Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as our nation leads the world into the 21st century, we should not shy away from opportunities to guide and expand global trade. Lowering tariffs and advancing economic engagement among nations not only helps the American economy, it also can provide real opportunity to those in the developing world who are working to eradicate poverty, build their nations and bring prosperity to their people.

It is critical that we build a bipartisan consensus around the importance of trade, which, unfortunately, does not currently exist. Such a consensus requires that trade agreements be balanced and fair for American workers and companies as well as for the nations with which we seek to engage. It also requires that domestic priorities be put in place to assist Americans in transitioning to the global economy.

While I have supported previous free trade agreements, it is with regret that I oppose H.R. 3045, legislation implementing the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) between the United States, the Dominican Republic and five Central American nations: Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, EI Salvador and Guatemala. DR-CAFTA does not build the bipartisan consensus we must achieve to succeed in the emerging global economy.

When increasing opportunities through trade, we must be sure to do more to empower the American workforce through a comprehensive and upgraded education and worker training policy. The single most important factor in determining America's success in the 21st Century will be maintaining our innovation and creativity.

Over the last few years, the world has become a smaller and more integrated place with technology, which levels the playing field like never before. Greater competition and collaboration exist now between countries, companies, and individuals. Meeting this challenge requires a new set of big ideas. Instead of this Administration being so eager to dismantle the new deal, it should be working with Congress to offer the American people a new ``New Deal.''

This new ``New Deal'' should provide working families with the skills to compete successfully in the 21st Century economy. We must renew our commitment to worker training programs, an education investment that emphasizes math, science and engineering, research funding in science and medicine, and a comprehensive broad-band strategy for all America.

Unfortunately, DR-CAFTA fails on a number of fronts. While the Administration has aggressively negotiated intellectual property and investor rights provisions in the agreement, it has simply not taken the same approach to protect workers' rights abroad or address the needs of working families here at home.

DR-CAFTA does not require nations to bring their laws into compliance with the International Labor Organization (ILO) core labor standards, even though the ILO and U.S. State Department have documented numerous areas where the CAFTA countries' laws fail to comply with even the most basic international norms. Further, the agreement lacks critical dispute settlement and enforcement mechanisms for worker rights provisions beyond a normal fine for countries that fail to enforce their own current labor laws. Even this minimal standard is flawed, as DR-CAFTA does not require countries to maintain their current labor laws.

In addition to the inadequate labor provisions in the trade agreement, the Administration has done nothing to prepare hard-working American families for the consequences of increased trade. Rather, the Administration and Congressional Leadership have provided irresponsible tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest one percent of Americans at the expense of investing in education, skills training, and research and development.

Mr. Speaker, economics and trade need not be a zero-sum game; it can be a win-win for everyone involved as long as people have the tools to succeed. I cannot in good faith support an incomplete trade and economic policy that leaves Americans less able to be creative and innovative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule even though it has made in order a substitute that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I will be offering.

The reason I rise in opposition is because this is such an important issue that we really should have an open and fair and reasonable debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. Eight of the Democratic amendments offered last night were effectively blocked. Instead, we have a closed rule that will allow some time for general debate on the AHP underlying bill, an hour on the substitute, and that is it.

I think we can all stipulate that when we go home, this is clearly the overriding issue we hear from our constituents: the rising cost of health care and the inability, especially in small businesses, to be able to afford and access quality health care which is crucial to a growing and vibrant economy.

There is a reason why we are here year after year debating the same issue, and that is because the underlying bill is bad policy. It is recognized as bad policy by over 1,400 organizations nationwide that have come out and publicly opposed it, including the National Governors Association, both the Democratic and the Republican Governors associations; including 41 of the States attorneys general; the National Association of Insurance Commissioners; the National Conference of State Legislatures, all of whom recognize this does not make sense, it is bad policy and we should offer something more than just a broken promise or false hope to small businesses and their employees hoping to obtain coverage.

There should be an unwritten rule when we are debating any type of health care policy changes, and that is following the Hippocratic Oath that our doctors and health care providers follow: first, do no harm.

Unfortunately, the AHP bill before us today does plenty of harm. And, again, it has been recognized by independent studies both within the congressional body and outside. In fact, a recent Mercer Study indicates that adoption of this AHP legislation could raise the ranks of the uninsured by over 1 million people. You would think that alone would be enough for a ``no'' vote on this underlying bill. Any policy that is going to increase the number of uninsured, which is roughly between 45 and 48 million today, is something that we should resist.

It also shows that those who do not join AHPs and are not part of an association, who have health coverage for their employees, the premiums are going to increase for those people by 23 percent. This is consistent with what the Congressional Budget Office has shown in their study that shows that adoption of this bill would leave 20 million of the workers with higher premium payments overall.

Also, recently there was a study out of Georgetown University that shows that adoption of this bill, and again it is consistent with past GAO studies, would increase the likelihood of greater fraud and abuse within the associated health plan system. The GAO in a study showed that there are 144 illegal AHPs operating affecting every State in the Union with unpaid claims affecting over 200,000 workers today.

The underlying bill is going to take oversight and accountability away from the States where it has traditionally resided with oversight powers and audit responsibilities, put it in the Department of Labor with insufficient resources and no accountability and no oversight at all. Because of that, the State attorneys general in a letter stated: ``The elimination of the State role and replacement with weak Federal oversight is a bad deal for small businesses and consumers.''

Finally, as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) has indicated, it does preempt consumer protection which has been traditionally guaranteed by the States if they found that necessary.

So there are a lot of reasons why the underlying bill before us today is bad policy. That is one of the reasons it has had a difficult time moving through the Senate. We are going to have a substitute offered that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I and others who support think is a viable and reasonable approach to deal with the growing health care crisis that so many of our small businesses and their employees are facing. It is a bill that does allow the purchasing pool concept to go forward, but it is modeled after what Federal employees currently have under their health care plan. And it also does not preempt State law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the rule so we have an honest debate and support the substitute and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), for the leadership he has shown on this issue.

Here we are again, Mr. Speaker. Year after year after year it seems we continue to rise in this Chamber to debate the same issue. One of the reasons we have to do this year after year is because bad policy is tough to sell, and especially tough to sell in the Senate right now, which has refused to take this up and move it forward because it has been bad policy.

The chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), had a chart showing us a 93 percent approval of AHPs. That is not surprising, Mr. Speaker. There is such a craving throughout America for any type of legislative proposal that would bring price relief to the rising cost of health care, that I am afraid people will chase any proposal and even jump off a cliff without looking where they are going to land.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, especially under these conditions, it is more incumbent upon us here in this Chamber to be extra careful in regard to the policy proposals that we are proposing so we do not violate the Hippocratic oath, and that is: first do no harm to the current health care system. There is plenty of places where this legislation that is being offered today would do substantial harm.

We have had studies outside and inside this body that have come back explaining the true deficiencies of this legislation, but none probably summarize it better than the National Small Business Association that recently sent us a letter expressing their concerns. Now, this is an organization of some of the largest Chambers of Commerce and some of the biggest local and national organizations throughout the country, all of which see this AHP proposal for what it really is: an empty promise.

