Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out and expand on a point that the gentleman from Washington just brought up, and that is about the Federal deficit. He talked about the future obligations that are part of our Federal deficit. If you look at all the red ink we have seen on the charts and you look at today's Federal deficit, we are not talking about the same thing as what we have in our outstanding debt.

There is a lot of confusion between the deficit, which is how much money we spend versus how much money we take in, and then the national debt, which is when we start talking about baby-boomers, then you start talking about the impact of the national debts.

Right now, our national debt is around $7 trillion. About half of that is publicly held debt. The other half is future obligations. So when we look at all that red ink and get up to $14 trillion, a lot of that is future obligations. It is Social Security for every individual in elementary school today. It is Medicare for every person that is in day care today. It is those people that exist today that at some point are going to be part of public law and they are going to qualify for Social Security, for Medicare, for the prescription drug plan. And that is some of that red ink you are seeing out there. So I think we need to distinguish between publicly held debt and future obligations.

The concept of pay-go which is being pushed by the Senate is really fundamentally flawed economic policy. It makes an underlying assumption that if you reduce revenue by $1 for tax relief, you are going to have a $1 reduction in Federal revenue; a $1 reduction in taxes equals a $1 reduction in Federal revenue.

But we know from history that is not true. In fact, if you looked at the 1980s, in 1980 the Federal revenue was about half a trillion dollars per year. Reagan, under his leadership, we passed the largest tax decrease at that point in history, and what happened over the next decade is revenue doubled. The Federal revenue by 1990 was $1.1 trillion.

Even under the plan that was shown under the so-called Clinton surplus, the Clinton surplus was even preceded by tax relief. He signed tax cuts into law. One of them was capital gains. When we reduced capital gains from 28 percent to 18 percent, we actually had an increase in Federal revenue, not a dollar-for-dollar reduction, $1 tax versus $1 reduction in Federal revenue.

So the fundamental policy of pay-go is flawed. If you have tax relief, three things happen: Tax relief provides a little more money in somebody's pocket. They either save it, spend it, or invest it. If they spend it, that is a demand for goods and jobs. That is good for the economy. If they save it, it provides money for home mortgages. That means more building, more jobs, a good thing. The third thing is they invest it. If they invest it, that means capital for companies to expand and hire more workers. So all three things that come out of tax relief are good, fundamental economic policy.

But if you have this Keynesian economic view buried in this pay-go provision, then you think the Federal Government drives the economy and not the free market system. That is fundamentally flawed. It is the free market system that makes America great.

When you increase taxes, you limit that; and when you reduce taxes, you increase the ability for Americans to do the right thing with their money, and that means more Federal money.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am going to spend a little bit of time talking about how we are going to bring jobs back into America. But before I get to that topic, I want to mention a little bit about Iraq and the situation over there currently.

There has been a lot of handwringing in Washington, D.C. over what has happened in the Abu Ghraib prison. It was a horrible scandal that was wrong, it was sick, and we must hold those people who are responsible accountable. Court martials are currently going on. They will be open public prosecutions. There will be quick and severe punishment, and I think it is necessary that we get all of those responsible.

Recently in a hearing, I was able to listen to Major General Tagabu, who underwent the investigation; and he found that there is no documented approval of these actions. Quite the opposite. Everything that is documented within the Department of Defense says just the opposite. The Geneva rules and conventions will be followed. Proper procedures of handling prisoners will be followed. But yet in that prison, and it is an isolated case, there was a lack of training, there was lack of supervision, there was poor discipline among the troops; and the result was what we have seen in the media recently, including photos and videotapes that are available. But this situation will be corrected, and there is no coverup.

I think there is a silver lining in this dark cloud, though, that has been surrounding Iraq. The 130,000-plus troops that are in Iraq have been doing exemplary work. They have been carrying out their duty with great respect to the Iraqi people, and they have focused on the enemies of those people who hate democracy in the Middle East. They have done their job without shame, and they have conducted themselves in a professional manner. The leadership in Iraq has done an excellent job, as has the leadership in the Pentagon.

It is probably likely that the Secretary of Defense does not know how many traffic tickets were issued to members of the military this past week. There is a lot going on around the globe with approximately 3 million Americans in uniform. But yet when this was discovered, he acted quickly and sternly and brought this to the forefront. I think Secretary Rumsfeld needs to continue in that position. He is the right man for this time. He is the right man for the job. We need his clear thinking and his firm leadership.

Now I would like to move on to careers for the 21st century, but I want to go into a little bit of history before we get into some specifics about how we are going to bring jobs back into America. Our economy has been suffering lately. In 1999, we suffered a tech bust, and we saw the stock market drop $7 trillion in value and money came out of our economy. In November of 2000, it was the technical start of our recession, which was one of the shortest recessions in history.

But then on September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked America, and they plunged our economy into a deeper recession. But then we responded here in Washington, D.C. with tax relief. People did one of three things when they got a little extra money in their pocket. They either spent that money, which was a demand for goods and it is helping our economy respond; or they saved that money, which allowed money available for home mortgages, and we have seen one of the biggest expansions in the home market in recent history; or they invested it.

When that money was invested, corporations have then taken that money and built new plants and now are hiring people. In fact, in the month of April, jobs increased by 288,000. Over the last 2 months, there has been an increase of 600,000 jobs. Since last September, there has been an increase of 1.1 million jobs to our economy. In fact, today there are more Americans working than ever before in the history of our Nation. Today, according to the Department of Commerce and Dr. Kathleen Cooper, who is responsible for the 7,000 employees that collect this data, she tells us that today there are more Americans working than ever before in the history of our Nation.

But we can do better. What we want in America is high-quality, high- paying jobs; and here is how we are going to get there. One of the things that I found out when I was talking to local manufacturers in the Wichita area is that it is not about wages. The problem we are having with bringing jobs back to America is not about wages. In fact, the CEO of Raytheon Corporation in Wichita, Kansas told me that after he was working on an attempt to hold our wire harness manufacturing jobs for Raytheon in Wichita, Kansas, he worked with the union that came up with the best solution possible. He finally came to the conclusion that if his wages were zero, he would still have to do something about the excessive cost that he is facing.

Today, I met with a CEO of Converge Corporation. He told me that if he was going to build a building in America or build a building in the Philippines or in India, the costs are about the same. He convinced me that what we need to do to control costs and bring jobs in America is not about overhead.

