Floor Statements

I rise today in support of H. Res. 612, introduced by my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Cantor.

On March 26, 2004, there were a series of devastating fires in Richmond, Virginia. The

first fire began shortly after 12:30, and spread quickly. Wind gusting to nearly 20 mph blew burning debris onto other buildings.

The fires resulted in the destruction of numerous buildings and property, and spread through city blocks and a section of the Virginia Commonwealth University campus. A total of 29 buildings suffered damage, with 19 being condemned by either water or structural damage. Yet, the destruction and damage could certainly have been worse. It was only through the combined efforts of the firefighters who responded to the scene that the fire was contained as quickly as it was. Local firefighters who initially answered the call were later assisted by firefighters from fire stations throughout the region. There were about 200 firefighters on the scene, along with 50 pieces of equipment. Together, they worked to defeat the blaze--and fought the challenging wind, smoke and heat conditions in order to save the remaining area. We thank them today for their heroic efforts to contain the damage and to protect human lives.

It is appropriate for us to also recognize the efforts of the police on March 26th. As always, they were instrumental in keeping our citizens safe. For example, they evacuated several buildings and about 50 nearby homes, going door to door.

And last, today, we recognize the countless private citizens, volunteers and organizations that--along with the firefighters, police, and public servants--worked as a seamless team preserving and protecting human lives, defending property, and providing food and comfort to all affected.

All of these individuals deserve our recognition, and our gratitude. They met their community's call to duty by providing brave and steadfast assistance and upholding the finest traditions of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We, and all Americans, thank you for your supreme efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1086, the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2003. This measure has strong bipartisan support in the Committee on the Judiciary, the House and the Senate, as is evidenced by its cosponsors. It provides important and significant improvements to our antitrust laws. We passed the bill last year, and it passed the Senate more recently with amendments, and we are here today to approve the identical version of the bill.

Title I of the bill recognizes that organizations set thousands of standards that keep us safe and provide uniformity for everything from fire protections to computer systems to building construction. When all DVDs are the same size, competitors can manufacture to the standard and compete. When all plugs are the same size, anybody can sell a lamp without having to insist on a particular brand name because they know all lamps have the standard plugs. Without the relief in this bill, industries may be reluctant to agree on a standard out of fear that treble antitrust damages may be available.

So this title provides a common sense safe harbor for standards development organizations. Those who voluntarily disclose their activities to Federal antitrust authorities will only be subject to single damages should a successful antitrust suit arise. Those who refuse to disclose their activities or those who take actions beyond their disclosures will be subject to the treble damages under the antitrust statutes.

The bill does not exempt anyone from antitrust laws but applies the rule of reason to standards development organizations that are acting in an open and forthright manner. If a violation is found, the organizations are still liable for damages, but single damages, rather than treble damages, which would now apply. However, organizations that commit specific serious antitrust violations, such as conspiring about standards on price, market share or territory division, will still be fully liable for their actions.

The rationale for the more favorable treatment of standards development organizations under these circumstances is that standards development organizations, as nonprofits that serve a cross-section of an industry, are unlikely themselves to engage in anticompetitive activities; and, without the risk of treble damages, they can be more innovative in their effort to develop standards which enhance product quality and safety while reducing costs.

Title II of the bill, the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2003, increases the maximum criminal penalties for antitrust violations so that the disparity is eliminated between the treatment of criminal white collar offenses and antitrust criminal offenses.

This title also incorporates a leniency provision that encourages participants in an illegal conspiracy to turn in their co-conspirators. This provision allows the Department of Justice to limit the damages of the cooperating company's civil liability to actual, rather than treble, damages. The Department of Justice will only grant such leniency if the company provides adequate and timely cooperation to both the government and any subsequent private plaintiffs in civil suits. And because the remaining conspirators remain jointly and severally liable to treble damages, the victims' potential recovery is not reduced by leniency in this situation.

Finally, Title II of the bill reforms the Tunney Act to strengthen the Act's requirements that courts review antitrust consent decrees in a meaningful manner, not simply as a rubber stamp to such decrees.

H.R. 1086 is an important bill that modernizes and enhances enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws. I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Conyers) for their leadership and cooperative efforts on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3866, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004.

This legislation updates the ban on steroids to include the several steroid precursors which have been developed since the 1990 ban on steroids went into effect. These precursors have been shown to cause the same reaction in the body as other steroids, and they are just as dangerous in terms of side effects and long-term damage potential. Yet, currently, they are not illegal; and they are widely used by athletes and others seeking to enhance muscle and body development.

In addition to being directly ingested, these dangerous drugs are also being consumed as parts of presently legal, over-the-counter nutrition and dietary supplements.

Of course, the most important concern driving the bill is the impact these drugs and precursors have on children. Some young athletes are using the drugs with the belief that they can become great in their sport and gain money and fame. However, in addition to risking disqualification from playing sports, they also risk stunted growth, infertility and other long-term health problems and even death.

While we must ensure that these dangerous new drugs and precursors do not get in the hands of children or others who would use them improperly, we must also be aware that these same drugs have legitimate uses. If made available for legitimate prescriptions by physicians, they could treat conditions such as body wasting with patients with AIDS and other diseases that result in loss of muscle mass.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Conyers) and other Members who have helped craft the bill in their effort to get these drugs out of the category of easy access to children and others who would use them improperly and into the laboratory to determine their legitimate, beneficial uses and into the doctor's office where they can be properly prescribed. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his

comments and for his leadership on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This is not a serious attempt to deal with a serious problem. This is a chart that shows the mess we have gotten ourselves into. It is the deficit since the Vietnam War, Reagan, and Bush. The Clinton administration cleaned up the mess, and here we are now with a huge deficit.

If you run up deficits, you have got to pay out interest on the national debt. This is the interest on the national debt we were projected to pay when this administration came in. This is the interest on the national debt we are going to have to pay for messing up the deficit, $300 billion additional interest on the national debt. $300 billion at $30,000 each, that is enough to hire every unemployed person in the country, over 10 million people.

The bill presented today is $367 billion more in debt. The chairman is right, we are not digging into our pockets. We are digging into our grandchildren's pockets.

This bill ignores the PAYGO rules of fiscal responsibility. It is a 1-year budget rather than the traditional 5- or 10-year budget. So a lot of the problems are hidden. It is not a serious attempt to deal with a serious problem.

We should reject the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, as the Representative for Virginia's Third Congressional District, and the state's first and only Black Congressional Representative since Reconstruction, I take personal pride in celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Virginia played a prominent role in the case. The Davis v. Prince Edward County Public Schools case, one of the cases decided with Brown, was a Virginia case. Also, two of the nation's premier constitutional lawyers in the Brown case came from Virginia. Attorney Oliver Hill, who continues to fight for equal justice for all, and the late Judge Spottswood Robinson, argued the case on behalf of the student plaintiffs in the Davis case.

In the Brown decision, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down the legal and moral footing of racially segregated public education in this country. The decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, an 1896 case which held that a state could maintain ``separate but equal'' public accommodations based on race. When Homer Adolph Plessy, who was one-eighth Black, entered a railroad car reserved by law for whites, he was arrested. He challenged the constitutionality of the law, but the Supreme Court, by a vote of seven to one, found it valid. Although Plessy concerned public accommodations, the policy rationale was applicable to public education, as well. Indeed, the court opined on that point as follows:

[W]e cannot say that a law which authorizes or even

requires the separation of the two races in public

conveyances is unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the

fourteenth amendment than the acts of congress (sic)

requiring separate schools for colored children in the

District of Columbia, the constitutionality of which does not

seem to have been questioned . . .

Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter in the 7 to 1 decision. He wrote an opinion containing the following:

The destinies of the two races in this country are

indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both

require that the common government of all shall not permit

the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of

law. What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more

certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between

these races, than state enactments which in fact proceed on

the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded

that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied

by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real

meaning of such legislation as was enacted in Louisiana . . .

The thin disguise of ``equal'' accommodations for passengers

in railroad coaches will not misled anyone, or atone for the

wrong this day done.

In overturning Plessy, the Brown Court not only confirmed Justice Harlan's ``thin disguise'' dissenting opinion in Plessy, but also held that even if the tangible features of a segregated public education system were equal, a constitutional violation would still exist. The reasoning of the Court then is still valid today:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of

state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance

laws and the great expenditures for education both

demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to

our democratic society. It is required in the performance of

our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the

armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.