Mr. Speaker, I quote from this letter from the National Small Business Association in which they state, ``The biggest loser from the passage of AHPs would be small businesses. AHPs are not an answer to rising health care costs and would significantly worsen the state of health care for all businesses. More and more small businesses are realizing that despite the bumper sticker pitch in its favor, AHPs are, simply put, bad public policy.''

They go on to cite the Mercer study, saying that ``premiums for those outside the AHP market would increase an additional 23 percent, and an additional 1 million people would become uninsured as this policy plays out.'' They go on to state that ``the minimal price savings realized by some businesses through AHPs would come from attracting healthier participants and depleting benefits that are currently required by States. AHPs could create plans that manipulate benefits and are extremely unattractive to sicker, less healthy participants.

``Furthermore, the CBO found most of the enrollment in AHPs would come from businesses switching coverage. Only 1 in 14 would be newly insured. AHPs do nothing to solve the problem in rising health care costs to small businesses and their employees.'' And they conclude by saying, ``They simply shift the cost from the overall market to a more concentrated group of people. This is hardly a long-term solution.''

There is a better proposal, one that we will talk about in more detail when our substitute is offered. There is a way for us, I believe, to come together in a bipartisan fashion to address one of the most pressing issues of the day, and that is affordability and access to quality health care.

Businesses large and small, family farmers, individual employees are all suffering alike, and that is why it is important for us to come together and do something meaningful to relieve the health care pressures in this economy.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this morning we fortunately witnessed the successful take-off of the latest space shuttle mission into space, and I, and I know all my colleagues, our thoughts and prayers go with that crew and their families. We wish them a successful mission and a safe return here to Earth at the conclusion of that mission.

But, Mr. Speaker, ``Houston, we have got a problem'' right here on Earth today, and that problem we all can agree to is the rising cost of health care, the impact that it is having on businesses large and small, family farmers, individual employees. It is a crisis that has been building through a number of years, and there is nothing more heart-wrenching or gut-wrenching than to speak to young parents who have a young child in desperate need of emergency medical attention, having to take that child to the hospital knowing that they do not have adequate health care coverage to provide for their sick child.

Today, one of the major factors for individual and personal bankruptcies is health care-related costs. There is also nothing more disheartening than speaking to the multitude of small business owners throughout this country who would love nothing better than to be able to extend affordable health care coverage to their employees; but they cannot because it is too expensive.

I think we can all agree to the fact that this is something that we have to have focused attention to alleviate the high costs of health care and the growing ranks of the uninsured, which is roughly 45 million to 48 million today. When we think about who comprises these 45 million to 48 million uninsured, the vast majority of them are working Americans, working in small businesses who cannot afford to provide coverage. Again, it is something we all recognize, because we hear about it daily when we are back home traveling in our congressional districts. So, yes, action is needed; but there is a right way and a wrong way in taking action.

A wrong way would be doing more harm than good in passing legislation and, for the previous hour, we have had a discussion in regard to the deficiencies and the shortfalls of the underlying associated health plans bill. That is why over 1,400 organizations around the country have come out in opposition to it.

But today, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering the right way, an alternative way, another approach to dealing with the health care crisis that our small businesses are facing, one that we believe would extend health care coverage to millions of Americans, while keeping a lid on the rising premium costs.

What it does, in essence, Mr. Speaker, is it builds upon the successful framework that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program has offered to countless Federal employees throughout the country. It is a purchasing pool concept that they can enter into, with the competition of the marketplace and different insurance plans competing for that business that has proven to be extremely cost effective in not only extending coverage to millions of Federal employees, but also by guaranteeing the State protections and consumer protections that have been passed by State legislatures throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the more amazing aspects of this debate that the party that claims to be for States' rights and tries to take political advantage of saying, listen, States, we stand for you and what you decide to do on a policy level, is so quick to jettison States' rights when it becomes politically inconvenient for their political allies, and that is exactly what is going on here today with the proposed associated health plans, which will preempt and trump the public policy decisions that have been made throughout this country by State legislatures.

Now, our plan also would offer a minimum guarantee of coverage, one that the Federal Employee Health Plan currently does. It does not preempt the consumer protections and the State laws that have been passed. And the reason those State laws have been passed throughout the years is because the free marketplace and the insurance companies competing for the business were not offering this type of coverage, and that is why the State legislatures, in working with the Governors, had to pass legislation requiring certain minimal safeguards of health care coverage. So if a State legislature has felt in the past that it is necessary to require prenatal care, for instance, or to prohibit drive- through deliveries, or to require screening for diabetes, autism, cancer, they have chosen to do so; and it has made sense for those States that have.

But, instead, this one-size-fits-all approach comes in and tries to preempt what the States have been doing for many, many years.

But what is also different with our substitute is it actually offers premium support payments to make it more affordable to small businesses to offer health care coverage to their employees, something that the underlying AHP plan is silent on. Again, an analysis of our bill would show that it would actually increase the coverage of the uninsured, help premium prices come down by building on this purchasing-pool concept, but also maintaining important and safe consumer protections. There is a reason why the National Governors Association and the States attorneys general have opposed the underlying bill. It is for all of these reasons, and we would respectfully submit the right approach is the substitute that we are offering today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a person who certainly appreciates the role of States and consumer protection in this health care debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond quickly, just to clarify a couple of facts.

Mr. Speaker, I have all of the respect and admiration for the chair of our committee, but a closer reading of the substitute bill would not, in fact, require a Federal-run program; rather the Department of Labor would contract out the State-licensed health insurance plans in order to administer these programs.

But we do feel that there is a requirement or a necessity to offer greater incentives and inducements for small businesses to offer this coverage. That is why we are offering a premium support program with it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the coauthor and codrafter of this substitute amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I just recommend to the previous speaker that he should talk to any Federal employee with regard to the choices that they are offered under the Federal Employee Health Plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a person who would rather take millions of people off the ranks of the uninsured rather than add a million people into the uninsured.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), someone who understands the importance of maintaining consumer protections as we have in our substitute bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a person who has built up considerable health care expertise from his position on the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

We are waiting to get a cost estimate back, but based on two previous debates on this issue, it was comparable to the amount of money set aside for the health savings account that has been a part of this bill in the past, but is not this year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is wide agreement, bipartisan agreement that we have got a serious issue on our hands, a huge challenge that is facing our Nation, that is, rising health care costs and the impact it is having on economic growth, the opportunities for businesses large and small to grow and hire additional workers. I think it is one of the main reasons why we have experienced such anemic job growth in this country in recent years, because of the hesitancy of so many businesses, especially small businesses to hire additional workers because of the associated rising health care costs. It is something that we must address in order to deal with an expanding economy at a rate that we would all like to see, but also to get a grip on the stagnant wages right now that are holding so many of our workers back.

I think there is a direct cause and effect whereas the typical worker's wages have been frozen in effect in recent years because of the additional costs coming out of their pockets to afford health care. That is why, again, we have had an important debate today, but it is one we should be working on in a bipartisan fashion to address the underlying causes.

Volumes have been written about the underlying associated health plan that is before us today. And, unfortunately, the verdict is in and that verdict is this is just bad public policy. That is why so many of the Governors and so many of the attorneys general, and the commissioners of insurance, the Association of State Legislatures in a bipartisan fashion have roundly criticized and condemned the underlying associated health plan, because they feel as we do on this side that it will do more harm than good.

