Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support of this legislation.

There are many Members of this body that deserve my State's appreciation for bringing this long overdue bill to the floor, honoring a great American, a great Native American and a great Georgian, Tomochichi. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, and subcommittee ranking member, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) were both instrumental in helping this bill advance quickly to the floor. I thank them for their bipartisan support. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) should be credited with moving the legislation swiftly so that we can bring closure to a long overdue need in my State and in my district. I believe unanimous approval by this body to be of particular importance to the nature of this bill.

This bill renames the Federal courthouse in my district the Tomochichi United States Courthouse. A glance at who this leader was will indicate his accomplishments and quickly demonstrate why his name deserves the eternal respect of his fellow Georgians and Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I believe Chief Tomochichi, the Mico, or chief, of the Yamacraw nation to be the cofounder of my State of Georgia. This bill will do much to reawaken the memory of a great man in the hearts of both Georgians and all Americans for restoring our honor by recognizing his service to the beginnings of our great Nation.

The English general, James Oglethorpe, first launched Savannah on the Savannah River in 1733. He founded the British colony there and he met Tomochichi as he came up the bluff at what is now the city of Savannah. Unlike the tragic history of conflict between settlers and Native Americans in other colonies, Tomochichi brought lifelong friendship to the infant colony, granting the settlers permission to peacefully settle in the Savannah region. Among Savannahians, as has been pointed out, the hospitality that Tomochichi showed these young settlers is legendary. But Tomochichi's gifts to our State were just beginning.

Thanks to his diplomatic skills, this Yamacraw leader was instrumental in convincing the other Creek tribes in the immediate vicinity to accept the fledgling colony of Georgia. Without his political leadership, Georgia may well have perished in its infancy, with a hostile Spanish administration in what is now Florida, intent on turning Native Americans against English settlers.

Tomochichi and his family then traveled to England where they met with the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Upon his return to Georgia, Tomochichi successfully lobbied his new neighbors to establish the first missionary school among the Lower Creeks, recognizing that education was the key to the future as these two cultures became intertwined.

Tomochichi passed away at around 93 years of age on October 5, 1739, at what we used to call the Yamacraw Indian Village, just upstream from Savannah. But before he died, he requested that his body be buried in Savannah among his new friends. He was buried with full military honors in the largest public ceremony of the day, with cannons firing a final salute and his old friend General Oglethorpe serving as a pallbearer. His body was laid to rest in the center of the city's main square at the time, later to become Wright Square, with a traditional Indian burial mound atop his grave. A century and a half later in the 1880s, some shortsighted city officials allowed the mound to be removed and another statue placed on the site. Admirers of the great chieftain responded by placing an inscribed granite boulder in honor of Tomochichi a few feet from his remains, but to this day many believe that we owe our old friend much more.

Today this body can help restore the honor and respect due this great American by renaming the Federal courthouse in Savannah, Georgia, as the Tomochichi Federal Courthouse. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2523.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to add my thanks to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for bringing this significant and important concept to the American people. It is time we have a change. The IRS has been a burden on all of us for too many years, and the fair tax offers us an opportunity to right a wrong that is long overdue.

I think it is interesting, if we look back historically, that when our Founding Fathers first developed the Constitution, an income tax was illegal. It was barred. It was not even accepted. It was universally disdained, and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in the Constitution, article I, section 9, said, ``No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.''

In 1787 they said no income tax. What happened? What happened?

Well, it appears that later on in the 1894 time frame, Congress came along and decided that they were going to tax income. They were going to suggest that we needed to generate some revenue and that we were going to unfortunately have to address this issue with an income tax; and Mr. Speaker, the income tax was a whopping 2 percent, 2 percent, flat tax. Two percent on incomes over $4,000, $4,000.

Absolutely. So what we are going to do is tax only those people who make over $4,000, a king's ransom at that time, and unfortunately, at least for the Congress, they were trying to use the existing Constitution. Because of its vagueness, the Supreme Court overturned it, said an income tax is unconstitutional. That led to the constitutional amendment in 1909 that fundamentally changed our tax system that we now struggle with today.

So I think it is interesting that if we went back to our Founding Fathers, they recognized the dangers of an income tax, and here we are in 2004 trying to say America, wake up. It is time.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for this visionary approach and the work that he has done in this environment, but we have talked about criminals and tax cheats and illegals who have an underground economy. Help the American people understand the challenge that we face just in that underground economy. Help them understand the numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the American people to understand that our current tax system does not provide all of those in our Nation the opportunity to contribute to our society; and the fair tax, a consumption-based tax, does just that. We all participate in a fair and equitable manner.

One of the biggest areas of concern is in the area of health care and in the need to support Medicare and our Social Security retirement system and all of the things that are an essential part of what we are as America; but this fair tax, this tax would eliminate an income tax, Social Security tax, all Federal withholding taxes, is that correct?

One hundred percent of your gross income would be your net.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think he is 100 percent right. One of the biggest challenges we face is the uninsured and the working uninsured, those individuals who would like insurance but, unfortunately, their incomes are taxed before they have the opportunity to buy the insurance. And if they are fortunate enough to have insurance coverage through an employer, there are certain incentives for the employer then to not be taxed on the contribution they make to their employees' insurance coverage.

