Floor Statements

Mr. President, the chaos in Iraq gets worse with every week that goes by. Many key cities are now under the control of the insurgents. Virtually every day we see car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, beheadings. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are being attacked and killed at an alarming and escalating rate. But if we listen to the President, what we hear is sugar-coated happy talk.

The President says:

We're making progress. We're making progress.

He says we have a strong government in Iraq headed by Mr. Allawi. He says that because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, democracy is spreading ``like a sunrise.''

Well, the President may have been a cheerleader in college, but we need more than cheerleading now.

Let's be clear: President Bush misled us into this war, and he is misleading us today about where we stand in Iraq. His misguided, mismanaged war has become a quagmire with ever-rising body counts and no end in sight.

Over the weekend, a host of Republican Senators stepped forward to urge the President to face the facts and at long last to be open and honest with the American people. On Sunday, Senator Hagel of Nebraska said:

The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in

Iraq.

Senator Richard Lugar, distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, criticized what he called ``incompetence in the administration'' that has resulted in a failed Iraq reconstruction effort.

Senator John McCain said:

We're not winning.

Senator Lindsey Graham said that we need to be ``more honest about how difficult it will be'' in Iraq.

Ironically, the President's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, warned against the folly of invading and occupying Iraq. On February 28, 1999, speaking to a group of Desert Storm veterans at Fort Myer, VA, the former President told them:

Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it, you guys

could have done it, could you have been there in 48 hours--

and then what?

Then the first President Bush continued:

Whose life would be on my hands as commander-in-chief

because I unilaterally went beyond international law, went

beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our

macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an

occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at

our side. It would have been disastrous.

That was former President Bush in 1999.

Of course, we heard the same prophetic warnings from Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and other foreign policy experts. But this President Bush and his partner Dick Cheney thought they knew better. So now the disaster that Bush 41 warned against has become a reality under Bush 43. It is painfully clear that President George W. Bush's wrong choices--in particular, the botched hunt for Osama bin Laden, the invasion of Iraq based on false justifications, the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, the alienation of our friends and the world--have been profoundly destructive to America's national interest. They have damaged our traditional alliances. They have undermined our moral authority, and they have all but destroyed our credibility.

Worst of all, the actions of this administration have had the perverse effect of encouraging, inciting, multiplying the terrorist threat. Exhibit A is Osama bin Laden himself. It has been more than 3 years since the President pledged to ``smoke him out'' of his cave. But Mr. Bush did not smoke out Osama bin Laden. Instead, the Bush administration got massively distracted by its obsession with Saddam Hussein. These days, the days responsible for the murder of some 3,000 Americans on 9/11 is ``Osama bin forgotten.''

In a press conference Secretary Rumsfeld had on September 10 of this year, he mixed up Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden twice. Here is a quote from our Secretary of Defense:

Saddam Hussein, if he is alive, is spending a whale of a

lot of time trying to not get caught and we have not seen him

on video since 2001.

Well, Saddam Hussein, as John Stewart pointed out on ``The Daily Show'' last night, is in prison. But he said that twice about Saddam Hussein. You see, in their minds--in Rumsfeld's mind, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are the same person. He cannot quite distinguish them.

The problem is Osama bin Laden has not forgotten us. He and his followers remain as dangerous today as on September 11, 2001. In July, the administration issued a dire warning that bin Laden and his chief lieutenants were directing an al-Qaida effort to launch a catastrophic attack in the U.S. before the election.

There is broader evidence that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has incited, encouraged, and stepped up the recruitment of terrorists around the world. In April, the State Department issued its annual report on terrorism, claiming a big drop in terrorist incidents--and success in the war on terrorism. But, in June, the State Department acknowledged this report was grossly incorrect. The State Department acknowledged that, in fact, twice as many people died in terrorist attacks in 2003, and terrorism around the world has increased significantly.

The objective statistical record is clear: As a consequence of choices made by George W. Bush, America is weaker, America is less secure, Americans traveling abroad are less secure, America is more vulnerable. And the professionals--the men and women on the front lines--know this is true.

Earlier this year, the Army War College published a report that concluded, in so many words, that the administration has bungled the war on terrorism. The report called the war in Iraq ``unnecessary.'' It said Iraq ``was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against al-Qaida.'' As a result of this detour, says the report, the U.S. Army is ``near the breaking point.''

Who can disagree with these findings? With our military tied down in Iraq indefinitely, unable to respond to real threats, America is weaker, not stronger. We are less secure, not more secure. We are more vulnerable, not less vulnerable.