I understand and appreciate the motivation on the other side to try to move forward on this issue. But we are stuck. The wheels are stuck in the mud, and it is just spinning because it is not getting any traction. And that is because the Senate in their analysis of the underlying bill has found that it, too, is bad public policy. And I am afraid we are going to have this debate today, it is going to expire and it is going to get stuck with no progress being made.

Perhaps there may be some deficiencies in what we are offering in our substitute, just as we believe there are deficiencies in theirs. But now is the time for us to come together to try to find some common ground so we can make progress and deal with this issue that is affecting more and more Americans every year.

One of the issues that really has not received that much attention, and I would just like to close on and highlight it, is again the fact of the Federal preemption and taking away from States the ability to conduct proper oversight and accountability with these insurance plans.

Both the GAO in a study and a recent Georgetown University study that came out this summer indicated that the underlying AHP bill, as it is written with the weak provisions that would go to the Department of Labor, would lead to an explosion of fraud and abuse with these types of plans throughout the country. And there is a history of fraud and abuse.

Currently, there are over 144 plans that are set up fraudulently that are not paying the claims that are affecting well over 200,000 workers. But for the effective oversight and the policing that is taking place at the State level, even these would probably go unnoticed. It would impact more and more Americans. It is another reason why the underlying bill does not make sense, why the Federal preemption over State jurisdiction, which has been the history of health care regulation in this country, is another bad idea.

Our substitute addresses that by not preempting State law by allowing the State jurisdiction and oversight to continue. It does build upon the concept of a purchasing pool modeled after the Federal employee health plan which, as was stated earlier, has worked marvelously over the years. No one is recommending dismantling that.

I would encourage a ``yes'' on the substitute and a ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill which, among other things, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' sustainability plan for the upper Mississippi River.

The navigation and ecosystem sustainability in title VIII of the bill is the product of the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation feasibility study, which has had, unfortunately, a long and controversial history.

As many will remember, a respected Army Corps economist filed a whistleblower complaint about the Corps' use of faulty data to justify lock and dam expansion. Partly in response to that incident, I introduced legislation to revamp the project review and authorization procedures at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The goals of my bill were to increase transparency and accountability; ensure fiscal responsibility; balance economic and environmental interests; and allow greater stakeholder involvement in proposed projects.

Many elements of my reform measures are in this bill, though not to the degree I believe is still needed. For example, I believe the Corps' outdated principles and guidelines should be updated to reflect current laws and public values, and much more should be done to strengthen the peer review provisions--section 2030--to create a truly independent and effective review process. It is my hope the other body will include the full scope of these sensible reform measures in their version of this important bill.

In addition, in the wake of the whistleblower scandal, my colleagues and I in the Army Corps reform caucus called for the scientific, nonpartisan, national research council to review the Corps' final recommended plan. Regrettably the NRC's report concluded there remained some questions about the Corps' commercial traffic predictions on the Mississippi--but expressed support for the Corps' inclusion of adaptive management ecosystem restoration components in their plan.

While I remain troubled by the Corps' inability to fully justify the Model they used for their commercial traffic predictions, America clearly has an aging lock and dam infrastructure on the Mississippi. Most of the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River system are over 60 years old and many are in serious need of repair and rehabilitation. For the past 19 years, the Corps has been undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout the navigation system in an effort to extend their useful life. This work is critical to ensuring navigation reliability and safety.

Furthermore, I represent a rural district where agriculture plays an important role in the economy and the life of many of its citizens. Updating this vital water transportation system by modernizing these aging locks will mean greater export opportunities for our farmers, and will create and sustain jobs throughout rural america which has been hit hard by the sluggish economy.

Finally, the ecological health of the Mississippi River and its economic importance to the many people that make their living or seek their recreation is based on a healthy river system. Scientists studying the river agree that without significant efforts to restore habitat, this vital national resource will continue to decline. A strong and consistent Federal role for ecosystem restoration is necessary for the entire basin, both because of the large acreage of Federal lands, including the upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (the longest river refuge in the continental U.S.), as well as its major importance as a continental and international flyway for migratory birds, and as a habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered species.

We must ensure Federal resources are balanced between lock construction and ecosystem needs. That is why I offered an amendment to this bill that seeks to do two things: First, it adds a new provision requiring the secretary to make an annual report to congress specifically on whether the lock and dam construction and ecosystem restoration projects are being carried out at comparable rates. In addition, the amendment makes it clear that congress intends to share the authority with the secretary in determining if the projects are moving forward at a comparable rate and adjust the annual funding accordingly. Mississippi lock and dam modernization and ecosystem restoration are an expensive provision of this bill and the American taxpayer deserves to know it is being done right.

Mr. Chairman, the Mississippi River is one of America's national treasures. People come from all over the U.S., and all over the world come to its banks to see the natural splendor captured so well by authors like Mark Twain.

As founder and co-chair of the upper Mississippi River Congressional task force, I have long sought to preserve the river's health and historical multiple uses, including as a natural waterway and a home to wildlife, for the benefit of future generations of Americans. While this is not a perfect bill, if implemented appropriately, I believe it will benefit both rural economies and the wildlife that depend on a healthy Mississippi River.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation. I think it is a very positive step forward and a very balanced approach.

The amendment I am offering is a friendly amendment. It is not an amendment that is calling for a retraction or cutback of any programs. It is not an amendment asking for more money or less money for any project. It is not an amendment that changes the definition of anything in the bill. It is an amendment that appreciates the approach in regards to the management of the Upper Mississippi River basin, especially under title VIII.

Title VIII contains two major features: One, as the previous amendment spoke to, is the modernization of the lock and dam system for a certain number of locks in the middle part of the Mississippi and along the Illinois River. But the other component of all that, that really has not received that much attention, is the ecosystem restoration plan that was also a part of the navigation study and one that has been put forward with us today.

In the underlying bill, I think the authors of the legislation, those in support of it, understand the use of the Mississippi River. Yes, there is commercial navigation on it, and there will be tomorrow. It is an important feature of economic development and for our regional economy in the Midwest area. But it is also a river that is used for recreational purposes and tourism purposes. And what is being proposed in the ecosystem restoration portion of the bill is one of the most major investments in the ecosystem of the Mississippi River Basin. And the language actually asks for a comparable rate of progress being made in both the modernization of the lock and dam system along with the investment in the ecosystem restoration, an adaptive management approach that the Corps of Engineers along with other outside experts have recommended in regards to the management of the river system.

My amendment does two very simple things. One is, the Secretary of Army, under the current bill, is required every 4 years to submit a report to Congress showing the progress being made in both the ecosystem restoration and lock and dam modernization. My amendment asks for an annual report by the Secretary to do that so that the taxpayers can determine whether or not the investment is being well spent, so we can determine here in Congress whether the comparable rate of progress is being met, and so that there is that continuing underlying justification that the authors of the previous amendment were alluding to previously.

But my amendment also just clarifies that Congress also has a role in regards to making sure that we do have a comparable rate of progress being made in both the ecosystem portion of the underlying bill and the lock and dam modernization.

