Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. The thing that is amazing, I know you were sort of hinting at the holiday analogy there, I cannot help, this is the 2 weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas, or Hanukkah, too. I cannot help thinking of the analogy. I try not to necessarily throw religion into the debate.

Mr. PALLONE. On the one hand they are stuck in their own ideology which is that the tax cuts for the wealthy and the big corporations are going to grow the economy, but on the other hand they are also stuck in this ideology in what they are trying to do legislatively, because they know that this helps their political cronies. They are trying to help the big special interests. They are trying to help the corporations. They are trying to help wealthy people at the expense of the average guy. They make cuts in programs that help the average person like student loans, like Medicaid and housing and all of the other things that my colleague from Florida mentioned. They do not care about the average person, not only because their ideology says that that is not what they should be doing, because they should be cutting taxes, but also because helping the average person does not put any money into their campaign coffers. They are not looking for a $5 donation from the guy next door. They are looking for the big donation in their campaign coffers from the big corporate interests. That is what this is all about. So they mask what they do by saying that somehow it is the right thing to do. It is not practically speaking. It does not work. We are getting further into debt. The economy is not improving. The Iraq war is getting worse. We are spending more money in Iraq. We have no money for domestic programs. They justify it by saying, well, this is the conservative or Republican way to do things. But it just does not work. It does not work for the average person. It does not work for America and our goals as a country. And at the same time, they do it because it helps them politically because they get more campaign money from the pharmaceuticals, from the defense contractors, from the Halliburtons, from the Bechtels, from all of these groups. So the American people have to understand that this is not working. It has got to be changed. And the only answer is essentially when the election comes next year, you got to throw these guys out. You got to bring back a Democratic majority that is going to work for the average person, that is going to have an exit strategy for Iraq, that is going to be worried about the debt so we do not go further into debt. As my colleague says, you know, we can certainly work with the Republicans. We are not saying that we cannot. But this Republican leadership is hell bent on helping the wealthy, helping the corporate interests at the expense of the little guy. And we just see it more and more every day. And tomorrow is a perfect example of it with this. We pass this budget that cuts all of those domestic programs and help the average man. And we are using those budget cuts to fund tax cuts for corporate interests. I yield.

Mr. PALLONE. But think about the sort of Christmas analogy. We all talk about religion, and certainly Christianity, I am a Christian, preaches about how you are supposed to help the poor and help the downtrodden, and here we are in the holiday season cutting programs to the poorest people, the victims of Katrina, their health care under Medicaid, their housing, their ability to get food stamps or food programs. Then I also think about the manger in the story of Jesus and his birth, there is the idea that the family went around and they couldn't find a place that would take them, they couldn't find housing and so they ended up staying in the manger because there was no place else to go. That is how I feel. You read about these housing cuts and I feel like this is like Mary and Joseph and Jesus walking around, they can't find a place to sleep and they have to end up on the street. What happened to this whole idea of Christian values or religious values? It is like thrown out the window at the very time when most people are thinking about it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I feel a little bit funny talking about this, because I listened to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) who is now in the Speaker's chair. I guess he cannot respond because he is in the Speaker's chair. So I will try not to be too critical. But when I listened to him talk about the war earlier this evening, our Republican colleague, I just think there is a lot of confusion on the Republican side about what the goal is. And I think what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) said and my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), they are getting to it. When I listened to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), it was almost as if on the one hand the enemy was Saddam Hussein, but then on the other hand, the enemy seemed to be the whole of Iraq and all of the Iraqi people. Now my understanding of this war, I mean, I did not support it, did not vote for it. But my understanding, when the President articulated it, was that we had this dictator, Saddam Hussein, who was basically keeping his people down. He was a dictator. He was not expressing their will. And once we got in there and got rid of him, that the people were going to welcome us with open arms and feel liberated. Yet I saw a poll yesterday that was done by a British outfit, that said that something like 70 or 80 percent of the people of Iraq thought that we should not be there anymore. 