When we look at the current system, the current income tax system we have, I understand we are talking a 22 percent increase in the cost of everything we produce; is that correct?

That is what we are currently paying for. So that means that Mexico and Brazil and the European Union and even Red China have a 22 percent advantage.

An advantage over everything we produce.

It is about fairness. It is about a fair, competitive, global environment. And right now the current income tax system is putting us at a severe disadvantage. The fair tax would relieve that, make that playing field more level, and more reasonable on an ongoing basis.

I am always amazed at the simplicity and the obviousness of a fair tax, a tax based on consumption. And again I will go back to our Founding Fathers and point out that they saw this even then. Even in the late 1700s, they recognized that taxing income was the wrong thing to do; that we need as a Nation to incentivize development and progress and investment and opportunity. Unfortunately, our current tax system does not provide those incentives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for his leadership. I would like to thank him for his determination in ensuring that this message is brought to the American people and to this Congress. It is time we had a full debate. It is time that we had a full vetting of this issue, full discussions, and ultimately a vote in this body and certainly in the body across the way in the Senate. But, ultimately, the American people will benefit if they will understand the opportunities given within this fair tax proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the legislation of my friend and colleague Congressman John Linder of Georgia, the Fair Tax Act.

As this bill would enact a major and historic change in our system of federal taxation--one which would significantly alter the functioning of our economy--I think it important to review how we got to the system of income tax that we have today.

The founders of this country barred the federal government from enacting income taxes in the Constitution proper.

``No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.''--U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (1787).

We need to consider the full implication of the importance of this ban being placed where it was in our Constitution.

All of the liberties outlined in our famous Bill of Rights--the right of free speech, worship, the right to bear arms, the right against unreasonable search and seizure--all were added to the Constitution after-the-fact, as Amendments.

Many of the founders felt that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, as the Constitution didn't give the federal government the power to control the mentioned liberties to start with.

The primary authors were legal and policy purists. They thought it would be redundant and confusing to add Amendments barring the federal government from doing what it had no legal authority to do.

They also sensed more than a little danger to their liberties by doing so, since whatever freedoms and protections were not specifically addressed might be considered up for grabs by future power-hungry bureaucrats.

Without going on for hours concerning the original debate over the Bill of Rights, I believe most historians will agree on the essence of the discussion.

The winning side argued that if the provisions really weren't necessary, then it wouldn't hurt to add them, just to reinforce the fact that the federal government had no power to tamper with these rights.

The point of bringing this up is that the Founders of our nation, those who devised our entire system of government, actually argued with great passion over whether to pass the revered Bill of Rights, which are now copied and emulated worldwide as detailing the basic rights of mankind.

Yet these same founders had no such question over an income tax.

They were so fundamentally opposed to the concept it was banned by universal agreement, specifically, in the First Article of the Constitution itself.

Did our Founders view the income tax as a greater threat to liberty than the lack of a Bill of Rights? I believe they did, and that's why we find that ban in our original Constitution.

The governmental powers necessary to enforce an income tax, and the individual rights and freedoms implied and detailed in our Constitution, simply cannot logically co-exist.

The Constitution gave no power to the government to conduct unreasonable search and seizure, but that power would have been implied as a necessary enforcement tool to collect an income tax. The only way income taxes can be enforced is through opening every home in America to search both physically and electronically.

The Constitution gave no power to the government to force people to be a witness against themselves. But that power would have been implied as a necessary enforcement tool to collect an income tax. Every American would have to be required to file potentially incriminating documents to prove their income.

Further, a tax on income threatened to turn Americans against each other, and ultimately destroy our free-market economy, and all our liberties in the process.

All those with smaller incomes could be tempted to use their democratic vote to simply seize the incomes of anyone with more money than themselves. In short order there would be no financial incentive for anyone to seek to create new wealth, and our economy would be identical to the former Soviet Union's--poverty for all.

In addition, there would be no natural check on excessively high and confiscatory tax rates.

Many of the founders, who were strong advocates of the principles of Natural Law, felt that all governmental systems should have natural restraints built into their structure.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 22 in 1787:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of

consumption that they contain in their own nature a security

against excess. . . .

If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the

collection is eluded; and the product to the Treasury is not

so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate

bounds.

If we fund our government with taxes paid equally by all, every American is infinitely aware of tax increases and high rates.

They have within their individual power the ability to legally avoid or lessen those taxes by spending as little as possible.

That's precisely why unfortunately a big-spending peacetime Congress in 1894 tried to adopt an income tax as a way to raise taxes, without the majority of the voters feeling it.

They came up with a two percent flat tax on incomes over $4,000, which was a very large income at the time, and argued that the restriction in the Constitution was sufficiently vague to allow their pernicious scheme to survive.

Within a year, the Supreme Court held income tax unconstitutional as an unapportioned direct tax.

But the spending appetite of an industrial-age Congress could not be whetted by the wisdom of the founders. In one of the few cases in history of Congress rising to overturn a Supreme Court decision, Congress passed an Amendment in 1909 to reverse the foundational decision of Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.

By 1913, a sufficient number of states having been persuaded that this new tax would only affect a tiny percentage of Americans with extreme wealth--and not their voters--had brought the sixteenth amendment into law, and removed all limitations on the imposition of federal income taxes.

``The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.''-- 16th Amendment to the Constitution as passed by Congress in 1909, and ratified by the states in 1913.

