Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 22, 2007, I was detained in my district due to a family emergency and was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor for H.R. 698 (Roll No. 384) and H.R. 1425 (Roll No. 385). Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both measures.

If the gentleman will yield, I am very, very glad my colleagues here tonight are taking time to try to explain what all the news has been about the last couple of weeks, and this is a very important template of trade that has been reached with the Democratic leadership here in Congress, with the Bush administration.

Let me congratulate both of you for the leadership you have shown on the Ways and Means Committee on this issue and so many other economic issues that affect all of our constituents across the country.

I also want to commend Chairman Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; and Sandy Levin, who is the chair of the Trade Subcommittee; and Speaker Pelosi for the negotiation and hard work that they put into this template of how we move forward on trade agreements in this country.

For the first time I believe that the values of this Nation are finally starting to be recognized and reflected as a basis of these trade agreements; the attempt to try to elevate standards upwards, rather than having a race to the bottom when it comes to trade relations, because so many of our constituents have felt for some time, and we have heard it in our own congressional district, that the trade agreements really don't speak to their needs, that they are competing on an uneven playing field in relation to the rest of the world.

That is really what this agreement was about, was trying to level the playing field, to try to elevate standards globally, not only influencing and recognizing the needs of our workers here in America, but trying to influence and recognize the needs of workers throughout the rest of the world by having basic principles as part of the trade agreement, core international labor standards as part of these trade agreements as we move forward, environmental protections, all on an even par of enforcement with other important provisions that are part of the trade agreement.

But let me also admit the sheer political fact, and that is there is very little political upside in supporting trade in Congress these days because it is so unpopular back home. I think because of that, because of the growth of globalization and the interrelationship that we have now in the world economy, very few workers feel that there has been a real upside to them.

That is what we are trying to accomplish in this trade agreement is a recognition that they, too, have a place at the table when this comes to trade; that they do have rights that need to be protected and assured; that we should be a Nation that stands up in opposition to the exploitation of child labor or slave labor; that other workers around the world, as they do in the United States, have the right to collectively bargain so they have better leverage in negotiating decent, fair working conditions and compensation for themselves and their families, wherever they may be living in this planet.

But, to me, trade has been more than just goods and products and services crossing borders, although that is what most people think about as trade. Trade is also an important tool in our diplomatic arsenal. It is also about how we, the United States, chooses to engage the rest of the world, whether it is a negative engagement or a positive engagement.

Nothing could be more positive than having a healthy trade relationship with rules in place that everyone has to live by. I happen to believe something that Cordell Hull, who was FDR's Secretary of State, said many, many years ago, and that is when goods and products cross borders, armies don't. There is so much conflict, and there are so many rivalries, and there is so much violence in this world today that trade, if used right, with the right rules of engagement, can be a positive experience not only for our own economic needs here in the United States, but also abroad. To me, that is what this agreement really speaks to is incorporating these types of values now as we move forward.

We have got a few trade agreements that we are trying to work on; Panama and Peru, for instance. Colombia and South Korea may need some more work in talking to a lot of our colleagues, but at least we are establishing what those rules need to look like. Now we can get down and haggle out the details as we do move forward.

We had a very important caucus meeting earlier today, the Democratic Caucus, talking about the provisions of this trade agreement.

What I heard in that caucus, and I am not going to speak on behalf of those who spoke, but there was a lot of pent-up frustration. For the last 6 years with one-party control, our

ideas, thoughts and values were excluded in terms of the template of trade agreements and what was in these bilateral regional trade agreements coming before Congress.

But also, as you just recognized, there is a big concern about the lack of enforcement of existing trade agreements and the likelihood of enforcement being done by this current administration in future trade agreements when they come before Congress asking for our ratification. That is a legitimate concern, a concern that I hear back home from a lot of my constituents as well.

Unless the administration wants to step up and start enforcing these trade agreement and say we entered into these trade agreements for a reason, and that is to uphold the terms of the agreements and make sure everyone is playing by the same rules, trade confidence in this country is going to continue to ebb, and it is going to get worse. I think that would be disastrous ultimately for our long-term national economic growth and for helping our workers and expanding economic opportunities both at home and abroad.

So there is a big question mark with the majority of the people in this Congress with regard to the administration's willingness to enforce these agreements.

I look forward to working with my colleague here who, I think, appreciates this. As we go forward with this new template, we also need to focus on capacity building in a lot of these nations that we are trying to enter into agreements with, countries like Panama and Peru that aren't exactly wealthy and have a lot of resources, but to enable them to establish the institutions so they can do a better job of policing labor standards or environmental standards within their own countries. I think there is a great need and calling for us to do that.

But, ultimately, there has to be a willingness on our part and the administration's to take these agreements seriously and to enforce them seriously.

We all hear it back home; when you see someone losing their job or a plant closing down, it is usually laid at the doorstep of one of two factors. Either it is bad trade or it is illegal immigration. It is obviously more complex than that, but we need to have a broader discussion within the context of trade, as well, in regard to worker empowerment so that when people do lose a job, they don't have to make a showing of trade relation in order to get any assistance from the government. When a factory closes, it does not matter to the family affected whether it is trade related or some other circumstance, because they feel the pain the same way.