Those who grew up on the Mississippi, as I did, and I would probably call myself a river rat, having grown up in western Wisconsin and spent my youth on the river and now enjoy it immensely with my own family and two little boys, understand the importance of maintaining the balance of this vitally important national treasure that we have called the Mississippi River Basin. That area has been the key to the fertile lands that we now call the bread basket of America. It is now a multi- billion dollar industry, the agricultural production that occurs in the upper Midwest. But it is also a multi-billion dollar industry in regards to the recreational and tourism use of the upper Mississippi area. In fact, the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge, the largest refuge in the Nation, has more visitors to it than Yellowstone National Park every year. This river basin is the primary drinking source of over 33 million Americans. It is North America's largest migratory route. Forty percent of water foul species, and any person who loves to duck hunt, as I do, will tell Members how vitally important that Mississippi River corridor is to the duck populations in the North American continent. And it is a tremendous economic value to our regional economies, not just the commercial navigation that is vital but also the recreational and the tourism value that it brings to the region.

So all we are asking in this amendment is having an annual report by the Secretary of the Army so we can track the progress being made on both fronts and also this clarification that Congress is going to play a role in making sure that we do maintain balance in regards to lock and dam modernization but also the important investment that has to go into ecosystem restoration.

Both components are expensive, and that is why we need to come back, I think, on a much more frequent basis to review the progress that is being made and be able to justify this to the American taxpayer.

My friend from Arizona is exactly right. We are running budget deficits. These are expensive projects. We should be held accountable. And I think having an annual report to do that is a step forward in that direction.

I just want to conclude by commending and thanking the work that the committee has done in putting together, I think, a very fair and balanced bill; the work that the staff has put in to try to reach consensus. Obviously, it is not without controversy. The NAFF study is something that has been around for over 10 years. It has cost us close to $100 million to conclude before the Corps of Engineers submitted their final report to Congress for our consideration. And my guess is, we are probably going to have to continue working on lock and modernization and the ecosystem portion of the river in years to come.

But I think it is an important first step. I think my amendment does add some value to the underlying bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to say goodbye to our former Governor and former Senator, Gaylord Nelson, who passed away at the age of 89 last week. Wisconsin will miss the man from Clear Lake, who embodied the best of our great State and its proud, progressive tradition, as well as the best our country can offer.

Throughout his many years of public service, Senator Nelson worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of Wisconsin, this country, and the environment. He was one of the first to recognize that economic development and the protection of our natural resources are not mutually exclusive.

He was also keenly aware that public opinion was far ahead of public policy in this area and that policymakers needed to catch up to where the American people were. Most importantly, he recognized the value in doing a better job of protecting the land, the water, the air we breath, and the environment of which we are mere stewards for our children and grandchildren.

In addition, Senator Nelson rightly believed that we have an obligation to work together, all of us as citizens of this planet, to better preserve and protect our natural resources so that we leave the world for our children better off than we found it.

It was his vision that led to the creation of Earth Day in 1970 and a new compact between government and its citizens to enhance the protection and quality of our precious natural resources. Earth Day was then followed by the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and then the passage of the Clean Air and the Clean Water acts.

Thirty-five years later we have taken great strides to improve the environmental stewardship across the entire globe. Earth Day today is celebrated annually by hundreds of millions of people in more than 180 countries. How many other individuals can claim they created a global movement of such magnitude?

Senator Nelson was also someone who recognized that even with all of the progress we had made, our work is far from finished. Until recently, he remained active in the environmental field and provided guidance to others, including myself, on some of the unfinished work still left to do.

There is no other individual that has had a greater impact on shaping the respect and appreciation we have for our environment today. His contributions are invaluable. We owe him a debt of gratitude that we can repay by continuing his work.

Senator, Governor, Father of Earth Day, a veteran of World War II, friend, these are among the many ways Gaylord Nelson will be remembered. He leaves behind a legacy and a lesson that one person with a vision of change and a mountain of determination can have a profound effect on the direction of our country and of the world.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Carrie Lee and the entire Nelson family. I will never forget during our first campaign, when my wife, Tawni, and I were with Senator Nelson and Carrie Lee up in Clear Lake, Wisconsin. They wowed us with their elegance, their grace, their dignity, and they became our role models of what public service should be all about.

Services this week will be held in Madison and in Clear Lake, Wisconsin. We loved him. We will miss him. And we all can honor him by continuing his unfinished work. May the Good Lord bless and keep the great American patriot Gaylord Nelson.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the first day of sale ceremony for the 2005-2006 duck stamp.

It is a great honor to be present today at the first day of sale ceremony. As you may know, Kerissa Nelson, a fellow Wisconsinite, is the artist behind this new stamp, and I would like to take a moment to commend Kerissa on her magnificent work. With the encouragement of her art teacher, Kerissa undertook the great challenge of competing in this years duck stamp contest, and it is clear that her months of hard work paid off. Kerissa, the stamp is beautiful.

However, it is not just the beauty of the stamp that strikes me, but also the message that it conveys. Growing up in Wisconsin, I have a deep-seated love for the outdoors and enjoy hunting and fishing with my two little boys, whose company in the duck blind is the ultimate experience for me. I not only hope to pass on the traditions on hunting to them, but I also hope to pass on the importance of preserving the outdoors and our nation's wildlife.

I am aware that Kerissa is also an avid lover of the outdoors, shooting trap on a weekly league and hunting with her dad, and I commend Kerissa on her ability to convey both the love of hunting and the importance of conservation in the stamp she has designed.

Since the federal duck stamp's inception in 1934, these works of art have raised nearly $700 million to help acquire more than 5.2 million acres of wetlands. Nearly 98 cents out of every duck stamp dollar goes directly for land acquisition on national wildlife refuges--benefiting hundreds of refuges found in every state. This stamp is more than art work; it is a guarantee that our nation's wildlife population will not be threatened by human interference.

Again, thank you, Kerissa, for your great contribution to this cause. Thank you also to everyone who is helping to celebrate Kerissa's achievement and the first day of sale for the new duck stamp.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of the gentleman's time be reserved.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It is a prohibited use of funds amendment to prevent a new rule from being implemented by CMS that would adversely affect and penalize hospitals that have critical access designation throughout the country, of which there is approximately 1,119 serving predominantly rural communities throughout our Nation.

What the new rule that is moving forward would do is, in essence, to strip these hospitals from critical access designation, along with the funding that follows, if they decide to modernize and relocate their facilities further than 250 yards away from their present location.

Obviously many of us in the Rural Health Coalition in this Congress feel is a very restrictive rule, a draconian attempt to try to accomplish something that is laudable, trying to keep these facilities servicing these high-need areas and the people that they are currently servicing, but a 250-yard rule seems overly restrictive to accomplish that purpose.

This would affect the modernization of new facilities that may occur across the street or down the road or a few blocks away or perhaps in a different location in the community in which they are servicing or perhaps even affecting a hospital that was recently impacted by the earthquakes in California and are now forced to have to locate in a different place because of the damage that has been done.

There is another rule that is moving forward by CMS that makes a lot more sense. It would require that if a critical access hospital does move, that they still have to serve at least 75 percent of the current population, the patients and staff that they are already serving. That makes more sense.

So we are hoping today to be able to raise attention to this very important issue. We still have a little bit of time to work this out with CMS. I have recently had conversations with the

chair of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairwoman of the subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means who are interested in working with many of us to try to resolve this issue with CMS.