Congress immediately passed a federal income tax with low rates that affected only a few people with very high incomes. In the early days, it was considered a status symbol to have to pay income tax, as only the wealthiest had to pay.

But over time, the rates changed to shift the burden increasingly to lower income Americans, to a point in recent years in which people at the lowest incomes still pay high federal taxes, and the middle class shouldered the largest share of out-of-control federal spending.

We reversed a little of that with the tax cuts this Congress has enacted since 1994, but not nearly enough. In fact, just as the founders envisioned, it has become increasingly difficult to enact any significant reform, as the cry immediately arises, ``tax breaks for the rich.''

This evil system has indeed pitted American against American.

But it has done far more damage than even the moral decay based on economic envy envisioned by our founders.

It is now undermining our health care system, our manufacturing base, even our ability to feed and clothe our families.

It is allowing criminals, tax cheats, and illegal immigrants to live tax-free lives of opulence, while middle-income, two-wage earner families, no longer can save for their children's college or their own retirement.

And it has created a federal agency--the Internal Revenue Service-- that far too often has shown sniveling contempt for the basic natural rights of mankind, when dealing with their fellow Americans.

We have created an income tax system which adds 22 percent to the cost of every thing we make in this country--a whopping 22 percent advantage in international trade for Mexico, Brazil, Europe, and most notably, Red China. Dump this tax, and our sorely-pressed manufacturing and agribusiness sectors can once again start competing on a semi-level field.

Illegal immigrants enter our country, earn cash, and pay no taxes, as they report to no one, leaving law-abiding native-born citizens and legal immigrants to pick up their tab.

Drug dealers and pimps earn fortunes tax-free, leaving single-parent working class homes to pay their share of our federal tax burden.

The very wealthiest Americans, and the wealthiest corporations--a legal entity which did not even exist during our Founder's Day--can and do avoid paying any federal taxes through the system of credits and write-offs created over the decades since 1913, as incentives for any number of things former Congress's at one time or another wished to encourage.

Nowhere have those income tax incentives wreaked more havoc than in health care.

Corporate America is given a free tax ride on everything they spend on health insurance, while the waitress making $25,000 and having to buy her own policy is taxed on her premiums.

As a matter of fact, she's taxed on what she spends directly on health care, up to seven-and-a-half percent of her income, while the corporate executive making $100 million a year gets his top-of-the- line, zero deductible health insurance benefits tax-free.

All while the tax-subsidized health insurance industry subsidizes the spiraling cost of health care, driving more and more middle-income Americans into the ranks of the uninsured, with second rate care at best.

We inherited this system of travesty and tragedy. We should remember how it came about--by a foolish Congress overriding the foundational principles laid down at our Nation's birth.

That foundation was built of the carefully constructed tenets of republican democracy, designed to overcome the historical failure of previous systems of direct democracy.

Every other attempt down through history came unraveled once the populace learned they could vote themselves largesse at the expense of others.

Our founders protected us against that evil, with one of the only direct restrictions in our Constitution.

The Congress of 1909, a Congress of a new century, faced conditions they believed outdated the quaint freedoms held in such high regard by the first Congress. So they robbed us of that political inheritance.

We are a Congress of a new century as well, and I believe our great challenge is the restoration of the individual freedoms and protections of our Constitution, in the face of new and challenging national and global economic conditions.

Freedom and fairness is never outdated. Surely, economic conditions and needs change from one generation to the next.

But I believe it is the duty of this body to faithfully and accurately translate the historic freedoms of this Nation into the economic language of the day--not to cast aside the very principles to which we owe our national wealth.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Linder's bill restores the freedoms that have lain trampled and forgotten for nearly a century.

It will provide the economic seed for a rebirth of American manufacturing, farming, health care, and fairness.

It will begin the healing process from the injury and division sown in the past by pitting Americans against each other, resulting in devastating economic damage among those with the least.

Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves consideration at every committee level, and it deserves a fair vote in this body and the Senate. I urge my fellow Members to support that consideration, and support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed. I am disturbed by the Democrats who would suggest that this war in Iraq is unwinnable. I reject that premise. Nothing could be further from the truth. We must continue to fight terrorism wherever it exists in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the security of our Nation depends upon stabilizing Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and bringing peace and freedom to that region of the world. It is time to stand up for America. It is time to stand firm for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, we are blessed to live in the greatest Nation on Earth.

God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my appreciation to the teachers of America. As we celebrate National Teacher Appreciation Week, it is important that we recognize the good people of this Nation who hold the keys to our future and the future of our children, the unselfish, dedicated teachers who spend their days taking care of America's future.

Our teachers help our children in many ways. They are leaders. They are inspirations that provide students with the foundation that they take with them for a lifetime, and they learn to believe in themselves. When we succeed, they are guiding us to our next great accomplishments. When we fail, they are the understanding hearts that lift us back up. Teachers are truly noble professionals.

In 1944, Mattye Whyte Woodridge, an Arkansas teacher, began corresponding with political educational leaders about establishing a national observance to honor members of the teaching profession. This effort came to fruition when Congress proclaimed National Teacher Day in 1953.

I encourage those with children in school to offer their support and their thanks for the work done by our children's teachers. As a former educator, I know that your appreciation for their efforts will be most welcome.