So it is not about wages. It is not about overhead. It is about costs that are out of control for the CEOs, for the people who keep and create jobs here in America.

Now, what are these costs? Where do they come from? Well, over the last generation, Congress, with good intentions, has passed legislation that has ended up with disastrous results.

The results have been that we have increased costs that cannot be controlled by the people who keep and create jobs, by the employers, by small business employers, by large corporations. Because it is things that are controlled by Congress. The CEOs and the small businessmen and the entrepreneurs and those who hire people cannot have a vote. The votes occur right on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Well, it is time that we change that environment. We have divided these costs into eight separate issues, and this week we started the first of 8 weeks to deal with these costs so we can bring back jobs into America. The eight issues are health care security; bureaucratic red tape termination; lifelong learning; trade fairness and opportunity; tax relief and simplification; energy self-sufficiency and security; research and development; and ending lawsuit abuse and litigation management.

Health care security we will come back to, because that is the issue we are dealing with this week. But let me give you a little snippet of what we are going to deal with in weeks to come.

Next week we will be dealing with bureaucratic red tape termination. Over the last generation, Congress has put many agencies in place that have forced continuation of an increase in paperwork to be submitted, and it has become unrealistic, impractical, and an unnecessary environment that includes OSHA mandates; that is, Occupational Safety and Health Agency, OSHA mandates, and they are driving our industries and small businesses and health care systems to a grinding halt.

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, 12 percent of the cost of any product made in America is dealing with bureaucratic red tape.

Energy cost, we wonder why we have $2 gasoline today. Well, our bureaucratic red tape has imposed regulations that cause our limited oil manufacturers to try to make boutique gasolines that are being shifted through limited pipelines, so we come up with temporary shortages. This week we have $1.95 gas in Wichita, Kansas. So we have to deal with the bureaucratic red tape.

Following that, we are going to deal with lifelong learning. We are going to talk about job training and retraining so that we can have a highly skilled workforce. Now, our public school system has given generations of Americans the tools to pursue their dreams, and it can certainly help prepare boys and girls for the demands of a new century.

But we must focus on those areas that are going to be in demand for us to stay in the lead. We must concentrate on science and engineering careers. Our bachelor programs and the production rates of scientists and engineers are among the lowest in the world today in America, and we must change that.

The next issue we are going to deal with is trade, fairness, and opportunity. We need to have a fair deal in the world market. We need to make sure that our exports are treated the same as everyone else treats exports. We should have equalizing tax rates. We should ensure balanced tariffs, and we should prevent currency manipulation. And we have to stop other countries from targeting certain industries here in America.

One example in Wichita, Kansas, is a company that builds handtrucks. Right now we are encouraging the Commerce Department to take up with the nation of China their attempt to try to force out handtruck manufacturers in America by flooding the market with under-cost handtrucks.

The same is with auto lift equipment, that equipment that lifts up automobiles so it can be worked on in gas stations and auto repair shops, that is being targeted by China as well. That needs to be corrected.

The next issue we are going to deal with is tax relief and simplification. Right now we do not have a fair playing field for American industries. Our tax costs end up buried in our products and it drives up the cost of our products, and there is a way we can pull out some of those costs.

We also need to encourage the right incentives, like accelerated depreciation. That concept of accelerated depreciation will in fact get more products built and sold within America and it will help bring jobs back to America.

But we need equity in our Tax Code. We ought to look at something like the fair tax that is being proposed by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). It is a national sales tax that would give us great trade advantages. We would eliminate income taxes. When we move a car or something built in America overseas, that tax would stop at the border and we would make ourselves 22 to 25 percent more competitive.

The week following that, we are going to deal with energy self- sufficiency and security. We are going to talk about why we have $2 gas. We are going to talk about stabilizing our energy system. We are going to talk about creating 700,000 jobs in America and strengthening our businesses.

Following that we are going to deal with research and development. America has always been in the lead. It has a history of attracting the brightest minds in the world and creating some of the best concepts and ideas. But we are seeing a reduction in the number of papers submitted about research. We are seeing less money being available for research and development in America, and we need to change that around by providing incentives so we can apply knowledge into the public market and disseminate the technology that we develop.

The last week, the eighth week, we are going to deal with ending lawsuit abuse and litigation management. We have become a litigious society.

Our Nation was built on justice and our courts were structured to protect Americans, but that objective has become warped over the years. It has warped to the point where our legal system actually attacks our citizens and our way of life.

We have come to the point where the United States Congress has had to step in and prevent food companies from being sued, and distributors and restaurants from being sued, so that they are not liable for somebody eating too many cheeseburgers. It is amazing that we have come to this point, but litigation has turned against us and turned against our economy. It has driven up costs and it has driven jobs overseas.

If we could make some simple changes, a drastic change would be loser pays. It is the system that is prevalent in Europe today. They do not have the same high cost of litigation we have in America. Loser pays would be the obvious solution. If that is not achievable, then we ought to outlaw frivolous lawsuits and return the court's attention to upholding the laws of the land.

One commonsense change that is part of our history is the statute of repose that was put in place in 1994 by Congress. The result in the aircraft industry, what it did basically was limit liability for single-engine aircraft to 18 years. In other words you could not sue them for design flaws after 18 years. For heavy jets it was 23 years. You could not sue the manufacturers for design flaws after 23 years. I mean, if an airplane can fly for 18 years, you would think all the design flaws would be out of it. I do.

But anyway, the statute of repose created 4,000 jobs in south central Kansas. It increased the working population of aerospace manufacturing in that area by 15 percent, and it restarted a single-engine production line in Independence, Kansas. That same concept can be applied to other manufacturing in America, and it can see a parallel increase in jobs.

So, let us go back to health care security, the issue we are dealing with this week. I have got some charts that I think illustrate very closely the point we are dealing with.

In this first chart, we have a lady standing at the door and we have a stork delivering a pizza. He says, ``I used to deliver babies, but the insurance got too expensive.'' So he can no longer deliver babies anymore, he is delivering pizza.

This chart shows the States in America where a medical liability crisis exists, sort of a national view. The white States are the six States that have taken care of their medical malpractice laws and are currently in a pretty good situation. The 19 States in trouble are the ones in red. That is where health care costs have dramatically gotten out of control.

Here is a good example between a yellow State, which is showing some problem signs but not there yet, and a red State. We have Kansas, where I am from, the Fourth District of Kansas, and then we have Missouri right next door, a red State, or a State in crisis.