I was struck, several weeks ago, by a statement from one of our colleagues, Congressman Doug Bereuter of Nebraska. Mr. Bereuter is vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a senior Republican member of the House International Relations Committee. Congressman Bereuter was a strong supporter of the House resolution authorizing the President to go to war. But in a letter to constituents, he now says the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and ``it was a mistake to launch that military action.'' He said, ``We are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world.''

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I will close by saying America is more vulnerable, not less; and we need straight answers from this administration.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I need 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Bishop Gregory Palmer to the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace. It has now been over a year since Bishop Palmer was officially nominated on September 16, 2003. On that date, the Senate officially transmitted our paperwork to the White House.

The reason I recommended this distinguished spiritual leader for this important position at the U.S. Institute of Peace is that I strongly believe that Bishop Palmer would work to promote a just peace in the world. I don't think that there is anyone in this Chamber who would disagree that we need more advocates for peace in this time of international crisis.

I know Bishop Palmer well. He is a native of Philadelphia, PA. He graduated from The George Washington University and received a master's in divinity from Duke University. His father is a minister in Philadelphia.

Bishop Palmer came to Des Moines, IA, on September 1, 2000, and he has had a profound influence in our State ever since.

Bishop Palmer has had a distinguished career of service. He has taught at the pastor's school in Burundi, and serves on the Senegalese Task Force of the Global Ministries. He also served as President of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance.

In March of this year, Bishop Palmer received the 10th Annual Bishop Maurice J. Dingman Peace Award. This award recognized Bishop Palmer's commitment to peace and social justice. The award was presented by the Iowa Catholic Peace Ministry.

One of the ways Bishop Palmer has turned Scripture into deeds is by starting the Matthew 25 Ministry throughout Iowa. This ministry heeds the call of Matthew 25:31-46 to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick. Bishop Palmer has provided services to our Iowa communities most in need--from English classes for immigrants to soup kitchens for the hungry. These laudable acts, in my view, are the works of a man truly committed to fostering peace and social justice.

I could go on and on at great length about Bishop Palmer's good works, but I know that my floor time is limited. It is, however, very clear that Bishop Palmer would make an outstanding addition to the board of directors of the

U.S. Institute of Peace; therefore, I was deeply disappointed and surprised that Bishop Palmer's nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace has been stalled at the White House for over a year now, and his name was not included in the nominations to be considered by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

I am hopeful that the White House will reconsider and send his nomination to the HELP Committee before Wednesday, tomorrow, when we are due to act upon other nominations. We have one nomination that has come down to be renominated to the U.S. Institute of Peace. I am certain this person will have no problem being renominated. But I was very surprised, as I said, and disappointed that Bishop Palmer's name, which has been at the White House for 1 year now--1 year his nomination has been sitting there, and I know of no opposition to Bishop Palmer. As I said, he is head of the Methodist Church for the entire State of Iowa. He is known nationally and internationally. I cannot think of a more qualified person to be on the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

I am quite upset with this, and I hope that the White House will reconsider this nomination. It would not take but just about half an hour to transmit his name here, and I wish they would do that before we meet tomorrow so we can report his name out and get Bishop Palmer on the board of directors as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katie Callahan of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, while Congress was in recess, the news media have reported several important studies in the field of wellness and disease prevention. Collectively, these studies are another loud wake-up call. It is time for fundamental change in our approach to health care in the United States.

I have been saying for years that currently we have a sick care system, not a health care system. We have a system that, if you get sick, you get care.

But there is precious little support, incentives or otherwise, to keep you healthy in the first place. We are paying very dearly for this foolish choice of having a sick care system rather than a health care system.

The latest evidence comes from a new study by health economist Kenneth Thorpe. Mr. Thorpe found it cost $200 billion more in 2000 to treat diseases and conditions in this country than it did in 1987. Just 15 health conditions accounted for a whopping 56 percent of the growth in spending between 1987 and 2000. Indeed, a closer look shows that just five conditions accounted for one-third of the $200 billion increase: heart disease, pulmonary conditions, mental disorders, cancer, and hypertension. What do all these conditions have in common? In many if not most cases, these conditions are preventable. The Thorpe study also confirmed that chronic conditions, which are responsible for more than 75 percent of all health care expenditures, cost tens of billions of dollars more than just two decades ago.

Diabetes is one of those chronic conditions responsible for the explosion in health care costs. Yet experts agree that the impact of diabetes can be dramatically reduced by encouraging treatment guidelines on diet, exercise, and other preventive measures. The same is true for other chronic conditions. By emphasizing prevention and by following best practices guidelines, we can dramatically reduce health spending.