I want to express my gratitude and thanks to the teachers who helped me many years ago. Inez Grovenstein, who got me through first grade; Mary Brunson, who guided me through fifth grade after I lost my mother tragically at the age of 10; and Mary Catherine Counts, who solved the mysteries of high school math too many years ago.

These are teachers much like teachers around our Nation who have made a lasting impression on the minds of young America and whose lessons I greatly appreciate.

Mr. Speaker, there are still Members in this body that do not understand what marriage penalty relief is about. They only understand tax and spending increases, for any reason regardless of whether any particular tax may be unfair or inefficient or damaging to our economy or destructive to our Nation's families and their moral fiber.

Let us take a quick look. Marriage penalty relief is not about how much is paid, but it is about how it is paid. There is absolutely no reason that any married man and woman in this country should pay more in taxes than similar individuals who are not married. A wife and a husband that make minimum wage should not pay a nickel more in tax than two unmarried people making minimum wage. A husband and wife making $1 million a year should not pay a nickel more in tax than two unmarried people making $1 million a year.

Americans of both parties were united behind this concept. Leave it to our liberal opponents to seek a way to destroy national consensus and attempt to convince Americans that inequality is not only acceptable but it is justified as long as it is against someone else and, in this case, married couples. If those who oppose eliminating the marriage penalty want to raise taxes on families, be honest. Come forward with a bill to raise the tax rate on middle and upper income households. We will have that debate and vote. But any proposal must ensure that all taxes paid by Americans are paid equally, instead of once again penalizing good citizens for being married.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this substitute and support the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

This amendment is about financial accountability, projects that are funded by our tolling. Tolling can be an effective method of financing critical road improvements, but it must be done fairly. Tolling should be reasonable. They should not be allowed to go on indefinitely as a tax on road users.

This amendment allows tolls on only new, voluntary-use lanes, and ensures that revenues are dedicated specifically to new highway capacity. It will reduce construction times and cut congestion in high- density areas.

I believe in giving States and local governments the maximum flexibility in dealing with traffic problems. This amendment provides that flexibility without sticking motorists with a permanent toll or travel tax.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for bringing this amendment. When Congress passed TEA 21, the folks in Georgia and the Nation breathed a sigh of relief. We all felt we were making progress toward receiving an equitable share of highway funding and the jobs that followed. The Congress at that time adopted a minimum guarantee of 90.5 percent of Federal fuel tax dollars. Unfortunately, this guarantee was applied to only about 93 percent of available funds, making our effective return somewhere between 84 and 87 percent. Not good, but we could live with it.

Unfortunately, it now appears that we are moving in the wrong direction. The current bill will drive the effective minimum rate down substantially because the rate of return is 90.5 percent, but it only applies to about 84 percent of highway dollars. Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable. I represent one of the most neglected States and districts in the country. We must have a reasonable return on the taxes that we pay in motor fuel tax dollars.

I commend Chairman Young for working with us to achieve fairness and equity. I am sure that he will in conference continue to support fairness; but with all due respect, we cannot regress. I urge that you all vote for transportation fairness and the Isakson amendment.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, one of the world's most brutal dictators still sat on his throne and boasted that he would defy the world with impunity, protected by massive armies, and threatened terror through weapons of mass destruction. We sent brave young men and women into harm's way to contest that point.

Where it is appropriate, we pause today and review the progress we made, not against the monstrosity and Saddam Hussein's regime but the total war on terror. Our troops have registered a string of unbroken victories. They have won every battle and every campaign. They have destroyed the staging areas and the hiding holes of those who attacked this Nation on September 11, 2001, and they have helped to restore the security of their fellow Americans.

They have driven the Taliban from control of Afghanistan and are restoring the government of that country to its people. They have destroyed the Iraqi war machine and captured Saddam Hussein and are restoring the government of that country to its people. They have liberated a nation that has endured the darkness of tyranny and brutality ever since Saddam's Baath party seized control of that unfortunate nation some three decades ago.

Coalition soldiers have purchased with their blood, their sweat, and their tears, the best and brightest chance for freedom and democracy that this Nation and these nations in the Middle

East have ever known. These men and women are not just troops, they are my neighbors. They are my friends. They are my constituents. They are fellow Georgians. They are heroes to all Americans.

For the Congressional Record and for posterity, the soldiers of Georgia's 12th District that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan thus far include the first of the 214th Field Artillery from Athens and Waynesboro, Georgia; the 878th Engineering Battalion from Augusta; the 513th Military Intelligence Brigade, Fort Gordon; the U.S. Army Signal School, Fort Gordon; the Eisenhower Army Regional Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia; the 3rd, and the proud, Infantry Division from Fort Stewart, Georgia, did a marvelous job in campaign Iraqi Freedom; the 75th Engineer Detachment from Fort Stewart; the 165th Air Control Wing from Savannah, Georgia; the 117th Air Control Squadron from Savannah; the 165th Security Police Squadron from Savannah; the Air Combat Readiness Training Center from Savannah; and the first of the 75th Ranger Regiment, Rangers lead the way, from Hunter Army Airfield, Savannah, Georgia.

``Walk softly and carry a big stick,'' that is what Republican President Theodore Roosevelt said. These soldiers not only carried the stick for their countrymen, but they have swung it powerfully to convince the world that ours is not an idle threat, and because of that, we have won another victory.