In that State, in Kansas City, where we have Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas, the physicians in Kansas City, Missouri, had a white-coat flight day, where they walked across the State line to emphasize the point that if you do not deal with medical liability costs, you are going to lose physicians. And physicians have been migrating, closing their offices in Kansas City, Missouri, and opening them up in Overland Park and other places on the Kansas side where they have better protection for the liability crisis in medical malpractice.

Time magazine, they emphasized the problem in one of their issues. It shows a physician's white coat with a tie, and no one inside the shirt or the jacket. It says, ``The doctor is out. Why so many patients are losing their doctors to the rising cost of malpractice.''

It gives how much it costs. For a neurosurgeon, the annual cost for medical malpractice is $71,200. How many surgeries does he have to perform just to pick up the cost of his insurance? For OB-GYN, the average is $56,546. How many babies have to be delivered just to pay the liability insurance? Emergency physicians, $53,500; orthopedic surgeon, $38,000; general surgeon, $36,354. It has become a crisis in America, and what we are seeing, because that crisis is signs like this where at Phoenix Memorial Hospital the emergency room was closed.

It has also has found its way into our manufacturing process, and, again, it is part of the problem that is driving jobs overseas. You know, in America today, we have seen some jobs come in, in-sourcing jobs. For example, BMW is now manufacturing automobiles in America and exporting them to Germany. Honda builds automobiles here; Toyota, Mazda, a lot of other companies build cars, like GM, Ford and Saturn. But this is a typical, average automobile in America.

Well, how much of that car does it take to cover the cost of health care for the auto manufacturers? Again, this is just a typical auto manufacturer.

If you look at the cost, the cost buried into the cost of every automobile is about $1,300 on an average and up. Thirteen hundred dollars. Now, that is the cost of the wheels and the tires and the frame of the automobile. So, this much of an automobile showed in the lower left-hand corner, right-hand corner on your television screen, to those here in the House floor, that frame which is the outside of the car and the wheels and the tires, that is the costs that are buried into health care.

If you extracted the health care costs, you would have the frame left over with the motor and the undercarriage and the seats and the dashboard and all of that, but you would not have the outside of the car and you would not have the tires. It is an expensive proposition to cover the cost of health care. And that is part of the reason why it has been excluded, or it has been driving up costs and driving jobs overseas.

The Kansas Hospital Association tells me that if we cannot revise some of the problems they are having with paperwork, today the costs they are absorbing are the equivalent of what they provide in health care. In other words, for every hour of health care they provide, it requires an hour of paperwork to comply with all these health care burdens that have been placed on them.

We have also been seeing a lot of escalating jury awards that have been very difficult in providing, and we talked about that with the Time magazine article. It has required a lot of additional costs for physicians, and that has increased the cost of health care. And there has been very little means for us to control those costs.

The problems have been, financially, percentage-wise they have increased just in 2003 by 12 percent or more. That is the fifth consecutive year of double-digit increases, and it has doubled the health care costs for employers since 1999.

By decreasing these costs, we could see an increase in jobs in America. With each percentage point rise in health care insurance costs, it increases the number of uninsured people in America by 300,000 people, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means that if we can hold down costs, we will see less uninsured people in America.

Medical liability insurance premiums have increased 505 percent since 1976, and that has driven many doctors out of the profession, closing some specialty practices in entire regions and placing an unnecessary financial burden on the Nation and its employers.

The average jury award now is $3.5 million, which is up by more than 70 percent since 1995. The increasing cost of insuring doctors against petty lawsuits is severely reducing the quality and access of America's top-rate health care.

We have got a lot of problems to deal with here. One of the statistics I wanted to bring out here is the National Association of Manufacturers. They have calculated the benefit it costs for American companies, and it puts us at a 5.5 percent disadvantage compared to our nine largest trading partners.

Not only is the United States spending more on health care annually, but 7.7 percent of our gross domestic product goes into health care from our private sector. That is effectively matched by the public sector, so it is now 14 percent of our gross domestic product.

We have been blessed with the best health care system. We must make it affordable and available to all of us.

So we have come up with three specific pieces of legislation this week. I have joining me this evening the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), and he is going to talk to us about his view of the issues that we are facing to make health care more affordable and help us to bring jobs back.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to contribute

here, the gentleman is from Minnesota, up there bordering Canada. I have heard reports from our northern cities like Seattle, Minneapolis, Detroit, Buffalo, that we see an influx of Canadians coming in to get the health care coverage that has been denied them in Canada because their socialized health care system is rationed. They have to wait too long for procedures, or that procedure simply is not available because of their age or weight restrictions.

Has the gentleman noticed that occurring in Minnesota?

Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman would agree that we need to have more transparency in the cost of health care so that consumers can make better decisions; also, so that physicians can make better decisions.

One of the gentlemen that I spoke with is a physician who has retired from running a surgical group. He said when he was just a surgeon, he would order a lot of tests because he thought they were good data points for him to sort of mull over and make a decision, and he gave me the example of an x-ray and an MRI. He said, quite often, you need one or the other and occasionally, you need both; but for most information, especially in his type of work, he thought that an MRI is the most productive for him, but on occasions, x-rays. He said that it was very difficult for him to determine where these costs were going until he started looking down as the manager of this surgical group and saying, what are driving my costs? He realized that all his doctors did the same thing that he used to do. They would order every possible test as data points whether they were necessary or not, and that transparency for him made him tighten up his procedures and lower the costs of health care. I think if consumers had good, clear transparency in the costs that were involved, they also would make good decisions, and health savings accounts would help consumers have more control over their health care.

Before we go on to these three bills that we are going to deal with this week as part of this Health Care Security Act, I wanted to mention my firsthand experience and how it relates to why I think socialized medicine or a single-paid plan would not be right for this country, because it does end up in the rationing of health care.

My father is 85 years old. I am very proud of him. He is a World War II veteran. He served in Heiwajima during World War II. A year ago January he had trouble with his heart and went in for open heart surgery. It was a difficult month. He spent 3 weeks in the hospital. It was touch-and-go for a couple of weeks. We worried about it a great deal. But he came out very strong, and we still have him today. He is very active, and he travels still frequently and is a productive member of our society. But he would not have received that health care treatment had he lived in Canada. He would have been above the age of eligibility for open heart surgery. Even if he was within the age requirements, right now the wait is 6 to 8 months for open heart surgery in Canada. Can my colleague imagine somebody who has had a borderline heart condition or even a heart attack and they say, well, yes, we know you had a heart attack and if you can hold on for another 6 months, we will get you right in.