40-something percent thought it was fair to physically attack American troops because they were occupying Iraq. And so, you know, my feeling is when you get to the point where most of the Iraqi people who we were there to liberate feel that we do not belong there, or even to the point where even the majority are willing to take shots at us because they think that we should get out, then I think we have lost sight of what our purpose is. And my big contention is that we need to get out in order to achieve victory, because if victory means an Iraq with stability, and where the insurgents do not hold sway, that is not going to happen because we are viewed as an occupying power. That is not going to happen until we leave. So an exit strategy is important. It seems to me if you want to achieve a victory in the sense that you want to have a stable, Democratic Iraq, I do not see how you have that as long as we are there and the insurgents keep using us as the theme for them to continue to oppose our presence. But I want to get back also to this whole culture of cronyism, and the other thing that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) mentioned. I think that the problem that the Republican leadership has is partially ideological, but also partially corruption in the sense that, you know, if you look at what they do, a lot of it is because they are sort of captured by their own ideology. Victory means that we have to stay indefinitely until every Iraqi likes us. You know, on the other hand, the reality is that more and more of the people do not want us there. So they got into this idea of what victory means or what success means, and they just do not want to break from it. They are not looking at what is happening practically. I see the same thing happening here on domestic issues. In other words, you know, tomorrow we are going to vote on this tax cut, which primarily goes to the wealthy and to the corporate interests. Right? The theory behind the tax cut, the ideology is that, you know, if you give everybody a tax cut, that is going to spur the economy. The reality is the economy is not doing that well. The people are complaining all of the time to me about the loss of jobs overseas. They do not have pension. They do not have health care, good jobs, good benefits.

Mr. PALLONE. Just real quickly, you started off saying about how we just don't get the true facts from the Bush administration. It is so true. You listen to the President and you would think that the war was going well and everything is getting better. But we had the 10 Marines that were killed this week. The number of casualties now, we figure by the end of this year, is going to be the highest year ever. The number of casualties keeps rising. The President made a statement the other day about how the economy is getting better. We have lost more jobs in the 5 or 6 years that he has been in office than any President since, I guess, Herbert Hoover. And I don't know who he is talking to, but when you go back to New Jersey and you talk to people, the jobs keep getting lost, the factories keep closing down, the jobs that are replacing them are not as good as the previous ones. That is a big problem is that this administration simply does not present the facts and they just make up stories about what is really happening in Iraq and in America. I appreciate your comments. I just wanted to add that.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at how the Bush administration will stoop to try and justify their actions prior to the invasion of Iraq. President Bush decided to use Veterans Day, a day set aside to unite our Nation, to deliver a partisan and divisive political speech aimed at my colleagues in the House and the Senate. Then yesterday, Secretary Rumsfeld came out and tried to blame President Clinton for this administration's manipulation of intelligence. I have no doubt that this administration cherry-picked intelligence. Remember all the talk from the war cabinet about imminent mushroom clouds here in the United States or Vice President Cheney's reckless suggestion that despite all evidence to the contrary that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda? President Bush called all this criticism ``revisionist history.'' The White House and Secretary Rumsfeld can keep quoting President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Albright; but they were not the ones who sent thousands of American soldiers to war. Mr. Speaker, the President owes us an apology. He should level with the American people and stop trying to shirk responsibility for his flawed Iraq policy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, the Republican budget bill is not a document of our Nation's priorities. The Republicans are not listening to the needs of average Americans who want a fair budget and lower deficits. Here are 10 quick reasons why this mean-spirited bill should be defeated this week. First, it takes from the poor and middle class to make the rich richer. Second, it includes the largest cuts in student loans in history. Third, it provides a $24 billion windfall to delinquent dads. Fourth, it destroys the pristine Arctic refuge and endangers our coastline. Fifth, it worsens America's health status by cutting Medicaid by $12 billion. Sixth, it cuts safety-net funding for our most vulnerable children. Seventh, it takes school lunches away from 40,000 kids who desperately need the nutritional content that those lunches provide. Eighth, it fails to adequately fund vital support services for workers. Ninth, it adds insult to injury for farmers in the form of commodity cuts. And tenth, despite all these cuts, it still swells the deficit. And I stress, it still swells the deficit.