It is alarming to me that many health experts now predict that the generation of kids growing up today will be the first that does not live longer than their parents' generation. Let me repeat that. Health experts now predict that the generation of kids growing up today will be the first generation that does not live longer than their parents' generation.

As many children return to school this month, there is fresh evidence that we are failing them in terms of wellness and disease prevention. Consider a study released this week by the National Institute for Health Care Research and Educational Foundation. The study found that only 16 percent of kindergarten programs meet recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for daily physical education. Instead, about 60 percent of kindergarten programs offer physical education less than twice a week; 13 percent offer physical education less than once a week. On average, grade school kids spend less than an hour a week in PE classes.

As many of my colleagues know, because of the No Child Left Behind Act and its obsession with testing and preparing for tests, many schools are eliminating recess in the elementary years and further neglecting PE in the middle and senior high school years. Some new elementary schools are being built without playgrounds. Make no mistake; this neglect of physical education has severe consequences. Obesity has nearly tripled since 1970, and about 16 percent of children are now overweight. However, the study I just mentioned suggested that adding 1 hour of physical education per week could decrease the occurrence of overweight by as much as 10 percent. The study also found that schools with low-income or minority students have a greater likelihood than their peers to have no physical education in kindergarten. This is deeply troubling as these groups are especially at risk for obesity.

On a related note, we received further evidence last month about the potential risk of diabetes and obesity associated with soft drink consumption. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that women who drink at least one serving of nondiet soda or fruit punch per day have a greater risk of gaining weight and developing type 2 diabetes than women who do not. Women who consume one or more sweetened drinks per day are 83 percent more likely to develop diabetes than those who drink less than one serving per month. During the period of the study, women who drank at least one serving of sweetened drinks per day gained an average of 17 pounds, compared with an increase of only 6 pounds for women who drank less than one serving per month.

So why in the world are we allowing the proliferation of vending machines filled with unhealthy foods and soft drinks in our schools? We are sending all the wrong signals to our kids. We put in all these vending machines with soft drinks up and down the hallways in our schools. It is saying to our kids, not only is that allowable, it is acceptable, it is encouraged that you have a soft drink during the day.

How many parents know--how many people know? Not even parents, how many young people know that one 20-ounce soft drink, sweetened soft drink, Coke, Pepsi, RC, whatever, one 20-ounce drink--that is what you get out of the vending machines now--contains the equivalent of 16 teaspoons of sugar?

I asked someone, you get a 20-ounce Coke or Pepsi--I don't mean to pick on one or the other, but when you get a 20-ounce Coke, you think nothing about drinking it. What if someone measured out 16 teaspoons of sugar into a cup and said: Here, eat this. You would think they were crazy. But they will drink a 20-ounce soft drink that has the same thing in it. And you wonder why people are getting diabetes.

The good news this month is that an additional four States will be offering the Free Fruit and Vegetable Program I started in the farm bill in order to encourage healthier eating habits at the earliest possible age. The bad news is that thousands of schools are continuing to make room for vending machines selling candy, soda pop, and other junk food on school grounds.

We are missing a prime opportunity to reduce the health risks facing our children by not emphasizing prevention, healthy lifestyles. A new study published in the Pediatric Journal found that 10 percent of pediatric patients were obese; however, only half of those patients were noted by the physician to be obese. What this means is we are missing a critical opportunity to diagnose obesity and intervene at the earliest stage--during childhood--when lifestyle changes can be easier to make.

We also have new information from the American Cancer Society. More than a dozen cancers are linked with obesity, and the American Cancer Society estimates that of the 563,000 cancer deaths each year, excess weight is a factor in more than 16 percent of the cases. While overall cancer death rates have decreased over the last few years, we know now that obese men and women are at a major increased risk for colorectal cancer. A postmenopausal woman's risk of breast cancer increases by 30 percent if she is overweight and by 50 percent if she is obese.

We also have new information about high blood pressure, which is a major contributor to heart disease and stroke.

It has skyrocketed over the past decade with almost one-third of adults suffering from hypertension. From 1988 to 1994, there was a 30- percent increase in the incidence of high blood pressure. We know that much of this increase is due to the rise in obesity.

On a variety of fronts, August was not a month of progress for those of us who care about wellness and disease prevention. The various studies I have cited tell us that we are still heading in the wrong direction. Much work needs to be done to transform America's sick care system into a true health care system--a system that keeps us out of the hospital in the first place.

As I have said, again and again, it is time for a new paradigm in American health care, a prevention paradigm. Again, we have a sick care system in this country and we need a genuine health care system focused on wellness and prevention and keeping people out of the hospital in the first place.