Today it is a principle instrument in awakening the child to

cultural values, in preparing him for later professional

training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his

environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may

reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the

opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the

state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be

made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of

children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even

though the physical facilities and other ``tangible'' factors

may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of

equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

The Court then discussed the impact segregation has on minority children:

To separate them from others of similar age and

qualifications solely because of their race generates a

feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community

that may affect their heart and minds in a way unlikely ever

to be undone. The effect of this separation on their

educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the

Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to

rule against the Negro plaintiffs: ``Segregation of white and

colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect

upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has

the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the

races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of

the negro (sic) group. A sense of inferiority affects the

motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction

of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational

and mental development of negro (sic) children and to deprive

them of some of the benefits they would receive in a

[racially] integrated school system.''

Unfortunately, Virginia led the resistance to the Brown decision. Ironically Virginia used language in the Brown decision as legal grounds for its resistance actions:

Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to

provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on

equal terms.

Virginia reasoned that it could avoid integrating its schools by not having any schools at all. As a result, Prince Edward County closed its schools for several years, Norfolk, Front Royal and Charlottesville also closed some of their schools.

We overcame ``massive resistance'' and, today, Prince Edward County has one of the most integrated public school systems anywhere. Yet, five decades after Brown, a recent study by the Harvard Civil Rights Project revealed that many students in this country still attend schools and classes that are virtually segregated. So, while we have desegregated public schools, we have not achieved the integration that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., envisioned when he dreamed of the day ``little black boys and girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers''. In fact, the Harvard study data indicates that 70 percent of African American children attend schools that are predominately African American, about the same level as in 1968 when Dr. King died.

So, the struggle for equal educational opportunity continues. The promise of equal educational opportunity envisioned by the Brown decision remains unfulfilled. For example, equal educational opportunity does not occur when one jurisdiction spends substantially more per student than an adjacent jurisdiction because of the relative differences in wealth between the two. Unequal funding resources also results in unequal educational opportunity when you consider studies that show that one half of low income students who are qualified to attend college do not attend because they can't afford to. Another example of the educational inequality is the current debate over publicly financed school vouchers which will provide educational opportunities to a privileged handful, but deprive public schools of desperately needed resources. Also in this vein is the inappropriate use of ``high stakes'' tests, many of which are culturally biased and, therefore, diminish opportunities for some students based on their ethnicity.

A final important equal opportunity issue in education is the current attack on civil rights in the Head Start program. A slim majority of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to weaken the 40-year ban on discrimination in hiring in the Head Start program.

Obviously, we have work to do to complete the promise of the Brown decision and Dr. King's dream for our nation. The upcoming celebration of the 50th anniversary of the decision offers us an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to achieving these lofty ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to improve the system. It does nothing to deal with the insurance rates and the increases in premiums, but it does deny victims compensation when they are victims of malpractice. I think it may be helpful to go a little section by section to see what is actually in the bill to see how it actually does what some of the people are talking about.

Section 3, for example, is entitled ``Encouraging Speedy Resolution of Claims.'' Mr. Speaker, injured parties do not need encouragement to get a speedy resolution of the claim. This section only invalidates bona fide claims that are filed after a set deadline. It also creates a confusing matrix because some State deadlines are preempted. Others are not. And so you have that confusing matrix of deadlines and may even miss the deadline by mistake.

Section 4 is called ``Compensating Patient Injury.'' Actually, that is the section which limits compensation to innocent victims. It also has what is called the ``fair share rule.'' I think most States, but at least Virginia and many States, allow a victim to collect all of the damages from one defendant. That defendant can then seek contribution from others involved. In practice, that contribution is worked out in advance by who pays for what insurance.

This so-called fair share requires the victim not only to prove a separate case against each and every defendant who may be involved but it also requires the plaintiff to decide and prove what percentage each one owes. Often the plaintiff does not know what happened. All they know is they are a victim of malpractice. This provision will require the plaintiff to have a separate case and pay for the expenses of separate cases against each and every person. Otherwise they may be afflicted with the ``empty chair defense'' where everybody in the courtroom starts pointing to an empty chair and says somebody else had 10 percent or 20 percent.

Section 5 is ``Maximizing Patient Recovery.'' Actually, that is a provision that limits attorneys' fees making it likely that a plaintiff will not even be able to hire a lawyer. You do not hear any victims groups clamoring for limitation on attorneys' fees. The defendants are not affected by the plaintiff attorneys' fees. They do not pay the plaintiff attorneys' fees. If the award is $100,000 and the plaintiff's attorney charges 50 percent, the defendant pays $100,000. If the lawyer charges 25 percent, still $100,000. If the lawyer does not charge anything at all, just the same, $100,000. The only way that this will help malpractice premiums is if the plaintiff cannot bring the bona fide case at all, cannot bring the case because they cannot hire a lawyer with the fees. That is not fair. It is even more likely when you have this fair share thing where the lawyer has to have five and six cases in the same case.

There is another provision called ``Additional Health Benefits.'' That is a provision that says if the victim has health insurance, the benefit of that health insurance goes to the one who committed the malpractice. In Virginia and many other States, if you have health insurance, you benefit. In other States, the health insurance company can get its money back after the case is settled because the malpractice recovery will pay the health expenses. Presumably under that case, the premiums will be lower. But in this bill, the benefit goes to the one who committed the malpractice. This bill is so bizarre that if you are working for a self-insured employer who is obligated to pay the health expenses of an employee and that employee is a victim of malpractice and runs up a $50,000 hospital bill, the business has to pay that $50,000 bill even though the one committing the malpractice is fully insured and could have paid. I cannot

wait for some small businesses to come to us and ask why they had to pay the bill as a result of malpractice.

Mr. Speaker, there is another provision under ``Punitive Damages.'' This bill provides that if a jury finds by the preponderance of the evidence that the doctor acted with malicious intent to intentionally injure a patient, not just recklessly negligent, acted with malicious intent to injure, that is not enough under the bill, because the evidence does not have to be just by the preponderance of the evidence; it has to be by clear and convincing evidence.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not help injured victims of malpractice, and it is unlikely to reduce premiums. A chart of States in order of the costs of malpractice premiums shows some States at the top with caps, some with caps at the bottom, some with caps in the middle. There is no pattern to the chart. They are all over the place. The caps apparently did not make any difference at all.

We have heard a lot about the doctor shortage. This is not limited to doctors. This tort reform bill affects the health care provider, a health care organization, an HMO, manufacturer, distributor, supplier, marketer, promoter, a seller of a medical product regardless of the theory of liability on which the claim is based. This does not help victims. It probably will not even reduce premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would defeat the bill so that it will not be enacted. That has been the judgment of the United States Congress for the last 14 months. I hope it is still the judgment of the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

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

I will enter into the Record an article from the Morning Call newspaper in Pennsylvania, and I will just read the first sentence. April 23, 2004, ``The chairman of the Pennsylvania Medical Society acknowledged Thursday to State lawmakers that the doctors group lacks statistical evidence to support its 3-year claim that doctors are leaving the State in large numbers.''

The whole article will be introduced.

I have the GAO study that was cited June, 2003; and let me just read a couple of points out of it:

``Multiple factors have contributed to the recent increases in medical malpractice premiums in seven States we analyzed. First, since 1998 insurers' losses on medical malpractice claims have increased rapidly in some States,'' and they ``found that the increased losses appeared to be the greatest contributor to increased premium rates, but a lack of comprehensive data at the national and State levels on insurers' medical malpractice claims and the associated losses prevented us from fully analyzing the composition and causes of those losses.

``Second, from 1998 through 2001, medical malpractice insurers experienced decreases in their investment income as interest rates fell on the bonds that generally make up around 80 percent of these insurers' investment portfolios.

`` . . . a decrease in investment income meant that income from insurance premiums had to cover a larger share of insurers' costs. Third, during the 1990s, insurers competed vigorously for medical malpractice business, and several factors, including high investment returns, permitted them to offer prices that in hindsight, for some insurers, did not completely cover their ultimate losses on that business. As a result of this, some companies became insolvent or voluntarily left the market, reducing the downward competitive pressure on premium rates that had existed through the 1990s.''

I say that to say that there are a number of factors that have caused the premiums to go up that have nothing to do with the medical malpractice situation or the laws in medical malpractice and that this bill may or may not have anything to do with future premiums.

[From the Morning Call, April 23, 2004]

Doctors Can't Prove Thinning Ranks

(By John M.R. Bull)

Harrisburg.--The chairman of the Pennsylvania Medical

Society acknowledged Thursday to state lawmakers that the

doctors group lacks statistical evidence to support its

three-year claim that doctors are leaving the state in large

numbers.