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations conference report, which provides further foreign assistance to the Republic of Armenia, including $75 million in economic assistance. I would like to thank the House Appropriations Committee for its continued support of both Armenia and resolving the humanitarian situation in Nagorna-Karabakh. Foreign Operations Subcommittee Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Democrat Nita Lowey realize how important these funds are to Armenia and Nagorna-Karabakh, and I would like to thank them for their continued support. I would also like to thank my friend and co-chair of the Armenian Caucus, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for his key support as a member of the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that this House continue to recognize the plight of the victims of the Nagorna-Karabakh conflict. The conference committee included $3 million in humanitarian assistance to Nagorna-Karabakh. While the United States does not officially recognize the State of Nagorna-Karabakh, this assistance shows that the United States supports Nagorna-Karabakh as an Armenian enclave that needs our continued help. It is also important to point out that the conference report maintains military assistance parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan, providing $5 million allocated to each country. By allocating equal levels of military and security assistance to both nations, the U.S. Government will preserve its credibility as an impartial and leading mediator in the continuing sensitive peace negotiations for the Nagorna-Karabakh conflict. Given the ongoing Azerbaijani blockades and threats to renew military aggression against Armenia and Karabakh, it is critically important that the administration continue to promote balanced short- and long-term policies that elevate regional cooperation and reduce the risk of conflict in the south Caucasus region. Again, let me thank the members of the Appropriations Committee for their continued support for Armenia.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans tout their budget bill as fiscally responsible, but the American people should not be deceived. It is nothing more than another attempt to cut taxes for the wealthiest few on the backs of America's college students and America's Medicaid and food stamp recipients. The cuts House Republicans will attempt to bring to the House floor next week are nothing but cruel. It has only been 2 months, and Republicans have already forgotten about the poverty stricken people affected by Hurricane Katrina. While Republicans cut $50 billion in Federal programs, they also give $70 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest few. That means the Republican budget bill will increase the deficit by $20 billion. Again, increase the deficit. And Republicans call themselves fiscally responsible? Well, the American people will be watching next week, and they will not be deceived.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from California because not only is she supportive of this legislation but she has been speaking out consistently since the Kelo decision against that decision and the consequences. Mr. Chairman, I have grown concerned with the increasing rate of eminent domain abuse cases across the country, so I appreciate that we will be able to vote on this bill today. Many of us in Congress were shocked by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Kelo, allowing the town of New London, Connecticut, to seize 15 homes so a developer could build offices, a hotel and convention center. This set a disturbing precedent and raised serious concerns about whether there are any limits to the government's power under the takings clause of the Constitution. I believe the Private Property Rights Protection Act, this legislation, is a strong first step in the fight against eminent domain abuse. However, I think we can do better. I think we need to pass stronger legislation to ensure that we curb all abuses of eminent domain, not just those in areas where Federal funds are being used for a project. That is why I have introduced my own legislation to curb the inappropriate use of eminent domain. The Protect Our Homes Act simply states that there should be no taking of homes for economic development unless there are rare and exceptional circumstances involving a public health or safety crisis. This legislation would render any State or local government that does otherwise ineligible for Federal financial assistance under any HUD program. It would also put in place appropriate safeguards to ensure that any eminent domain process is fair and transparent. We have an obligation to protect our citizens as we revitalize our aging neighborhoods. We should not sit idly by and tolerate abuses of eminent domain in the name of economic revitalization. It is time to strengthen the Federal law to guarantee that homeowners throughout this great country are protected. I am pleased to support the legislation before us which will send a strong message that taking private homes for generating revenue will not