap back. We do not want to have taxes increase that we have just decreased, which is what would happen under the Democratic alternative. Second, we need to control spending.

Let me list a couple of things we do on the spending side. We hold the line on our own spending, no increase in the legislative branch at all; no new appropriation earmarks without justification; no new mandatory or entitlement programs without new discipline on them; no nonwar emergency supplementals without spending offsets on those supplementals; no budget waivers, and freezing funding for unauthorized programs. That is in this budget; it is extremely important.

The directives are in addition, of course, to holding the line on spending. All the nonsecurity spending is held at a freeze. And, yes, we provide for priorities, but at the same time we recognize we have got to get this spending under control.

None of this is going to be easy. A lot of us here, certainly many in the Senate, have gotten pretty comfortable signing off on spending increases, on free-flowing spending. We cannot keep that up. We need to get this economy to continue to grow. That is what this budget does and we need to keep spending under control. Success at keeping taxes and spending down will mean a stronger economy, will mean more hope and more opportunity for all the people we represent.

Mr. Speaker, there are still some asking why Congress added a prescription drug benefit for seniors under Medicare. The reason is simple. Before we passed this law, the Medicare program operated like it was still back in 1965, when surgeries and hospital stays, rather than prescription drugs, were the primary means of treating and managing disease. Today, prescription medications not only treat illness, they can prevent them.

Prior to the changes in law, Medicare would pay an average of $5,000 for a person's hospitalization for heart failure, for instance, but not pay the $67 per month for Lipitor which is a cholesterol-lowering drug which can prevent heart failure. This is bad medicine and that is why we needed to add a prescription drug benefit.

Mr. Speaker, adding a benefit to Medicare was an important first step for providing seniors with quality and affordable health care. The benefit is entirely voluntary. The senior who does not want to take the benefit, they do not have to.

The prescription drug benefit is simple. It provides seniors relief from the high cost of prescription drugs, and it focuses that relief on those who need it most. Those who have low income, 12 million seniors get the benefit for the low-income seniors and those with high drug costs who can benefit from the new catastrophic insurance benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the new Medicare law provides seniors a choice and control with their drug plans, and it is good for our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and distinguished constituent, John E. Pepper, retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Procter & Gamble Company, who will have the honor of being inducted into the American Advertising Federation's Advertising Hall of Fame in New York City today.

The Advertising Hall of Fame is the most prestigious honor bestowed in the advertising industry. It is awarded to individuals who have set the standard for lifetime advertising excellence, and who have made volunteer efforts outside the workplace. With this honor, John joins a notable group of industry luminaries, including William S. Paley, David Ogilvy, Leo Burnett, Ray Kroc, William Bernbach, and David Sarnoff.

An influential leader throughout his career with Procter & Gamble, one of the world's leading advertisers, John was selected for the honor because he led some of the company's most powerful advertising initiatives. His expertise led to revolutionary advertising campaigns for Dash detergent and a groundbreaking new advertising agency compensation system. John had a profound effect on Procter & Gamble and on advertising.

John served as the ninth chairman of the board and chief executive officer at Procter & Gamble, retiring in 2002 after 38 years of service. After joining Procter & Gamble in 1963, he served as a brand manager for Cascade detergent, where his leadership built an entire category. He developed landmark advertising that contributed to Procter & Gamble's dominance.

In 1974, John became general manager of Procter & Gamble Italia, returned in 1978, and was elected a group vice president in 1980. In 1984, he was elected to the board of directors and was named president in 1986. That year, he implemented P&G's Advertising Awards (now called Global Brand Building Awards), to showcase brands that grew primarily due to advertising. John was also an early advocate of Procter & Gambles's global expansion, and led the company's entry into Central and Eastern Europe, especially Russia and China. He serves on many company boards, including Xerox Corporation, Motorola Inc., and the Boston Scientific Corporation.

John is deeply committed to his community. In 1978, in response to an escalating public high school dropout rate, he founded the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative, a non-profit organization that assists graduating high school students with mentoring and tutoring and employment. John is a member of the boards of the Partnership for a Drug Free America and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. I have been privileged to work with John on the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, where he serves as co-chairman of the development campaign and a member of its executive committee. I also served with him as a fellow founding board member of the Coalition for a Drug Free Greater Cincinnati. In this capacity, his expertise was helpful in launching what is now a

successful local organization committed to reducing substance abuse among our young people through prevention and education.

John is a graduate of Yale University. He has recently taken on a new challenge as Yale's vice president of finance and administration. His wife, Francie, is also a dedicated and effective community volunteer. They have four children.

All of us in the Cincinnati area congratulate John on this prestigious honor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding to me, and I would be happy to talk about the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning business, 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those will also be sent to Members' offices by the end of this week. Any votes called on those suspensions will be rolled until 6:30 p.m., as has been our custom.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the House will convene at 10 a.m. We still hope to consider the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005, although that is being worked out.

In addition, as we all know, next week is the anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as the anniversary of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons attacks against the Kurds. So on Wednesday, the House will consider a resolution remembering these historical events and commemorating the allied forces, including our troops, for the liberation of Iraq.

Finally, I would like to remind all Members that we do not plan to have votes next Friday, March 19.