To that end, I have introduced legislation, the Help America Act, also known as the Healthier Lifestyles and Prevention Act, S. 2158. And today the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee has reported our bill for fiscal year 2005. This year's bill has especially strong emphasis on wellness and prevention programs.

For example, we will be providing $440 million for research at the National Institutes of Health into the causes and cures of obesity. That is a 10-percent increase over last year.

We have included more than $50 million in grants to States to fund programs that address nutrition, physical activity, and obesity.

We will provide more than $114 million for tobacco prevention and cessation activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death and disease in our society today.

Our committee allocated $35 million for public health research at CDC. This year we are encouraging the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to pay particular attention to research on business-based wellness programs for employees. We want to identify and disseminate the best practices in this area, and we have asked the CDC to develop a model wellness program for businesses.

Our appropriations bill also includes $75 million for the Carol White Physical Education for Progress Program, otherwise known as the PEP Program. This provides grants to school districts to expand physical education opportunities for K-to-12 students. Again, bear in mind, as I said, the average public school student gets less than 1 hour of physical education per week, and many get none at all.

Our appropriations bill funds a new School Mental Health Services Program. This will train public school personnel to recognize early warning signs of mental illness, and it will expand student activity to high-quality mental health services.

I would like to add that the bill provides $2 million to support implementation of the YMCA's new Activate America initiative, which is encouraging cities to develop communitywide approaches to wellness and disease prevention. I am most grateful to the National YMCA for their great leadership in disease prevention, wellness, and health promotion. I am also pleased that our capital city of Des Moines, IA was selected as one of the first cities to participate in this program.

I also want to compliment and commend my chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for his great leadership in getting our bill together and getting it through our subcommittee. All of the items I have mentioned that we are providing for wellness and prevention we have worked on together in a true bipartisan fashion. I thank Senator Specter for his leadership and for working to make sure we fund these programs for wellness and prevention.

To sum it up, we are making some progress in advancing a broad, comprehensive wellness agenda here in Congress. With all of the political bickering here on Capitol Hill people sometimes wonder if we are accomplishing anything. The Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill takes real, concrete steps to address problems such as obesity and chronic disease--problems that people care deeply about.

Again, I salute the hard work and leadership of Chairman Specter. He too cares passionately about issues of wellness and disease prevention. He too realizes that our current sick care system which gives short shrift to prevention is leading us off a cliff.

I am optimistic. I know we will not get everything done this year. But hopefully we will make progress and we will make more progress next year. What I sense is growing support from both sides of the aisle for a new emphasis on wellness and prevention. I am more and more confident about the prospects for passing the Help America Act in the next Congress.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sonja Loges of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I ask that my amendment, which is at the desk, be called up on behalf of myself and Senator Biden.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for giving me this time to lay my amendment down and discuss it for a few minutes. It is a very simple amendment. It has to do with FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's postdisaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. For colleagues who may not be familiar with the postdisaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, this is money that is sent by FEMA to the States following disasters such as floods, tornadoes, or hurricanes that have affected so many of our constituents this year. The assistance follows, and it is in addition to the immediate disaster assistance for cleanup and reconstruction. This money is for hazard mitigation. It is used to reduce the likely devastation of future disasters by buying out flood-prone property or by flood-proofing, stabilizing buildings or other structures, building hurricane shelters, seismic retrofits for earthquake or shock absorption, and for drainage improvements.

This money helps to reduce what it is going to cost us in the future for other disasters, so it saves lives and it saves money in the long run. These moneys are in addition to the moneys that go out for immediate reconstruction.

In 1993, I and some other Senators led an effort here to ensure that the grants would provide an additional 15 percent in FEMA money for whatever was provided for both in public and individual assistance. So it has been at 15 percent since 1993. In 2003, that percentage was cut in half, to 7.5 percent. The bill before us today leaves that lower funding level in place. This is totally inadequate. Let me give some examples.

Following the Midwest floods of 1993, it became apparent that the then-level of mitigation disaster assistance, which was at 10 percent, which was in the original Federal law, was not enough. Again, as I said, I and other Senators worked to increase this from 10 percent to 15 percent. Keep in mind, that 10 percent was in the original law.

In 2003, that percentage was reduced to 7.5 percent. Since we increased that to 15 percent, there has been tremendous success in reducing disaster risk in many communities all over the Nation. Many communities in the Midwest that suffered flood damage in 1993 saw a major reduction in applications for emergency aid for damage due to subsequent floods, thanks to these hazard mitigation grants.