be tolerated. There is still much more for Congress to do to prevent eminent domain abuse, however, and I look forward to this bill passing and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is very refreshing to see that this legislation has bipartisan support and that we are moving on this legislation today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Judge Philip N. Gumbs. Judge Gumbs passed away after a life of distinguished service to his family and his community at the age of 82. Judge Gumbs was a first generation American who volunteered for the U.S. Army Air Corps immediately after graduating high school and served honorably in World War II. After returning home, he earned his undergraduate degree from Rutgers University and his law degree from Lincoln University in St. Louis. Judge Gumbs was a probation officer and a law partner before an ardent desire to see his children receive a good education caused him to enter public life as a member of the Matawan Board of Education. Judge Gumbs's work to improve education was his first step in a career of dedicated public service. He would go on to hold many other public offices including serving on the township council and as the mayor of Matawan. He was elected to the Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders with the highest number of votes for any elected seat in the county. He later became the first African-American director of the Board of Chosen Freeholders. He was appointed a judge in 1976, and served as a workers' compensation judge for 25 years. Judge Gumbs was a lifelong member of St. Mark AME Zion Church. He was an active member of his church community and served in a number of capacities, including superintendent of the Sunday school, a role that allowed him to continue his work to improve education. He served for 30 years as chairman of the Trustee Board. Judge Gumbs was also active as a Master Mason with a local lodge. My condolences go out to his wife Rachel, his children, Robina and Kelvin, his three grandchildren, his sisters and brothers, and his nieces and nephews. Judge Gumbs's legacy of service to his community will be remembered for generations to come.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition and appreciation of Doris Septen, a dedicated employee and caring staff member of the Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey. It is with great admiration that I honor Doris today for her unwavering commitment to the VNA for the past 50 years. Doris originally came to the association as a clerk for a fundraising consultant, the Foote System, in 1955. Since then, she has held such positions as receptionist, assistant supervisor and supervisor of the Foote Department, and senior clerk. Her warm, caring voice has greeted callers and reassured patients and their families for many years. Through her hard work and devotion, Doris earned herself further promotions to communications operator, and customer service coordinator. Furthermore, Doris was named VNA of Central Jersey's first employee of the month in 2003. These accomplishments only further reiterate what a worthy, notable person Doris Septen is and how indispensable she has become to her organization. Doris is a compassionate woman that is genuinely concerned with the well-being of those who rely on the VNACJ. She handles many tasks, such as tracking down nurses for patients, helping callers on the main switchboard, and facilitating the Monmouth County support staff council. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Ms. Doris Septen for all she has done for the VNACJ community, and congratulate her on reaching the milestone of 50 years of service.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Zeta Epsilon Lambda alumni chapter of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity in Red Bank, New Jersey for their fiftieth anniversary on November 5, 2005. The Zeta Epsilon Lambda chapter has been an active contributor in the community over the past 50 years. Since 1980, the chapter has donated over $200,000 in scholarship money to approximately 150 local high school students in Monmouth and Ocean counties. A large number of these scholarship recipients have returned to Zeta Epsilon Lambda after receiving their degrees to assist in other community outreach programs. Over the past 17 years, through Project Alpha, the fraternity has been educating young males on the prevention of teenage pregnancies. Thus far, they have provided meaningful guidance to over 700 elementary, middle, and high school students. Further establishing themselves as mentors in the community, the Zeta Epsilon Lambda chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha has been in partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monmouth County since 2001. Through this partnership, the brothers of Zeta Epsilon Lambda have given valuable guidance to dozens of young boys each week from Asbury Park Middle School in Asbury Park, NJ. The chapter has also successfully assisted Big Brothers Big Sisters with obtaining a $222,000 grant from the Justice Department to organize a Juvenile Mentoring Program, which has already achieved great success. Once again, I would like to congratulate the brothers of the Zeta Epsilon Lambda chapter of the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity on their 50th anniversary and thank them for their continued spirit of contribution and service to the community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, what the gentleman