``Some data sources show an 800-doctor gain,'' internist

Daniel Glunk of Williamsport testified before the House

Insurance Committee. ``The problem is no one has definitive

numbers . . . and that there is conflicting data.''

That number includes 1,000 medical residents. If those

aren't counted, he said, there would be a net loss of 200

doctors out of 35,500 since 2002.

``How can the medical society, if you can't agree on the

numbers, continue to tout that doctors are leaving'' said

Rep. Thomas Tangretti, D-Westmoreland, his voice rising in

apparent anger. ``You've run ads saying will the last doctor

please turn off the X-ray machine.''

``You've been frightening people, particularly senior

citizens, and now we find it was all probably wrong-headed

and disingenuous,'' Tangretti said, getting louder. ``Before

you continue to frighten people about access to health care,

you better get your numbers right. It's an outrage.''

Other lawmakers voiced irritation at his testimony,

delivered four days after The Morning Call published new and

previously undisclosed figures--some of them from the medical

society itself--that make clear doctors are not leaving in

large numbers.

For three years, the doctors lobby has insisted that

doctors, particularly specialists who perform high-risk

procedures, are leaving the state in droves, putting patient

care in jeopardy.

Among other tactics, the medical society has promoted a

list of 1,700 ``disappearing doctors'' as proof there are

fewer physicians in Pennsylvania.

The Morning Call revealed Sunday that new state Insurance

Department numbers show doctors have not left the state in

waves. There were 35,474 doctors in 2002, as determined by

the number who paid their state-mandated supplemental

insurance. Now the figure is at least 34,997.

The newest number includes doctors who have applied to the

Insurance Department for a piece of $230 million in state tax

dollars recently appropriated to offset their rising

malpractice premiums, along with a separate list of doctors

who had primary insurance coverage at the end of last year

but who haven't yet applied for state money.

That total doesn't include doctors who might have moved to

Pennsylvania in the last year, might not be in Insurance

Department records yet, and who might not know the state has

money set aside for them.

In one of several criticisms of The Morning Call's work,

the medical society has contended it might be misleading to

compare 2002 figures to a list of individual doctors who

recently applied for state money and others known to have

malpractice insurance at the end of last year. But society

officials have not publicly explained why that could be the

case.

The new Insurance Department figures show no appreciable

reduction in the number of high-risk specialists, a maximum

reduction of 56 out of 4,700 since 2002. The medical society

has admitted it has separate statistics that show a reduction

of only 16 specialists--defined as neurosurgeons, general

surgeons, orthopedic surgeons and ob-gyns--during that time

frame.

``This a matter of credibility,'' Rep. Nick Micozzie, R-

Delaware, chairman of the House Insurance Committee, said

after the hearing. ``We've been hearing for three years now

that doctors are leaving in large numbers and there is a

shortage.''

``I go into my doctor's office and there's a sign that says

``Call Nick Micozzie to Save Our Doctors,'' he said. ``Well,

saving our doctors is a different issue than claiming doctors

are leaving in large numbers.''

In reference to the three-year campaign, Glunk told the

committee that anecdotal evidence indicates there aren't

enough of some kind of specialists in some parts of the

state, and that not enough young doctors are choosing to move

to Pennsylvania.

For three years, the medical society and its associated

group, Politically Active Physicians Association, have waged

an intensive public relations and lobbying campaign to

convince legislators and their constituents that doctors are

fleeing the state en masse.

The effort was triggered by medical malpractice premiums

that started soaring in 2001 and continue to climb. Rather

than pay prices that doubled seemingly overnight, some

doctors did indeed depart, others altered their practices to

avoid high-risk procedures.

As a result, lawmakers have enacted a series of court

reforms sought by doctors as a way to drive down the rising

premiums. A new cigarette tax raises roughly $230 million a

year to help doctors afford malpractice premiums.

Applications for that money are being processed now.

Doctors continue to demand a cap on jury awards on pain and

suffering damages in malpractice lawsuits and have threatened

to leave the state if they don't get them.

On Thursday, Glunk told the panel of lawmakers that the

disappearing doctors list is not actually a list of doctors

who disappeared. It is more of a list of doctors who might

have been impacted by rising malpractice rates and who might

have retired, moved, or curtailed their practices as a

result, he explained.

The list makes no mention of doctors who have relocated to

Pennsylvania since 2002, lawmakers noted.

``Naturally people leave their profession. You don't count

doctors coming in,'' said Rep. Tony DeLuca, D-Pittsburgh told

Glunk. ``If you don't have accurate statistics on the number

of doctors, how can we tell? How can we make policy like

that?''

Lawmakers from both parties say the list--created and

maintained by Donna Rovito, the wife of an Allentown

physician--has been used extensively as a lobbying tool to

support doctor claims.

Democratic House leaders Thursday called for a moratorium

on any more medical malpractice reforms until lawmakers

ascertain

whether doctors are leaving the sate in large numbers, and

whether the medical society deliberately misled lawmakers.

``The data they repeatedly cite, and which served as the

basis for legislative action in the last two years, appears

to be seriously inaccurate and part of a deceptive

campaign,'' said Rep. Mike Veon, D-Beaver, the House Minority

Whip. ``We want the real numbers and there should be no

further action until the deficiencies of the data are

corrected and we know the truth.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

During the debate, we have talked about how much debate is going on. I just point out that this debate is on a closed rule so that we cannot offer amendments to the bill. We have to take it or leave it. There are a lot of improvements that could be made if we have a full and open debate. That is not happening today because the majority passed a closed rule prohibiting any amendments to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, today, April 28th, the Commonwealth of Virginia celebrates the birthday of James Monroe, who served as the fifth President of the United States from 1817 to 1825.

James Monroe was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia to Spence Monroe and Eliza Jones Monroe on April 28, 1758.

As a student of law at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he studied under the tutelage of Thomas Jefferson, a young James Monroe decided to join the Continental Army and was soon fighting at the side of George Washington in New York. Lieutenant Colonel Monroe earned recognition from General Washington as ``a brave and active officer.'' After the Revolutionary War, Monroe was appointed Military Commissioner of Virginia.

After a distinguished military career and completion of his legal studies, Monroe was elected to the Continental Congress in 1783, where he avidly fought to promote a bill of rights. It was at this time that he met and married Elizabeth Kortright.

In 1790, Monroe was elected to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia as a U.S. Senator, followed by an appointment to serve as the U.S. Minister to France from 1794 to 1796.

Monroe returned home and was elected in 1799 to serve as the Governor of our great Commonwealth. In 1803, Monroe helped negotiate the Louisiana Purchase.

Eventually, Monroe's political ideals led him to become U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Secretary of War, and then, ultimately, President, at which time he began a new Era of Good Feelings for the nation.

Monroe served two terms as President--his popularity at the end of his first term so high that he ran unopposed in 1820. During his tenure as President, Monroe signed the ``Missouri Compromise,'' barring slavery in territories north and west of Missouri, as well as the ``Monroe Doctrine,'' which denounced European intervention and colonization in the Western Hemisphere.

James Monroe was a loyal public servant and an important figure in both Virginian and American history. He set an example we can look to today by being a chief executive who usually chose the middle path, the path of compromise.

Governor Mark R. Warner has recognized today, April 28, 2004, as James Monroe Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Therefore, on this day, the anniversary of the birth of James Monroe, I ask for unanimous consent that the Governor's Certificate of Recognition be entered into the Record.

Certificate of Recognition

Whereas, James Monroe was born in Westmoreland County,

Virginia to Spence Monroe and Eliza Jones Monroe on April 28,

1758, and he studied law under the tutelage of Thomas

Jefferson at the College of William and Mary; and

Whereas, James Monroe fought with the Continental Army as a

Lieutenant Colonel in the Revolutionary War, earning

recognition from General George Washington as ``a brave and

active officer''; and

Whereas, as a young politician, James Monroe joined the

anti-Federalists in the Virginia Convention, where he helped

ratify the Constitution of the United States of America, and

in 1790, he was elected to represent the Commonwealth as a

United States Senator, and

Whereas, James Monroe was the United States' Minister to

France from 1794-1796 and, along with Robert R. Livingston,

he utilized his understanding of foreign policy and his

powerful skills of persuasion to negotiate the Louisiana

Purchase; and

Whereas, James Monroe served as the fifth President of the

United States from 1817-1825, during which time he signed the

``Missouri Compromise,'' barring slavery in territories north

and west of Missouri, as well as ``The Monroe Doctrine,''

which denounced European intervention and colonization in the

Western Hemisphere; and

Whereas, James Monroe was a loyal public servant and an

important leader in both Virginian and American history, and

he left behind a legacy as one of our nation's great foreign

policy leaders;

Now, therefore, I, Mark R. Warner, do hereby recognize

April 28, 2004, as James Monroe Day in the Commonwealth of

Virginia, and I call this observance to the attention of all

our citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I just think this is an unfortunate situation to have 5 minutes to debate this important issue.

