Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Our colleague from Washington addressed that issue the other night in a special order, and he pointed out very effectively I thought, number one, that during the War of 1812 he was talking about President Madison, the Capitol was literally burning and the White House too I guess, and we have still had elections. And then he mentioned the Civil War, the Capitol was under siege, literally being bombarded and we had elections. What could be more threatening from a terrorist point of view than actually being under siege and yet we had elections.

Mr. PALLONE. And also they continue to deny the reality. I mean, after the CIA report came out, it was either today or yesterday, that the President, President Bush was out there saying that the war has resulted in the U.S. being in less danger of attack and terrorism is down, the whole thing. And the Democratic candidate, Senator Kerry dispute that and said, Where are the facts to back this up? In the last few years we know that North Korea has more nuclear weapons than it had before, 3 or 4 times as many. There is no question that Iran is developing nuclear capability, I mean, the list goes on. Afghanistan, I think Kerry said, has basically been made into a sideshow. We do not even hear about what is going on there.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentlewoman's information because I think that we have to deal with the facts and the gentlewoman is giving us some real factual information there about Halliburton, and how they benefited and the vice president's connection to it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, could I ask what hotel charges $10,000 a night?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who is joining us now.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Commission was the governor that I served under in the State legislature in New Jersey for 6 years, a staunch Republican who has actually been out there campaigning against me on occasion. So I mean you cannot ever convince me that Governor Kean was not doing what he thought was the right thing, and is a very knowledgeable and intelligent man, even though I disagree with him on a lot of issues, so the gentleman is absolutely right.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, almost immediately after Senator Kerry chose Senator Edwards of North Carolina as his Democratic running mate, the Republican attack dogs were out in full force. The most popular Republican attack was that John Edwards does not have the experience to be vice president, and the second most popular, John Edwards represents the interests of the trial lawyers. Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people, has Dick Cheney's experience paid off for them over the last 3 years? Tonight, I will try to highlight how Vice President Cheney's experience in the corporate world has led to administration policies that benefit the corporate interests over the interests of all Americans. I want to start by talking about Halliburton. After spending several decades in Washington here in the House and working for several Republican administrations, Dick Cheney went to Texas in 1995 to run Halliburton. On his watch, Halliburton conducted business with Iraq, Libya and Iran, three countries that at that time supported terrorism and were under strict sanctions from the United States. Despite these sanctions, Cheney's Halliburton did business with all three countries. During the 2000 campaign, Cheney said, ``I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.'' But while Cheney was running Halliburton, two of its foreign subsidiaries sold millions of dollars worth of oil services and parts to Saddam Hussein's regime. Vice President Cheney ran a company that did businesses with companies that supported terrorism. Is the kind of experience Republicans are pointing to in lauding their vice president? Cheney continued to support his former company when he came to Washington as the vice president. We all know that the war in Iraq has been a financial windfall for Halliburton. We also learned last month, Mr. Speaker, that in the months leading up to the war in Iraq, an undersecretary of defense had a meeting with members of the Bush administration, including the vice president's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, in which the undersecretary notified Libby and the others that Halliburton would be awarded a $1.9 billion defense contract. This meeting contradicts a statement made by Vice President Cheney last September on Meet the Press in which Cheney said, ``I don't know any of the details of the contract, because I deliberately stayed away from any information on that.'' Yet, Mr. Speaker, his own Chief of Staff attended a meeting six months before the war in which secret contingency plans for the Iraqi oil industry that focused only Halliburton were discussed. Does Vice President Cheney want the American people to believe that his main staffer, his chief of staff, was at a meeting where contracts for Halliburton were discussed, but that he, the vice president, was never informed about them? The primary reason Halliburton received billions in no-bid contracts from the Bush administration can be attributed clearly to the cozy relationship between Cheney and Halliburton. And despite all the problems Halliburton has faced over the last year, the vice president continues to be an unyielding, positive spokesman for the company. In 2002, Cheney said, ``Halliburton is a fine company and I am pleased that I was associated with the company.'' I wonder if Vice President Cheney thought Halliburton was a fine company after it was forced to acknowledge knowledge that it accepted up to $6 million in kickbacks in its contract work in Iraq? Or does the vice president think that Halliburton is a fine company now, now that it is under scrutiny over allegations of overcharging the government $61 million in Iraq? Or was the vice president pleased with his old company's conduct when it received several warnings from the Pentagon that the food it was serving U.S. troops in Iraq was dirty? Perhaps the vice president overlooks these abuses of our troops and the American taxpayers because he continues to receive money from Halliburton. Vice President Cheney tried to squash a story when he appeared on Meet the Press last year. The vice president stated, ``And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I have severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interests in Halliburton of any kind, and haven't had now for over 3 years.'' But despite the vice president's claims, the Congressional Research Service issued a report earlier this year concluding that because Cheney receives a deferred salary and continues to hold stock interests, he still has a financial interest in Halliburton. In fact, if the company were to go under, the vice president could lose the deferred salary, a salary he is expected to continue to receive this year and next year. While losing around $200,000 a year might not put a big dent in the vice president's wallet, he clearly still has a stake in the success of Halliburton. And the vice president also neglects to mention that he continues to hold more than 433,000 stock options with Halliburton. The Congressional Research Service reports that these stock ties ``represent a continuing financial interest in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest.'' So the vice president misrepresented what he and his staff knew about the initial no-bid contract, as well as continued financial interests in Halliburton. And I ask again, Mr. Speaker, do we want a vice president who continues to benefit from a company that is essentially robbing the American taxpayers of millions of dollars? Is this the kind of leadership Republicans are touting when they praise Cheney's leadership abilities? I could go on. I would like to talk briefly, I see that my colleague from Washington is joining me tonight, I would like to talk a little bit about the link between al Qaeda and Iraq and the vice president's comments on that, because sometimes I think, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans admire Vice President Cheney's tenacity for refusing to accept, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Last week, as we know, the Senate Intelligence Committee's report concluded that even though the CIA repeatedly told the White House it did not have any strong evidence linking Iraq to al Queda, Cheney and the rest of the Bush administration went ahead and characterized