We have eliminated a decades-long threat of Libyan terrorism, without a single shot being fired or a boot on the ground.

Once the dictator of that nation witnessed the professionalism and the resolution of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he capitulated to the world community. That speaks volumes to the power of the American will in bringing peace and conciliation around the globe without having to go to war.

If those who threaten peace and freedom are convinced that we really mean business in defending it, they will back down. But make no mistake, they will test us. They have been doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan with pointless attacks on our troops and our allies. And if they sense a weakening of our will, they will attack with even more frequency and ferociousness. If they sense a weakness, sacrifices and the victories that we have won honorably in battle by our troops will be lost dishonorably by politically motivated criticism of our war efforts.

Not only will those who speak such words undermine and jeopardize our troops; they will likely invite terrorist attacks on our homeland. We need only look at the example of Spain to realize this is not mere conjecture.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House has a mission in this war. Our mission is much more simple and more safe than that of the brave men and women who currently serve our country. We only have to show the world and our terrorist enemies that we are rock solid and that we will see this war through to final victory. We need to make sure our words of debate, both in this body and on the campaign trail, are chosen carefully to avoid even a hint of providing encouragement and aid to our declared enemies.

Our ammunition consists of words, but rest assured they are powerful weapons that can support our troops or those of the enemy. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let us commit today that every word spoken by us in this body and across the Nation will be in support of the American troops and not those of al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for America's veterans and all military personnel, especially those veterans who live in rural locations throughout the United States.

The 108th Congress is committed to America's veterans. We are providing record funding for veterans programs, including improvements in our veterans health care system.

These funding measures are allowing the Veterans Administration to open community-based outpatient clinics in many areas of our country. A new community-based outpatient clinic is planned for Athens, Georgia, located in Georgia's 12th District. This clinic will provide many needed medical services to groups of proud veterans in Athens and surrounding areas.

We need to ensure that these outpatient clinics are adequately funded and staffed. We need to encourage the establishment of additional clinics in rural areas where they can be beneficial to our population of veterans.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress is committed to those who currently defend this Nation and to those who have served her in the past.

Mr. Speaker, No Child Left Behind was an Act passed overwhelmingly by a bipartisan majority in the Congress in 2001. It was signed into law by President Bush in January of 2002. While I was not here to vote for this bill, I am a supporter of the goals that this legislation is designed to achieve.

Interestingly, some of those who voted for final passage of the No Child Left Behind bill in the House and for the conference report now have proposed legislation to drastically alter this legislation, and some organizations say that it needs significant modification. What is wrong? What is wrong with asking for higher achievement in our schools? Why should we not provide more information for parents about their child's achievement?

I would like to highlight several facts about the No Child Left Behind legislation. First of all, No Child Left Behind supports learning in the early years, thereby preventing many learning difficulties that arise later.

Children who enter school with language skills and prereading skills are more likely to read well in the early grades and succeed in latter years. In fact, research shows that most reading problems faced by adolescents and adults are the result of problems that could have been prevented through good instruction in early childhood years. No Child Left Behind targets resources for early childhood education so that all youngsters get off to the right start.

Secondly, No Child Left Behind provides more information for parents about their children's achievement.

Under the No Child Left Behind legislation, each State must measure every public school student's achievement in reading and math in grades 3 through 8, and then at least once during grades 10 through 12. By the school year 2007 and 2008, State assessments in science will also be underway. It is important to note that these achievements are based on State academic content and achievement standards. Each State defines its own standards and each State determines what test it will use to measure student achievement.

The third thing I think is important is No Child Left Behind provides parents and taxpayers with important information about the performance of local schools.

No Child Left Behind requires that State and school districts give parents an easy-to-read, detailed report card on schools and school districts, telling them which ones are succeeding and why. Included in the report card are student achievement data broken out by race, by ethnicity, by gender, by English language proficiency, migrant status, disability status, and low-income status, as well as important information about the professional qualifications of our teachers.

With these provisions, No Child Left Behind ensures that parents have important timely information about the schools their children attend, whether they are performing well or not, for all children, regardless of their background.

Fourth, No Child Left Behind gives children and parents a lifeline.

In this new era of education, children are no longer trapped in low- performing schools. Under No Child Left Behind, schools must use Federal funds to make needed improvements. In the event of a school's continued poor performance, parents have an option. They have the option that ensures their child receives the high quality education to which they are entitled. That might mean that a child would transfer to a higher-performing school in an area, or it may mean they may receive supplemental educational services in their community, such as tutoring, after-school programs or remedial classes.

No Child Left Behind improves teaching and learning by providing better information to parents, to teachers, to principals, and to the community.

Annual tests to measure children's achievement provide school officials with independent information about each child's strengths and weaknesses. Teachers, principals, and superintendents across the country are using the data from state assessments to make more effective decisions for students, schools, and districts.

Districts can use information provided from state assessments to determine needs and target resources.

Principals can use information from state assessments to determine the appropriate professional development needs of teachers and to help meet the needs of all subgroups of students.

Teachers can use information from assessments to inform classroom decisions and provide the best possible instruction to ensure that all students are learning.