The question is, who will take the risk? If the rental car agency is not going to provide the insurance for the drivers, who will? Are they responsible or required to have insurance? Will the victims of negligence have to pay their own bills?

This is just unfortunate. We have 50 different States, 50 different laws. They have all dealt with this situation individually. It is unconscionable to try to decide this in a 5-minute debate. I hope we defeat the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget is committed to making America more secure by investing in our homeland security, equipping our troops, and caring for our veterans. It also adds to our security by funding initiatives such as the COPS program, local law enforcement block grants, and juvenile crime prevention programs. The CBC alternative builds for America's future and addresses domestic challenges our country faces. It fully funds No Child Left Behind, provides funds for school construction, and increases funding for other education and job-training programs. The CBC alternative also provides funding for the minority health initiative, health insurance for the uninsured, supports child nutrition programs, funds job creation programs under the SBA, and extends unemployment insurance benefits.

The funding for these important domestic needs comes from two sources: one, a reduction in the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for individuals whose gross income exceeds approximately $200,000; and the closing of tax loopholes, abusive shelters, and methods of tax avoidance. These funds total an estimated $35.5 billion in fiscal year 2005 and are used for the domestic spending and deficit reduction parts of the budget.

The funding for urgent homeland security needs, veterans programs and benefits, and additional support for the troops in Iraq comes from two sources: a $9.2 billion reduction in ballistic missile defense and $3.6 billion from instances of fraud, waste and abuse within the Department of Defense such as defense contractor overcharges. Some of these funds have been reallocated to protect our troops in Iraq by providing them with bulletproof vests, vehicle armor, personal support equipment, night-vision goggles and radio jammers to protect personnel and vehicles from improvised explosive devices.

Another portion of these funds is allocated to address vital homeland security needs, including rail and port security grants, cargo screening equipment, first responders, communications systems for first responders, Federal air marshals, and the Centers for Disease Control. The remainder of these funds are used to restore cuts in veterans health care and provide enhanced benefits to our veterans in survivor benefits, medical and prosthetic research, long-term care, mental health care and GI bill benefits. The alternative budget also eliminates the disabled veterans tax. We believe that the sum of all of these initiatives will make us more secure as a Nation.

At the same time that we invest in America and our future, the CBC alternative recognizes that we cannot place the burden of our choices on our children and grandchildren. A top priority

of the CBC is to address the exploding deficit. The CBC alternative budget therefore reduces the deficit by $70 billion compared to the House majority's budget over the next 5 years. This fiscal responsibility is rewarded with a reduction of $8 billion in interest payments over that same period of time compared to the House majority's budget. Members of the CBC have worked tirelessly to create a budget that is fiscally responsible and recognizes the needs of the American people. It is a sound budget that protects and promotes the best interests of America.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I also thank the chairman of the committee for his consideration in yielding us time.

The Congressional Black Caucus alternative is committed to making America more secure. It invests in homeland security, especially for Federal air marshals, CDC, port security grants. It equips our troops with such equipment as reinforced trucks to protect from the landmines, the radio jammers that protect from long distance bombing. It also protects our veterans. The underlying budget includes an increase in veterans health, but unfortunately not enough of an increase in veterans health to maintain present services.

The veterans committee has indicated that $2.5 million is necessary. This, the underlying budget, does not include $2.5 million. Our budget does. It adds to security with COPS, local police on the beat, law enforcement block grants, juvenile crime prevention. It invests in our future. No Child Left Behind is fully funded in the Congressional Black Caucus budget.

We provide school construction funds, health initiative and job creation programs. The economic policy of this administration has failed and lost 3 million jobs. You cannot blame that on 9-11 because you have to go back to Harry Truman, past the Korean War, past the Vietnam War, past the last Persian Gulf War to find an administration with a 3 million job loss.

This budget invests in job creation. I will admit we have to make some tough choices. Those with incomes over $200,000 may not enjoy a continuation of the tax cuts under the original budget. But those are the tough choices made. And we have priorities. Do we fund missile defense, or do we fund port security grants? These are the tough choices that are made.

After we have made those tough choices, we look up and have a deficit $70 billion lower compared to the Republican budget, $8 billion reduction in interest payments alone.

This is a fiscally responsible budget. It invests in the appropriate values of the Nation, and I would hope that it would be the pleasure of the House to adopt the CBC budget.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on domestic security.

We have to put this in perspective. We have heard a lot about strength, growth, and opportunity. This is a budget deficit that we are in right now. This is the Clinton administration, the Bush administration. When we run up those deficits, we have the opportunity to pay interest on the national debt. By 2010 we will be paying almost $350 billion a year in additional interest on the national debt over what we were going to pay, and we will have that opportunity to pay it year after year.

We have suffered this kind of growth. This is the number of jobs created every 4 years since this administration, a loss of jobs, the worst in 50 years. This chart includes the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War. That is the kind of growth that we have had. When we have that kind of squeeze on the government, there are things we cannot do and one is port security. I represent the port of Hampton Roads in Virginia; 2,700 container ships come in every year. We passed a bill last year that required the Coast Guard to look at what we needed to protect our ports. We have vulnerabilities. These ships can contain anything. They can be used as weapons. And we need more personnel; we need more equipment to protect our ports. They estimated $1.1 billion was needed by now to protect our ports. We have appropriated about half of that. This budget, as the gentleman from Virginia has indicated, does not have money, in fact, has less money for homeland security. So we are not going to be able to meet those needs for equipment and personnel to secure our ports. Alternative budgets do that. The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget, the Democratic alternative, the Congressional Black Caucus budget have funds for port security to make sure that we can meet these needs. The Republican budget does not, and therefore we ought to reject the Republican budget.

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his hard work on the budget. It is a lot of hard work and a lot of dedication. He articulates what the problem is.

I like to use charts when I discuss the budget because sometimes people lose perspective of exactly what the problem is when you talk about the budget and the mess that we are in.

This is a chart showing the deficit from the Johnson administration, Nixon, Ford, Carter. The red here is the Reagan and Bush deficits; the green is the Clinton administration digging us out of the mess; and the red is the present Bush administration budget.

The difference between the $100 billion surplus that we expected and the over-$650 billion deficit we see now, this is on-budget, this is after you have spent the $150 billion Medicare and Social Security surplus, that is a $750 billion swing. That is a big number.

I like to put it in perspective. If you look on the Federal budget, on the line item Revenue Individual Income Tax, that is all the individual income tax that we take in, we take in less than $800 billion in individual income tax. Here in 3 years, the budget deterioration, the deficit situation has deteriorated $750 billion, almost the entire value of the entire individual income tax that we take in.

As the gentleman from South Carolina indicated, we had a surplus. When this administration came in, the budget discussion, the questions that were asked of Chairman Greenspan, questions like, if we paid off the entire national debt, what would happen to the interest rates? What would happen to the bond market? Should we retire all of the debt or just the long-term debt or maybe just the short-term debt? That was the discussion, how to pay off the national debt.

Since the first budget of this administration was enacted, we have not heard anything about paying off the national debt.

Some of the Republicans want to take credit for some of the hard work and tough decisions made during the Clinton administration. I would remind them that when the Clinton administration came in and passed the first budget, it was passed by the narrowest of margins and not a single Republican in the House or in the Senate voted to start this green line going up.

In 1995, when the Republicans used those votes, demagogued those votes, took over the House and the Senate and offered their first budget, it included massive tax cuts. President Clinton vetoed those tax cuts. They threatened to close down the government if he did not sign the tax cuts. He vetoed them anyway. They shut down the government and he vetoed them again. He would not sign a budget that would wreck the progress that we had already made. As a result of the presidential vetoes, not the congressional action, the presidential vetoes, we maintained a straight line all the way up to a surplus of $100 billion.

When President Bush came in, the Congress passed those tax cuts again, and we see what happened as a result.