a close, well- documented relationship in an attempt to justify to going to war with Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Committee called such linkages murky and conflicting. Of course, the 9/11 Commission previously went further, reporting last month there did not appear to be a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Queda. Those things are pretty obvious. Do we have any apology from Vice President Cheney? No, not even close. The Vice President continues to be in denial. He went so far as to justify this denial by saying that he had reports that the 9/11 Commission did not have to prove the connection between Iraq and al Queda, but earlier this month the 9/11 Commission rebutted those claims, saying they had access to all the same intelligence that Cheney had. Do the American people want to stick with a Vice President who cannot finally admit he is wrong and remains in denial about something as critical as connections that led us down to war in Iraq? So on the foreign policy front, again, I think the Vice President has been a complete failure. He erroneously sold Members of Congress on a war that did not need to be waged. But what about domestic policy? Let us just talk a little bit about that as well. I would like to talk about energy policy and the Energy Task Force which the Vice President was so much involved with. The largest piece of domestic legislation that the Vice President had his fingerprints on clearly is the energy bill and his secret Energy Task Force. Over the past 3 years, the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans have done nothing to help consumers struggling to pay higher gas prices. When I go home, it is one of the big things my constituents talk about, the higher gas prices. I would argue that essentially the Bush administration and the Vice President, because of their background, are essentially supporting oil and gas companies. They do not have a problem with the price increases. Vice President Cheney and Republicans have never been interested in lowering gas prices, and the reason is because high gas prices mean high profits for big oil and gas companies that worked in secret with Vice President Cheney in crafting the Republican energy bill. For 3 years now, the Vice President has done everything he can to keep the records of his Energy Task Force secret. This secret task force developed President Bush's energy policy, a policy that was then made into legislation here in Congress, and that legislation passed this House, but it is now stalled in the other body. But, nevertheless, the end result was bad energy policy. There is no doubt that the energy industry succeeded with its influence during these secret, closed-door meetings in crafting a policy that benefited them rather than benefiting Americans, and now Americans are paying the price the at the pump. For 3 years, the Vice President has refused to let the American people know who made up in Energy Task Force. For 3 years now, the Vice President has refused to let the American people know how and why the task force came to the conclusions that it did. What about Enron? Let me just take a few minutes to talk about that, and then I am going to yield to my colleague from Washington State. Could it be that the Vice President wants to keep the records of his Energy Task Force secret because he wants to continue to distance himself from Enron? After all, you know, Enron has not been looking too good for the last few days, with what happened with their chairman Ken Lay in the last week. According to a 2002 report by the Committee on Government Reform in the House, seven of the eight recommendations that then Enron chairman Ken Lay gave to Vice President Cheney miraculously made their way into the final Energy Task Force report. So we know that Enron and Lay, they were very much involved in this report and ultimately the legislation that came out of it. Back in January 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle released a memo given by Enron Chairman Lay to Vice President Cheney at a meeting on April 17, 2001. Enron's memo contains recommendations in eight areas. In total, the White House energy plan adopts all or significant portions of Enron's recommendations in seven of these eight areas. Enron representatives had six meetings with the White House Energy Task Force, including four meetings that occurred before the release of the final report. The White House has consistently refused to disclose what Enron requested during these meetings. Despite all these meetings and the fact that Enron Chairman Ken Lay was President Bush's largest financial supporter, another reason the administration may want to keep these documents a secret is they do not want the American people to see more collaboration between the Bush administration and former Enron executives. Now, I ask you, we talked about foreign policy, we talked about domestic policy. Does any of this seem to be a good record? Not only has his energy bill not gone anywhere, but Vice President Cheney refuses to allow the American people and this Congress to see exactly who helped him craft this energy bill. Again, I am not surprised, given what happened to Lay last week, that they are going to try to keep it secret. They refuse to open up in detail any of this information. So, Mr. Speaker, Cheney's 3 years as Vice President have been abysmal. Perhaps that is the reason some Republicans in his own party are asking him, for the sake of the Republican Party, to step down. I thought it was very interesting, with all these attacks that were taking place last week and even on this floor against John Edwards, talking about lack of experience and all this other nonsense, that at the same time that Edwards was nominated, or asked by John Kerry to be his running mate, we just kept getting more and more reports about how the Republicans might be trying to get rid of Dick Cheney. It does not seem like that is likely, but it is no surprise, given Cheney's record on both foreign and domestic policy. With that, I would like to yield to my colleague here, I see we are joined by a couple of my colleagues, the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding to me. And I noticed I guess I am the only Northerner here tonight. Everyone else has been either from South Carolina or North Carolina. But I have to say when I listened to the other side of the aisle, to the Republicans this evening, criticize our candidates for president and vice president, I could not help but come down here and say a few words, because I have watched both of these Senators who are now our presidential and vice presidential candidates on the Democratic side, and I have been very impressed with them. I really resented, I do not like to use the word, but I resented the fact that our Republican colleagues used all these lables, liberal versus conservative, rich versus poor, because I know when I listen to Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry, they are not looking at things that way, whether somebody is rich, or what somebody's ideology is. They are just looking at it practically. And I have watched what they said. I particularly want to pay notice of Senator Edwards tonight, because he is the newest person on the ticket and he is always looking at things from a practical point of view. The reason that he advocates change in the White House, and the reason I advocate change, and I think all of us do, is because we just do not like the practical impact of the policies of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, particularly as it affects the little guy. Because when I listen to Senator Edwards, he is always talking about the little guy. If you look at what happened over the last 4 years under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, it is the middle-class, it is the little guy that has been hurt, whether it is gas prices or it is healthcare costs or it is education costs, or the fact that over the last 4 years we have had a loss of over 2 million jobs and the jobs that are now being created are not as good as the ones lost. This is what our Democratic candidates are all about. The ultimate irony, I have to comment a little bit on some of the comments made about Senator Edwards being wealthy. He is wealthy, there is no question about that. But here is a guy who grew up in a small town, it has already been described, born in a small town in South Carolina, raised in a small town in North Carolina, from a very modest family. I have a little bit of his biography here. His father Wallace worked