No Child Left Behind ensures that teacher quality is a high priority. Because of the proven correlation between teacher quality and student academic achievement, No Child Left Behind includes provisions stating that all teachers of core academic areas must be ``highly qualified'' by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Each state is responsible for developing its own definition of ``highly qualified'' and each state has the flexibility to develop its own system to measure teacher qualifications. States are also encouraged to be innovative in finding ways to improve teacher quality, including alternative certification, merit pay, and bonuses for teachers in high-need subject areas like math and science.

No Child Left Behind focuses on what works. No Child Left Behind puts a special emphasis on implementing educational programs and practices that have been clearly demonstrated to be effective through rigorous scientific research. Federal funding is now targeted to support such programs.

For example, the Reading First program makes federal funds available to help reading teachers in the early grades strengthen old skills and gain new ones in instructional techniques that scientifically based research has shown to be effective.

No Child Left Behind provides state and local leaders with unprecedented flexibility as they implement the law. The foundation of No Child Left Behind is a system of state standards and state assessments to ensure accountability. Each state sets its own standards and each state determines what assessment it will use to measure student achievement.

To provide state and local school districts with as much flexibility as possible, No Child Left Behind provides the ability to transfer up to 50 percent of the funding they receive for Teacher Quality, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools, to any one of these programs or to Title I. This ability to transfer federal funds among certain accounts is new under No Child Left Behind and no ``permission'' is required before transferring funds.

States and local school districts also have the opportunity to apply for demonstration projects providing even more flexibility in how federal resources are used.

Additionally, recent policies announced by the U.S. Department of Education are providing states and local school districts with even more flexibility as they meet the academic needs of students with disabilities and English language learners.

I'm pleased that my home state of Georgia is responsive to such concerns as AYP. The state Department of Education meets weekly to deal with challenges and suggestions on implementation. Tips and strategies are sent out on a monthly basis to help school systems improve with regard to AYP.

No Child Left Behind provides more resources to our schools.

Because reforms implemented by No Child Left Behind, President Bush and the Congress are now investing more in education than at any point in history. In fiscal year 2001, the Federal Government provided $17.4 billion for programs that now constitute No Child Left Behind. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation was signed into law by President Clinton. In January of 2002, President Bush signed the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act, which reformed many of the Federal Government's educational programs, consolidated several programs to make them more efficient, provided new flexibility for

State and local leaders to shift funds between different programs, and to strengthen accountability systems to ensure that taxpayers' money helps increase the achievement of all students.

After signing the No Child Left Behind reforms into law, President Bush approved the funding for Fiscal Year 2002 and dramatically increased the federal government's investment in education.

While the funding level in Fiscal Year 2001 was $17.4 billion (see chart):

Funding for No Child Left Behind programs in Fiscal Year 2002 was $22 billion.

In Fiscal Year 2003, funding rose to $23.6 billion.

In Fiscal Year 2004, funding increased to $24.3 billion.

For Fiscal Year 2005, President Bush has proposed another increase to $24.8 billion.

If President Bush's Fiscal Year 2005 budget is enacted, spending on No Child Left Behind programs will have increased 42.5 percent ($17.4 billion to $24.8 billion) since he took the oath of office. And even more importantly, those increased funds come with a renewed accountability for results.

These are reasons that we should stand behind the law: it provides flexibility, funding, and school and child improvement. Another reason is a personal story.

Cathy Heizman, the Director of the Child Advocacy Center in Cincinnati explains the importance of schools being held accountable for the educational results of students with disabilities:

All the time (my adult daughter) Cara received special

education services, no one was held accountable for her

learning. She was in general education classes, but the

teachers weren't expected to teach her anything. The special

education staff, who were supposed to provide support

services, often just chose not to do what was on her IEP. As

long as Cara didn't cause trouble and she made it to class on

time, they were happy.

My daughter has a good life. She has a job, a steady

volunteer opportunity, friends and family who care about her.

But, I can't help but wonder what other chances she might

have had if someone had actually tried to teach her academics

while she was in school.

Now, [because of No Child Left Behind] we are all

accountable for every child's educational progress. The

percentage of students on IEPs who pass proficiency tests,

will be listed separately on district and building report

cards. The entire community will understand if the schools

have actually taught our kids what they need to know, what

all the other kids know. We'll finally have something to hold

on to. We will be able to hold someone responsible.

This is a time for all of us to work closely together to

make certain that we grab this opportunity to raise the

expectations for every child. This could be the last best

chance we get. If nothing changes, if our children don't

learn, if the schools don't perform, then it will all have

been for nothing. It is our obligation to make this moment in

time mean something.

Don't we all want what's best for our children? Don't we want to see our children excel with every opportunity given them?

It's our obligation to allow children a high quality education. And it's our responsibility to make sure that the No Child Left Behind law--which passed this chamber with a bipartisan vote of 381 to 41--is implemented fairly and appropriately not simply ``fixed'' because some organizations find it flawed. As a Congress, we're conducting that implementation oversight. I am pleased to see our Education and Workforce Committee hold oversight hearings on No Child Left Behind law and hope that it will continue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to support a good solid implementation of No Child Left Behind.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have had this debate before. We had it in subcommittee, we had it in committee, and the same rhetoric is here on the floor today. The opposition and the Woolsey amendment would roll back time and take us back prior to 1998 and prior to 1964. The underlying bill, H.R. 3030, preserves religious freedom and religious participation by faith-based organizations in community service.