We have to step up our efforts in education and worker training in this country so our workers have the skills to compete in a 21st century economy and so they can be full participants. We should also be talking more about portability of health care and pension and retirement security, so it is not necessarily tied to a single job or occupation; and when they lose it, they lose all of that, the whole fabric of supporting their family is destroyed overnight.

I think you are exactly right. I would submit that in a short while we will be engaged in a immigration reform debate in this Congress. But as long as we have a huge economic disparity right across our border and throughout the Western Hemisphere, really we will be battling the issue of people wanting to come to the United States to realize the hope and the promise of our country and a better way of life for themselves and their families.

Trade is a way to try to elevate people's standards upwards and create job opportunities across the globe. Or we will always be at the losing end of the immigration proposition because of what the United States has to offer and the temptation to enter this country either legally or illegally for a better way of life.

There are a lot of positive features to trade, but the congressional district I represent, western Wisconsin, is still heavily manufacturing, a lot of agriculture, and there's been a lot of displacement and a lot of jobs lost.

And I don't think any of us here on the floor tonight are promising that with this new template of trade that we're going to be able to guarantee everyone's job in this country. You just can't do it. In fact, each generation of Americans have had to wrestle with their own transition and economic displacement that's occurred at that time period. Whether we're moving from the agrarian to the industrial age, from the industrial age to the information age, to the next new thing, there are going to be displacements.

As long as we can remain the most innovative and creative Nation in the world, which we've been able to sustain for some time, we're going to be able to make those adjustments probably a lot easier than other people around the globe.

I don't think anyone's here to offer this hope or promise that everyone's job is going to be guaranteed with this new template right now. We can't do that any more than we can shut down the information age or shut down the World Wide Web and the Internet. Now with the push of a button, we've got services crossing borders and collaborations being created that we've never

imagined before, and that's a large part of globalization today.

I think you're exactly right. One of the forces, quite frankly, that we are contending with in the United States, in this hemisphere, especially in South America, is a gentleman by the name of Chavez, the President of Venezuela, who's been fond of traveling around, spending his petrodollars all around, and delivering a very anti-American message.

I think one of the reasons that message is starting to resonate, much to our concern, is because a lot of the workers in those countries where he's visited have felt excluded and left out of trade agreements. What's in it for them? And finally, for the first time, with this agreement, we're starting to address our concern for their needs as well.

You're exactly right. We're less than 4 percent of the world population, and we can no sooner turn ourselves into a fortress of solitude and hope to maintain economic progress and opportunity in our own country.

But the Democrats in Congress haven't been dealing with trade in a vacuum. We've been promoting this innovation agenda for some time. We have had legislation on the floor to try to enhance further fields of study in those crucial fields of math, science, engineering, technology, those fields that will enable our students and workers to be innovative and creative and develop into high-paying jobs that we hope to see here in the United States.

We've been moving that legislation forward, working with our Senate counterparts. We're trying to increase research investment in the National Institutes of Health, for instance, so we can be at the cutting edge of medical and scientific breakthroughs. All this is interwoven into the economic agenda the Democrats have been standing for that the New Democratic Coalition has been a big part of in helping to formulate that agenda.

That's, I think, the direction we need, and I think the American people want to hear that type of message and see that type of agenda. Our concern is there's a lot of economic anxiety throughout the country, and they want to know what their role is going to be in this global marketplace. Perhaps more importantly, they want to know what kind of future their children have to look forward to.

The Democrats for the first time have been able to get legislation to the floor that speaks to those needs, that starts speaking to those anxieties. Will it solve all those problems? No, but I think it's the best hope that we have to make sure that our country is well positioned to stay competitive globally.

I also want to commend Jim McCrery, who is ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, and the Republican colleagues on Ways and Means who are also embracing this template to go forward on trade agreements. But as Chairman Rangel reminded all of us today in caucus, this new template doesn't commit any single member on future trade agreements. We will still have the opportunity to review them when the President formally submits them for our consideration. We will see if they are the best deal struck for our Nation and for our constituents' best interest.

I think now, with this agreement, the template is finally shaping up to where we can get wider bipartisan support. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done. We can't hold this out as the silver bullet to the challenges that our workers are experiencing day in and day out, but trade is going to be an important part of our economic equation, whether we like it or not, because of the effects of global warming and the ease of transporting goods and products, services, across borders, all that is breaking down.

The question is, whether we roll up in a fetal position and pretend it's not happening and try to pursue neo-isolationist policies, or whether we embrace this change and try to make the changes that we have to, to be in the best position to stay competitive.

That's really, I think, what the discussion will be about in the coming weeks when we start analyzing these trade agreements coming forward. I want to thank my colleagues for taking some time this evening to discuss a very important issue on the floor. Hopefully, we will have some more discussions in the future.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule and strong support of the reauthorization of the Improving Head Start Act of 2007.