from Ohio is saying is true, and I will just sum this all up. I have seen this with the Republican policies here under the President, as the means justifying the ends. In other words, they were determined, the President and his Republican colleagues that supported him in this secrecy and this coverup, were determined to go to war. So it did not matter what the means were, they were going to get there. If that meant that they had to out a CIA agent and if it meant that they had to not tell the truth about what was happening in Iraq, if it meant that they had to go after those people who were trying to tell the truth and basically honestly tell us what was going on in Iraq, that did not matter, because they had to go to war. They had to attack Iraq. They had to go in there and get Saddam Hussein. So it did not matter what the means were, they were going to achieve that. It is the same thing we had in the Watergate years with President Nixon. I hate to bring that up again, but it is true. The means justify the end. But we see this over and over again with the Republican leadership and with the President Bush's policies, that they will go to whatever ends to achieve their goal. So there is no accountability. There is no feeling on anybody's part that they have to tell the truth or that they cannot ridicule people or destroy people's lives if they can accomplish their goal. And that is basically wrong. It is very undemocratic. I mean, the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about the basis for democracy. The basis for democracy is free speech, that people can get up and express their views. But they do not want to hear the other views. They do not want to hear what the truth is about whether or not there was uranium coming from Niger to Iraq. They did not want to hear the CIA estimates that were saying that it was unlikely that Iraq was going to attack the United States, it was unlikely that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They did not want to hear the truth, because they wanted to go to war. And this attitude is pervasive. I mean, you have talked about it and the gentleman from Florida has talked about it here on the floor with so many other things that the Republicans do, not wanting to have hearings, not wanting to have bipartisan investigations of the hurricane, because they do not want to get at the truth. They have this ideology that says, this is the way it is going to be; and if you do not like it, we do not want you around here. We do not want to hear dangerous points of view, and it is a very dangerous view.

Mr. PALLONE. Let me just briefly, because the gentleman from Ohio always says that we need to point out how things would be different if the Democrats were in the majority, if the Democrats were in control. And I always like to, because I guess I am the one who has been here the longest, take us back to another era. I remember when the Democrats were in the majority here and I told you before, the Energy and Commerce Committee that I serve on, we would have investigation after investigation. This is when we had a Democratic President; it did not make any difference. We would have investigations of agency actions. Whether it was Health and Human Services, Department of Education, we would bring them before the committee and the Democrats were in the majority and we would ask all of these serious questions about fraud and abuse and whether or not too much money was being spent. And if a Republican wanted to bring up an issue and criticize the White House or criticize the Democrat in the White House, nobody stopped them. Nobody sought to put an end to that.

Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely. I will take you even further back. You read about Jefferson and Adams and how they used to go at it on the floor and debate and argue and have totally different point of views and then, at the end of the day, they would be friends. They actually enjoyed the political debate and the fact that somebody was disagreeing with them. I mean, this notion that you go after the guy who you disagree with, or who is trying to bring out something that shows that you are not correct, that is un-American. I do not want the public to think that this is what we do down here, that we just try to destroy the person who has a different point of view, or who is trying to bring out the truth that we do not agree with. That is not what the country is all about. This is supposed to be a country of free speech and free ideas and free flow of ideas. You start getting into this whole notion that if somebody disagrees with you, you are going to destroy them, then that is the end of democracy. I mean, this is serious stuff, I agree, not only with regard to the outing of CIA agents, but just the whole idea of going after your enemy because you do not like what he says. It is un-American.