Current law makes it clear that when faith-based organizations participate in Community Service Block Grants, they can indeed take religion into account in their hiring practices. They are not discriminating. Current law recognizes that faith-based organizations should not be asked to compromise their religious character as a condition of using Federal funds to help those who are in need.

Repealing the 1998 law would needlessly strip faith-based organizations of their rights, rights that have been guaranteed to them by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and this has been upheld consistently since then by the courts, most notably by the Supreme Court in Bowen v. Kendrick.

Community Service Block Grants allow faith-based groups to utilize Federal funds for secular purposes, feeding and clothing the needy, helping those out of work to find jobs, and they do so without compromising their essential character. The underlying legislation would continue to provide this opportunity for faith-based organizations.

Faith-based organizations have a fundamental right to their religious beliefs, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. The Federal Government, given its size and scope, would render their services meaningless if this protection was eliminated. We must continue to support the most needy, those in our country who have needs of education, of health, of food and shelter, and faith-based organizations in the 12th District of Georgia are capable of meeting this need.

I oppose the Woolsey amendment and urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, H.R. 3030.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support passage of H.R. 3181, the Predisaster Mitigation Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. This comprehensive bill, developed on a bipartisan basis, extends the predisaster mitigation program for an additional 3 years, makes two important changes to the Stafford Act, and requires a Congressional Budget Office study of the program's effectiveness.

This program, which was originally included in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, takes the next step in protecting our communities from the devastating effects of disasters. By encouraging communities to engage in cost-effective disaster mitigation projects before disasters strike, we can dramatically reduce the response and recovery cost of these disasters.

Unlike terrorism, natural disasters can and will strike every State and territory in the United States. From the ice storms that we suffer in my home State of Georgia to hurricanes that have even impacted Washington, D.C., every State and locality can prepare itself to reduce its risk from disasters. Whether it be seismic retrofits of buildings, safe rooms in schools, improved levees, or awareness programs, the actions that we take today will determine how we fare in a disaster. This program makes necessary funds available for such projects.

H.R. 3181 also makes two very important changes to the Stafford Act. These changes have been requested by professional organizations and have strong bipartisan support. H.R. 3181 restores to previously authorized levels the percentage of HMGP funds available following disasters and authorizes additional home repair assistance for individuals when the initial amount of $5,000 is insufficient. Each of these changes will make recovering from a disaster and preparing for disasters easier, thereby reducing future costs.

Finally, this bill requires a CBO study of the effectiveness of this program, a study which will guide future considerations for our efforts in the United States to ensure disaster relief.

I urge the adoption of H.R. 3181.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forest Initiatives. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). We think about the healthy forests, we think about our homes, the wildlife, the lives of the men and women who live near and certainly the forest, and we want to protect those.

In California, we saw the devastating fires of this year. I can think of no better way to ease the minds of those in the West than to pass the Healthy Forest Initiative.

In Georgia, we do not have the wildfires and the large forest fires that we see in the West, but we have pests, and we have disease. We have millions of acres that are at risk in Georgia due to the southern pine beetle and other insects. We have seen a 278 percent in increase in pine beetle infestation last year alone. This Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides the Federal land managers with great flexibility to deal with the fire dangers in the West, but it also provides them with the authority to do innovative things in detection

and suppression of pests that really threaten eastern forests.

Mr. Speaker, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a national solution to a national problem. I urge Congress to vote yes.

Mr. Speaker, it is a historic time. It is a historic time to be in Congress. We are at the brink of passing landmark legislation that is long overdue in our country. This week, just in a day or two or three, we are going to take up on this floor H.R. 1, the Medicare Reform Modernization Act, including a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. This is an important and historic vote that we have to come together now and complete the promise that we have made to America.

I committed to the 12th district of Georgia that I would preserve and protect and improve Medicare. H.R. 1 does that. I committed that I would work hard to ensure that our seniors receive a prescription drug benefit that will improve their quality of life, that will allow them to live full and complete lives that are free from pain and free from suffering. H.R. 1 will do that.

As my colleagues have both pointed out, for the first time in the history of Medicare, we will begin to shift from treatment from acute care to prevention to utilizing those drugs, the wonder drugs that we have now in the 21st century to ensure that our seniors can live full lives.

It is a tragedy that in today's Medicare world someone with diabetes cannot receive the prescription of insulin which would prevent them from losing a limb or having to be subjected to painful dialysis. It is a tragedy that under today's Medicare those with heart conditions cannot receive the medications they deserve, but yet have to be patients for bypass surgery or other invasive practices. This bill provides our seniors with the coverage that they need to ensure their future.

There are many provisions in the bill that are positive for America's seniors. It is a bipartisan bill. It is a conference report that has come through the fire. This House acted originally on our version, the Senate on theirs; and now we come together. I think if you look at the contents of this bill, the naysayers will sit there and pick it apart; but if you look at the total package, it is good for America. Medicine has changed dramatically since 1965. It is time for Medicare to change so that it can provide the medical services to our seniors.

The things that I want to point out in this bill relate to the fact that our low-income seniors who have the greatest need receive the greatest benefit. These individuals will no longer have to choose between their prescription drugs and food or utilities or roof over their head. They will be given essentially 100 percent coverage, and that ensures that they will live full and complete lives. So those at the low-income levels of our society will benefit the most. Those who have tremendous medical needs, prescription drug needs, catastrophic drug costs they will also receive significant support. I think if you look at this bill, those two areas alone suggest we need to deliver the prescription Medicare bill for our seniors.