That is why they have people crossing the border and coming to America to get health care, because it is the only place that it can be provided. And because of that, because of our excellent health care system we have today, I still have my father. I get to talk with him on the phone, I get to see him on holidays, and I get to gain the wisdom that he is passing on to me and on to my children. It is because of our health care system that I still have him.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a very good point about where the free market is involved we see no increase in health care costs. Dr. Greg Ganske, who was elected in 1994 to the United States House of Representatives from Iowa and now is back in private practice, told one of our other classmates from the class of the 104th Congress that right now, when somebody has selective surgery, and he is a plastic surgeon, when they have selective surgery, they call around to get

three or four quotes. He said, we all know in Des Moines, Iowa, who is charging what because we hear it from our customers. And because of that, the growth in costs for plastic surgery has been flat over the years. If you compare that to the health care costs that are managed by these big insurance companies, by Medicare, by Medicaid, which is managed by the government, then we see a continual increase in costs.

So we have a situation where health care costs that are available for small businesses, for example, are going up 12 percent per year for the last 6 years. They have doubled since 1999, and it is a continuous increase, much faster than the rate of inflation; and yet where the free market is involved, then we see a reduction in the growth and sometimes it is very flat.

Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the transparency that we have been talking about and what impact it has and the free market on prices, we have some places where you can buy drugs over the Internet and elsewhere and the prices they were on selected prescriptions.

This chart that I am holding in my hand is based on prices as of May 4. We can see some of these red lines very clearly where they extend out here for about $1,400 per year is the cost of those prescriptions.

After 1 week of having transparency and visibility in the marketplace, the shift is very dramatic. The same set of companies, Walgreen, Costco.com, drugstore.com, et cetera, what the free market has done is reduced the prices on the top line, which is the Primary Care Alliance, the costs were nearly $1,400. Now, because of transparency in the free market system, it is down to $1,000, a 40 percent reduction. We can see all of the costs are now coming into line, and that is the impact of transparency and the impact of the free market system.

I think that what we can say safely is that when we have the ability for people to make market decisions, they will make good decisions.

They will bring costs down. In this case, it is prescription drugs, but also it occurs in health care costs. I think that is very important.

We have under our Health Security Act this week three phases. It is a 3-point plan.

The first part of the plan is called the Small Business Health Fairness Act. It allows for consolidated risk pools. The House plan allows small businesses to create these association health care plans, and it gives them the opportunity to join together, through existing trade associations, to purchase health care insurance for their workers at a lower cost, and that is because 60 percent of the nearly 44 million uninsured Americans are employed at small businesses today and/ or they are dependent on someone who is employed by one of the small businesses.

By allowing the creation of association health plans, we will significantly decrease the number of uninsured in America. The plan establishes eligibility requirements so that all AHPs, or association health plans, are required to offer fully insured or self-insured benefits certified by the U.S. Department of Labor. It encourages broad participation and coverage by prohibiting discrimination against any kind of certain high-risk individual.

It increases the bargaining power. Small businesses will see increased bargaining power with health care providers, more freedom from costly State-mandated packages and lower overhead costs by as much as 30 percent.

Insurers selling directly to small employers typically incur administrative costs of 20 to 25 percent. Under the plan that the Republicans have here in the House, AHPs will save small businesses an average of 13 percent on their employee health care costs.

AHPs also cover specific diseases, maternal and newborn hospitalization, and mental health issues. It requires that AHPs be financially responsible and have strong reserves, strong enough to fund any potential costs and other obligations.

So, one of the first things we are dealing with the short version is AHPs as they are known by, but really, it is the Small Business Health Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, the second point of our plan and the way we are going to help reduce health care costs in America is called flexible spending accounts. That allows an employee to have some flexibility in his health care. It allows workers to direct their employers to deduct money from their paychecks to be placed in a flexible spending account. It is tax free, and it is to pay for health care expenses that they may incur during the year.

Employers are not restricted based on the size of their business on whether or not they offer FSAs as their choice interpreted so that employees are restricted by whether or not their employer offers the option. There are no health insurance requirements for the workers to open up an FSA. There is no minimum or maximum contribution limits. Money can be drawn from an FSA to pay most medical expenses. That money may not be used for long-term care or health insurance premiums, but it is a tax benefit to the employees. Workers could save on their taxes because the amount committed to an FSA is subtracted from their wages before taxes are applied.

There are long-term coverage advantages. Thirty-seven million employees in America have access to FSAs, but few take advantage of them today because they have a use-it-or-lose-it rule. Currently, if you do not use the money that an employee puts into an FSA, that money is forfeited to an employer, and it is a huge disadvantage or two disadvantages. Quite often we will see employees will not get into it because of that.

Number two, they will get to the end of the year and they will see that money going back to the employer so they will have selective surgeries or they will have botox or something they do not really need, and again, it is driving up health care costs.

But under the plan, up to $500 of unused funds in this new plan can be carried forward each year on an FSA and allow them to continue to invest in their future. If they do not use it, it is available for them in the future. Alternatively, up to $500 of unused funds can be rolled over to a health savings account for eligible individuals.

So there are some real advantages to these FSAs. Because employees will have their money at stake, they will be more selective on the health care they receive. We will have less frivolous visits to emergency rooms or to physicians. I think people will start to use home remedies a little more. Right now, there is a tremendous amount of information on the Internet. All you have got to do is put in health care into some of the search engines on the Internet and you can find a lot of Internet Web sites that you can get information on. And I think people will start to use those to reduce their health care costs, save money, lower their taxes; and again, this is part of our plan to lower the cost of health care so we can attract jobs back into America.

The last of the 3-point plan is medical liability reform. This includes a speedy resolution of claims. Instead of having health care claims drag on and on, there is a fair accountability. The plan waives the degree of fault so that a person with 1 percent of the blame is not forced to pay 100 percent of the damages. This component eliminates the incentives to look for deep pockets, making one party unfairly responsible for another party's negligence.

This also has maximum patient recovery. It empowers the courts to maximize patient awards by ensuring that an unjust portion of the patient's recovery is not misdirected to his or her attorney. The plan prohibits attorneys from pocketing large percentages of an injured patient's award. The award is to go to the patient, not the attorney.

Full compensation for patients' injuries are allowed. There are reasonable limits on punitive and noneconomic damages. There are flexibility for States that already have enacted damage caps. It respects those States' ability to enact these caps and enforce the damage caps.