As a former member of the Education and Workforce Committee over the last 10 years, I have been heavily involved in Head Start programs, the reauthorization process in previous Congresses, and had an opportunity to visit many of the Head Start centers throughout my congressional district throughout western Wisconsin. They are doing a terrific job not only helping our children, typically, who are very high-risk, high- need children, get off to literally a head start when it comes to their individual development and education, but also working very closely, as my friend from Indiana just highlighted previously, the close partnership with the parents of those children, which is crucial to the success of this program.

I want to commend the members of the committee for producing this product, in particular Chairman Miller and chairman of the subcommittee, Dale Kildee, along with Ranking Member Castle and Ranking Member Buck McKeon. I know a lot of them have collaborated and worked closely to produce this.

There are two features in particular that I want to highlight and commend. One is making sure we get the measurements of these kids done right. I led the effort in previous Congresses to see if we could suspend the National Reporting System. This was based on studies that the National Academy of Sciences had made asking us to slow down in this assessment and standard practice until they could develop what they feel are the proper forms of measurement for kids at this age, because if we get that wrong, they said, we could actually do more harm to the children with improper measurements and assessments than doing good.

I am glad to see that this legislation now recognizes that suspension of the National Reporting System gives the National Academy of Sciences a chance to report back with recommendations and guidelines on what proper measurements of these children should be.

The second feature is requiring programs to consult with child care health experts in developing proper nutrition and physical education programs for kids at this age.

In light of childhood obesity and type 2 juvenile diabetes, it's going to be important that we do everything we can to make sure that our kids are getting off to the right start when it comes to quality- of-life issues, make sure that they are not going to start smoking or taking drugs, but also taking the proper nutrition and involved in the proper physical activities to make sure that

they have healthy bodies to go along with the healthy minds that Head Start is meant to produce.

Those two provisions in particular I commend, and I encourage a strong bipartisan vote for this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide my strong support for H.R. 1905, The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. Ensuring that all citizens have the opportunity to participate in our democracy is a responsibility I take very seriously and H.R. 1905 is one legislative measure that seeks to achieve this objective.

We take pride as a Nation for the numerous freedoms extended to our citizens; however, the United States is the only democracy in the world that deprives the residents of its capital full voting representation in the legislature. For the past 200 years, District of Columbia residents have fulfilled their responsibility as citizens in countless ways such as serving in the military, paying federal taxes and serving on juries. Their rights should now be extended to

include having a voice in the United States Congress.

There is no place in our democracy for the 206-year-old injustice of ``taxation without representation'' for the over half a million District residents. With 82 percent of our Nation's citizens in support of expanding this fundamental right to vote to all citizens, the time is now to correct this injustice and restore democracy in our Nation's capital.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to capitalize on this opportunity to extend to District residents an entitlement cherished so deeply by citizens of the United States--the right to vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill that will finally move forward important construction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects along the Mississippi River, Great Lakes, and elsewhere. In particular, H.R. 1495 will authorize the corps of engineers' sustainability plan for the upper Mississippi River.

On the eve of Earth Day, founded by the great Senator from Wisconsin Gaylord Nelson, what better gift to the people of the upper Mississippi River basin than the largest ever investment in ecosystem restoration in the river's history? This bill will have a tremendous impact on water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreation in the upper Mississippi River region.

Reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act has been a long time coming, and it has seen some improvement over the years. The current bill, for instance, includes an important provision, that I included, requiring that construction and restoration projects on the upper Mississippi achieve equal progress so that construction and navigation improvements do not degrade the river ecosystem. The WRDA bill of 1986 established the upper Mississippi River system as the only waterbody in the Nation recognized by Congress as both a ``nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system,'' so it is important that the needs of these two aspects of the river are met in tandem.

The Bush administration also has recognized the ecological importance of the basin by making the upper Mississippi River Basin environmental management program a priority project in the corps budget. A relatively modest program with authorized funding of $33.5 million, the EMP has demonstrated remarkable results in restoring river habitats all along my congressional district in western Wisconsin and beyond. And its long-term resource monitoring program has produced invaluable data and knowledge.

Mr. Chairman, it is especially fitting that we pass this bill today in light of the 20th anniversary that EMP celebrated last year. This bill, H.R. 1495, and the accompanying manager's amendment contain language assuring that the navigation and ecosystem sustainability plan will continue the EMP's mission, including long-term resource monitoring.

But this bill will address long-standing needs well beyond the upper Mississippi. This country's water resources infrastructure was largely constructed 70 or more years ago, and much of it has fallen into various states of disrepair and neglect. Hurricane Katrina so clearly demonstrated to the world the consequences of this lack of attention. Reauthorization of WRDA is a necessary first step in meeting the needs of our citizens, industry, and environment.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this vital legislation so that residents of low-lying areas can be reassured that

the levees that protect them will be made adequate, so that farmers will know they will be able to ship their grain downriver to be exported to foreign markets, and hunters, anglers, and birdwatchers will know that the habitat they know and love will be maintained.

Mr. Chairman, over the last 6 years, under one party control we had the largest and fastest accumulation of national debt in our Nation's history. The national debt skyrocketed to $8.8 trillion. Today we have a budget that changes the failed policies of the past and is, instead, a new direction to get the U.S. government back in the black with surpluses like those the country enjoyed at the beginning of this decade.