Based on their assurances in those conversations, we feel very confident that we should be able to work this out with CMS so that we do not go forward on this very restrictive and narrow rule.

I do want to thank, however, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and also the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for their assistance with this amendment and helping to elevate the education in this House in regards to what is taking place.

Hopefully through the conference process, hopefully through the cooperation we expect to receive through CMS, further legislation on this matter will not be necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. And let me just conclude, that based on assurances that we received from the appropriate people on the Committee on Ways and Means, the chair, the subcommittee chairwoman, and also the fact that we still have time in which to cut this rule off before it is fully implemented, it is my intent today to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and hope that we can get this resolved without further legislative action being taken.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a historic building in my home district in Wisconsin. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Pierce County Courthouse has served as a grand symbol of law and order to the people of western Wisconsin

since 1905. I am pleased to honor the 100th anniversary of this unique building.

As early French pioneers made their way westward, they met the pristine beauty and abundant natural resources of the Mississippi River and its surrounding lands. Where the Mississippi meets the St. Croix River, they also encountered one of the most dense concentrations of native American villages in the upper Mississippi River Valley. It was here where many decided to settle, including those who began the first permanent settlement of Pierce County at Prescott in 1827.

By 1853, the population had grown and pierce became its own county, separating from St. Croix County. Prescott served as the first county seat, but in 1861 the people of the county voted to change the seat to Ellsworth. A brick courthouse then was constructed on the site of the current building.

The present courthouse was erected in 1905 in Ellsworth, and its evolution mirrors that of the city and of the county as a whole. The first courthouse in Ellsworth was made of logs. The next was a wooden frame building. Finally, in 1869, the brick courthouse was constructed, which included a jail. By the turn of the century, however, even this building was deemed inappropriate to the image and need of the growing county, and the current courthouse was erected as a true testament of the supremacy of law and a match to the beauty of the surrounding area.

Designed out of the neoclassical and Beaux arts architectural traditions, it is constructed from several types of native stone and accentuated by Tennessee marble. Inside, vaulted ceilings depict the beauty of western Wisconsin, rising to a baroque dome covering the five-story hexagonal rotunda. Mr. Speaker, this building truly brings well-deserved pride to the people of Pierce County.

On March 3, 1982, the Pierce County Courthouse was recognized by the National Register of Historic Places, honoring the courthouse as a historic place with great importance to the Pierce County community and the State of Wisconsin, as well as notable architectural significance. The residents of Pierce County also demonstrated their own appreciation for this unique courthouse when they chose to repair the beautiful building rather than allow the decapitation of its dome, a fate that often befalls historic buildings.

A centennial celebration will be held at the courthouse on June 26, 2005. I commend the people and the local public officials of Pierce County for having the vision to erect such a monument to justice, law, and beauty, and the foresight to maintain this local treasure. This building truly has been a source of pride to Pierce County for 100 years, and it will continue to do so for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to honor this milestone before you today.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

I rise today with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for the purpose of engaging the chairman in this colloquy about the National Youth Sports Program.

Mr. Chairman, this year due to funding constraints, the National Youth Sports Program was not funded in this appropriation bill. The National Youth Sports Program is an educational partnership that has worked successfully for 37 years. It provides low-income children, ages 10 to 16, a 5-week summer program offering sports and academic programs at colleges and universities nationwide.

This proven program also reaches beyond academics and sports to provide opportunities for learning about good nutrition, developing leadership skills, and developing good character. Currently, the program serves about 76,000 kids at 201 colleges and universities across the country. Participants benefit from close contact with caring adults and learn about discipline and self-esteem that organized sports provide. In addition, NYSP gives many participants the first opportunity to experience a college or university campus from the inside. In my home State of Wisconsin, close to 1,600 young people participate in this program.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as the chairman is aware, earlier this year we did have a bipartisan letter of support from over 50 of our colleagues requesting a $20 million appropriation for NYSP. Given the importance of this program to many children throughout the country and the fact that NYSP has successfully leveraged Federal funding to secure substantial matching community investments, we would hope that if the funding is found on the Senate side that the House could be supportive, that the chairman could be supportive of the funding level coming out of the Senate in conference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this serious debate over the First Amendment and our Nation's flag, two of the most sacred institutions to this country.

America is somewhat unique in its devotion to the Nation's flag. Perhaps because we come from so many different backgrounds, cultural traditions, and ethnicities, we see the flag as a source of national unity. Like the majority of Americans, I have the utmost respect and reverence for our flag. For all of us, this reverence begins early on, when as school children we are taught the Pledge of Allegiance and recite it each day with our classmates. Or it begins when we attend a Memorial Day Parade with our parents and look in awe at the veterans, young and old, who still carry the flag with such pride. Seeing the flag treated with this reverence is a powerful lesson for our young people and makes them incredibly proud to be Americans.

The times I have been most proud of my country have been during my two trips to Iraq. Seeing our young men and women in uniform carrying out their mission under dangerous and difficult conditions is an inspiring thing. Seeing their devotion to our flag and all that it represents makes me so grateful to have grown up in this country and to have some small part in helping our troops.

I was struck, during my visits to the country, with how dedicated our servicemen and women are to helping everyday Iraqis. Our men and women in uniform appreciate the freedoms afforded to them, and are eager to see Iraqi citizens enjoy these same freedoms. Mr. Speaker, I believe one of our greatest freedoms is freedom of speech. Our forefathers, in their wisdom, made this the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. After fighting a war against Great Britain for their freedom, they made sure that future Americans would have the right to free speech and free expression.

In deference to our forefathers and out of respect for the brave patriots today who are serving overseas, I cannot in good conscience support this amendment. Burning or desecrating the American flag is an abhorrent action for which I have nothing but contempt. Much as I hate the act, it is not right to deny an American the freedom to express himself in this shameful way.

I would like to close by quoting a man who knows much of patriotism and freedom. Former soldier and Secretary of State Colin Powell, when asked for his views on this issue, said, ``The First Amendment exists to ensure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. This flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I commend him and the chairman of the subcommittee for producing a very good appropriation bill. I echo the sentiments that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just gave on the floor and appreciate the hard work that has gone into it.

I think the rule, however, could have been a little stronger if the Schwartz amendment would have been made in order so we could have had further discussion about the need for increased investment in alternative and renewable energy technologies. I do not think that the energy bill that is working its way through Congress goes far enough, and this was another appropriation measure that could have been a vehicle for that increased investment.

I do appreciate the work that is being done on the Yucca Mountain funding, however. We have two nuclear facilities that are storing a lot of nuclear waste in the upper Mississippi River region right now. Many of us feel it makes sense to have a single, isolated nuclear waste repository in this country, and the studies that have gone into Yucca Mountain and the funding that this committee is providing, it seems to me to be a reasonable and practical approach dealing with the nuclear waste issue.

I especially want to commend the committee for the full support they have given to a very important program for the upper Mississippi River basin, the Environmental Management Program. This was a program that was created in the mid-1980s to strike balance on the multiple uses of the Mississippi region in the upper States. It is a multiple-use resource. It is incredibly valuable economically, quality of life, recreation and tourism. We have commercial navigation that uses the upper Mississippi along with the important recreation and tourism aspect, and the Environmental Management Program really has a twofold mission. One is habitat restoration for the upper Mississippi basin and the other is long term resource monitoring, to monitor the effects that sediment and nutrients are having in the basin.