It also has experts predict significant positive change from the reform. The plan would decrease premiums for medical malpractice insurance by an average of 25 to 30 percent according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Joint Economic Committee study asserts that the number of Americans with health insurance would increase by 3.9 million if medical liability reform is passed. Specifically, the plan places reasonable limits on malpractice that would save from $60 to $100 billion each year and that would not have to be buried back into the rates.

It would allow American business to expand their operations through hiring, and it enacts sensible liability reform that would save American taxpayers at least $30 billion annually by reducing the Federal health care spending.

I showed you the map earlier of the States. The white States, again, who are currently okay on this map, and California is one of the white States. They have enacted medical liability reform. They are a great model for it. The Nation's medical liability premiums have increased by 505 percent since 1976. California's has only increased by 167 percent since it passed its medical malpractice reforms in 1975.

An OB-GYN in California pays about $57 annually for liability insurance while OB-GYNs in the crisis States, like Pennsylvania shown in the red over here, and Florida and Ohio, all in red, they pay about $100,000 a year annually.

What it means to be a medical liability crisis State, these 19 States that are depicted in red, in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia's Methodist Hospital announced it would stop delivering babies and discontinue its prenatal program for low-income women.

In Florida, women are facing waiting lists for 4 months before being able to get an appointment for a mammogram because at least six mammogram centers in south Florida alone have stopped offering the procedure as a result of increased medical liability insurance premiums. This trend is troubling. There are a growing number of older people and less and less people are being provided with mammograms, according to Jolean McPherson, a Florida spokeswoman for the American Cancer Society.

In Arizona, a baby was born on the side of the road after a mother had passed her community hospital where the insurance crisis had closed the maternity ward.

In Nevada, more than 30 Las Vegas obstetricians have closed their practices in recent months, leaving the city with about 85 obstetricians to deliver more than 23,000 babies in the next year. Kathryn Moore, the director of

the State Legislation for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said, ``If I was a woman planning a family in Las Vegas, I'd be very concerned. I would certainly think twice about starting a family.''

Well, we want families to start in Las Vegas, and we think it is unfair that 85 obstetricians are going to have to handle approximately 23,000 births next year.

We need to do something about that, and what we have passed tonight, as a matter of fact, in the House is medical liability reform, and it is the first step on the road to lowering health care costs and bringing jobs back into America.

I think it is very clear that if you cannot support these three measures, you are turning your back on the people who want jobs in America, high-quality, high-paying jobs. The only way we are going to bring them back is lower health care costs. We cannot do it by socialized medicine. We know that does not work. We can do it by our Health Care Security Act, by lowering the costs, bringing jobs back into America.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, we have over the last generation watched Congress continually raise barriers for us to keep and create jobs in America. We have found out by investigating this that we could develop these problems into eight categories, eight issues that we are going to deal with.

The problem is not Benedict Arnold CEOs. They only have a couple of costs they can control, and that is wages and overhead. And the problem is not the wages, because most of them want to have high-quality employees they want to pay high wages to. They want to attract the best and the brightest. The problem is not overhead. We found out it costs the same to build a building in India, in the Philippines, or in America. It is Congress. The problem is in Congress and what we have done over the last generation to continually put barriers in the way for people to keep and create jobs.

We have started with these eight issues. We are starting this week with health care security. We talked about the three plans that we are dealing with this week, including medical malpractice reform, association health plans, and what was the other one?

Flexible savings accounts, correct. Next week we are moving on to bureaucratic red tape termination, because we found out that the cost of complying with bureaucratic red tape in America is about 12 percent of every manufactured product. If we can cut that in half, we would be 5 percent more competitive.

We are going to deal with life-long learning so that we have high- skilled, high-trained workers. We need to get more science and technical and engineering graduates.

Then we are going to deal with trade fairness and opportunity. We must have fairly applied trade agreements. We must open up new markets, but we have to overcome monetary manipulations by other countries and by unfair trade practices by other countries. And we are going to deal with that.

Then we will move on to tax relief and simplification and figure a way to pull the cost of taxes that are buried into our products out of it so that we are more competitive.

Then we will deal with energy self-sufficiency and security. We are going to present legislation that will create 700,000 jobs in America. We are going to deal with research and development so that we can continue to be innovative and bring new ideas to the world and more jobs to America.

Then we are going to deal with ending lawsuit abuse and litigation so that we can lower the cost of liability insurance, limit liability so we can create new jobs, and, again, bring workers back into America.

The lines are very clear. Congress over the last generation has created these barriers. The people who employ workers cannot vote on this. They cannot reduce these barriers. They cannot remove these barriers. Only the Members of Congress can remove these barriers, and so we must deal with them.

This is the debate we should be having today. This is the debate we need to have so that we can remove the barriers and bring workers back into America, bring jobs back into America, high-quality, high-paying jobs. We call it ``Careers for the 21st Century'' because we want people to be able to pursue their dreams, pursue the career that they desire the most.

So we are going to complete health care security this week and next week move on to bureaucratic red tape. And if you cannot support these issues, it is my firm belief that you cannot support bringing jobs back into America, because these are clearly the barriers to bringing jobs back. They are barriers faced by every small businessman I talk to. They are barriers faced by even the large employers. They know this is what is controlling their costs. They want to pay high wages and build buildings and have their plants here in America, but they cannot reduce these costs: health care security, bureaucratic red tape, life-long learning, trade fairness and opportunity, tax relief, energy self- sufficiency, research and development, and ending lawsuit abuse.

If we can overcome these barriers, we will bring jobs back into America. That is the plan the Republicans have in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for joining me this evening. I think we have covered some good territory. We have covered the topic, I think, very well, and next week we will move on to bureaucratic red tape.

Mr. Speaker, Like all Americans, I am appalled and saddened at the recent reports and pictures out of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq which show inexcusable treatment of Iraqi prisoners by a handful of American soldiers.

While these acts of humiliation apparently were committed by a very, very small number of our troops and contractors serving in Iraq, the image of our entire nation has been tarnished.

I believe Congress must closely examine these revelations of misconduct and those who are responsible, both directly and indirectly, should face swift and appropriate punishment.

Unfortunately, the damage they have done to America's standing in the Arab community and the world will take far longer to repair.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the outstanding men and women of our armed forces in Iraq--nearly all of whom had absolutely no part in this reprehensible behavior--can indeed repair the damage that has been done by an irresponsible few. Every day these brave men and women courageously perform their duties with honor as part of our efforts to give the Iraqi people a lasting democracy.