At the start of the 110th Congress, our party promised that when we took over as the majority party we would get the fiscal books back in order. This budget fulfills that promise by bringing the budget back to surplus by 2012. It gets us there by strictly adhering to the pay-as- you-go rules that was implemented at the beginning of this year. Additionally, this budget contains tough program integrity measures to crack down on wasteful spending, and it directs all committees to review their programs to promote efficiency and eliminate unnecessary spending.

This budget stands in stark contrast to the President's budget on many fronts. As I previously stated, this budget reaches balance in 2012 and starts paying down our debt. The President's budget does neither.

Budgets are all about priorities. This budget makes it clear that the priorities of this Congress are the priorities of the American people. Our budget provides for our national security, our veterans, our children, and working families across America.

The budget framework contains the necessary resources to meet critical threats to the Nation and to deliver excellent health care to those who have served in the armed forces. Funding for veterans' services is increased by $6.6 billion over the 2007 level, and by $3.5 billion above the President's request for 2008. This will cover the Veterans Administration's (VA) increasing patient load and the cost of forthcoming recommendations to improve health care facilities and treatment for service members and veterans. It is the largest expansion of veterans' healthcare funding since the creation of our VA system.

Most importantly, this budget reduces the deficit, which will decrease our reliance on foreign investors to buy our debt. Since 2001, foreign ownership of Treasury securities has more than doubled to $2.2 trillion, leaving our economy more vulnerable to foreign investment decisions and instability. The more we rely on our global competitors like China and India to finance our debt, the more vulnerable America's economic well-being--now and in the future--becomes. As the father of two little boys, I did not come to this Congress to leave a legacy of debt for them or future generations to climb out of. Let us pass this sensible, fiscally responsible budget that protects important American values so that years from now, we can look back and say, yes, we had to make some tough decisions, but they were the right decisions under the right circumstances, and American families are the primary beneficiaries as a result.

The Budget Resolution before us today makes the tough decisions to get us back to surpluses, while offering an economic stimulus plan now which is fair, quick, and responsible. It supports our troops, but it also supports our Nation's veterans, our seniors, and our children's education programs. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this common sense fiscally responsible Budget Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007.

It is time for a new direction in Iraq. We cannot continue to ask our troops to baby-sit a civil war. With our help, the Iraqis have established a coalition government, and we have trained more than 250,000 Iraqi security forces. We must now send a message to them that the patience of the American people is not endless, and that the Iraqi people must take control of their future by making the tough political compromises essential to living in peace. In short, it is time to take the training wheels off.

The bill before us today achieves the goal of redeployment of U.S. forces by setting specific benchmarks of progress using for the Iraqis and President's own benchmarks for success. If these benchmarks cannot be met, then the bill provides for a systematic approach for withdrawal of our troops.

Although I have had concerns about setting a date certain for withdrawal, a responsible timeline will work to hold the Iraqi Government accountable for much-needed and overdue progress. Essentially, this is a timeline on the Iraqis to come together and take control of their country.

The proposals included in this bill are truly a new direction, rather than just more of the same. By calling for a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, this bill allows us to re-focus our military efforts in Afghanistan.

I am increasingly concerned that the main threat against the United States, al Qaeda, is still a global threat with global reach, and that the person who was directly responsible for 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, is still at large. The President has taken his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and is not doing everything in his power to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice. It sends a terrible message to would-be terrorists who may be interested in striking us that all they have to do is go in hiding and lie low until we get distracted on another adventure. I am hopeful that this supplemental appropriations bill sends a signal to the President that he needs to reassess his priorities.

Our men and women in the Armed Forces are to be commended for the terrific job they do for us across the globe each and every day, often in very difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve a clearer mission, they deserve to have the training and equipment they need to complete that mission, and they deserve the best care when they return home with physical and emotional wounds. The supplemental provides for all these needs.

During my three visits to Iraq, I met with our military command, troops in the field, and numerous Iraqi leaders and civilians. I can honestly say that nothing has made me prouder to be an American than seeing the performance of our troops in the field. They are well- trained, well-motivated and an inspiration to us all. They are, in short, the best America has to offer.

In particular, active military, Guard, and Reserve forces from western Wisconsin have answered the call to service. I have been to many deployment ceremonies and witnessed the anguish in the hearts and faces of family and friends as they say goodbye to their loved ones being sent abroad for lengthy stays. I have also been to several welcome home ceremonies to honor their service and to thank them for their sacrifice.

Sadly, I have also had 18 military funerals in my congressional district alone, most of which I have personally attended. If I don't have to attend another military funeral, if I don't have to pick up the phone to call another grieving family, I will be one of the happiest people in the world. They are a constant reminder of the human toll this war is having, not only with our troops but also with their families and our communities. There is not a day that goes by when I am not concerned about the safety and welfare of our troops.