One example I have, and I have many, is in Louisa County, IA. They have a floodwall that was designed to protect against a 500-year flood. But when this levee is damp for an extended period of time, the water seeps through and damages property. In the flood of 1993, 275 homes were damaged; 200 residents were evacuated. It was not feasible just to go in and demolish all these houses. They have a lack of affordable housing in that area. But luckily, with these mitigation funds, a local entity stepped in, used the hazard mitigation funding to move and refurbish the salvageable houses, and to protect them from future flooding.

This repeated itself in 2001, but because we had used the hazard mitigation funds we avoided more than $1.2 million in losses that would otherwise have occurred. How do we know that? Because that is what occurred almost 10 years earlier in the flood of 1993. That is what we were just talking about in terms of money. But I remind my colleagues that these savings do not include the noneconomic heartbreak, stress, and trauma that goes along with losing your home, family pictures, all you have worked for, overnight. That is why I was so dismayed to see the 15-percent level reduced to 7.5 percent in the 2003 VA-HUD appropriations bill.

Some colleagues may have concern about amending the Stafford Disaster Relief Act on an appropriations bill that we have before us. I assure you, this amendment only restores a cut that was made in a previous appropriations bill.

Also, for my colleagues who may not be here but may be watching this on their sets in their office, I also want to note that the House has already passed this restoration. The House of Representatives has already restored the hazard mitigation funds from 7.5 percent to 15 percent. So, again, as we have seen what has happened, especially the devastation we have had in Florida, we really do need to make sure we have not only the funds to respond but to mitigate in the future.

I hope Florida is spared another hurricane, but we know that hurricanes will hit Florida sometime in the future. That is just where the hurricane track goes.

I want to read a quote from the Wall Street Journal on August 16 of this year from Frank Reddish, the Dade County emergency management coordinator, referring to Hurricane Charley:

Anyone looking at this can clearly see that Charley was a

pretty good terrorist. He did a much better job than al-Qaida

ever could.

I am all for doing everything I can to protect our country against terrorism. But we also must protect against future floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes. One of the best ways we do that is through hazard mitigation; to do things that will prevent the kind of damage that will occur in these future catastrophes. So think about it as combating terrorism. We don't wait until the terrorists strike. We do things beforehand. That is what hazard mitigation is for, to protect us beforehand. Don't just wait until the event occurs but let's go ahead and invest in making sure our houses, our facilities, our public utilities and others are, to the best extent possible--after they have been damaged in a catastrophe--to make sure they have the funds necessary so if such a catastrophe strikes again, they will not be subject to such terrible losses.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Richard E. ``Dick'' Kipper, an extraordinary leader in the fight against Alzheimer's disease. In November, Dick will complete his term as National Board Chair of the Alzheimer's Association, a position he has held for two years and which caps nearly a decade of commitment to the cause of creating a world without Alzheimer's disease.

Like so many others, Dick joined the fight against Alzheimer's after the disease touched his family. Dick lost his beloved father to Alzheimer's. But because of his efforts, future generations will be better off.

Dick has played a vital part in helping the Alzheimer's Association achieve its strategic goals of advancing research, enhancing care and support and raising public awareness. He has logged thousands of miles traveling across the country and devoted countless hours on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association. Here are just a few of his accomplishments.

Dick Kipper first joined the Alzheimer's Association's National Board in 1996 and quickly rose through the ranks to assume significant leadership positions. He chaired the National Board's Development Committee, was elected vice-chair of the National board, and served on the board's Diversity and Inclusion, Finance and Chapter Committees. He also spearheaded the effort to mobilize the board and chapters in support of the Association's ``billion dollar research goal.''

Under Dick's guidance, the Alzheimer's Association has led the fight for increased research funding and launched a new campaign to change the way people think about Alzheimer's disease. Last year, the Association dedicated nearly $16 million to its peer-reviewed research grants program and initiated a ``Research Roundtable'' partnership with pharmaceutical companies to develop strategies for generating and sharing new information designed to accelerate progress in research. In July of this year, the Alzheimer's Association sponsored the 9th International Conference on Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders, the largest gathering of Alzheimer researchers in history. More than 4,200 scientists from around the world shared findings from 2,000 studies showcasing the newest treatment advances in Alzheimer's disease and steps toward prevention. Dick's advocacy for increased research funding has also brought him to Washington each spring for the last three years to lobby Congress to increase federal funding for Alzheimer's research to $1 billion.