Throughout our history, America has been known for its compassion, decency, and sense of fairness and I am confident that through a continued commitment to democracy and human rights not only in Iraq, but around the world, we will remain what Abraham Lincoln called ``The Last Great Hope on Earth.''

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 2004 National Day of Prayer--a day set aside by millions of people across this country to acknowledge God and give him thanks for all that is truly good. Once again, we are reminded of our need for him in the midst of turmoil and suffering around the world, and we recall our need to listen and hear from the Almighty.

Right now there are thousands of young men and women in uniform who are bravely serving this country in Iraq, Afghanistan and in other foreign countries. We ask God to protect them and grant them favor. We ask God to comfort their families and loved ones who eagerly await their return. Let us continue to pray for peace in these lands and for reconciliation among its people.

Throughout American history--from the earliest settlers to the Continental Congress, from General George Washington to President George W. Bush--the American people have called upon the Providence of God.

In 1775, the Continental Congress issued a proclamation setting aside a day of prayer. In 1952, Congress established an annual day of prayer, and then in 1988, the law was amended designating the National Day of Prayer as the first Thursday in May.

Our country has witnessed the benefits of national prayer and fasting in times past, and I hope citizens from all walks of life will humbly acknowledge God and seek his guidance, strength and resolve.

Let us remember to pray for our President, his Cabinet, military leaders, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, State governors and local officials.

And may we, like our Founding Fathers, earnestly seek to know God's will for us and our country on this national day of prayer.

Mr. Speaker, the book on terrorism has a chapter in it called ``Iraq.'' You cannot close the book on terrorism until you close the chapter on Iraq.

It saddens me that the Democrat leaders have now joined the ranks of the French and Spanish in calling the war in Iraq unwinnable. That is not what our troops told me when I visited them in Iraq. I asked a soldier what did he think about being in Iraq where all the terrorists are congregating from around the Middle East.

He said, this is where we ought to be. He said, this is the only place in the globe where every American carries a gun.

That war is winnable. We must support our troops. We must do like the firemen in New York City said on September 12 when they spoke to the President: do whatever it takes. We must do whatever it takes to win, and we will win.

God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 62 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 44 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

This important legislation would finally make it a separate Federal offense to cause death or bodily injury to a child in utero in the course of committing an already defined Federal offense. It is imperative that we hold criminals responsible for conduct that harms or kills an unborn child. I cannot understand the opposition to this bill. It will not affect abortion laws, it merely affirms that a violent act against a pregnant woman affects not only her but her unborn child as well. There are most certainly two victims in such crimes, as 24 States have already recognized.

This issue that we have debated for the past couple of years finally caught the Nation's attention with the murders of Laci Peterson and her unborn son Conner. Americans strongly believe that there were two murders committed last December and that the law should reflect that. Laci's family has suffered two losses. Thankfully under California law, the murderer will be tried for taking two lives. This is not the case at the Federal level. Laci and Conner's family has asked Congress to rectify this. Laci's mother Sharon Rocha's heartfelt statement expresses the need for this law better than I can:

Please understand how adoption of such a single-victim

proposal would be a painful blow to those, like me, who are

left to grieve after a two-victim crime, because Congress

would be saying that Conner and other innocent victims like

him are not really victims--indeed, that they never really

existed at all. But our grandson did live. He had a name, he

was loved, and his life was violently taken from him before

he ever saw the sun.

The Peterson case, unfortunately, is only one of several. I am horrified by stories such as that of Tracy Scheide Marciniak who was only 4 days from delivering her baby boy Zachariah. Four days. For 9 months she had been eagerly awaiting his arrival, planning for his birth and life, bonding with him in her womb. Unfortunately, her husband brutally attacked her, targeting a few blows specifically on her abdomen. Zachariah bled to death in her womb because of the blunt- force trauma. Tracy nearly died herself but did recover from her injuries and had to bury her baby boy without ever getting a chance to see him alive. At the time Wisconsin did not have an unborn victims law so Glendale Black was convicted on assault to her alone and is now eligible for parole. The law did not recognize the loss of Zachariah's life and Glendale Black did not pay for his crime.

Ohio is one of the States where it is a crime to kill an unborn child in a violent act. Unlike Zachariah, Jasmine Robbins' father was prosecuted for her manslaughter. Gregory Robbins assaulted his wife Karlene who was 8 months pregnant with their daughter Jasmine. He repeatedly struck her in the face and abdomen. Due to the assault, Karlene's uterus ruptured and Jasmine died. Gregory Robbins pled guilty to assault and battery to his pregnant wife and involuntary manslaughter for Jasmine's death.

Jasmine's murder is no less tragic than Zachariah's but at least her mother did not have to suffer the heartbreak of not having her murder recongized under our laws.

We live in a society that does not respect life and that troubles me. We have children killing children in our schools, husbands beating their wives, and other violent crimes signifying that we as a culture do not value and treasure life as we should. A good first step towards recognizing the miracle of life is to ensure that those who take a life are punished for their crime.

We cannot bring back Conner, Zachariah or Jasmine or the other hundreds of unborn children violently murdered. We can, and must, however, protect other unborn children from the same fate. We must respect life and make criminals pay for attacks against all Americans, born and in utero.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to rename the community center at McConnell Air Force Base, currently known as ``Emerald City,'' as ``The Robert J. Dole Community Center.'' I would like to thank my colleagues from Kansas, Mr. Ryun, Mr. Moran and Mr. Moore, for agreeing to join as original cosponsors of the bill.

Senator Dole once said that his life ``is proof that America is a land without limits.'' He was born in Russell, Kansas, on July 22, 1923, the eldest son of Doran R. and Bina Talbott Dole. He graduated from Russell public schools and attended the University of Kansas, Lawrence, entering in the fall of 1941. He received an A.B. and LL.B from Washburn Municipal University in 1952.

Senator Dole entered active duty in the U.S. Army in June 1943 after completing his sophomore year at the University of Kansas. He served 5\1/2\ years in World War II and was a 10th Mountain Division platoon leader in the Allied liberation of Northern Italy. During this time, he was twice wounded and twice decorated for ``heroic achievement,'' and was discharged with the rank of Captain in July 1948, having convalesced for 3 years from grave wounds sustained in combat.