The administration promises to cut the deficit in half within 5 years. First of all, as the gentleman from South Carolina indicated, the President is not going to be able to achieve that goal. But the goal itself is insulting. We started this administration with a surplus expected to be $100 billion and now

we have gotten into the mess and the President only promises to clean up half of the mess. What we ought to be talking about is, when do we get back to a major surplus and when do we pay off this additional debt that we actually have?

We got into that mess with massive tax cuts. The administration and some Republicans like to say, who got the tax cuts? This chart by 20th percentiles shows the lowest 20 percent, the middle 20 percent, third 20 percent, fourth 20 percent, the highest 20 percent, highest upper- income brackets. Who got the tax cuts?

You can call it what you want. This is the chart. There is a line here at about the 50 percent mark. Half of the value of the tax cuts went to the upper 1 percent of the population. So whatever they say, this is the chart.

When you run up that kind of debt, you have to pay it back off, but in the meanwhile, you have to pay interest on the national debt. This chart shows the interest that we will be paying on the national debt.

This line is the interest we expected to pay as we were paying off the entire national debt; that is this dark line here. The red line is the interest on the national debt that we are going to have to pay because we have messed up the budget.

These lines show the difference in interest on the national debt. It is going to be $341 billion more in interest on the national debt every year and growing. By 2010, about $1.2 trillion in additional interest on the national debt.

$341 billion additional interest on the national debt; like I said, we are bringing in less than $800 billion in individual income tax, but $341 billion at $34,000 apiece, that is enough to hire 10 million Americans, give 10 million American jobs at $34,000 apiece.

There are only 9 million listed as unemployed. Ten million could have been hired with just the difference in interest on the national debt. Ten million. We are struggling to hire 100,000 police officers and cannot do it. We would like to hire 100,000 additional teachers, maybe even 1 million teachers. Ten million additional people at $34,000 apiece just in the lost interest on the debt.

We were told we got into that mess to create jobs. You need a chart to show the jobs. This is one chart. There are other charts that show the same picture, the number of jobs from everybody's administration back to Harry Truman.

Harry Truman created about 4 million jobs in his second administration. Eisenhower, about 1.9 million jobs the first term, lost about 200,000 in the next term, but it is a net plus, 1.7 million. Kennedy-Johnson, Johnson, Nixon, Ford. Everyone creating jobs. Clinton, over 10 million jobs the first term, another 10 million jobs the second term; until you get to this administration, lost almost 3 million jobs already.

When we look at this chart, we wonder what happened. This administration will point to 9-11 as the cause for the loss in jobs. In my view, because we had so much additional spending right after 9-11, about $40 billion, properly done, we should have been gaining jobs after 9-11. But whatever the situation with 9-11, just remember that this chart includes the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the hostages in Iran, Grenada, Persian Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo. Everyone has had military involvement including the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and everyone creates jobs during those crises except this administration. We have lost jobs.

Now, we need to look at the chart because some in this administration will say that the tax cuts are working. Look at the chart. The economy is doing well. We look at the chart. This is the worst since Harry Truman. Actually, the worst since the Great Depression, but this chart just goes back 50 years. This is not a good result. The tax cuts did not work. Millions of Americans lost their jobs.

The final chart shows the real crisis that we have, and that is maintaining Social Security. Chairman Greenspan said if we make the tax cuts permanent, we have to, I think he said, adjust Social Security. He did not say cut, but the people will get less than they anticipated. Most people would call that a cut. Increase the age of retirement, reduce the cost-of-living increases, most people would consider those as cuts; but we will use ``adjust.'' If we make the tax cuts permanent, we must adjust Social Security. This chart shows that we are bringing in more Social Security than we are paying out now, and in 2017 we are going to start paying out more than we are bringing in.

This chart shows that in just a few years we will be paying out $300 billion more in Social Security than we are bringing in. If we add the Social Security deficit with the additional interest on the national debt, the GAO just recently produced a chart that showed that the projected Federal revenues in just a couple of decades will be insufficient to pay the Social Security deficit and interest on the national debt. It will be insufficient to pay that. Before we get to Medicaid and Medicare and before we get to all other government spending, just the deficit and Social Security and interest on the national debt will absorb all Federal revenues.

There is one thing about this chart that is interesting, and that is as challenging as this chart is, if the President, instead of giving a tax cut to that upper 1 percent, had allocated what he has got in store for the upper 1 percent into the Social Security trust fund, we would have been able to pay Social Security without reducing benefits or adjusting benefits for 75 years. Or we can look out for the upper 1 percent and give them the tax cuts that the President has proposed. We had a choice. We had a choice in education, tax cuts for the millionaires or Pell grants and fully fund No Child Left Behind.

We have talked about veterans benefits. We do not pay enough in the budget proposed by the Republican majority, not enough to maintain present services for veterans health care. Homeland Security, underfunded. The troops are not properly equipped. And this administration has shown no indication that they care about the budget. I mean, just the way that the war has been fought, we appropriated $87 billion a couple of months ago. We had already spent $79 billion. That is $166 billion on the war with more coming. The meter is still ticking. $166 billion is more than we spent in a year in the Department of Homeland Security plus the Department of Education plus the Department of Transportation plus the Department of Labor plus the Department of State, combined, not up to $166 billion. What has this administration talked about as to how to pay for it? Tax cuts and no cuts in spending? It all goes to the bottom line.

Now, $166 billion compared to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago, how much did we spend on the Persian Gulf War? How much did the Persian Gulf War cost the United States of America? $7.4 billion, 7.4. We have spent 166 billion already and counting. It cost 7.4 billion because we had allies. It was not ``my way or the highway.'' We had allies, and they paid most of the expenses. This time it is all on our dime. We are spending $166 billion and more. It goes right to the bottom line on the deficit chart.

So I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina, we can do better than this. We do not create a chart like this by accident. We do not create this green shaded area by accident. Tough choices were involved. And we can make those tough choices. We can fund our priorities, the ones that the gentleman from Illinois talked about: the health care, the transportation, the housing, all of those needs. We can address those. But we have to do it in a fiscally responsible way.

During this period of time when we were exercising fiscal responsibility, making the tough choices, we were creating millions of jobs. When we resorted to fiscal irresponsibility, none of the tough choices, we noticed that not only have we wrecked the budget, but we have also lost jobs in the process. So these are the kinds of things that are going on.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) Special Order.

Madam Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from South Carolina.

I notice some of the gentleman's numbers are slightly different than the numbers I was using. I think we need to explain that these numbers are with the unified budget. The ones I was using were what are called on-budget, which means that you save the $150 billion in Social Security and Medicare surpluses. That $521 billion assumes that you have spent through that already, before you start counting the deficit.

I would also ask the gentleman, who was here leading the charge during the time when we eliminated the deficit and went to surplus, if he could explain what PAYGO means.

Is that the one behind you? The red, green and yellow on the floor.

When we had PAYGO with the fiscal discipline, wherein if you increased the spending, you had to pay for it, or if you cut a tax, you had to pay for that, what color is that on the chart?

Then what happened to PAYGO in recent years?

Unless they were paid for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on the budget issues.

Mr. Speaker, before we discuss what we cannot fund, we have to discuss a little bit about where we are in the budget. One cannot discuss these numbers without charts, because we hear rhetoric, and it is confusing. But when we see the numbers on the chart, we get an idea of where we are and how deep a hole we are in.

This is the on-budget deficit for years beginning with the Johnson administration through Nixon and Ford and Carter, Reagan and Bush, larger deficits; the green is the Clinton administration where we passed a budget in 1993 without a single Republican vote in the House, without a single Republican vote in the Senate, and were able to exercise fiscal responsibility, digging ourselves out of the deep hole and into a surplus. And this is an on-budget surplus, so that the Social Security and Medicare are temporary surpluses and are in a lockbox to be used for Social Security and Medicare in the future. We had a surplus.

When the Republicans came in after the 1994 elections, they passed significant tax cuts that President Clinton vetoed. They threatened to close down the government, as my colleagues will remember; and he vetoed them again. They closed down the government, and he still refused to sign those massive tax cuts because they were fiscally irresponsible. When President Bush came in after the 2000 elections, they passed those same tax cuts again, and we see how much damage has been done to the budget. Now, this is a net surplus in the budget, going down to almost $700 billion, a total swing of approximately $750 billion deterioration in our budget situation.

Let us put that into context: the entire revenue from the individual income tax, everybody's individual income tax, less than $800 billion. We have seen a deterioration in the deficit, $750 billion.

Now, this chart shows it another way: the percentage of the budget paid for with borrowed money. You see, this is World War II, you come through the years. The Clinton years, we went into significant surplus; and when this President Bush came in, we started spending, paying for more and more of our budget with borrowed money.