A new direction, not an escalation, is what is needed in Iraq. We have now been in Iraq longer than the entire Second World War. The supplemental provides that new direction--one where the Iraqis assume responsibility for their future, and the U.S. starts to redeploy our

troops and strengthen our military that is stretched too thin and on the verge of breaking. ``More of the same,'' or ``staying the course,'' is not an option.

Once again I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks and undying admiration for our men and women in uniform for their service to our country. May God bless them and their families during this difficult time. May God provide his special blessings and care for those who fell in the line of duty. And may God continue to bless these United States of America.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to provide my strong support for H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. Representing Wisconsin's workers in Congress is a privilege I am honored to have. That is why I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 800, because protecting workers ability to form unions is of the utmost importance for the continued prosperity of our country.

Our Nation's economic success depends on the viability of the American workers, but the current Administration's policies have created an unfavorable climate. I fear that if Congress doesn't act to protect employee free choice and change current labor law to discourage unfair labor practices by employers, the legislative victories of the past will be at stake. With the Employee Free Choice Act, which amends the National Labor Relations Act to establish a more efficient system for monitoring labor relations, I see an opportunity for Congress to do just that.

Americans have waged countless battles to improve conditions in the workplace and to pave the way for a better life for all working families. Yet today they lack the adequate measures to address workplace inequities and to safeguard against unfair labor practices. The National Labor Relations Act, enacted by Congress in 1935, no longer works to protect the right of workers to form and join unions. But the need to monitor relations between unions and employers is just as important today as it was 72 years ago.

The Employee Free Choice Act would combat obstructionist behavior by: 1) guaranteeing free choice through majority recognition; 2) facilitating initial labor agreements through mediation and arbitration; and 3) providing more effective remedies against employer coercion.

Having grown up in a labor household, I know there is no question that union workers benefit from a collective voice, thus improving the lives of all working Americans and their families. The wages of workers are 26% better than for non-union workers; and union workers generally have better healthcare benefits, pensions and disability compensation than workers not associated with a union. Therefore, it is clear to me that protecting the right to form a union is critical.

The current system fails to provide a responsive mechanism for workers when their rights have been unjustly denied. The Employee Free Choice Act makes necessary changes to the National Labor Relations Act to fill in the gaps of the current law and guarantee workers a voice without the threat of unwarranted penalties.

The rights of the American worker are far too important to ignore and not preserve. I promise to continue the fight against any changes that will reduce workers' benefits and pay while supporting initiatives that increase workers' rights and protections in the workplace. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and the rights of their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007. This bill creates immediate opportunities for small businesses around the country and in western Wisconsin. Small businesses are the engine of America's economy, representing more than 95 percent of all employers, creating half of our gross domestic product, and creating three out of four new jobs nationwide. If the United States is going to continue to have a strong economy, we must give small businesses every opportunity to succeed; H.R. 976 provides the right tax opportunities for positive growth for small businesses.

Additionally, I would like to thank Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery for presenting a bipartisan bill to the Committee on Ways and Means and to the House of Representatives. With their combined leadership, I know my first term on the Committee on Ways and Means will be eventful and successful.

Since coming to Congress, I have consistently supported a range of proposals to help small firms, including giving help to small manufacturers through tax relief and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership; creating a new small business health care tax credit; and putting the government on a ``pay as you go'' basis to restrain deficit spending that raises interest rates and restricts small firms' access to capital.

H.R. 976 follows this tradition by providing $1.3 billion in tax cuts targeted to small business over the next 10 years. This cost, however, is entirely offset by provisions that pay for it. The bill's tax cuts include a one-year extension for deductions on small business expenses, and it increases the amount of such expenses these businesses could deduct. It also extends for one year the tax credit for employers who hire certain disadvantaged workers, and ensures that an increase in the minimum wage would not reduce the current ``tip credit'' for restaurant employers. Most importantly, this bill accomplishes these savings for small businesses within the framework of pay-as-you-go rules.

Most significantly, H.R. 976 includes a provision to help simplify taxes for family farmers. Right now, if a farm owned by a married couple files as a sole proprietorship (instead of a partnership), only one spouse receives credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. This bill allows both spouses to receive credit for the Social Security and Medicare taxes they pay while under a sole proprietorship. Filing for a partnership can be a costly and time consuming process, and this bill allows both spouses the security that comes with Social Security and Medicare benefits, without the extra burden.

Specifically, I know this provision will greatly benefit family farmers in western Wisconsin and around the country. This simplification will allow both spouses running a farm to receive credit for the taxes they pay, and ensures that in the event of a tragedy, or simply in old age, both of them are taken care of.

Small business is critical to economic strength, building America's future, and helping the United States compete in today's global marketplace. I urge my colleagues to vote for this common sense bill so we can support our most important economic driver, the small business.

I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the resolution before us. It is a very simple and straightforward resolution. It expresses our support and gratitude to our troops and our disapproval with the President's escalation plan in Iraq. I have believed for some time now that we are in desperate need of a new direction and not an escalation in Iraq.

It is not like we are confronted with a new plan by the President here today. We have tried three troop surges in the last 2 years alone, without the desired result. I don't know what the President sees or hears today that leads him to believe that the fourth time is a charm.