in the textile mills for 36 years. His mother Bobbie ran a shop and worked at the post office. He worked alongside his father in the mill. He was the first person in his family to attend college. This is a self-made man. This is a guy who went to a state university, North Carolina State University, graduated as undergraduate, then went for his law degree, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, a very good school, but also a public state university. He is self-made. This is the very thing the Republicans keep talking about. They always use the example of Abe Lincoln, born in a log cabin and became president of the United States. Well, this is what we have here. This is not some guy who was born wealthy and was given everything. He had to work for it. That is what it is all about. Then when I listened to some of these statements about the fact that he was a trial lawyer and how bad that was, well, you know, let us not put labels on people. I am sure there are some trial lawyers that are bad, but there are a lot of trial lawyers that are good. It depends on what you do. The fact of the matter is that when I listened to, I think it was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is a physician from Texas, a Republican, who got up and started criticizing Edwards because he was a trial lawyer, am I to assume that everybody who is a physician is good and everybody who is a lawyer is bad? Is that what we have come to now, this sort of divisive element in looking at things? Well, it is just ridiculous. If you look at Edwards' background, he was always fighting for the little guy. I just want to give you a couple of these cases, because I heard the gentleman from Texas, the Republican, talk about what is fair. Well, it is not fair if there are people who are injured and they do not have some way to redress their grievances. This is an example. This is a very good example. I wanted to use one of the cases that Edwards tried. It is Jennifer Campbell, who suffered severe brain damage because of a doctor's mistake and the hospital's complacency. Edwards represented Jennifer Campbell, who was born in April of 1979 with severe brain damage because of medical malpractice on the part of her mother's doctor and hospital. Despite the clear signs of fetal distress during labor, the doctor failed to deliver the baby by C- section and the hospital's nurses failed to help Jennifer by reporting the doctor's conduct up through the hospital's chain of command. Now, am I to assume that in that case the doctor did the right thing and the doctor was the good guy, and the lawyer, in this case John Edwards, who defended Jennifer Campbell who suffered from severe brain damage should not have had somebody to try her case, her malpractice case? I am all in favor of malpractice reform. I do not see any problem. I have even voted for a cap on tort cases in some instances. But I am not going to suggest that it is not a good thing for a trial lawyer to take a case like that, where somebody has been severely injured. Another case, I will give one more, this was a Methodist minister. Greg Howard and Jane Howard were killed in an auto wreck with a truck, left behind an orphan five-year-old son. Edwards represented Golda Howard, who lost her son Gregory in a car wreck with a truck. The truck driver was driving too fast and following the car in front of him too closely, and when the car in front of him braked, he swerved across the center line into Greg Howard's 1984 Honda civic head-on. Both Gregory Howard, a 31-year-old minister and Methodist camp director, and his wife were killed. They were survived by their 5-year- old son Joshua, who was not in the car. They are not supposed to be defended in this case? Clearly there is no question that Edwards is someone who has cared about the little guy, and he saw being a trial lawyer as a way to give back and effectively represent people who had been seriously injured. These are not frivolous suits. That is not what we are talking about here. I just want to give one more example, because I know the time has basically run out. I think it was my colleague the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), or maybe it was the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), who mentioned Edwards' passion on the issue of Patients' Bill of Rights. I remember, because you have been to some of our Health Care Task Force meetings that I chaired in the last few Congresses, and one day we invited Senator Edwards to come over to from the Senate and talk to our Health Care Task Force about the Patients' Bill of Rights, because it was something we were trying to get passed on the floor of this House. He came over and was one of the best presenters and speakers that we ever had. I had never even met him before. This was a few years ago. I was so impressed about his passion and caring about patients and how they had to have their rights protected. This is something that we still need. If a case arrives where an HMO says that a person is going to be denied care because they cannot have a particular procedure or cannot go to an particular emergency room because they need care, that is what this is all about in this House, representing the little guy, the person who is damaged, the person who needs healthcare. He was a guy who came to our Health Care Task Force and talked with passion about how we had to get this bill passed. And we still need to get this bill passed. It is somebody like him, as vice president, joining with John Kerry as the president, that we can get something like that passed, because you know that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been very much against the Patients' Bill of Rights. They went to the Supreme Court and got the Supreme Court to basically void the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights. So we need leadership. We need leadership in the White House. We need leadership at the vice presidential level as well, if we are going to see patients protected. That is what this is all about. I am just so proud to be here tonight to say how proud I am that we have this great ticket that includes a North Carolinian.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw another example of how the Republican House leadership continues to abuse its power. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) offered an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have blocked a controversial provision in the PATRIOT Act. At the end of the 15 minutes of voting time, the Sanders amendment looked well on its way to victory with 20 Republicans voting with the majority of the Democrats. But the Republican leadership would not give the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) a victory and refused to gavel the vote. Despite the fact that no more Members were still waiting to vote, the Republican leadership left the vote open an additional 20 minutes. What were they doing during these 20 minutes? They were exerting intense strong-arm pressure on their own Republican colleagues who had the audacity to vote against the leadership. The Republican leadership finally threatened enough Republicans to defeat the amendment. Yesterday's outrageous action was just another example of the Republican leadership's win-at-all-costs approach at running this House. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) played by the rules yesterday. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership long ago threw the rules out the window in this House. I conclude with the words chanted by many of my Democratic colleagues during the 20 minute delay: shame, shame on the Republican leadership.