Helping caregivers and family members understand that they are not alone in the fight against Alzheimer's disease and that there is hope on the horizon are other signature accomplishments of the Alzheimer's Association under Dick's leadership. In February, the Alzheimer's Association revealed a new brand identity, a redesigned website and its ``Maintain Your Brain'' campaign to educate Americans about Alzheimer's disease. The Association also established a new advisory council to address critical issues related to prevention, diagnosis and imaging, disease progression, and improved treatments. Dick's leadership was instrumental in guiding the Alzheimer's Association through these projects.

In addition to being an outstanding leader in the Alzheimer community, Dick is also an accomplished businessman. In 1967 he co- founded AFSA Data Corporation, a student loan servicing company. After Fleet Financial Group acquired AFSA in 1986, Dick served as chairman of the board and chief executive officer. At his retirement in 1990, the company employed more than 1,000 people and had annual revenues that exceeded $65 million. He also was co-owner, president and CEO of Major Legal Services, a multimillion-dollar

document acquisition, process server and court reporting service company headquartered in San Francisco. And, he is a board member of The Guggenheim Group, L.L.C., a venture capital and financial management firm.

I salute Dick Kipper for his tireless efforts to help those with Alzheimer's and to create a brighter future without this disease.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Cheri Rolfes of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Madam President, I would like to pay special tribute to the American Legion Auxiliary Unit 278 of Osage, IA. On Sunday, April 18, the American Legion, the Auxiliary, and SAL held one of their ``famous omelet'' breakfasts for a fundraiser to support the Osage High School Band's trip to Washington, DC on May 29. The Osage band was chosen to represent Iowa in the parade at the dedication of the new World War II Memorial.

It was necessary for the band to raise $65,000 so that all members could participate in this great event. The American Legion Family of Osage agreed to host a breakfast and to match funds that were raised that day. A number of Legion members cooked meals, with band members serving the food. In all, over 300 people were served.

The American Legion was proud to present a check in the amount of $2,400.00 to band director Jeff Kirkpatrick at their regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, April 20.

I join State Commander John Ross in congratulating his hometown band for being chosen to represent Iowa. Along with the Osage Legion family, I salute the community, the band, and all who helped in any way to make this trip possible.

I ask the Senator to yield. I thank the Senator for her very perceptive and very sensitive approach on this issue of what is happening with our troops in Iraq. The Senator from Nevada is absolutely right about this, that this war is different than any we have ever had. I suppose the good news is we are saving a lot more lives than we have ever in the past. We are there with our medical equipment, as the Senator said, as well as because of body armor and a lot of other things. But what we are also experiencing, as the Senator from California pointed out, is a higher level of individuals with severe injuries, injuries that not only won't allow them to return to active duty but will mean they are going to carry their burdens the rest of their natural lives, for them and their families.

What is unanswered, among all the other things that are unanswered-- how we are going to get out of Iraq, how we are going to protect our troops better, how we are going to get other countries to come in, how we are going to pay for it, endless questions--the one nagging question, which I believe the Senator from California has just put her finger on, is: Will we, will this administration, and will this Congress commit itself to ensuring that these young men and women who have been so severely injured will have the supporting mechanisms, the educational benefits, the kind of things that are needed so they can live a full, rich, productive life here in America? That has never been committed to by this administration.

When the President says he wants to stay the course, is that one course on which he wants to stay, I ask my friends, that we will not commit ourselves to making sure these brave young men and women are taken care of, that all their medical needs are met, but more important that they are able to lead full, productive lives here in America?

That is right.

I thank the Senator from California for her very clear presentation today. What is happening to make America weaker? We are getting weaker all the time. As the Senator from California pointed out, we are getting weaker because our seniors now are denied the medical care they need and ought to have. We are getting weaker because our deficits are going up at an alarming rate. We are getting weaker because we are getting sucked further and further into the quagmire of Iraq with no end in sight. We are getting weaker in this country because the middle class is getting squeezed. The wealthy are getting the tax breaks.

I am beginning to think that George W. Bush stands for George Weaker Bush. Weakening America, that is what is happening in this country. We are weaker than what we were.

I thank the Senator from California for her very perceptive analysis and for her continued progressive views on turning our country in the correct direction.

I like the expression, what the Senator from California said about President Bush, saying he wants to stay the course or don't turn back. Don't turn back.

It seems to me, if you are on a highway in a car, and you are headed towards a cliff and there is a bend in the road that you can take and it will save you, what sense does it make to keep going straight off the cliff?

That seems to me what the President is saying: Stay in the car with me. I do not change course.

We are already kind of over the cliff. We are going to go down it.

We could make some changes in our economic policy, our fiscal policy. Certainly, we can make changes in our foreign policy, in our policy in Iraq, to turn this country so we do not continue to go off the cliff.