One of the first things I did as a new Member of Congress was help form a bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus so we could work together from both the North and the South in order to draw attention to the resources that are needed along the Mississippi River.

We have made substantial progress, and I commend the committee's recognition that full funding of the EMP is appropriate at $33 million. This is a program that has received wide bipartisan support, multi- state support. The five upper States of the Mississippi River basin have been fully supportive of this program, as have the Governors and the respective legislatures, and I commend the administration who has consistently submitted their budget requests calling for full funding of the Environmental Management Program.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would commend to my colleagues and include for the Record an article that just appeared in the Washington Post Sunday edition under the Travel section called ``Lolling on the River.'' It describes the quality of life and unique beauty that the upper Mississippi River basin has for all of us in that region.

In it the author of the article, Bill O'Brian writes: ``The Mississippi, the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote, `It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable.' The river of LaSalle, Marquette and Joliet, of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen Ambrose who not long ago wrote, `The river is in my blood. Wherever, whenever, it is a source of delight. More, it is the river that draws us together as a Nation.' ''

EMP is a small part of the importance of this great natural resource which is of vital importance to our Nation. I commend the subcommittee and work they have done in recognizing by fully funding EMP the importance of this vital natural resource.

[From the Washington Post, May 22, 2005]

Lolling on the River: Following the Upper Mississippi by Land

(By Bill O'Brian)

If you think the prairie of Wisconsin and Minnesota is

nothing but nondescript flatlands and farms, Buena Vista Park

in Alma, Wis., is the place for you. Specifically, the bluff

in the park more than 500 feet above the Mississippi River,

which forms the border of the two states.

From that bluff on a clear day, you can see one of the most

awe-inspiring panoramas in all of North America. I've been to

the Grand Canyon. To Yellowstone. To Jackson Hole. To Lake

Louise. To Niagara Falls. To the Oregon, Maine, Carolina and

California coasts. To the interior of Alaska. To the top of

numerous skyscrapers. The vista from the bluff in Alma on a

clear day can compete with any of those places.

From that precipice, you can see for miles into the

Minnesota countryside below. You can gaze upon the lush

greenery of the Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest and the

dark, rich soil of the northern portion of what schoolbooks

call the breadbasket of America. As the Mississippi zigzags

through that bottomland, you can see that the waterway is as

unruly as it is majestic, as undisciplined as it is immense.

It is clear that, left to its own devices, the river would

follow no laws other than those of physics, which state that

water flows from higher elevation to lower via the path of

least resistance.

From that bluff in Alma, you can immediately understand

what Wisconsin outdoors journalist Mel Ellis meant half a

century ago when he wrote, ``If you haven't fished Ol' Man

Mississipp, forget about any preconceived notions you may

have as far as rivers are concerned. Because Ol' Man River

isn't a river at all. In fact, he's a hundred rivers and a

thousand lakes and more sloughs than you could explore in a

lifetime.''

Northeasterners by birth and temperament, my wife, Sue, and

I knew almost nothing firsthand about life along the upper

Mississippi.

The Mississippi--the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote,

``It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in

all ways remarkable,'' The river of La Salle, Marquette and

Joliet. Of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of

Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen

Ambrose, who not long ago wrote, ``The river is in my blood.

Wherever, whenever, it is a source of delight. More, it is

the river that draws us together as a nation.''

So, from the point just outside East Dubuque, Ill., where

the Illinois-Wisconsin border meets the Mississippi about 175

miles

west of Chicago, Sue and I had set out northward on the Great

River Road to see what--and whom--we might find. The river

road is a federally designated scenic byway that stretches

from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. We covered a minuscule

portion of it, a couple of hundred miles mostly in

southwestern Wisconsin, primarily along State Route 35. We

had no itinerary per se. We pulled off the road when the

spirit, or hunger or curiosity, moved us. It was a drive-

by--a lazy, three-day upper Mississippi River drive-by.

On the first day, at a boat landing near the town of

Cassville, Wis., we stopped to chat with Dwayne Durant, a

fortysomething Iowan. Dressed in camouflage hunting gear, he

was standing on the riverbank in the Upper Mississippi River

National Wildlife and Fish Refuge with his dog, Sidney.

Durant had the satisfied countenance of a man who'd just

bagged his limit for the day. He welcomed us to the river,

patiently explained the intricacies and the appeal of duck

hunting, proudly showed us his fresh kill (two wood ducks,

two teal ducks and two mallards), then humbly thanked us for

visiting his corner of the world.

The next morning, at Withey's Bar in Lynxville, Wis. (pop.

176), we introduced ourselves to a soft-spoken gentleman in a

flannel shirt sitting on a stool at the end of the bar. Les

Neefe told us that he was born 77 years ago in a Wisconsin

cheese factory (``not in a hospital, not in the hallway of

the cheese factory, in the cheese factory . . . in a room

above the boiler''). Over coffee, Neefe rhapsodized about the

pleasures of living in a houseboat docked on the Mississippi

six months a year, and he made two recommendations. First, he

suggested that, to get a real taste of Wisconsin, we should

go to the cheese shop up the road in Ferryville and buy some

``sharp cheddar, old sharp cheddar.'' Then, to get a real

taste of river life, we should stop by P&M Concessions next

to Blackhawk Park in De Soto.

We did both. The cheese, a nine-year cheddar, was rich,

creamy and sharper than sharp. Along with apples and

crackers, a block of the cheddar made a memorable watchin'-

the-river-flow picnic lunch.

Outside the P&M Concessions stand was a sign that read,

``Welcome to the River--Sit Long, Talk Much, Fish A Lot.''

Behind the counter was 34-year-old Amy Kroning, whose father

is the proprietor of the bait/tackle/refreshment/boat rental

shop.

``I can't think of anywhere I'd rather be than right

here,'' said Kroning, a mother of five who was born and

raised in De Soto. ``If I get more than an hour from the

river, I get depressed. Really. I'm not kidding. We go to a

Cubs game once a year [in Chicago], and I'm a nervous wreck

the whole time.''

So, what is the allure of the Mississippi?

``It has a calming affect. It's relaxing,'' Verdetta Tusa

said later that day as we stood watching for more than an

hour while an enormous tow barge squeezed, wheezed and

creaked its way through the lock at the town of Genoa, Wis.

``It's the history, too,'' said the 56-year-old lifelong

Minnesotan. ``They've been doing it this way, basically, from

the beginning.''

The lock at Genoa is one of 29 on the upper Mississippi.

Watching tow barges come out of the sharp curves of the river

and negotiate the locks with pinpoint precision is a pastime

unto itself. Typically 15 barges are connected together in

front of one pilot boat. They transport grain, steel, road

salt, fertilizer, coal, petroleum products and other

nonperishable goods up and down the Mississippi most of the

year. It takes a barge about 10 days to get from Minneapolis

to St. Louis, but one 15-unit tow can carry as much grain as

225 rail cars or 870 semi-trucks at a fraction of the cost.