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me say initially I do not believe in the BRAC. I have opposed every BRAC initially from the very beginning, and I have been here in Congress 18 years. The reason I do not believe in BRAC was somewhat articulated by the previous speaker. I think it is a abrogation of Congress' responsibility. There is no reason why we cannot make these decisions, and to give these decisions to an independent commission, I think, is just a cop-out on our part. So I want to start out with that. I also want to say in this particular round in 2005, I strongly disapproved of the BRAC even more so than in the past because we are in a war in Iraq. You do not shut down, in my opinion, military infrastructure at a time of war. I think this BRAC in particular is poorly timed and ill advised. Now, the 2005 round of BRAC also was done hastily, in my opinion, with very little regard to the actual warfighter. A number of bases with great functional value are being shut down in the name of savings. I do not believe anyone at the Department of Defense or any member of the BRAC Commission actually believes that this round of BRAC will actually save us any money, and I listened to many of the BRAC hearings. I am also truly disappointed because I believed that the BRAC ultimately would try to be an independent broker and that the commission would review each facility, analyze the data, and come to conclusions based on facts. I do not think that was the case. The opposite was the case. In the case of Fort Monmouth, which is the installation near my district, a lot of the people employed there live in my district. We successfully proved, myself, the two Senators and several other Congressmen, including the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), we successfully proved to the BRAC Commission, in my opinion, that the Army substantially deviated from six of the eight BRAC criteria. The BRAC actually said that, that the Pentagon deviated from six of the eight BRAC criteria. But, even so, even though the BRAC was supposedly an independent commission tasked with ensuring that the DOD's recommendations would not hurt the warfighter, even though they admitted there was a serious concern about the warfighter and how in the days of Fort Monmouth the communications and electronics functions crucial to Iraq might be seriously hampered, they still decided to include it on the list.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the budget bill that they want us to vote on, the one we were supposed to vote on last week, cuts funding for levees again, not necessarily the one in New Orleans, but other levees in Louisiana. This is part of the funding cuts. They want to cut levee construction now. This is not the same one that fell in New Orleans.

Mr. PALLONE. The gentleman looks good.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say one thing, and then I want to lead into the issue of this budget reconciliation that we want to talk about tonight. I wanted to go back to what my colleague from Massachusetts said about how, since the Bush administration came into office, the fiscal policy benefits wealthy people and is at the expense of the middle class. There is no question that is true. I would venture to say that the Republican fiscal policy is really stupid for everyone because the bottom line is that in the last few years of the Clinton administration, when we had a surplus and we were balancing the budget, everybody was getting richer. The richer were getting richer, the middle class was doing better, and the poor were doing better. I do not even think if you are wealthy you are doing better under Bush. You are doing better than the rest of the guys because the rest of the guys are suffering, but the irony of it is, in the last few years of the Clinton administration, the economy was booming so much that everybody was doing better. I do not even care if I were the wealthiest person in the world, I do not see how I benefit under this administration ultimately, because if the economy does not grow the way it did in the boom years of the Clinton administration, nobody benefits. It is true, of course, that it is primarily for the benefit of the wealthy. There is no question about that. What I wanted to stress tonight, and all that we do is that the Republicans now have gone even further. Now they are saying because they have to pay for Katrina, they want to do this budget reconciliation, which is another sort of round of budget cuts; and those budget cuts are primarily at the expense of poor people and working-class people rather than the wealthy. What we are seeing is all the programs that might benefit middle- class people, working-class people or poor people, whether it is student loans or it is health care or it is housing, are all being cut; and those cuts directly impact the hurricane victims. Rather than going after wealthy individuals or cutting benefits of programs that might benefit wealthy individuals or corporate interests, they are simply cutting programs for poor people and working people. That is simply not right. As my colleague from Massachusetts was saying, the irony of it is they are increasing the deficit in order to give more tax breaks for the rich and for the corporate interests. At the same time, they are increasing the deficit by paying for Iraq because none of that is paid for. None of the war reconstruction in Iraq is paid for; and if you look at these charts, as you were saying, you can see that the very cuts that are being proposed in programs here in the United States, in many cases money is being spent in Iraq, deficit spending, to do the same things in Iraq that are being cut here. I do not want to go through the whole thing, but if you look at health care, $10 billion in Medicaid cuts are proposed by this Republican budget; $252 million in cuts for health care professionals; $94 million in cuts to community health clinics in the U.S. In Iraq, we get 110 primary health care centers built or renovated, 2,000 health educators trained, 32 million children vaccinated. You can go through this whole list.