No, from the beginning, this has been the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. We now know that Saddam Hussein did not, in fact, possess weapons of mass destruction. He had no involvement in the attacks on September 11. He had no links with al Qaeda. I believe then, as I do today, that while he may have been potentially dangerous, he was eminently containable.

But I too must share some responsibility for having supported the Iraq resolution in the fall of 2002. I did so while believing the President when he stated that the goal was disarmament and not regime change, that war would be a last resort and not a convenient option, that he would work through the U.N. Security Council and with the international community rather than taking unilateral action.

But I also believed that it was important at that time to get weapons inspection teams back in Iraq to search for weapons and to keep an eye on Saddam so he didn't develop capability to do harm. I also believe that we could not accomplish that goal without a threat of credible force hanging over Saddam's head.

When, in fact, we did accomplish it and got inspection teams back in with unfettered access, I was sitting through administration briefings asking them if we were cooperating with them and directing them to suspected sites. Of course we were, they said, but they are not finding anything.

That is when that pit in my stomach first formed, that perhaps Saddam did what he said he did all along, and that is disarm. That is when I, along with my friend and colleague, Sherrod Brown, drafted a letter signed by 150 of our colleagues in January of 2003 asking the President to give the inspection teams time to do their job and not rush in because they were not finding anything.

But instead of heeding our advice, he ordered the inspection teams out, sent our troops in with insufficient forces to secure the peace, with no plan for the day after, with no clear objectives and with no exit strategy, all contrary to the Powell Doctrine. Now we are where we are today with over $500 billion already spent, over 3,000 lives lost, over 23,000 injured who have returned home. And we are faced with no good options.

Yes, we do need a new direction and not an escalation. It is time for us to turn over responsibility for security to the Iraqi people so we can begin a redeployment of our forces, first within the country, let us get them off the front lines and off the main streets of Baghdad, where they can still play a support role, but which could also lead to a redeployment eventually out of country. We can then refocus our energies on the real national security threat, and that is dismantling the al Qaeda global network that we face, making sure we don't lose Afghanistan, making sure the Taliban doesn't reconstitute themselves and making sure that we bring those who are directly responsible for September 11 to justice, like Osama bin Laden, who is still at large and roaming free today. Ultimately, this conflict cannot be solved militarily, but only by tough political compromises between the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds. We cannot do this for them.

We also need to get the Arab League involved, because they can help with reconstruction, they can help with security, and they can help add legitimacy to the Iraqi government. It is not in their interest to see the Sunni-Shia conflict spread outside of the Iraq borders and sweep the region, which is a very real threat today. Nor is it in Iran and Syria's interests to be on the opposite sides of a civil war that may break out in Iraq. That is what a plan, a new direction should look like, one that we should be pursuing, rather than just more of the same, stay the course.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity on three occasions to visit our military command and our troops in the field in Iraq. I also visited our troops during the height of our military engagement in the Balkans. Nothing has made me prouder to be an American than seeing our troops in action, because they are so very good. They are well motivated, they are well trained. They are the best our Nation has to offer.

I have had 18 military funerals in my Congressional district alone, most of which I personally attended. If I don't have to attend another military funeral, if I don't have to pick up the phone to call another grieving family, I will be one of the happiest people in the world. They are a constant reminder of the human toll this is having, not only with our troops but with their families and our communities. There is not a day that goes by when I am not concerned about the safety and welfare of our troops.

That is exactly why we should be debating this resolution, because it is imperative that war is a last resort, that we as policymakers do everything we can to get the policy right because of the impact it has on our troops, their family, and our communities. It is important that we give them a mission with which they can succeed.

It is time to stop asking our troops to babysit a civil war. It is time to ask the Iraqis to stand up. It is time to support this resolution and give the President a clear indication of where this Congress stands.

Will the gentleman yield for a brief comment?

I was at the same meeting and I heard the same message from the ambassadors in the region. No one here is advocating an immediate withdrawal, just a different direction and a different strategy rather than what has failed in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Terry Milfred upon his retirement as superintendent of the Weston School District. Terry is a dedicated public servant who has earned the respect and admiration of the teachers, staff and over 300 students under his supervision.

Most recently, Terry is revered for his efforts in comforting and uniting the local community after a tragic shooting last fall at Weston High School that took the life of a dear friend to Terry, and the schools well-respected principal, John Klang.

One hundred twenty-five students were left stunned on September 29, 2006, when a fellow classmate opened fire on faculty members and peers. Fortunately for the students of Weston High School, Principal John Klang, in the most unselfish act one person can do for others, sacrificed himself to protect his students and his faculty.

Terry Milfred and the dedicated members of his staff took immediate action and displayed steadfast leadership, establishing a safe environment in consoling the students and the faculty. In an effort to recover from this tragedy and the loss of an incredible principal, others in the administration, such as Tom Andreas and Melissa Nigh, stepped forward to ensure that students and faculty received the support that they needed.

Together, Tom, Melissa and Terry summoned leaders from around the State, forming a crisis management team to address the specific needs of each individual impacted by this tragedy. The students of Weston High School should also be commended for the courage and selflessness they displayed in overcoming this hardship and uniting as a student body.