We are up now to over 30 percent, well over 30 percent of the budget, the Federal budget is paid for with borrowed money. And you will notice that that is a level we have not seen since World War II.

Now, we got there with tax cuts. It is interesting to know who got the tax cuts. This chart shows what the upper 20 percent, the next 20 percent, the middle 20 percent and the other 20 percentiles, how much of the tax cut they got. If you look at the top 20 percent and just look at the top 1 percent, about half of the tax cuts have gone to the upper 1 percent of the taxpayers. To put it another way, you can look and see approximately what you got if you made more than a $1 million on average you get about $89,000 tax cuts. $500,000 to $1 million, you got about $13,000. And on average as you get down to $50,000 to $75,000, you are getting about $132. And below $50,000 you hardly need any ink to draw the bar. Off the chart for millionaires, do not need ink to draw the bar for ordinary Americans.

Now, we were told we had to do that to create jobs. Let us see how many jobs have been created because we went so far in debt. We were willing to go so far in debt and give tax cuts to the wealthy, how many jobs were created? Well, we have lost, have not gained, we have lost almost 3 million jobs during this administration.

Now, we hear the great excuse: ``9/11.'' Everything that goes wrong is because of 9/11. Because of 9/11 we lost jobs. But wait. Every 4 years back to Harry Truman, everybody has been gaining jobs, everybody has been able to end their term of office with more jobs than they came in with. President Eisenhower, in his second administration he lost about 200,000 jobs but he gained 1,900,000 in his first term to his net plus 1,700,000 jobs. Everybody else, every 4 years gained jobs.

If you want to blame 9/11, you ought to notice that this chart includes not just 9/11, but it also includes the Korean War and the Vietnam War, hostages in Iran, the Persian Gulf War from 12 years ago, the Cold War, Kosovo, Grenada, everything else, everybody is gaining jobs until the result of this fiscal irresponsibility has actually cost us jobs.

Now, when you run up this kind of debt, you have to pay interest on the national debt. This chart shows the interest on the national debt we expected to pay after President Clinton left office going down to zero because we were on target to paying off the entire national debt.

This red line is the interest on the national debt we are going to end up having to pay because of our fiscal irresponsibility. By 2009, the difference is almost $300 billion. Now, let us put $300 billion into perspective. At $30,000 a piece, you can hire 10 million people with $300 billion. 10 million. And it gets wider and wider as you go out.

This is an opportunity that we are going to lose because we are going to be $300 billion less than we thought we were going to have when President Clinton left office.

We also have to recognize that the Social Security program will be a challenge. These red bars represent the fact that we are bringing in more Social Security funds than we are paying out. That is because we recognize that when the baby boomers retire, we will be paying out more than we are bringing in. And we need to build up the trust fund so that hopefully we can pay this as much as we can.

2017 it goes into deficit. We are now spending all of this Social Security surplus on the present budget. We are in deficit even after we have spent the Social Security and Medicare. The Medicare chart looks similar to this. We are spending the Social Security surplus.

Now, when you cross the 300 line, 2025, somewhere in there, when you cross the 300 line that is $1,000 for every man, woman, and child including those on Social Security. Every man, woman, and child $1,000. When you cross the 600 line, that is $2,000 for every man, woman, and child just to make this, just to pay the Social Security shortfall.

Now, you may look at this and decide, well that is too challenging, we never could have paid it. It is just too much of a problem. But when you look back at this chart, we have been told that if you just look at what this administration wants to give to the top 1 percent, top 1 percent, that would have been enough to pay Social Security benefits without reducing benefits, without increasing the age for 75 years, or you can give the top 1 percent a tax cut.

Now, Mr. Greenspan told us that if you extend the tax cuts like it looks like this administration will propose, it has proposed, if we extend the tax cuts we should cut Social Security. Now, I think he used the word ``adjust'' Social Security. He is talking about increasing the age, reducing the COLA. I think most people, including the Republican officials, have categorized that as a cut. And I think most people would view that as a cut; they are going to be getting less than they would have if you had not made that adjustment. I would certainly call that a cut.

But he said if you extend the tax cuts, you have to cut Social Security. The GAO issued a report recently that showed that we are on track to disaster. A great political philosopher once said, ``If you do not change directions, you may end up where you are headed.''

Well, the GAO says that we are headed towards a situation in a few years, a couple of decades where the Social Security deficit and interest on the national debt alone will absorb all of the projected Federal revenues for those years. In other words, all of the revenues will be insufficient to pay just the Social Security shortfall and interest on the national debt. That is without Medicare, and Medicaid, and that is without any other Federal spending. Just the Social Security shortfall and interest on the national debt will absorb all of the Federal revenues.

Obviously, that is a direction we should not be going in. We need to change directions. And the reason we cannot fund many of the things that you mentioned that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the chairman of the Black Caucus, mentioned is because we are using up the money in interest in the national debt.

We are having trouble funding police officers, 100,000 police officers. And we said we could with the $300 billion additional interest on the national debt that we will be paying in just a few years, we could have hired 10 million people at $30,000 apiece, 5 million at $60,000 a piece, and we are having trouble trying to find funds to hire 100,000 police officers.

We cannot properly fund veterans benefits, education, health care. There are a lot of things we cannot do because it is all being absorbed by the interest on the national debt necessitated because we have put our budget in unprecedented deficit.

Now, the idea that we are going to get a promise that the deficit will be cut in half in 5 years is really insulting. We should be talking about how we get back up into surplus where we were when this administration came in. Instead of running up debt, we ought to be running up surpluses so we will be prepared to meet the challenges of Social Security.

At this rate, with all this red ink, we will be so far in debt that we will not have anything for Social Security. We will not have anything for Medicare. We will not have anything for jobs because we are paying interest on the red ink that we are running up. That is the problem that we have. And the additional problem that we have is that the tough choices that created this green ink, were tough choices, politically tough choices. And you can not make those tough choices until you have at least acknowledged a problem.

This administration refers to this graph and the deficit as ``manageable.'' That is why we need a graph to show the people what we are talking about. This administration refers to this job graph by saying that the tax cuts are working. The tax cuts are not working. We have lost 3 million jobs. And so you need the graph to show specifically what we are talking about in this budget and how bad it is.

And, so, I would say to the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, I thank him for the opportunity to present the problem so that we can, as others participate, can talk about the things that we cannot fund because we have this situation where we are so far in the hole with a graph such as this. You cannot create a graph like this by accident. We are far in the hole, and we need to dig ourselves out so that we can make the important investments in education, in health care, in veterans benefits and the other important challenges that we have before us. And I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem with using rhetoric without using charts to show what we are talking about. You have indicated that some have looked at this chart and said we are in a recovery. Others have said the tax cuts are working. One looks at the chart, this is a miserable failure. We have lost 3 million jobs. I do not call that a recovery.

Now, if you go back 50 to 75 years, they blame a recession. The experts will say that this administration did not inherit a recession. The recession began on this administration's watch.

Whenever it started, it has been over by all accounts since the end of 2001. Since then, we have had all of 2002, and 2003 and we are into 2004. No recession from the beginning of any recession in the last 50 years, we have always within about 30 months recovered all of the jobs that were lost during the recession within about 30 months. Here we are almost 40 months after the beginning, whenever they say it started, it has been at least 40 months, we have not recovered the jobs yet.

This is the worst recovery we have had in modern history. That is not a recovery.

Mr. Speaker, when people talk about 9/11, they have to take into consideration that this chart goes back to Truman and Eisenhower, that includes the Korean War, it includes Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, it included the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the hostages in Iran, Grenada, Somalia, Kosovo, the Persian Gulf War. All of those are on this chart. Everyone created jobs during their four-year administration.

President Clinton, 10 million jobs the first term, over 10 million both the first term and over 10 million jobs over the second term. Everyone has had problems. There have been recessions all the way up and down here. Everyone has been able to deal with adversity and create jobs. Until you get here.

Now, if the President had offered an economic plan that had been rejected, he might say that because you rejected my plan, if you had only adopted my plan, things would have been better. We adopted his plan. We passed, I did not vote for them, but Congress passed his plan. And it resulted in a massive deficit and job loss.

When you lose jobs, there are things that, first of all, I do not know how you can spend that kind of money. Right after 9/11, we appropriated $40 billion. At $40,000 each you could have hired a million people. I do not know how you end up losing jobs; 9/11 actually should have stimulated jobs, not lost jobs. The problem is that this administration does not look at money, financial responsibility, with anyone. They decided to do something. It does not matter how much it costs.