Implementation is critical. And I appreciate the discount card that is going to be available in April of 2004. And I certainly appreciate the fact that our low-income seniors will receive immediately $600 worth of prescription drug assistance per year. And then in 2006, the full prescription drug plan will be available.

I come from a district, the 12th in Georgia, with many rural hospitals. This bill is a strong statement in support of rural hospitals. It extends the standardized base payment rate for our rural hospitals. For all of those hospitals in cities of less than a million, it ensures that they immediately get an increase in the disproportionate share payments that they are entitled to. And I think if you look at the rural health care component in this bill, you find that it is second to none that has ever been a part of our Congress.

Another very significant component of this bill that I think too many people overlook, there is a fear that for some reason employers would abandon their retirees. Just 2 days ago, we had a press conference here in the Capitol where we met with the employer coalition representatives of over 60 U.S. companies that have worked hand in hand with the Congress to be able to ensure that these companies will not abandon their retiree health plans but would stay in the game, that would continue to provide the medical coverage for retirees, the prescription drug coverage for retirees that their retirees have earned through a lifetime of service.

So if we look at the employer coalition over 60 companies and their commitment to their employees and their commitment to their retirees and their willingness to work with Congress, H.R. 1 provides the incentive for these employers to stay in the game.

Certainly I had an opportunity in the summer and early fall to meet with representatives of the AARP, American Association of Retired Persons. Again, I am a member. My wife is a member, and I met with them in the 12th district, and I was talking with them and we were comparing the House and Senate version of the bill, and we were talking about the changes we needed to make and the compromises and the coming together; and I committed to them that when this bill came out of conference that it would be a bill that they could support and that together the Congress and AARP would work for the passage of this bill, and indeed, that is what has happened. I am glad and proud of the fact that we were able to work effectively with AARP to ensure that seniors in America receive the health care coverage that they deserve.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the most significant component of

this bill and that is a choice, a choice. If a senior is happy with their current Medicare, they can continue receiving that benefit as it currently exists. If they would like a drug benefit coverage with that, they are welcome to accept that benefit, but they are not required to do so. It is their choice. If they choose to take Medicare advantage where they receive screening, where they receive supportive preventive care, that is the individual Medicare recipient's choice. We have preserved Medicare, Mr. Speaker. We have protected Medicare, Mr. Speaker. We have enhanced Medicare, Mr. Speaker.

If my good colleague and friend from Georgia would be willing, I would like to maybe pose a question or two and get his input on this bill, if he is willing to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that the gentleman can help the Nation understand, as a physician, how do you compare the current physician reimbursement policies under Medicare with the proposals that are in this new modernization act?

That is a large swing. We are talking a 10 percent, 11 percent swing over the next 2 years.

I think one of the things we need to understand is that our physicians need to be willing to accept new Medicare patients, and we need to make sure that health care is available as well as access to help our seniors, and H.R. 1 provides that capability.

The gentleman was a part of the employer coalition conference when we talked about the employers being a part of this solution. What was your impression and what incentives do you see for employers to stay engaged, to continue to provide their retirees with the benefits that were really committed to them while they were working for their organizations?

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that we need to keep our employers in the game. We need to keep them involved in supporting their retirees, and certainly this provision in H.R. 1 does that.

The last question deals with our low-income seniors and really all seniors. What does my colleague see as the level of health care that they will receive under H.R. 1, this modernization act, compared to traditional Medicare that has been around some 40-plus, almost 40 years now?

Mr. Speaker, I think if we look at this bill and we look at all aspects of the bill, it is a good bill. Never let the perfect get in the way of the good. This is a solid bill that needs to be passed in Congress.

I think one of the components of the bill that my good friend and colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) pointed out was the health savings account. What a revolutionary opportunity for Americans and for families to support tax free the health care costs, their own and then perhaps their parents; and if I look at that single provision alone, it is a tremendous advantage to America.

I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for his leadership. I am delighted to have the opportunity to serve in Congress with two physicians in our freshman class who understand health care and who understand the challenges of our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, as this conference report comes to the floor later this week, I think it is time for action. It is time for us to stand up for America and to stand up for America's seniors, to pass this bill and to ensure that our seniors receive the Medicare coverage they deserve, the prescription benefits that they deserve and need desperately but also preserve this system for my children and my grandchildren and for America.

Mr. Speaker, we are quickly approaching a season known for giving thanks and goodwill. Next week is Thanksgiving. Far too often, we fail to recognize those who work year-round to improve the lives of the less fortunate.

This Friday, the Golden Harvest Food Bank in Augusta, Georgia, will celebrate the successful conclusion of its $2 million ``Feed the People'' capital campaign. Through business and community generosity, Golden Harvest Food Bank will be able to reach nearly 71,000 families every year in its 25-county service area in both Georgia and South Carolina.

In this Nation of abundance, some still go without the basics that others of us take for granted. I am thankful that we have individuals who give time, service, and donations to see that these basic needs are met.

Mr. Speaker, in this time of giving thanks, let us remember those who worked tirelessly throughout the year to help the less fortunate.