As a husband, father, grandfather, and role model to students, parents, and members of his staff, Terry has bettered the lives of numerous individuals. He has risen to the challenge of protecting those in his care and mentoring those dearest to him. Prior to the unfortunate incident last fall, Terry served as an adviser to Principal Klang. While much of their time was spent conversing in school hallways and cafeterias, Terry and John had a relationship and respect for one another that extended beyond the classroom door.

Principal Klang was a dear friend to many and he will be greatly missed.

In memory of Principal Klang and in an effort to prepare others if such an unfortunate incident should occur in their community, Terry has dedicated countless hours addressing school groups and educators on methods to handle school violence.

Although Terry Milfred is retiring from the superintendent position, he will remain a visible actor in the lives of students and teachers at Weston School District. His advocacy and community work will leave a lasting legacy for the entire community, and the area will continue to benefit from all that he has done.

On behalf of the students and faculty of Weston School District, I would like to thank Terry for his many years of tireless service and for bringing hope in the shadows of tragedy and despair.

I wish Terry a very long and a very happy retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, which will begin to right our country's course on energy policy, steering us away from costly subsidies for the oil and gas industries that are both unnecessary and unwanted. Instead, this bill will allow our government to invest in its own industries, which produce clean, efficient energy that will improve our environment, produce jobs, and increase our national security.

Madam Speaker, I cannot say why, during a time of record profits by oil and gas companies, this industry was targeted for tax relief in 2004 and 2005. I honestly cannot say why the majority of this congress thought it was a good idea to give away billions of taxpayer dollars in this way. What I do know, is that I am not alone in wondering why.

Our own President, whose personal ties to the oil industry are well known, has said numerous times that industry does not need these subsidies. Just last year, he was quoted in the Washington Post saying:

Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that

Congress has got to understand that these energy companies

don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of

certain geological and geophysical expenditures, or the use

of taxpayers' money to subsidize energy companies' research

into deep water drilling. I'm looking forward to Congress to

take about $2 billion of these tax breaks out of the budget

over a 10-year period of time. Cash flows are up. Taxpayers

don't need to be paying for certain of these expenses on

behalf of the energy companies.

President Bush was saying these things even before we passed the energy bill. In 2005 he said, ``With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayer funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.''

Even the President, from the oil State of Texas, understands that our country needs to move in a new direction on energy policy. In his State of the Union address last year, he said, ``America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology.''

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 will repeal the unnecessary giveaways to the energy industry by reducing the tax deductions for exploration that were included in the 2005 energy bill, and eliminating a tax break the industry never should have had. This is expected to raise $6.6 billion over 10 years, which will be set aside in a new strategic energy efficiency and renewables reserve to go toward research and development of newer, cleaner alternatives.

It is time for us to invest in the midwest, not the Middle East. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Michigan for his leadership on this issue. I am proud as a 10-year member of the House Education and Labor Committee to stand here in support of H.R. 5.

With all due respect to my colleague from North Carolina, the previous speaker, facts can be a stubborn thing. The fact of the matter is, if we implement this law, if we get the President to support this cut in interest rate burden in half, over 750,000 undergraduates in my home State of Wisconsin will realize cost savings, over half of them in my home congressional district alone.

They are looking at, on average, about a $14,000 debt burden by the time they finish school; and with this bill, they will realize close to $4,400 in savings with this interest rate reduction, which almost covers a full year of tuition at a public university in my home State of Wisconsin. So, yes, facts can be a stubborn thing. What we are doing here is real.

But let us also recall why we are today, because we are following in the wake of the largest raid on student aid in our Nation's history when the Republican Congress last year, in their budget reconciliation, cut over $12 billion from the student aid program, that the President went along with.

The irony is that budget reconciliations are supposed to reduce the deficit. What they did in delivering huge tax breaks to the most wealthy was doing that cut in student aid while also increasing the deficit, which is another thing that we need to emphasize here today, that we fully pay for this bill because of the pay-as-you-go budgeting rule we implemented this year.

Can we do more on accountability? Should there be more transparency in why there are rising costs? Should we be doing more with direct grant programs? Of course.

This isn't the final step of a long journey, but merely the beginning. I hope that by the rhetoric that we are hearing today that we will be able to produce a bipartisan higher education bill later this year that we can all be proud about, that will focus on access and affordability issues.

I may propose one way to find some cost savings. The Congressional Budget Office indicates that if we expand access to the STAR program, the direct loan program, we could realize over $17 billion worth of savings over the next 10 years, and that is based on a very conservative utilization estimate from 25 to 44 percent. That is a very conservative increase in utilization.

In fact, if every school participated in a direct loan program, we could realize savings of over $60 billion these

next 10 years. Imagine what we can do for student-need-based programs and direct grant programs like the Pell Grant program with an additional $60 billion freed up for this higher education bill. So it is one proposal that I throw out there that maybe we can have a discussion about as we move forward with reauthorization of the higher education bill.