In 1950, he was elected to the Kansas Legislature and served for 2 years before being elected Russell County Attorney, a position he served in for 8 years. In 1960, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and reelected in 1962, 1964 and 1966. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1968 and was reelected in 1974, 1980, 1986 and 1992.

One of the many lasting contributions that Bob Dole made to the State of Kansas and to the American people was the manner in which he worked to strengthen McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita over the course of his nearly 4 decades of service in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Due largely to his efforts, infrastructure improvements at the base have included a base hospital, housing for single officers and enlisted personnel, and a multifaceted community center, ``Emerald City,'' which contains a bowling center, officer and enlisted clubs, a fitness center and a cafeteria.

In honor of Senator Dole's service to Kansas and to the men and women who have called McConnell Air Force Base home, I am pleased to introduce this legislation, which authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to rename the community center at McConnell Air Force Base, currently known as ``Emerald City,'' as ``The Robert J. Dole Community Center.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Butler County Community College Grizzlies for winning the National Junior College Athletic Association Championship in football.

On December 6, the Grizzlies, from El Dorado, Kansas, wrapped up an undefeated season with a 14-10 victory over Dixie State in the Dixie Rotary Bowl to win the Junior College National Championship for the third time in the last 6 years.

Butler County trailed the Dixie State Rebels 10-6 at halftime. However, the Grizzlies started the third quarter with a 14-play scoring drive, capped by a touchdown by the First Team All-American quarterback, Chad Wilmott. They went on to the 14-10 victory. That touchdown drive changed the momentum of the game.

I would like to commend the players, coaching staff, and the administration of Butler County for establishing the Grizzlies as a powerhouse in junior college football. A record of 12 wins and zero losses speaks volumes about the character and determination of the coaches and student athletes at Butler County. A team that produced four All-Americans and the Coach of the Year truly exemplifies the hard work and dedication that is synonymous with south central Kansas. I congratulate and thank the Butler County Grizzlies for an unforgettable season.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who has just gone through very difficult negotiations at a very difficult time. Some Members may not know that he lost his home to the California wildfires that swept through southern California. So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

This is good news. This defense conference report is good news for our young men and women who serve in the Armed Services and are required to carry out the will of this Nation overseas. We want to give them the tools necessary so they can do their job and come home safely to their families, and this bill provides many of the tools necessary for that to happen. It is also good news for our veterans in addressing the issue of concurrent receipts.

It is also very good news for the KC-767 program. This is a critical part of our defense program and it completes the circuit for the start of a new program in fulfilling a great need by replacing our KC-135's, the tanker fleet that we currently have.

For those who are not familiar with the KC-135, this is basically a gas station in the sky. It refuels other aircraft, and it is a very necessary link in projecting power for this country. Afghanistan and Iraq once again confirmed the necessity that in today's war on terrorism, we must have tankers to fulfill the role of carrying out and projecting power. The problem has been that they are an aging fleet. The average age of the KC-135s is 43 years. Can the Members imagine, Mr. Speaker, coming back and forth to work in a 1960 automobile? This is basically what we have asked our young men and women to do. The average age of 43 years is the equivalent of driving a 1960 Dodge Dart. And just like an older automobile would suffer from rust and need repair, these aircraft are suffering from corrosion and have high maintenance costs. So the KC-135 must be replaced, and this is good news because this defense authorization conference report does that.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the House on notice that we will have to correct some of the problems that have been created by this agreement in the current legislation. The conference report changes the original plan for the KC-767. It changes the delivery rate and purchasing method that was supposed to save approximately $4 billion, an estimated $4 billion, but the short-term plan was shortsighted. It does create a long-term problem. I will submit for the Record the letter from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz outlining the plan to change the delivery schedule for the first 100 aircraft. It essentially changes it from a 20-per-year delivery rate to a 12-per-year delivery rate.

When we assume the total program of 400 aircraft, instead of ending this program in fiscal year 2025, it will now end in fiscal year 2039. That moves the mid-point of this entire program 7 years to the right. If we assume an average cost of $150 million per aircraft and a 5 percent inflation rate, that is for increased labor cost, increased material cost, increased cost of money, it raises the cost of the entire program by 40.7 percent. So instead of 60 billion over 21 years for the KC-767 program, the Federal Government will have to spend approximately $84.4 billion over 35 years.

What needs to be done? We are going to address the delivery schedule. It must be accelerated so that we can reach an optimum production rate and a lower cost per aircraft. We also need to provide adequate budget authority to serve the taxpayers with significant reduction in the cost of this program by accelerating the production rate. But over all, Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference report, and it is going to be something that is going to help our young men and women as well as veterans. I support the rule, and I support the defense conference report.

Deputy Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, November 5, 2003.

Hon. John Warner,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you again for your consideration

of the Department of Defense's proposal to lease 100 KC-767A

aircraft. As you know, there has been a vigorous debate on

the best way to get this program started. Your most recent

amendment would allow the Air Force to lease no more than 20

of the 100 tankers. The Air Force has developed a proposal to

implement that arrangement, and I hope that you will find it

acceptable.

Our proposal strikes a necessary balance between the

critical need for new air-refueling tankers and the

constraints on our budget. As reflected in the enclosed

chart, we intend to lease the initial 20 aircraft and then

buy aircraft at a steady rate of 11 to 13 aircraft per year

until delivery of the 100th. We commit to add $2.4B, in

Fiscal Years (FYs) 2008 through 2010, to the funding profile

for the original proposal to lease 100 aircraft. We also will

add $1.4B in FY 2012 to 2013. The

combination of these added funds achieves an immediate start

to the program and allows us to purchase the last 80 aircraft

at time of delivery.

I appreciate the support that you have provided in the past

and look forward to working with you in the future. If you

require further information, please do not hesitate to

contact me. A similar letter has been sent to the chairmen

and ranking minority members of each of the defense

committees.

Sincerely,

Paul Wolfowitz.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, it is further my understanding that section 135 of the conference report will authorize the Air Force to enter into a single contract to acquire 100 767 tanker aircraft through a combination of lease and purchase.

Finally, it is my understanding that section 135 of the conference report authorizes the Air Force to enter into a multi-year contract for the purchase of 767 tanker aircraft, and that payment under this contract may be made at the time of aircraft delivery, a process sometimes referred to as incremental funding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I am proud that October can be dedicated to raising awareness of the need for regular mammograms and doctor's visits. A member of my staff has come face to face with this disease, and I am proud to share her story. Hannah's mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1990 at the age of 38. Hannah was only 11 years old, with one older brother and two younger sisters, but she remembers being frightened when her parents told her about her mother's cancer. The doctor had found the lump, which was too small for her to feel. If she had not gone to the doctor, it would have spread fast and deadly.