As a barge passes through a lock, you can get close enough

to chat with the stevedores on board. One deckhand told us

that sometimes he stays out on the river for 60 to 80 days at

a time. And that he'd rather toil on the upper Mississippi

than on the lower, especially in the dead of summer, because

down near New Orleans and Memphis, ``it's too hot, and the

skeeters are bigger than I am.''

An hour north of Genoa on State Route 35, not far past La

Crosse, Wis., we came to Perrot State Park, a verdant 1,400-

acre refuge. There, an information marker on a small bluff

overlooking braided channels of the river reminded us just

how remarkable the Mississippi is. It's 2,350 miles long;

it's home to 100 species of fish (most notably walleye,

sturgeon and catfish in these parts); it drains all or part

of 31 states and two Canadian provinces.

``From Red Wing down to Iowa is the most beautiful part of

the river, with all the bluffs and trees. It's almost a

fantasyland,'' said Bob Schleicher. ``It's a place of

mystery. It's got so much folklore. Some of it's true; some

of it's not.''

We met Schleicher, a 65-year-old retired car salesman, at

the municipal marina in Red Wing, Minn., the final town on

our river drive, directly across the bridge from Hager City,

Wis. Captain Bob, as he likes to call himself, told us that

he has navigated the Mississippi from St. Paul, Minn., to its

mouth in Louisiana. He explained that part of the appeal is

that ``you can be whoever you want to be on the river.'' He

told tales of river-running bootleggers, past and present. He

explained how the upper Mississippi differs from the lower--

it is less crowded; it has more islands, beaches and marinas;

its currents are less dangerous; its water is less sandy.

But, he said with a smile, river people have a ``mutual bond,

whether you're a Confederate or a Yankee.''

Schleicher talked for a while about the river's importance

to birds. Forty percent of all North American waterfowl and

326 bird species--including hawks, eagles, falcons, herons

and swans--use the river as a flyway, according to the

Audubon Society. We had seen a handful of bald eagles soaring

over or perched along the river, and Schleicher beamed as he

spoke of the resurgence of that ornithological American icon

on the bluffs near Red Wing.

Then he suggested that, after spending a couple days

driving along the river, Sue and I might want to spend some

time on the river. For $10 apiece, he offered to take us on a

leisurely two-hour cruise in his old military flatboat-

turned-riverboat.

Once we cleared the dock, Schleicher allowed each of us in

the small group on board to take a turn piloting the boat for

a few minutes. As I stood at the helm, guiding the boat

around the river's trademark sweeping bends, minding the red

and green buoys that mark the shipping channel, passing huge

tow barges, I suddenly understood what Schleicher meant when

he said you can be who you want to be on the river.

At that moment, as we glided past the tree-lined banks,

pushed along by the gentle current, the serenity was

overwhelming. And the history palpable. At that moment, I was

every riverman who's ever skippered a slow boat on Ol' Man

Mississipp.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. And just to be clear once again during this debate, this bill limits the use of only those embryos that will be discarded or destroyed from in vitro fertilization clinics with the consent of the donors.

I rise in support of this legislation not because it promises cures for diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's, but because it gives us yet another opportunity to discover cures for these ailments. Adult stem cell research, yes, let us do it. Cord blood research, absolutely. But let us also allow the Federal Government to get more involved in embryonic stem cell research.

The University of Wisconsin has been at the forefront of this research; yet our researchers are being held back because of current Federal policy. We are already falling behind the rest of the world in this research in light of South Korea's recent announcement last week. But it is precisely because the other countries are moving forward that makes our involvement all the more necessary. I believe that we as the leader of the Free World must provide important leadership on the ethical parameters, the ethical constraints that this research requires.

Support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. 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.

Most of the scientific community believes that for the full potential of embryonic stem cell research to be reached, the number of cell lines readily available to scientists must increase. Just last month, a number of NIH directors 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.

Other countries--such as China, India, and the United Kingdom--are forging ahead with embryonic stem cell research because of less restrictive policies. India, for example, has an extensive stem cell regulatory system, yet allows the derivation of new stem cells from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. Our restrictive policy not only puts us at risk of losing our scientific edge, we are also at risk of losing some of the best American scientists to other countries where policies are less restrictive.

Important advances in the science of embryonic stem cell research have been made since the August 2001 policy was set. Earlier this year, researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison figured out how 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, stem cell research has been important to the people of Wisconsin. In fact, Dr. James Thomson, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin, was the first to isolate and culture embryonic stem cells.

In 2003, this esteemed researcher received the Frank Annunzio award, given to recognize the innovative research of American scientists who devote their careers to improving the lives of people through their work in science. Wisconsin has been at the forefront of embryonic stem cell research from the beginning. This legislation is essential to make sure the important work of our scientists is not unnecessarily sidetracked by politics.

But this legislation is not only important because of the potential for advances in science and technology. More important is the fact that embryonic stem cell research could lead to new treatments and cures for the many 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. Just yesterday, results from a survey of Wisconsin voters were released showing overwhelming support for embryonic stem cell research. Nearly two- thirds of those polled support expanding Federal policies to support more research--regardless of party affiliation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation that will allow science to move forward unimpeded, has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine, and can offer hope to the millions of Americans suffering from debilitating diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1760, to designate the post office located at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, as the ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building.''

``Fighting Bob'' La Follette was one of our great American leaders. He spearheaded political reform in both Wisconsin and the Nation, laying the framework for the progressive movement. As governor of Wisconsin, he gained the respect of local farmers, small business owners, and intellectuals with his pledge to break the power of the private monopoly system over the economic life of the American people.

La Follette consistently championed the rights of women, minorities, the working class, and the poor. He called for reform of a tax system that disproportionately burdened middle and lower income Americans, and he campaigned for agricultural reform to relieve the distress of farmers. La Follette's progressive party also called for government control of railroads, the outlawing of child labor, the right of workers to organize unions, and increased protection of civil liberties.

``Fighting Bob'' La Follette was a man fierce in his convictions and steeped in the ideals of Lincoln and Jefferson. In 1957, the Senate voted him one of the five most outstanding Senators of all time.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support H.R. 1760 to rename a post office in Madison, Wisconsin in honor of this extraordinary American, Robert La Follette.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the supplemental. I do believe that we need to provide our troops with the tools and the resources that they need to do their job safely and effectively.

I have had an opportunity on two separate occasions now, Mr. Speaker, to travel to Iraq to visit our troops in the field, and nothing has made me feel prouder to be an American than seeing our troops in action. They are well trained. They are well motivated. They are the best that we have to offer. I know we all hope and pray for the safety of their mission and their safe return home to be reunited with their families.

I also want to commend the troops and the families of the 1158 Transportation Unit and the 128 Infantry Guard Unit in western Wisconsin that are currently serving in the Iraq theater right now.

But I do have some concerns in regard to the supplemental. I do believe that we owe a higher responsibility to our troops and their families and our taxpayers by supporting more oversight and accountability in this bill, such as the creation of a Truman Commission that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) has been advocating for some time. We need more accountability on how the money is being used or misused in Iraq right now. We need to fix that.