Mr. PALLONE. I wanted to respond to one thing the gentleman said because he took us back to the Clinton administration and the last 2 or 3 years when we had a surplus. Not only did we have a surplus because we had a balanced budget but the economy was booming. Jobs were being created left and right. I do not care if you were rich or you were poor, things were getting better. But President Bush comes in and he is elected and he says, the answer to the economy is we are going to cut taxes. And the taxes were cut mostly for wealthy people and corporate interests and special interests that were helping the Republicans with their campaign finance. And that was supposed to be the answer to the economy. Well, I will say, I have this briefing paper from the Economic Policy Institute, which is a bipartisan group. This is not a Democratic organization. And they are talking about the boom that was not. The economy has little to show for the $860 billion in tax cuts under President Bush. As the gentleman said, we went from a surplus of something like 2 or $300 billion. Now just the opposite, a deficit that is two or three times that. And they come to the conclusion in this report, I just want to read this one section, it says: ``Almost every broad measure of economic activity, gross domestic product, jobs, personal income, and business investment among others, has fared worse over the last 4 years than in the past cycles. Proponents of this series of major tax cuts since 2001 have projected that gauges such as these would reflect improvements after enactment.'' In fact, the opposite has occurred. Not only have we created a huge deficit under the Bush Republican administration, but all the indicators of economic activity have gone down. So where this Republican philosophy has just created a dynamic that has really ruined the economy, it is not completely ruined, we are getting along, but by every economic indicator things were better in the last few years of the Clinton administration.

Mr. PALLONE. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) talked about prevention before in the context of health care. It is not just Iraq versus America, it is the fact that these cuts are plain stupid. We talk about prevention in terms of health care, by eliminating community health centers, people go to emergency centers, and it costs more. An argument could be made if we did not cut funding for the levees in Louisiana, we may not even have had the crisis there.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right. The amazing thing to me when I was listening to the Republicans in the last hour is when they were trying to make the analogy to their households and talking about their kids. And one of the Republican Members talked about how he went down to the candy store and you could only spend what was in your pocket, and that is what we want to do here. And I was saying, these guys on the Republican side of the aisle have been building up deficits ever since President Bush came into office. How do they have the nerve to even talk about making the analogy with their households and going to the candy store when from the day that they arrived they have been increasing the deficit?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I used this analogy last week, and I cannot help but repeating it again. Soon after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. invasion, a couple of our Republican colleagues went over there. Maybe it was within 6 months of the U.S. invasion. It was in September of the year after. They had just come back, the Republican colleagues had just come back from Iraq, and they had been there on the first day of school. I will never forget because I was on the floor waiting to do a Special Order, and three or four of my Republican colleagues, they brought back with them the book bags and the pencils. They had these book bags that were in blue, and they had emblazoned on them the seal of the United States with the eagle. They were so proud of the fact that every Iraqi school child on the opening day of school had received a book bag with the seal of the U.S., pencils, pads, all kinds of things, free of charge. I had just come back from approximately the first day of school here in the U.S., and I had just been to a teacher event at one of my local schools, and the teachers were complaining that the pencils and paper were not provided there, and they had to actually go out, the teachers, and buy pencils and paper and pads and crayons for the children because they were not provided at our public school in my district. The pride that was on the faces of my Republican colleagues for all the wonderful things we were doing in Iraq, and I kept saying that was very nice, but we do not have those things here in my district. It is not right. It is not fair. I am not saying again that we should not be helping the Iraqis, but it is just not fair that they get this help and we do not.

Mr. PALLONE. I know the gentleman says he is older than me and I question that. I know I have been here longer than he. I remember when I first came down in 1988, there were a group of Republicans who would come down and do Special Orders every night, and they had the pages come out with this digital clock that really was the length of this dais here, and every night they would talk about the deficit and how they wanted to cut the deficit and the deficit was climbing too high. That is just all completely out of the window. All they have done now is increase the deficit. I have statistics here that this budget resolution which they were going to vote on last week and now they so far cannot get the votes for it, and hopefully they will never get the votes for it that they were talking about, will increase the deficit by more than $100 billion over 5 years. By contrast, the House Democratic budget achieved balance in 2012.