Fortunately, because of awareness, Hannah's mother's cancer was found early, surgery was performed, and she has done great ever since. Fortunately, because of awareness, Hannah only remembers being frightened, but she doesn't have to remember losing her mother to breast cancer because that did not happen. This story is only one of many which emphasize the need for breast cancer awareness. We all need to insist that our mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, wives, and daughters need to get regular mammograms and talk to their doctors about this disease. It is absolutely essential that the information gets out to these women, and that the cancer is caught early. Hannah is grateful that her mother paid attention and has since fostered this awareness in Hannah and her two sisters.

I support reauthorization for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Breast cancer remains the second highest cause of death for women today. This is a reality that can stop only through awareness.

Mr. Chairman, the ``Book on Terror'' has a chapter in it labeled ``Iraq.'' You cannot close the Book on Terror without closing the chapter on Iraq.

We are there to make America safe. On September 11 we were thrust into this war on terrorism. We realized then we cannot make every airport, every water tower, every bus line, every shopping center in America safe. We decided we had to find the root cause of terrorism and sever the root. That is why we are in Iraq. We are finding the root cause of terrorism and severing the root.

What we found 3 weeks ago when I went to Iraq and when we met with the commander of the Marine Fourth Infantry Division, General Odeniero, that in areas where we have rebuilt the community, where we have opened the playgrounds, where we have opened the schools, where we have made sure the hospitals were open, the water was running, the lights were on, where they had a community, those are the areas where people of Iraq have come forward and showed us where the bad guys were.

He told a story about two young kids who came up to a Humvee and pointed

out a position where an ambush site was set up. They went and investigated, and sure enough it was true. They learned a lot about making our troops safe by seeing how the terrorist try to ambush our troops.

Well, these kids did that because their playground was opened by United States servicemen and -women. Their school was opened because of our military; and they liked that idea and they wanted to preserve that, so they came forward.

Up to this point we have been funding the opening of schools and playgrounds and communities with money confiscated from the old regime. Well, that money has run out, and now it is time for us to step forward. And the reason we are doing this is because this is how we are going to make our troops safe in Iraq. This is how we are going to encourage the Iraqi people to come forward and point out the bad guys. This is how we are going to have the ability to find the root causes for terrorism in Iraq and sever the root.

I think it is important for the safety of our troops that we move forward with this and do it as a grant instead of a loan. With all respect for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the best thing to do is to do the grants. We can get it done effectively without throwing their economy into chaos. And the sooner we do that, the sooner we bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3182, the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003. As we approach the holiday season, our thoughts are often filled with happy family memories. Thousands of families across this great country have relied on adoption for added joy in their home. I am pleased to support the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003 and the included incentives for each state to promote adoption and find families for the thousands of children who would prosper with a stable family. As a husband and proud father of three children, I can attest to the joy they have brought, and continue to bring, into my life.

According to the 2000 Census statistics, 19,733 children have been adopted in Kansas, 3 percent of children under 18 years of age. I am pleased that only 4 states have a higher adoption rate.

Adoption is a satisfying choice and one which spans generations. Chuck Knapp, a member of my staff, was adopted. His mother was also adopted, and he and his wife are proud parents of two sons, one of whom is adopted. His example is testament to the benefits of adoption.

We need to do a better job of encouraging adoption and holding each state's adoption agency accountable to timely work applications. We can all be grateful for someone who has come into our lives through this beautiful choice. For me, I have gained a friend and a fabulous member of my staff.

It is with great anticipation that I support this bill for its benefits are greatly needed as America continues to foster her families. I thank Representative Dave Camp for introducing this important bill and I would like to encourage my colleague to join me in voting ``aye'' for H.R. 3182.

Mr. Chairman, 3 weeks ago, I had to opportunity to travel to Iraq with Chairman Lewis and several of my fellow members of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

While in Iraq, I had the opportunity to not only talk to our men and women in uniform, but also members of the Iraqi Governing Council and local citizens about the situation they are facing. Quite frankly, things are much better than what I had heard on the evening news and read in the newspapers.

Most of the national media accounts of the situation in Iraq paint a picture of a country in rubble with unwelcome American troops being attacked and killed by the Iraqi people. After spending time there, I can attest that reality is quite different than what is being reported by many in the media. Republicans and Democrats who have been to Iraq have said the same. The Iraqi people appreciate the job we are doing, and enjoy the improvements in infrastructure and security the United States is providing.

Despite what the American people are constantly told, all of the hospitals in Iraq are open, the markets are open, and the electricity is on in most places. The roads and bridges in Baghdad are actually quite good, and, with a few exceptions, the only damaged structures are government buildings, Saddam's palaces and military sites.

There is no question about the need to improve and update the country's utility, agricultural and financial infrastructure. However, this need is not due to the U.S. military action against Iraq. It is because of 30 years of neglect under Saddam Hussein.

Saddam basically spent the Iraqi oil revenue on three things: (1) his military; (2) transportation infrastructure so he could travel on good roads; and (3) approximately 85 palaces throughout the country. All of this while his regime executed, according to estimates, as many as 1.5 million Iraqis.

For these and other reasons, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens are glad they have been liberated.

One of our generals told me a story about two Iraqi children telling some U.S. troops about a terrorist ambush site. The children showed our troops where some artillery shells had been strung together with a device that could be detonated remotely. These kids helped the Americans because these same troops helped rebuild their playgrounds and their schools, got the electricity running again and were providing a way of life they had not know before. These children did not want to lose that, so they helped our soldiers, the ones who have helped provide this new life.

This visit convinced me that Congress should support President Bush's FY 2004 Supplemental request for the war on terrorism.

The first $68.1 billion of this $86.7 billion supplemental appropriations bill will go directly to our military to replace and refurbish equipment, provide additional armored vehicles and replenish supplies.

That leaves approximately $18.6 billion--which I believe should be grants, not loans--to help rebuild Iraq. As we prepare to ask the other nations of the world to forgive Iraqi debt and contribute to the reconstruction cost, the United States must lead by example. We can either be seen as liberators and allies or conquerors and opportunists.

It is also important to keep in mind that as we help the Iraqi people, we are ensuring the safety of our young men and women in uniform and building a more secure future for our children and grandchildren at the same time.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.