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know that we are debating the rule on legislation that is being proposed this morning, but I have to say, I do not really know what the rules are anymore in the House of Representatives. I listened last night when the Sanders amendment came up and all that the majority were trying to do, the bipartisan majority, was to protect Americans' civil liberties. After the vote took place, all of a sudden the floor and the vote stays open for another 30 plus minutes, even though everyone had voted and there was not anyone left in the well to cast a vote. It is a total abuse of power by the Republican majority here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Think about it. When you go to the polls and vote in a general election, in New Jersey the polls close at 8 o'clock. Then you count the votes. You do not have the opportunity to keep the voting machine open and have the people come back and say, well, I changed my mind because I heard about something new that somebody told me and now I want to change my vote, so let's keep it open. How long is the vote going to be kept open here in the House of Representatives until the Republican majority get their will regardless of what the American people and their representatives want. Will we keep it open 30 minutes as it was yesterday on the Sanders amendment? Will we keep it open 3 hours as we did on the Medicare prescription drug bill which was a lousy bill and the majority, including a significant number of Republicans, were against it until they were cajoled in a 3-hour delay and promised all kinds of things and probably laws were violated to get Members on the Republican side to change their vote. What are the rules? We act as if this is the House of Representatives that is based on rules. That is why we are having a debate on a rule today for a piece of legislation. But there are no rules. The majority abuses its power and does whatever it pleases. We never know at any given time when the vote is going to be over. I think if this continues, it is just going to be worse and worse for our system of government, the democratic system that we value and cherish here in the House of Representatives and across the country. All that everyone who voted for the Sanders amendment yesterday were trying to do was to protect civil liberties. One may disagree, think that the PATRIOT Act is good or think it is bad, but when a majority on a bipartisan basis makes a decision that it should be amended and should be changed because they want to protect civil liberties, then that majority should be allowed to vote in a fair way. We do not keep the vote open as we go around and tell Members, well, maybe I am going to give you this or give you that if you change your vote on something that is so basic to American civil liberties. It is just not right. It is shameful. I just want to join with my colleagues again, on both sides of the aisle, essentially last night who said shame, shame on the Republican majority for what they continue to do and this abuse of power. Something has got to be done so that we know what the rules are. I do not know what the rules are anymore around here and how this Republican leadership goes about deciding what the rules are.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to praise John Kerry's selection of Senator John Edwards as his running mate. For more than 2 decades, Senator Edwards has been fighting on behalf of the little guy against America's large corporate interests. John Kerry picked the perfect running mate to complete a ticket that brings hope to middle-class Americans that their needs will no longer be ignored at the White House. Senator Edwards talks movingly and effectively about two Americas. Over the past 3 years, the bridge between them has grown dramatically, thanks to failed policies pushed by the Bush administration that benefit only the privileged few. I am confident the Kerry/Edwards ticket will energize Americans to demand a change of course and support a new vision for America.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last month we witnessed another disappointing jobs creation month. Economists say our economy must create 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with increases in population. But last month, only 112,000 jobs were created. And even more troubling, the economy witnessed declines in the length of the average work week and average weekly earnings. One would think this disappointing news would concern President Bush. After all, he already has the dubious distinction as the only President since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs on his watch. Mr. Speaker, 1.8 million private sector jobs have been lost over the last 3 years, thanks to the economic neglect of both President Bush and Republicans here in Congress. Instead of showing any concern over these disappointing job numbers, President Bush embraced them, describing them as steady growth. The President also had the audacity to say that our economy does not need ``boom or bust-type growth.'' Now, I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, when is President Bush going to realize that our economy desperately needs a boom? When is President Bush going to finally realize that the failed economic policies that he has been touting over the last 3 years are not creating enough jobs to put millions of Americans back to work? And when is President Bush going to realize that today's economy, the economy he created with his major tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, is benefiting the wealthiest Americans to the detriment of middle-class Americans? And when is he going to realize that while middle-class Americans face skyrocketing health care costs and ever-increasing college tuition costs, their paychecks are not even increasing at a rate that will keep them equal with inflation? The economic record of President Bush and this Republican House of Representatives has been an utter failure, and the President's statement that an economic boom is not needed today shows that he is certainly out of touch with the economic realities middle-class Americans presently face. Perhaps the President has been spending too much time hanging around with his wealthy friends to realize that middle-class Americans are struggling to make ends meet. A report over the weekend by Bloomberg News determined that record- high corporate profits are not trickling down to U.S. workers in the form of pay increases. Economists Paul Krugman said today's economy is passing working Americans by. Krugman points to the fact that average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers rose only 1.7 percent over the past year, lagging well behind inflation. And this dismal increase takes place amid continued gains in worker productivity, the amount that workers produce in an hour. If middle-class workers are performing so well and if their hard work is paying off and making the economy grow, then one might ask, why are their wages not growing as well? Middle-class Americans are getting squeezed by their employers and by government policies. Since March of 2001, corporate profits skyrocketed by more than 50 percent, while wages and salaries decreased by 1.7 percent. American companies raked in an enviable $1 trillion in profits in the last 3 months of 2003 alone, but even while profits soared, companies froze pay. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Uncle Sam is only making matters worse by shifting the tax burden from wealth to work. Taxes on wages now average almost 24 percent. Taxes on income from investments, by contrast, like stock and bonds, average less than 10 percent. That means that middle- class Americans who depend more on their paycheck than stock market investments are actually paying more in taxes on individual dollars than they bring in. It is an incredible, incredible fact. While families are earning less and less, ``kitchen table costs,'' the items that directly affect a family's budget, are soaring. Under President Bush, health care costs have skyrocketed almost 50 percent, college tuition has gone up 35 percent, and gas prices are up more than 25 percent. How does a family face these skyrocketing price increases when their paychecks only increase about 1 percent from year to year? Now, Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, Republicans have been telling the American people that the best way to create jobs and expand the economy was to drastically cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Not only has that misguided policy created a $400 billion Federal deficit, but it has just not lived up to the expectations that the Republicans create. Democrats by contrast have a real plan that would truly boost America's economy. Over the last 3 years, many economists have argued that the most effective job creating policies would be increased aid to State and local governments, extended unemployment insurance, and tax rebates for lower and middle income families. Democrats have been fighting for measures that would create jobs immediately by ending the current tax incentives for shipping jobs overseas, enacting a bipartisan manufacturing tax cut bill, enacting a robust highway bill that would create jobs all over this country and pump millions of dollars into State and local economies, provide a tax credit to small businesses so they can lower health care costs, extend Federal unemployment insurance for more than 2.9 million Americans, and make tax cuts for the middle class permanent and paid for. Mr. Speaker, President Bush seems content with the economic status quo. Democrats, by contrast, realize that middle-class Americans have been squeezed by the policies of this President and this Republican House. We are not satisfied with the latest economic indicators, and we will not quit fighting until all Americans are back to work and bringing home a paycheck that will not squeeze every last dime.