But I suspect we are going to get bipartisan support with H.R. 5. We should with this bill today. Not only does it bring real savings to real students making college more affordable, but we do it in a fiscally responsible manner by paying for it all and not adding to the deficit.

I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 5.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding to me and commend him on his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on what we are trying to do here today. We are trying to help you. We are trying to help find some cost savings on what was the largest expansion of entitlement spending in the last 40 years that was passed under your rule, with no ability to pay for it, all deficit financing, no cost-containment measures.

All we are saying here today with H.R. 4 is let us give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to go out and negotiate a better deal for the American taxpayer. And I, for the life of me, don't understand why any Secretary, with all due respect to Secretary Leavitt's article in the papers yesterday, would not want to have this negotiating authority in their arsenal. In fact, the last outgoing Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, during a moment of unguarded candor, said after his resignation that the one thing that he regretted while serving as Secretary of Health and Human Services was ``I would have liked to have had the opportunity to negotiate.'' And he based that on his success in negotiating better prices for Cipro and FluMist.

The VA system is already negotiating better prices. It is working well. No one in this Congress is proposing any change or repeal with the VA system. And except for the administration's penchant for no-bid contracts, there is no other product or service in this country where we specifically prohibit the Federal Government from going out and negotiating a better price for the American taxpayer. We can change that today with passage of H.R. 4.

Let's give it a shot. Let us give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the discretion to negotiate better prices for our consumers.

In Wisconsin, there currently exist several programs that allow the state to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug costs. For instance, Badger Rx Gold is a public-private sector partnership between the State and Navitus Health Solution that on average saves participants 23 percent on prescriptions. SeniorCare is another program that has successfully negotiated lower drug costs for seniors in Wisconsin. Since enrollment in Medicare Part D began in May of 2006, there has been an increase in the number of participants in SeniorCare from 85,000 to over 110,000.

According to an analysis by AARP Wisconsin, more than 94 percent of SeniorCare participants are better off under SeniorCare than they would be under Medicare Part D because the co-payments are lower and the coverage is more comprehensive. Therefore, it is critical that the Secretary of Health and Human Services also have the authority to negotiate for lower drug costs so all seniors in our country can benefit.

Mr. Speaker, having clearly seen the success of negotiating lower drug costs at both the state and federal level, I enthusiastically support the legislation before us today, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) as well as Mr. Castle, for the bipartisanship that they have shown in bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I do rise in support, because my State is home to one the premier research institutions in the entire world for stem cell research, the University of Wisconsin at Madison. But the point is this: This research is going to go forward. The question is where and under what ethical guidelines it does so.

If we want to remain the most creative and innovative country in the world, at the forefront of medical and scientific discovery, we need to allow this research to occur here and not abroad. We are currently experiencing a serious brain drain in the medical research community of some of our best and brightest going overseas so they can conduct this research in this promising field of study.

I would rather see us, through our watchful guidance and oversight, see this being done here under very strict ethical guidelines, which are laid out in this legislation, as given to us by the National Institutes of Health, guidelines that prohibit human cloning, that prohibit the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of medical research.

This should be here, and I hope today we receive bipartisan support in passing this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would expand the current Federal policy on embryonic stem cell research by allowing federally funded research on stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001, while implementing strong ethical guidelines to ensure Federal oversight of the research. I am pleased the 110th Congress has taken immediate steps to address this important issue, and it is my hope that members will once again unite in support of this bill.

Most of the scientific community believes for the full potential of embryonic stem cell research to be reached, the number of cell lines readily available to scientists must increase. A number of NIH Directors have testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee that the current policy is restrictive and hinders scientific progress.

We are already at risk of losing our scientific and technological edge because of increasing competition around the world. As a nation of opportunity and innovation, we have a responsibility to embrace policies that create breakthroughs in both medicine and technology for the benefit of our citizens.

Important advances in the science of embryonic stem cell research have been made since the August 2001 policy was set. Recently, researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison developed a method to grow human embryonic stem cells without using mouse feeder cells. This is exciting news since mouse feeder cells are thought to be a source of contamination if the cells are ever to be used therapeutically in humans.

From its earliest days, Wisconsin has been at the forefront of embryonic stem cell research. The University of Wisconsin--Madison is one of the leading facilities for stem cell research, and I believe with continued study, the possible medical benefits of stem cell research are limitless; lives affected by diseases, damaged tissue, and faulty organs would be greatly improved. Additionally, this legislation would ensure the important work of our scientists is not unnecessarily sidetracked by politics.

The significance of this legislation extends beyond the potential for advances in science and technology. More importantly, embryonic stem cell research could lead to new treatments and cures for the over 100 million Americans afflicted with life-threatening and debilitating diseases. Scientists believe these cells could be used to treat many diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. However, the promise of this research may not be reached if the Federal policy is not expanded.

Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly clear that the American public supports expanding the Federal stem cell policy. Thus, I strongly urge my colleagues to respond to the interests and needs of our Nation's citizens. Please join me in supporting this important legislation that will reinvigorate embryonic stem cell research in this country and allow science to move forward unimpeded, revolutionize the practice of medicine, and offer hope to the millions of Americans suffering from debilitating diseases.