I guess the President says that he knows where he is going. There is one thing about being resolute in one's determination to do certain things. But there comes a point where you are stubborn in the face of facts and reality. I am afraid this President does not realize the difference between being resolute and carrying out policies, and being stubborn when those policies are hurting America and making us weaker.

I want to change the focus of the discussion. I want to talk about the economy. This morning the Congressional Budget Office announced it now

projects this year's budget deficit will rise to $422 billion, an all- time high. Actually, if you look at this chart, if you look at the red, that is the budget deficit of $422 billion for 2004. But if you exclude Social Security surplus, the budget deficit is really $574 billion.

Bear in mind, this comes from a President who originally pledged he would not run deficits and he would protect Social Security surpluses. Talk about flip-flopping, this is the flip-flop of all time.

Now we see these deficits are not only huge but they are going to continue as far as the eye can see. It is shocking when we look at where we were 4 years ago when we had an all-time-high budget surplus and we could see these surpluses continuing on through this decade when we were strong in the world, when we had other countries supporting us, and now to see where we have come in 4 short years.

Right now our operating budget deficit, without counting the Social Security surplus, is about 5 percent of the gross domestic product.

Last year the President's Council of Economic Advisers predicted normal job growth would be 228,000 jobs a month, about the average level during the Clinton administration. The Council of Economic Advisers said the job growth would be even more if we passed the 2003 tax bill which was done. It said we would create 305,000 jobs a month. Unfortunately, over the past 3 months job creation has been about one- third that rate. A million jobs have been lost since Mr. Bush took office.

It seems to me the appropriate question to ask is are we better off today than we were 4 years ago as a nation? Again, look back. It seems almost like a distant utopia when I read the figures. We were the envy of the world in 2000, with 23 million new jobs created and the largest budget surplus in U.S. history--$236 billion in 1 year. But now, 4 years later, we are weaker in almost every respect in this country.

Data released by the Census Bureau paints a very disturbing picture. Since Mr. Bush took office, real median household income has fallen by $1,535. During the Clinton administration the real median household income went up $5,489. Look at the difference. Median income up under the Clinton administration, median income down $1,535 a year under the Bush administration.

Then look at poverty. The number of Americans living in poverty has risen by 4.3 million under President Bush through 2003. During the Clinton administration, 6.4 million Americans were lifted out of poverty. In 4 years of Bush, 4.28 million have been driven into poverty.

Is that progress? We should stay the course? We should not turn back? I would love to turn back to the economic policies of the Clinton years. No. This President says no, stay the course.

In every single way we are weaker.

The number of Americans without health insurance has gone up 5.2 million in the last 4 years. The policies of this administration have weakened our economy. They have depleted our Federal Treasury. They have made America a weaker country.

Now look at taxes. A new study by the Congressional Budget Office tells us the real story. The share of taxes borne by those making more than $1 million a year was reduced by 10 percent thanks to the tax cuts of this administration. But the share of taxes borne by the middle- income taxpayers actually increased by almost 5 percent. Meanwhile, interest on the public debt because of these huge deficits will nearly double in the next 4 years. By 2009, every year we will be paying $1,000 in interest for every man, woman, and child in America. That is $4,000 for a family of four. It is making our future weaker.

We hear a lot of talk from this administration about doing away with the so-called death tax, the tax on accumulated wealth--so-called estate taxes--the idea being that we don't end up with those with billions of dollars being able to pass it all on while average Americans have to face more and more debt. The Bush administration says they want to get rid of the estate tax.

What about the birth tax? What about the tax this administration is leveling on every child who is going to be born in America in the future? Every child born in the United States henceforth will have $1,000 taxes put on his or her head as soon as they are born. No one is talking about the birth tax. We ought to be talking about that rather than trying to have the wealthy pay a little bit more fair share of their taxes in this country.

Again, because of the interest on the national debt, a family of four, as I said, will be paying $4,000 a year. Guess what? That is one tax that cannot be cut. Who is going to be paying it? Middle-income taxpayers, $4,000 a year. That is a new birth tax on every child born in America. But no, we do not hear the administration talking about that.

The real reason the economy is so weak is that for 4 years the Bush administration has been preaching fiscal conservatism, but has been practicing a reckless ``damn the torpedoes'' brand of fiscal radicalism. We have had a radical fiscal policy over the last 4 years. The Bush team sees cutting taxes as the be-all and end-all of their political existence. For them, cutting taxes is not an economic plan; it is not even an ideology. It is a theology of one size fits all. If the economy is weak, you cut taxes. If the economy is strong, you cut taxes. If there is a surplus, you cut taxes. If there are huge deficits, you cut taxes. You have a war on terrorism, cut taxes.