Just look at the war in Iraq. The Persian Gulf War 12 years ago cost the United States $7.4 billion, 7.4. Now, the 60, 70, $80 billion was the total cost; but because we had allies, total cost was $7.4 billion.

When we appropriated $87 billion a few months ago, we had already spent $79 billion on the war. Total $166 billion; 7.4, 166, just to implement the my-way-or-the-highway, go-it-alone strategy. Had we developed some allies so that someone else could help pay the money and absorb some of the causalities, it is not all our money and all our causalities, it would have been closer to the 7.4 than the 166.

Now, we are going, the estimates are about $50 billion. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget has estimated about $50 billion will be coming next year for Iraq, so that is another 50, 7.4, 166, 50 and who knows what after that.

Let us put the 166 in perspective. That is more money than we spent in a year on the Department of Homeland Security for the security of the United States; and the Department of Education, the entire Department of Education budget. Plus, it is still more than the Department of Transportation, all road-building we are supposed to be doing. And it is more than the Department of Labor and Department of State. Add them all up, combined.

Combined. Homeland Security, Education, Transportation, Department of Labor, Department of State, add them all up, it does not come to $166 billion; 7.4, 166. How much do you have to spend before someone suggests that the spending is out of control?

If you are going to spend $166 billion and we would be willing to spend whatever it takes to make the United States safe. We are now debating whether we are safer or not as a result of spending as a result of spending $166 billion. It looks to me that there are a lot of other things you could have done with a $166 billion budget that would have made America a lot safer than we are today.

But look at the red ink. I mean, when you start adding it up, there was not a peep mentioned about how we were going to pay it. No sacrifice. And, in fact, when you look at some of the things that the House passed right after 9/11 with most of the votes coming from the Republican side of the aisle, we passed one provision which was a repeal of the alternative minimum tax for corporations. That is kind of technical, but what we found about 15, 20 years ago was that a lot of corporations were paying out dividends year after year after year. They were profitable companies; but because they had so many loopholes and deductions, they were paying no income tax. And so they passed a provision many years ago called the alternative minimum tax for corporations. In the alternative for no tax, at least pay a minimum tax. And that has been a law right after 9/11 when everyone was supposed to be sacrificing. The House passed a provision to eliminate the alternative minimum tax for corporations.

They took that opportunity when everyone is supposed to be sacrificing to eliminate the alternative minimum tax for corporations. And while they were at it, they have made the repeal retroactive for 15 years. So if you had paid the alternative minimum tax in the last 15 years, you would get your money back. Several corporations would be getting a billion dollars back. Enron would get $250 million.

Now, if you had a company and you got a billion dollars retroactive tax relief, an employee of that corporation would be no more likely to have a job the next day than the day before. That is not stimulating the economy. There is no more demand for your product. Now the uppity- ups in the corporation would be more likely to get their bonuses, the stockholders more likely to get their dividends. But an employee for the company, because there is no more demand for the product, is no more likely to have a job the next day than the day before. That is the kind of provision that this House passed.

Thankfully, there was a Democratic majority in the Senate at that time and that was defeated in the Senate. But when you talk about sacrifice and how do you pay for a $166 billion war, well, you do not worry about it; you just let the next generation pay for it. You pay for it out of the next generation's Social Security. You borrow the money and worry about it later. That is not the fiscally responsible thing to do. It is not how you stimulate the economy. It is not how you produce jobs, and it is not what you ought to be doing to the next generations.

The idea that if we do nothing, that that is a tax increase. The important thing is not to worry about what the label is. The important thing is to look at this chart. The policies of this administration which have been pretty much adopted in total have resulted in a deterioration in the budget almost equivalent to the total amount of money that we get from the individual income taxes.

The money we get from the individual income tax totals less than $800 billion. We have a $750 billion deterioration in this budget in just 3 years. And so whatever you call it, whatever label you put on it, look at the chart. This is called tax cuts are working, deficit is manageable, whatever you want to call it. Look at what this administration's policy resulted in.

Now, you talked about who is paying for it. Part of the war is being paid for by veterans benefits. We are debating now as to whether or not we are going to at least maintain present services.

For veterans.

The President's budget does not include enough money to maintain just the little present benefits for veterans. They want some veterans to pay more fees for health services, some not to be eligible, less services, while the war is being fought. So the veterans themselves will have to come back and pay the interest on the debt on the war that they fought in. That is not right.

We are not able to fund the kind of things like Cops on the Beat. Now remember, in just 5 years we will be spending approximately $300 billion more in interest on the national debt than we should have had to pay. You can hire at $30,000 a piece, 10 million

people for that amount of money or 5 million at $60,000. We are trying to find a little money to hire 100,000 police officers, to hire teachers, health care workers; and we cannot find the money because it is all being used up in interest on the national debt that is run up because you have to pay interest on the national debt since you are obviously not paying off any debt while you are in the hole. You only pay off debt when you are above the line. When you are in the hole, you are running up more debt, you have to pay more interest on the national debt.

We cannot pay for our transportation projects. There are so many things that we cannot do because we are running up so much interest on the national debt. And remember that we have the exploding Social Security problem in just a few years. We ought to be preparing for that, not wake up in 2014 and wonder why the Social Security surplus is no longer there. It is not going to be there after 2014. We are going to have to come up with more money. We will not have the gravy train of 100-some billion dollars or go up to $275 billion in Social Security surplus to run through.

It is a growing deficit, and there is no provision in the President's budget or the Committee on the Budget's budget that we are about to, that they will probably adopt; there is nothing in there to prepare us for the Social Security shortfall and the interest on the national debt.

The GAO just issued a report in the last few days that shows if we keep going in the direction we are going, in just a couple of decades the Social Security shortfall and interest on the national debt will absorb all Federal revenues. That means no Medicaid, no Medicare, no Federal spending on anything including defense. You spend all your money just in Social Security and interest on the national debt unless there is a profound change in direction.

Well, you need to make tough choices; and, fundamentally, the strategy ought to be the green.

In 1993 when President Clinton came in, we made tough choices. He vetoed bills that were inconsistent with his tough choices and we went into surplus. These are tough choices. This was the strategy that created fiscal responsibility and 20 million jobs in 8 years. Fiscal irresponsibility is when you start passing massive tax cuts without paying for them, just borrow the money for the tax cuts. Some say we are giving you your money back. No, no, no, no, no. We have spent your money. We are sending back money we have borrowed from overseas and giving it back because we spent your money.

We spend your money and everybody else's money and Social Security and everything else, a deterioration in the budget, $750 billion, almost the same as the total amount that we received from the individual income tax.

Mr. Speaker, the President's budget eliminates funding for the juvenile justice programs, the prevention programs, the early intervention programs, the kinds of things that you can pay now and pay less later. He had to cut those out because having spent all the money in tax cuts and having gone so far in debt, there is nothing left over for those important programs; and you are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. This is hundreds of billions of dollars that we are in deficit, and we cannot make the little kinds of payments.

My colleague talked about jobs. The small business program which is just less than $100 million, that is one-tenth of $1 billion. Here we are almost $700 billion in the hole, one-tenth of $1 billion, and that program creates jobs. The only thing the government has to pay out is when the loan defaults because it is a loan guarantee program. So just for every now and then there is a default we have to pay. For every 2 or $3,000 we pay out, we are creating a job because tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars has been borrowed, guaranteed, paid back. So we do not have to pay anything. For every 2 or $3,000 we actually have to pay out, we have created a job.

When you start going in the hole hundreds of billions of dollars and have a program that can create jobs for 2 or $3,000 a piece, why did that get cut out? Because you just ran so far in debt that you did not have any money left over.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think they have been revising that number back and forth, but whatever the projections are, let us look at the results. No President has left office in over 50 years with fewer jobs than they started off with until this administration. We are down 3 million jobs; and if you are interested in jobs, remember that in just a few years we will be spending $300 billion on additional interest on the national debt that had not been anticipated when President Clinton left office, $300 billion dollar. At $30,000 each, you can hire 10 million people. There are only 9 million people unemployed and receiving unemployment in America today. Instead of an unemployment check, you have enough money there in additional interest on the national debt that we should not have to pay to hire everybody that is drawing an unemployment check.

On those transportation jobs, is there not something unique about those jobs? We keep talking about transferring jobs overseas. When you have a transportation-created job, where does that work take place?

This?

This is if you are making 50 to $75,000, you are on average, the average income group, $132. Below that you hardly need any ink to draw the bar. However, if you are making more than $1 million, you explode way off the chart.