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Last month, President Bush presided over an economy that created only 112,000 jobs, but we have to create 150,000 jobs just to keep up with population increases. One would think this disappointing news would concern President Bush. Instead, Bush embraced the news, describing it as ``steady growth.'' The President also had the audacity to say our economy does not need ``boom or bust-type growth.'' When is President Bush going to realize that our economy desperately needs a boom; that the failed policies he has been touting over the last 3 years are not creating enough jobs to put millions of Americans back to work; that today's economy is benefiting the wealthiest Americans to the detriment of the middle class? The economic record of both President Bush and congressional Republicans is an utter failure, and the President's statements show that he is also clearly out of touch with the economic realities that middle-class Americans presently face. Perhaps President Bush has been spending too much time hanging out with his wealthy friends to realize that middle-class Americans are struggling to make ends meet.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on the statements made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) with regard to the coastal and ocean levels of funding in the bill. First of all, let me say that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and our ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), have over the years made major commitments to our oceans and coasts. And so when we say today we would like to see more funding placed in conference for things like NOAA, marine mammals, coastal zone management, it in no way takes away from what these two gentlemen and the subcommittee have accomplished over the years. I think the reason that we feel very strongly right now that there needs to be more of a funding commitment in these ocean- and coastal- related activities is because of the reports that came out by the National Ocean Commission and Pew Ocean Commission, which both stress the need for a lot more funding in these programs. They basically pointed to the decline of the ocean environment and increasing stress on the ocean and coastal areas over the years; and also because of the lack of scientific understanding, that more money was needed for basic science so we understand what the problems are in oceans. I do not want to repeat everything that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) said, but as was mentioned, there is a 15 percent cut in funding for NOAA. There is about $160 million less than the fiscal year 2004 enactment for the National Ocean Service and other programs like fisheries, marine mammals and coastal zone management which could use more funding. We are hoping during the conference these needs will be addressed. Knowing both the chairman and the ranking member, I am sure they will make every effort to try to accomplish that when we go to conference in having to deal with the other body. I thank the gentlemen for their support over the years, and I hope we can see increased funding for these vital programs given the recent reports from the National Ocean Commission and the Pew Ocean Commission.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Nadine ``Diney'' Goldsmith, an outstanding woman and community leader. As a business owner, artist, wife, mother, and advocate, Nadine Goldsmith was a great friend to the people of the Sixth District of New Jersey. In life, Nadine Goldsmith served as a Foundation Trustee at Monmouth Medical Center, a hospital that serves a substantial population of the Sixth Congressional District. With her husband, she funded the creation of the Leon Hess Cancer Center's Goldsmith Wellness Center. The Goldsmith Wellness Center provided innovative therapy to cancer patients, allowing them to unite their mental wellness with their physical healing. Nadine was never a bystander at her center: she worked closely with Smitha Gollamudi, M.D., Chair of the Institute for Advanced Radiation Oncology, to plan the center's program. Mr. Speaker, Nadine Goldsmith has given so much to the people in my district. She dedicated her time, her talent, and character throughout her life. She has touched those blessed enough to meet her, and helped many she has never even met. Once again, I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring this remarkable woman.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize the accomplishments and career of Major General William H. Russ upon his retirement from the United States Army. Formerly the Commanding General of the United States Army Signal Command of Fort Huachuca, Arizona and the Director for Programs and Architecture, Office of the Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications and Computers in Washington, DC, Major General Russ will be relinquishing his position as Commanding General of the United States Army Communications-Electronics Command at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey on Friday, June 25, 2004. Before pursuing military education, Major General Russ completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronics from Florida A&M University and a Master of Science degree in Public Administration from Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania. His military education includes the Signal Basic and Advanced Courses, the Armed Forces Staff College, and the United States Army War College. His military career has taken him from serving as Communications Officer for the 1st battalion, 32nd Armor, 3rd Armored Division, United States Army Europe and Seventh Army to his current position as Commanding General U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command and Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. During that time he has earned numerous military awards and decorations including: Army Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal (with four Oak Leaf Clusters), to name a few. A career such as this merits strong praise, Mr. Speaker, and as such I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to Major General William H. Russ for his service and dedication to this country. My congratulations go to Brigadier General Michael R. Mazzucchi, who will be assuming Major General Russ' station, and my best wishes to Major General Russ and his family upon his retirement.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the accomplishments of Continental Societies Incorporated as they are on the eve of their 49th Annual Conclave. This national organization of women has provided distinguished service to children for nearly half a century. Started in 1956, Continental Societies began with a vision of providing resources for and supporting the welfare of children with special needs. As a result of engaged and avant-garde leadership, the organization blossomed and was able to spread its message across the nation. Today, Continental Societies has approximately 1,000 dedicated and noble women who serve its 49 chapters. Among their many successes, perhaps the most noteworthy is their 1972 campaign titled ``Operation Awareness: HEER'' (Health, Education, Employment, Recreation). Having recognized these four areas as essential to young people, Continental Societies initiated a variety of programs to combat deficiencies in these four segments of youth life. In 1977, they added Arts and Humanities as another aspect of their endeavor. To this day, Continental Societies remains steadfast in its commitment to improving the quality of life for children across the United States. As National President Tonya Greenwood--a fellow New Jerseyan--gavels in another chapter in their history, I once again, ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating and thanking this illustrious organization for their many years of service.