How many Americans realize that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the first wars in American history to be paid for and financed by tax cuts? In the past, we have always asked the American people to help fight our wars by paying increased taxes. Now tax cuts for the wealthy, birth tax on the kids of middle-income taxpayers, more costs for medical health for the elderly, and the deficit continues to go up.

As I said, this year it is really $577 billion, not $422 billion-- $577 billion. That is because you have to count the Social Security surplus.

The President says stay the course, don't turn back. For 4 years this President and his team have pursued policies that have led to deficits, debt, drift, and decline. He is leaving a dramatic and weakened economy and Treasury to his successor and to the next generation.

We have to do better. We can do better. The answer is not to stay with the driver of the car who is going to drive you over the cliff because he is too stubborn to recognize what is weakening America. The answer is to modify our policies, change our course to build a brighter and a stronger and better America for our children and grandchildren. Vice President Cheney famously asserted that ``deficits don't matter.'' I couldn't disagree more. So do all mainstream economists. The truth is deficits do matter and they matter profoundly. Chronic, long-term deficits that we now see mean the Federal Government must accumulate huge and growing debt held in bonds. That means the Government is competing with limited dollars and crowding out other borrowers. This puts other pressure on interest rates. That is bad for job creation.

Second, as the Government's debt increases, it is harder to find resources to make investments here at home in our roads and our bridges, our schools and educational systems. That means a less efficient transportation system and as less skilled workforce. That is bad for business.

Third, as we are already seeing, a far larger share of our Government's bonds are being bought up by foreign governments. Japan, China, and South Korea have particularly heavy purchases of our bonds.

Should that be a worry? It means their future decisions can have a major impact on our economy. In the long term, sooner or later we have to expect the dollar to fall dramatically if our policies don't change. That will hurt our economy by driving up inflation as we pay more for the imports that come into our country.

Lastly, as I have said before and I will keep repeating it, it is especially troubling for the young people in America for them and their future; for our obligations that we have to meet the obligations of the baby boomers who will soon retire and make sure we keep our commitment to them to meet their health needs and to make sure Social Security is sound.

We do not make Social Security sound by driving us further and further into debt. We do not solve the problem by privatizing Social Security. We already see in the private sector more

and more retirement plans under fire. United Airlines and others. Now they want to take Social Security and put it out there on the stock market, too.

Lastly, our incomes are down in America. We know that. What is the answer of this President? Cut overtime. A couple weeks ago the President put into effect administration rules that will take away overtime pay protection for over 6 million Americans. Before that rule was promulgated by the administration, they never had one public hearing.

Thanks to the Senator from Pennsylvania, we did have a couple of hearings--two or three--in the Senate, but that was after the horse was out of the barn. At least we had the hearings. Every time we had the hearings, it became clear the overtime rules were going to hurt working Americans; that they were not going to clear up, as they said, ambiguous rules that already existed; that, in fact, this was an assault on overtime. It was a way of allowing employers the ability to redefine what you do as a worker, to reclassify you, have you work over 40 hours a week, and not have to pay you overtime. That is what is happening.

Lastly, the income tax of this country is moving away from being an income tax. It is under this Administration becoming a wage tax. If you work and you make wages, you get taxed. However, if you have investment income, dividend income, and a bunch of other things such as that, well, under the President's plans, you will not have to worry too much about paying taxes anymore.

So what we will have in America is a work tax. If you work for a living and make a wage, you will pay taxes. You pay the full brunt of taxes. But if you are a very high income person, and most of your income is off of dividends, your taxes have already been sharply reduced and if the President's wishes come to pass, you do not pay much in taxes.

We are robbing our kids. We are hurting our elderly. We are making America weaker and weaker as every day, every week goes by in this crazy economic policy of this administration. I cannot think of any other word for it other than to say it is beyond the pale. I don't mind an administration that takes a chance, that has maybe a new economic theory to test. OK, fine. But when it proves, year after year after year that it does not work, why keep doing it?

Someone once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Why do we keep trying the same economic policy year after year after year? We see the same results: higher unemployment, less family income, more people in poverty, higher deficits, higher debt. Yet the President says: Keep me as your driver, stay in the car, as we continue to make America weaker and drive over a cliff.

It is time to change course in this country. It is time to put our country back on a fiscally sound basis in this country or else this country is going to be facing even larger deficits, bigger debts, more foreign countries buying more bonds. As the old saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune. I am afraid a country that owns all of our debt will call our tune and that will be the ultimate weakness for America.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent Milan Dalal of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

How much time do I have in morning business?