Fifty to $75,000: $132. Now there are a lot of different variations in that, depending on the child tax credit. If you have a lot of children, you may get more tax credit. If you are single, you may not get anything at all. On average, 50 to $75,000, you are getting $132 a year.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that unless you recognize that there is a problem you are not going to come make the tough choices to fix it. Most people would glance at this chart and say we have a problem. This administration says that this is manageable, and on the job chart where he looks like he will be the first one to leave office with fewer jobs than he started off with, the tax cuts are working. No, the tax cuts are not working. We are losing jobs. If we passed the transportation bill, millions of jobs would be created.

This will go above the line. Pass the transportation bill. There are a lot of things we can do to stimulate jobs. Tax cuts to the wealthy have not worked. Transportation jobs will work. Tax cuts to those in the lower end, who will actually spend it and buy stuff with it, will work.

A millionaire, if he wants a television, he would have already bought a television. If he wants a car, he would have already bought a car. Someone in the lower brackets, if they get a couple hundred extra dollars, they are going to spend the money.

So there are a lot of things. Repealing the alternative minimum tax for corporations, we discussed, will not create any jobs; but that is how we were trying to spend the money, and that is why, as a result of all that spending, it still ended up no jobs. If you look at the study of the Republican-dominated Joint Committee on Taxation, when they looked at the 2003 and looked at tax cuts and looked at the taxes that were cut, they concluded you might have a little short-term spike in jobs. As a direct result of passing that bill, you will have fewer jobs in the fullness of time than you started off with, and that is because you did it with borrowed money. There was limited stimulus, and because you have got to pay interest on it, on the debt that you ran up in the fullness of time and just a few years as a direct result of passing the bill, you will have fewer jobs than you started off with.

We should not be surprised because of the taxes we cut that we are below the line. Had we used the money for transportation, for targeted tax cuts where they would have made a difference to help fund States or other programs, where we actually use the money in such a way that people will be hired, with all the spending, this thing ought to be off the chart. The budget has deteriorated $750 billion, almost the same

as what we get from the entire individual income tax. With that kind of spending, it should have been able to create some jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Whatever the merits of the lawsuits which provoke this legislation are, we ought to focus on the fact that lawsuits ought to be tried in court, where evidence can be heard and objective law applied.

Today, we are allowing one industry to have the privilege of trying its lawsuit with politicians who will take politics and polls into consideration instead of being treated the same as other citizens who have to try their cases in court. If the case on behalf of the food industry is strong, then courts will know what to do; they can dismiss the cases.

Furthermore, if based on the evidence and the law the court finds that the law suit is frivolous, the court may assess sanctions against the plaintiffs and lawyers who file the suits. In fact, it is my understanding that all of the lawsuits have in fact been dismissed. So what is wrong with the food industry being treated the same as other industries when it comes to courts deciding whether or not there is responsibility for injuries to others? And what is wrong with trying cases in court with unbiased judges and juries hearing both sides of the case according to rules which allow both sides to produce all relevant witnesses who will be heard and cross-examined?

This process is in stark contrast to the congressional procedure where committee chairmen invite the witnesses they want and cross- examination of witnesses is severely constrained both in time and by the fact that the interested parties are not able to cross-examine anyone.

Mr. Chairman, in a democracy it is fundamentally wrong for some industries to have the privilege of trying their cases in a forum where their political allies will decide the merits of the case while everyone else is relegated to the court system where evidence is heard and the law applied by judges and juries without political considerations. This bill sets a bad precedent. I therefore hope my colleagues will oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment reads simply: ``Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in this Act, this Act does not apply to an action brought by a State agency to enforce a State consumer protection law concerning mislabeling or other unfair and deceptive trade practices.''

Mr. Chairman, if the House is going to decide that we will try some cases instead of letting them be tried in court, we ought to at least limit that to the fast food rhetoric that we have heard on the floor. This bill, in fact, covers not only fast food lawsuits, but also litigation involving consumer protection when obesity may be one of the elements of the case.

Every single State has laws in the books to protect its consumers. Each State has laws to protect its consumers from misleading practices. As written, the bill will prevent States' Attorneys General from enforcing these laws. It will not just stop the fast food suits that my colleagues have discussed, but because a person is defined in section 4(3) of the bill to include governmental entities, it will prevent States from getting injunctions, cease and desist orders, or imposing fines against those who endanger consumers.

The exception for a willful and knowing violation is not just enough. State deceptive practices are just like the Federal Trade Commission Act. They allow civil enforcement actions whether or not the defendant knowingly or willfully violated the law. In fact, food labeling and deceptive practices often have exacted strict liability, that is, that the government can get an injunction whether or not the person was intentionally or knowingly in violation.

Mr. Chairman, my State of Virginia has a Consumer Protection Act which prohibits, and I quote, representing that goods and services have characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or qualities that they do not have or any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. A court may order an injunction or restitution to injured parties, even if the violation was unintentional.

The fact is Virginia is not alone. Twelve States have adopted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act section 3 which says intentional deception is not necessary to get injunctive relief, and at least 23 other States have similar standards.

So, Mr. Chairman, the amendment I present today will fix the problem. It will ensure that States can still put an end to mislabeling, deceptive practices and false advertising within their borders. Whatever we think of the fast food suits, please do not prevent States Attorneys General from protecting their citizens.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think we need to review what the amendment actually is. In section 4.3, they define person who can bring these lawsuits as individuals, corporations, companies, but it includes any governmental entity.

The lawsuits we are talking about are lawsuits arising out of, related to, or resulting in injury or potential injury resulting from person's consumption of a qualified product and weight gain, obesity or any health condition that is associated with a person's weight gain or obesity, including, and it goes on. This is overly broad.

Let us just read what the amendment says. It says that the Act does not apply to an action brought by a State agency to enforce a State consumer protection law concerning mislabeling or other unfair or deceptive trade practice. We do not need protection from State attorneys general enforcing our consumer protection laws. I would hope that we adopt the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, just because we made something retroactive in the past does not make it a good idea. It is a bad idea to pass legislation that retroactively affects pending lawsuits.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for the courtesy of yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it. House Resolution 412 commemorates the 30th anniversary of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and recognizes the contributions and achievements of its current 8,800 employees working in 173 domestic offices and 78 foreign offices worldwide.

The resolution also specifically recognizes the sacrifices of those employees who have given their lives in the line of duty and those who have been wounded or injured.

So I am pleased to join my colleagues in recognizing the dedicated hard work and sacrifice of the men and women of the DEA on this occasion commemorating the 30th anniversary of this agency.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a former mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, who worked very closely with the DEA.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Extended Deployment Pay Increase Act of 2004.'' I believe this legislation provides critical financial support to our men and women in uniform.

All of us are familiar with the change in policy that is requiring tens of thousands of National Guard, Reservists, and active duty troops in Iraq and surrounding countries to extend their active duty to 12 months.

These longer deployments cause additional financial and emotional stresses on our military, and their families. For example, it has been reported that more than one-third of the Reservists and National Guard members suffer cuts in pay when called to active duty. So while it may be reasonable to expect members of the National Guard and Reserves to forgo peacetime salaries for six months to serve on active duty thousands of miles away from home, or to expect private employers to continue to pay part of their salaries for a few months, these stopgap measures are limited. The financial strain is especially acute for those who are self-employed--especially those who are called up on short notice and those who have made business arrangements

for a six month absence, only to be notified later that their deployment will be extended for a full year.

There are similar stresses on career military personnel that are required to serve extended deployments of 12 months on active duty. While 6 months may be more manageable for a family to make temporary arrangements regarding covering day care and usual family responsibilities, deployments of 12 months require a more permanent solution. At a minimum, the normal family life is disrupted. Parents are forced to be away from their children for prolonged periods of time, and the parent that is left behind must fill the role of both parents. As a result, additional social services, or additional day care services, are often needed--at additional financial expense.

This bill would increase individual pay by $1000 per month for active duty military, Reservists, and National Guard members who are deployed away from home for more than 6 months. The increase would apply to each month of active duty in excess of 6 months.

Many of these individuals and their families will be suffering hardship well in excess of $1000 per month. The least we can do is attempt to offset the financial hardship imposed on these families. If one third of 150,000 troops in Iraq are eligible for extended deployment pay in any month; the cost would be $50 million a month or $600 million per year. This amounts to less than one-half of one percent of the total cost of the war to date.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this effort to aid the military men and women who are honorably serving our country.