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the late Michael J. Attardi, a dear friend to the sixth district of New Jersey. Mr. Attardi, a resident of Long Branch, was a well-known figure throughout his community. He will be sorely missed by family, friends, and neighbors. Michael Attardi was a truly remarkable neighbor for Long Branch. While he was born in Neptune, he lived within the neighborhood of Long Branch for the past sixty-eight years. Throughout his lifetime, Mr. Attardi was well regarded for his prowess on the football field. His greatest high school success was to lead the ``Green Wave'' of Long Branch High School to a state football championship. Known as ``Iron Mike'' to his close friends and family, Mr. Attardi was named to the first team All-State and All-County football teams quite an honor for any athlete. Not only was Mr. Attardi triumphant on the field during high school, he also was a star football player at the Valley Forge Military Academy. His attendance at this academy allowed him to be named to the All-American Football team in 1954. After years had passed, the City of Long Branch and the State of New Jersey honored Mr. Attardi by electing him to the Long Branch Athletic Hall of Fame for his star abilities on the football field. Aside from being an accomplished athlete, Mr. Attardi honorably served his country in the United States Army. He was well decorated in his eight years of service and received four medals as a Military Police officer. Perhaps his greatest accomplishments were his family, his marriage of forty-five years to Frances Tortoretti, their three children, and two grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, once again, I am proud to acknowledge a truly great man for his dedication to family, community, and country. I ask that my colleagues join me in extending our sincerest condolences to the family of Mr. Michael J. Attardi. He will sorely be missed by everyone whose lives he touched.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to use all the time, but I did want to spend my time this evening talking about what has been referred to in recent weeks as ``the middle-class squeeze,'' basically an effort to point out how Republican policies, both at the presidential level and the congressional level, have made it more and more difficult for the middle class in the United States to get through the day or get through the year, despite Republican claims that the economy is getting better, that jobs are being created. The reality is that more and more people find it difficult to make ends meet. Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, an economy that had created 22 million jobs over 8 years, and lowered poverty levels to their lowest rate in 20 years. Four years later, today, 8.2 million Americans are looking for work, unemployment is 30 percent higher, 1.9 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, and the average household income has decreased by almost $1,500. However, recent statements by the Bush administration and my Republican colleagues in Congress are beginning to paint an increasingly cheery picture about our economy. Every day my Republican colleagues come to the House floor here touting a number of new jobs that are being created each month. They talk about how the stock market is on the rise and how our economy is beginning to rebound. But despite this sunny economic forecast from the Bush administration, it seems that the American people simply do not agree. Recent polls show that fewer Americans than at the start of the year are willing to say that our economy is improving. In fact, the President's economic approval numbers are at the lowest level of his presidency. So what is it that the American people know that the Republicans do not seem to know? And the answer is very simple, and that is that rising job numbers tell only part of the economic story. What the Republicans are not telling the American people is that about 90 percent of the new jobs that they are boasting about pay an average hourly wage that is less than the national average. What they are not telling the American people is that those lower-paying jobs are less likely to include health care coverage. And what they are not telling the American people is that middle- class Americans are being squeezed by Republican policies that have allowed the price of health care, education, and gas to skyrocket and created record deficits. Essentially what they are not telling the American people is that they are paying the price, the middle class is paying the price, of the Bush administration and Republican policies here in the Congress. When I talk to people in my district in New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, they are not telling me about how great our economy is doing or rejoicing about the number of new jobs being created. When I talk to these residents of my district, they are more likely to tell me about the explosion of health care and education costs. For those who did not lose their jobs during the economic slump, they are more likely to tell me about how they have watched the wages stagnate over the last few years or about how their son or daughter's college tuition keeps going up or that they are having to rely more on credit cards to make ends meet. Let me talk a little bit, Mr. Speaker, about wages, and again refute some of the comments that are being made by my Republican colleagues on the other side. When Republicans talk about all the new jobs being created, notice that they are not mentioning what kinds of jobs they are creating or how well those jobs are paying. As I mentioned earlier, 90 percent of the new jobs created since August of 2003, I guess about 10 months ago, are in industries that pay an average hourly wage that is less than the national average. About 1.3 million of the jobs created are in service sector industries with an average wage of $15.42 an hour, 40 cents less than the national average, and 195,000 of these jobs are temporary jobs. Approximately 580,000 of these jobs were in low-paying domestic industries that could not be outsourced, and I use as examples wait staff in restaurants and bars and retail workers, things that cannot be outsourced to other countries. Over 235,000 of the new jobs created since August of last year pay an average hourly wage that is over 40 percent less than the national average, and more than 148,000 pay 20 percent less. And if I could use my home State of New Jersey as an example, Mr. Speaker, the new jobs being created pay $21,551 less than the jobs recently lost in my home State. Let me talk a little bit about rising health costs because that is one of the issues that my constituents talk about the most, the cost, the rising cost of health care. These new jobs that the Republicans talk about not only pay less than jobs being lost, they are less likely to have health benefits. In my home State, using New Jersey again as an example, there has been an 11 percent drop in the number of jobs offering health insurance. Nationwide, 43 million Americans have no health insurance, including 1.19 million in New Jersey; and millions more are underinsured. Underinsured means they may have health care part of the year, but not the whole year. Mr. Speaker, for those workers that do have health insurance, they are watching their health insurance premiums skyrocket. Health care costs increased by 13.9 percent nationwide last year, the third year in a row of double-digit increases and the largest increase since 1990. Let us go back to my home State of New Jersey again. In New Jersey, health insurance premiums have increased by 52 percent since the beginning of the Bush administration. Nationally, the increase in family health insurance premiums over the last 3 years has tripled the amount of the tax cut that the Bush administration talks about going to middle-income families over 4 years. I would like to talk a little bit about rising education costs, because after health care, that is the issue that my constituents talk about the most. So far, we have covered wages and health insurance, but that is only half of it. For those families with a son or daughter in college who have to face these rising education costs, the future does not look good, and in the last 4 years have not looked good. In my home State of New Jersey, the cost of a college education has increased by 36 percent since the beginning of the Bush administration. Nationwide, tuition has increased 30 percent. Crunched State education budgets means that an estimated 250,000 college-qualified students were shut out of higher education in the fall of 2003 due to rising tuition or cutbacks in admissions and course offerings. These kids were simply shut out. They could not