I also have a concern that we are not paying for anything. It is awfully easy to come to the House floor and puff ourselves up and claim that we are supportive of the troops, we are doing all of these nice things for them and the families when we do not have the responsibility to pay for it. $82 billion today, well over $300 billion and counting, all deficit financing and we are mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future. This is exactly why the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and I offered an amendment to strip funding for the creation of an embassy in Iraq, not because we do not agree that one is necessary, but because we wanted to make the point

that that is not an emergency item. None of this is unexpected emergency circumstances, and, therefore, we need to start budgeting and practice fiscal responsibility again. Miraculously, the embassy is back in this bill, another $600 million, none of it paid for.

Finally, I am concerned that there is no objective criteria to measure progress in Iraq. During the Second World War, you could pretty much put pins on maps and see the progress of the front lines. You could do that in Korea. In Vietnam, we had body counts that did not work very well, nor was it an appropriate measure to use. Today we have no objective criteria for us to understand whether we are succeeding and making progress there. I think that's one of the reasons why public support is dropping. I think we need to get some type of criteria for ourselves, for the troops, for their families and for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments, but just to correct the historical record, you may recall in the 1960s, President Johnson did decide to pay for the war. There were some tax increases in order to support the ongoing military operation. It can be done. It should be done in this instance as well. We have been there for a couple years now. We are going to be there in future years. We need to start paying for this.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I commend her for her hard work in the reauthorization of this very important bill.

Mr. Chairman, Wisconsin is very proud of the career and technical college system that we have back home. In fact, I have four of the technical schools in the Third Congressional District in western Wisconsin as well as many of their campus satellites. They have been vital components for economic growth and economic development in our region under the fine leadership of Karen Knox; Lee Rasch; Bill Ihlenfeldt, who actually testified before the Education Committee on this bill; as well as Tim Schreiner, David Hilderbrand, Dr. Mark Hurley. Even though the President did not support reauthorization of this legislation, we believe it is an important investment to make, Mr. Chairman.

The single most important factor in determining America's success in the 21st century will be maintaining our ability to be an innovative and creative society. Over the last few years, the world has become a smaller and more integrated place with technology that is leveling the playing field like never before. Competition and collaboration exist now not just between countries and companies but also between individuals. Meeting this challenge requires a new set of big ideas.

Instead of the administration being so eager to dismantle the New Deal, we

should be working together to offer the American people a New New Deal. A New Deal that will enable our people to compete successfully in the 21st century economy with a renewed commitment to worker training programs; an education investment that emphasizes math, science and engineering; research funding in science and medicine; and a comprehensive broadband strategy so every American has access to high- speed Internet hookup.

We believe that economics does not necessarily have to be a zero-sum game; it can be a win-win proposition for everyone involved so long as they have the tools in which to succeed.

One of the unfortunate aspects of this reauthorization bill is the attempt to remove as a separate funded program the Technical Preparation program. I commend my friend from Delaware who is about to offer an amendment later today at least calling for level funding of the Tech-prep program for the next fiscal year. But once you eliminate the separate status of the Technical Preparation program, the fear is that we are going to lose focus and that the institutions will lose focus or, even worse, that the funding stream will become weakened in future years. I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment that the gentleman from Delaware will be offering to at least provide level funding of this important program.

Technology is driving the innovation. Technology is driving the creativity. Technology and the use of that is going to determine our workers' ability to compete in the 21st century global marketplace. I would hope that the Senate version which keeps the Tech-prep program as a separate funded entity will remain; but at the very least let us support the Castle amendment when it comes up today.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I too want to commend everyone on the committee and the staff in regards to the bipartisan process of bringing the vocational education bill to the floor for reauthorization. I think it is pretty self- evident that those of us who do have career and tech colleges in our district understand the true value that they bring in preparing the workforce for the future, and the incredible involvement that they have in our community, the leadership that they provide, the economic development and spin-off opportunities that arise from them.

Just one example: we had before the Committee on Education and the Workforce a little bit earlier this year President Bill Ihlenfeldt, who is president of the Chippewa Valley Tech College in my congressional district in western Wisconsin. They have just launched and broken ground on a new nanotechnology center that they are moving forward on, clearly trying to advance the skills of our workers in the region on what could be the next ``new'' thing in regards to economic opportunities, job creation, cutting-edge

science and engineering, and technological discoveries in this new nanotechnology center.

Every bill, as the chairman of the committee expressed, may not be a perfect bill; but this one is good. It could be better. This amendment makes it a little bit better, and I commend my colleague and friend from Delaware for offering the amendment to clarify the language that at least for the next fiscal year we will be looking at level funding for the Tech-Prep program.

During markup of the legislation in committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I offered an amendment that would have restored and kept in tact the separate identity as well as the separate funding stream for the Tech-Prep program. We were not doing this just willy-nilly in support of the status quo, but we were doing it in response to those who have worked with the Tech-Prep program, the feedback that we were getting from outside organizations, and the leadership of the tech education system in the country, about the importance of maintaining Tech-Prep as a separate, distinct identity with a separate funding stream, which the Senate bill recognizes and is moving forward on.

They fear, as I do and others who supported the amendment in committee, that by removing it as a separate entity, by merging it into the general grant program, we are going to lose focus, lose attention, lose incentives for these programs to continue to function in the highly successful manner in which they have. I think, hopefully, we will have a chance to come back and address that issue in conference once the Senate completes their work.

But I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I would encourage them to support the underlying bill. I think it is an important investment in regards to maintaining our ability to be creative and innovative as a society. Right now, we are just leaving too many students behind. There was a recent report submitted to Congress that showed that because of tuition increases and fees, with the cutbacks in financial aid programs at the Federal and State level, with the eroding value of the Pell grant, that 48 percent of low-income students are not going on to postsecondary education opportunities, whether it is a career or technical college, whether it is a 4-year college or university. In short, we are leaving too many students behind at the exact time when we cannot afford to leave anyone behind.

Just a few weeks ago, under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon), some of us on the Education Committee had a chance to do an education tour of China. China is getting it. China is trying to propel themselves into the modern economy of the 21st century. This whole globalization that is going on and the trade debates that we have is not so much a race to the bottom with weak labor and environmental standards as it is a race to the top. And China is a country, having just come from there, that is not content at just being good at copying what we make and mass producing it. They want to be good at the cutting-edge research of technology and science and medicine, and they are making major investments in their education infrastructure today that we have never seen before.

They are graduating eight times the number of engineers that we are in our own country. Unless we are willing to accept a fate which may lead us to a less competitive position with countries like China and India that are making this conversion in regards to their education system, we need to recognize the value of a vocational and technical education system, the reauthorization of this bill, the higher education bill, which we will hopefully have an opportunity to bring up later in the year; and offer a new New Deal for the American people, for the workers and the students and our children by holding out hope and a promise that they will be able to develop the skills and the qualities that they need to survive and to succeed in what is a very integrated, competitive playing field throughout the world today.

This, I think, is an important and significant step to making that investment. Hopefully, through the work the Senate and the conference committee later this year will do, we will be able to improve some of the provisions in this bill to make it even better. But this amendment is worthy of support, the bill is worthy of bipartisan support, so that we can at least be moving in the right direction in regards to the global competition that we are all facing, but especially the students who are in the audience here today and the rest of our children, so that they know that they are going to have the ability to compete in a global marketplace.

Again, I commend the leadership on the committee for the work done on this bill, and I encourage support of the amendment and the underlying legislation.