I thank my friend from Maryland very much for yielding to me, and I would be happy to answer any questions, or try to answer any questions, he might have.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I have not seen the resolution either. It has not been introduced yet. My understanding is that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has taken the lead on that and the Committee on International Relations, and he will be consulting with the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos), and I am sure he would appreciate any input that Members have on both sides. It would be good if we could as a House support this resolution on a bipartisan basis because it will be, as my colleague said, important to be able to show that support for our troops who are currently in Iraq performing for us and for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague will yield further, it is still up in the air. As the gentleman knows, we had planned to have the budget marked up in committee today and then brought to the floor next week. It is important that we keep our time frame because it is important that we have our appropriations bills done in a timely manner. So we are still hopeful that can happen, but we have had some delays in the markup today. We did get started on the markup. We had some good opening statements, and we are going back into committee later today, but there are currently negotiations over whether we can finish that today or not.

I will say that we are excited about the budget document. It does restrain spending, which we believe is the right thing to do. There have been some disagreements between the bodies, even between Members, on both sides of the aisle, over some of the budget enforcement mechanisms. Those are more the issues here that have to do with caps and PAYGOs and those sorts of issues; but the budget itself, this resolution, we hope to be able to mark up today. If not, we will certainly mark it up next week.

I thank the gentleman for yielding further.

It is my understanding that, as in prior years, the Committee on Rules will give preference to complete substitutes rather than amendments to the budget document. It is my understanding further that we will provide adequate time, as we have in the past, for both general debate and for these substitutes.

Historically, this debate has varied between 3 to 5 hours for general debate and 40 minutes to 1 hour for amendments or substitutes. It is my understanding that it is the intention once again for the Committee on Rules to provide those kinds of rules. Of course, they have not seen the various resolutions yet, including the one that comes out of the Committee on the Budget. But that is certainly the intent of the Committee on Rules at this point.

Let me say at the outset that we welcome a substitute from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), better yet that he supports the substitute the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) will offer in committee. But certainly having an alternative is welcome and the debate will be a healthy one.

With regard to any budget enforcement mechanisms, there has not been a decision whether that will be part of the budget resolution. I think that is part of the discussion now whether there will be separate legislation. There are advantages and disadvantage to both, I suppose, but that decision has not been made yet.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I do not know what form it will take. If it is part of the budget resolution, I suppose then other budget resolution substitutes, as we talked about earlier, might include enforcement mechanisms as well. The gentleman mentioned the ranking member may indeed offer one of his own. If it is separate legislation, the Committee on Rules would take that up.

I do not know, I would say to my friend from Maryland, I do not know when that would be. I do not know if it will be the same time as the budget. There are other committees, particularly the Committee on Rules, that will have jurisdiction of any enforcement mechanism. Ultimately, it is up to the will of the Congress, is it not, as to how we enforce our budgets?

I just do not know what the likely form will take. Again, I think our goal would be to have a healthy debate over the enforcement mechanisms. We feel strongly that spending ought to be subject to the pay-go rules. We feel strongly that the tax relief that was enacted over the last 3 years has now turned this economy around and we are beginning to see growth. So we would hate to subject those to the kinds of pay-go rules that would not have permitted, during the time when the economy was in bad shape, for us to begin to get some economic stimulus and growth.

So this may be some of the debates we will have on the floor, and I would think we would encourage that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding to me again.

The legislation is very much on our minds. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has worked hard on this legislation already. The gentleman mentioned the substitute which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) may want to offer in committee. The tariff increases are beginning to take effect, increasing by 1 percent every month, so it is something we are working hard on.

We do want to work closely with the other body on this to be sure that we can actually enact legislation, as well as with the President and with his team, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office and the Treasury Department in particular. So we are working closely with them.

I do not know when legislation may come to the floor, but I understand that the Committee on Ways and Means is planning another meeting next week to discuss certain aspects of this, to be sure that as we repeal the FSC/ETI provisions, we are also providing adequate benefits for U.S. companies who are involved in global competition.

So this is a very high priority on our side of the aisle and we continue to work toward that goal.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield a moment.

I respect the gentleman's vote-counting ability, as he knows, but being on the committee, I can say that I am not certain such a bill could have even been reported out the committee because there are many complexities with responding to this tough issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my friend Helen Hiestand for her years of able and dedicated public service to the people of Ohio's Second and Sixth Congressiona1 Districts.

Helen served as my District Field Representative for over 6 years. In this role, she served as Service Academy Director; Caseworker; and my representative in the local communities.

Helen's hallmark is professionalism. Throughout her service, Helen not only became a vital member of our office team, she was known for her dedication and commitment to solving problems for people. Helen earned a reputation for keeping in close touch with our local communities and building bridges between people and the Federal Government. She met the highest standards for efficiency and responsiveness in completing casework; served as liaison with local, State and Federal agencies and liaison with local elected officials; and represented me at local events when Congressional business prevented me from attending.

Prior to her service to the Second District, she served former Congressman Bob McEwen as District Office Manager and former Congressman Frank Cremeans as District Representative and Office Manager in Ohio's Sixth Congressional District. We were fortunate to have her join my office in 1997 as District Field Representative.

Helen is also devoted to her family. Her husband, Ed; daughter, Janis; and son, Joe, are pleased that she now has more time to spend with them. Also very active in her church, Helen has served in the United Methodist Women organization; as a Circle Leader; with the Chancel Choir and as a soloist. She has also been active in Emmaus Community, an ecumenical organization.

Helen attended Riverside City College in Riverside, CA, and the University of Texas at Austin.

Although we miss her greatly, we are privileged to have worked with Helen. Her ethical and professional standards, commitment, and dedication have served the Second and Sixth Districts well. We wish her good health and much success in her retirement and whatever she chooses to do next.