even go to school, primarily because of the cost. Now, Mr. Speaker, as tuition rises, student loan debt continues to soar. Between 1997 and 2002, the typical undergraduate's debt rose 66 percent, to $18,900; and more than one-quarter of today's 14 million undergraduate students will incur more than $25,000 in debt to earn a degree. Yet if you listen to my Republican colleagues on the other side, they have introduced legislation blocking student borrowers from locking in low fixed interest rates on their loans. That would mean the typical student borrower would pay an additional $5,500 for their college loans, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The same Republican bill raises student loan interest rates. As a result, student borrowers will pay hundreds, even thousands, of dollars more for their loans. Meanwhile, President Bush has failed to live up to a campaign promise to raise the depressed value of the maximum Pell grant to $5,100. This was a promise he made during the campaign. This is the largest student grant program for low income students. He promised to raise it; but his 2005 budget would raise, instead, taxes on students, again, taking out college loans, forcing them to pay an additional $3.8 billion over the next 10 years. So he is making it more difficult for kids to pay for their college education after he promised that he would basically increase the value of Pell grants. Now let me talk about an issue that everybody is talking about. Again, I have to say that I hear more about health care costs and education than even gas prices, but obviously rising gas prices are a major issue. Since the start of the Bush administration, the cost of gas has increased 48 percent, a simple statistic. In recent months, gasoline prices have increased rapidly in my home State. Just last week, the state wide average price of a gallon of regular in New Jersey was $2. Compared to the prices at the beginning of the Bush administration, this represents an increase of 65 cents per gallon, a 48 percent increase. Last week, the House Republicans scheduled votes on a series of energy proposals they marketed as a response to higher gas prices. But why is it that none of the Republican bills address the consolidation of oil companies, something the U.S. Government Accounting Office has identified as one of the most significant factors affecting gas prices? You see, the top 10 oil refiners control 78 percent of our oil supply. That is 22 percent higher than a decade ago. Coincidentally, some of these companies have reported record profits in the first quarter of this year. If Republicans were really concerned about doing something about gas prices, they would have joined me and 52 of my Democratic colleagues in calling last week for an investigation to determine whether gas companies are purposefully inflating prices at the pump. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people deserve to know if these record profits are a result of a coordinated effort by the oil and gas companies to inflate prices. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say, I think it all comes down to this: Yes, the economy is beginning to create new jobs, but it is creating the wrong kinds of jobs. The jobs that are being created are lower paying and are less likely to offer health insurance. For those people that have health insurance, premiums and health care costs are skyrocketing. When you combine all that with rising education costs and gas prices, and take into account that the Bush administration and Congress have passed $1 trillion tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy and pursued a variety of policies that hurt workers and their families, together, all of these factors answer the question of why the American people are not feeling very positive about our economy. What Republicans cannot seem to realize is that when they talk about how the economy is improving, the American people know they are only being told half the story. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to spend the whole time, but I just wanted to go into four issues again, or four areas, where what is characterized, I use the term middle-class squeeze, and I know a number of my colleagues and some of the media commentators are talking about the problem in the same way, the so-called middle-class squeeze. I wanted to talk about four issues again in a little more detail where you can see this squeeze. One is paychecks; second is education; third is prices at the pump; and, lastly, is the debt burden, which I think ultimately is going to be the biggest problem that we face, not only as a government but also individuals and their households. I talked a little bit about paychecks and workers feeling the squeeze. Declining real wages are putting the squeeze on middle-class Americans. Meanwhile, tax policies, Republican tax policies, shower huge benefits on the wealthiest 5 percent of taxpayers, and corporate profits have soared. Middle-class Americans are noticing their paychecks do not stretch as far as they used to; and yet some economists in the Bush administration insist that the economy is recovering, leaving most Americans to wonder what has happened to the better wages that should have come with this so-called recovery. The short answer is that these wages have essentially, Mr. Speaker, gone to corporate profits, to CEO pay and to tax cuts that reward wealth and not work. In the last 3 months, average wages in the United States increased at an annual rate of just 2.2 percent, and the last two consecutive quarters have seen the slowest wage growth for any 6-month period on record. Meanwhile, over the last 3 months, the inflation rate was 3.9 percent. So if you think about it, that essentially means during the most recent stage of this so-called economic recovery that the Republicans boast about, most American workers actually took a pay cut. This pay cut has taken place amid continued gains in worker productivity. So the workers are being more productive. The amount that the workers produce in an hour, obviously, is productivity. If middle- class workers are performing so well and if their hard work is paying off and making the economy grow, then why are their wages falling? Middle-class Americans are getting squeezed by their employers and by government policies. Since March of 2001, corporate profits skyrocketed by 57.5 percent, while wages and salaries decreased by 1.7 percent. American companies raked in an enviable $1 trillion in profit in the last 3 months of 2003 alone; but even while profits soared, companies froze pay. Now, they were not freezing the pay for the top executives; they were freezing it for the little guy, for the middle-class worker. Again, these are the Republican policies. We have a Republican President; Republicans are in the majority in both Houses of Congress. What is essentially happening is the Republican policies are making matters worse, shifting the tax burden from wealth to work; taxes on wages now average almost 24 percent; taxes on income from investments like stocks and bonds average less than 10 percent. That is why the stock market is soaring. On top of that, President Bush's $1 trillion tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have helped to create a budget-busting record deficit of over $500 billion, which adds to the burden on middle-class families through future debt repayments, rising interest rates, and a scarcity of Federal funds to help alleviate rising college and health care costs. Now, I know that the debt issue is not one that a lot of people pay attention to; but, again, as I said, Mr. Speaker, I think ultimately that is going to cause the biggest problem for the middle class and this squeeze when this debt has to be paid off. I mentioned education before, and I want to talk about that again in the context of the so-called middle-class squeeze. Families are struggling to pay for the high-quality college education necessary to succeed in the 21st century. Between the weak national economy and shrinking State budgets, students and their families face rising college costs, while the Federal programs to help them are being undermined by Republican policies and the Bush policies here in Washington. The cost of college is skyrocketing, and families are paying the price. The U.S. Department of Education tells us that tuition at 4-year public colleges has increased by almost 30 percent by 2001. As tuition rises, student loan rates continue to soar. Again, the debt issue. Between 1997 and 2002, the typical undergraduate's debt rose 66 percent to $18,900, and more than one-quarter of today's 14 million undergraduate students will incur more than $25,000 in debt to earn a degree. Meanwhile, President Bush has failed to live up, as I said, to his promise to increase the Pell grants, and I talked about how his budget would raise taxes on students taking out college loans. I do not want to repeat that. But clearly, these Republican policies are failing to make college more affordable for middle-class families. Just as they pay for Bush's $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, middle-class families are finding they are being squeezed when it comes to a college education too. I talked before, Mr. Speaker, about prices at the pump; and now I would like to just elaborate a little bit on the middle-class squeeze as it relates to prices at the pump. I refer to it as the Bush gas tax. After 3 months of record-high gas prices, middle-class families are feeling squeezed by prices at the pump. Experts agree that high gas prices are the equivalent of a tax on consumers, wiping out any benefits of the Bush tax for middle-class families. That is why we call it the Bush gas tax. After 3 months of record-high gas prices across the country, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline is now $2.10, the highest average on record in dollar terms. Skyrocketing gas prices are a tax on middle- class families that are taking money out of their pockets each time they fill up at the pump. According to Fortune magazine, gas price increases since the beginning of the year have cost American consumers $55 billion, much more than the $15 billion to $20 billion middle-class consumers got from the Bush tax cuts this April. Already families are feeling the pinch, the middle-class squeeze. The summer driving season began a few weeks ago, but has not gotten to its highest pitch; that will be the next week or so over the July 4th weekend. A recent National Retail Federation survey found that nearly 20 percent of families with annual incomes below $50,000 reported that they had to cut back on grocery spending due to higher gas prices. Among families earning over $50,000 a year, more than one-quarter reported that they had to cut back on travel, and 15 percent spent less on clothing for their families. This is real. Gas prices go up, you do not buy as many groceries, you do not buy as many clothes, certainly you do not travel as much or go on vacation. Rising gas prices translated into the higher prices on consumer goods and services across the board, further squeezing family budgets by ratcheting up the costs of grocery, travel, and countless manufactured goods. When he was running for office, President Bush, then when he was running as a candidate, promised in 2000 to jawbone OPEC if elected President to keep oil prices down. But there is no evidence he has fought for lower oil prices, and it is clear he has no plan for lower gas prices. The Bush Republican energy bill, which is stalled in Congress, would only increase gas prices, according to the administration's estimates. The last thing I want to mention before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, is about the debt burden, because I think that ultimately this is the biggest problem that the middle-class faces and the biggest example of the squeeze. The debt burden is not only the debt that they incur themselves for their household, but also the debt that Republican policies here in Congress are incurring for the Nation, which ultimately have to be paid, primarily by the middle class, because they pay most of the taxes. Again, America is awash in debt. Typical household debt in 2003 equaled more than 105 percent of disposable income for the average family. That is incredible. I am going to repeat it. Typical household debt last year equaled more than 105 percent of disposable income for the average family. The government, as I said, has a debt problem too. President Bush's fiscal policies have racked up the largest budget deficit ever, putting an added debt tax on middle-class families. Keep in mind, that debt has to be paid back; and the average worker is paying it back, not the wealthy guy. With interest rates likely to rise, the debt will put an added squeeze on the middle class. Let me just talk about the various types of debt that we are facing. Housing debt, first of all. The ratio of debt to home equity is at a record high of 45.4 percent. According to the Center For Economic and Policy Research, it has typically been close to 30 percent. The ratio of debt payments and other financial obligations, like car lease payments and rent, to disposable income is at a record high of nearly one-third for renters. Ten years ago it was just under one quarter, according to the Center For Economic and Policy Research. Education debt, talked about that already, parents and students are also taking on an increasing level of debt to pay exploding costs since 2001. Then credit card debt, this is the biggest problem. Every month tens of thousands of unemployed workers are exhausting their unemployment benefits nationwide. Millions more work in jobs that do not pay enough to make ends meet or have not seen their earnings keep pace with inflation. Without a decent paycheck or unemployment assistance, many of these workers take on debt like credit cards to meet their basic needs. Today the average credit card debt among American households is $8,000. Credit cards help families cover the gap in earnings when a family person is out of work, but the slow wage growth and long term unemployment makes it difficult to payoff that debt. Essentially that credit card debt that the average person is taking on is the same thing that the Federal Government is doing when they go into debt. Republican policies are sending the Federal Government's own budget deficit into the stratosphere. The deficit is now estimated at $5.6 trillion over 10 years, which works out to $4,392 debt tax per family of four this year. That is how much they are paying, the average family of four is paying to the Federal Government in income taxes. It ends up being used just to pay off the Federal debt. In a particularly vicious circle the deficit will put pressure on interest rates making it even harder for American families to meet many of their debt obligations and, worse yet, future generations must pay for today's irresponsible fiscal policies. I know that a lot of people do not pay attention to it. But ultimately that is what is going to happen. Right now short term interest rates are low. Over the long term, because of the Federal deficit and the increase in the deficit that has been incurred by Republican policies, interest rates, long-term interest rates will go up. The majority of this is going to be paid back by middle-class households. So over the long term, the burden on the middle-class, the middle class squeeze from the Federal deficit becomes greater and greater with Republican fiscal policies. I am not going to get into it all, but obviously, the Democrats have been very critical of this. A few years ago, I remember coming down to the floor when I was first elected back in 1988 and most of the people that were getting up and talking about the problems of the Federal deficit were Republicans. I specifically remember that there were a group of Republicans that would come down every night in the late 1980s and early 1990s with a clock. The pages would bring out this clock on the floor of the House of Representatives. It practically ran the whole width of the platform here. It would show how the Federal deficit was going up. We finally put an end to that on a bipartisan basis frankly in the mid 1990s when we passed the Balanced Budget Act. But ever since President Bush came into office and the Republicans had the majority here, in the House and in the other body, collectively with the President, their fiscal policies have simply run up the debt again. I wish I could get some of those Republicans now to come down and talk about the Federal deficit. And maybe I will bring out that clock myself one night just to show how the Federal debt continues to rise. But, again, it is not the debt, per se, that bothers me, but the impact on the middle-class. The average American is going to have to pay back that debt. They are already being squeezed enough with the higher gas prices health care costs, education costs, without having to worry about the increased costs of the debt they are going to have to pay in the future generations. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.