Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as we approach Memorial Day, it is proper that the House take a moment to remember the brave American men and women of our armed forces who

have died defending freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In particular, I want to take this time to remember heroes from my district in western Wisconsin.

First Lieutenant Jeremy L. Wolfe, U.S. Army, of Menomonie, Wisconsin. Lieutenant Wolfe was assigned to the 4th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He died serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on November 15, 2003.

Major Christopher J. Splinter, U.S. Army, of Platteville, Wisconsin. Major Splinter was assigned to the 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He died serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on December 24, 2003.

Private First Class Bert E. Hoyer, U.S. Army Reserve, of Ellsworth, Wisconsin. Private Hoyer was assigned to the 652nd Engineer Company, Ellsworth, Wisconsin. He died serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 10, 2004.

Private First Class Gregory R. Goodrich, U.S. Army Reserve, of Bartonville, Illinois. Private Goodrich's mother lives in Hillsboro, Wisconsin. He was assigned to the 724th Transportation Company, Bartonville, Illinois. Private Goodrich died serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on April 9, 2004.

These young men paid the ultimate price to enhance our security and protect our liberties; they also gave the people of Iraq the greatest gift of all: their freedom. I want to extend my heartfelt sympathies to their families and friends. Young leaders like these exemplify all that is good and decent about America.

On behalf of a grateful nation, we thank all our brave men and women serving in hard and dangerous conditions to bring stability and freedom to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. God bless those who are serving and those who have fallen. Their sacrifice is honored by all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, these are budgets with pay-as-you-go rules. These are budgets that do not have pay-as-you-go rules, from 4 years of budget surpluses to record setting budget deficit. What is hard to understand here?

Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the legacy of this administration cannot be historically large budget deficits and rising anti- Americanism throughout the globe. Yet that is exactly what is taking place here this evening.

We have an obligation to do better. As the father of two little boys, I did not come to this Congress to leave a legacy of debt for our children and grandchildren to inherit. This will not make us more prosperous, nor will it make us more secure at the end of the day.

We can do better, and by applying pay-as-you-go rules just to the United States Senate and not to the House of Representatives is the height of deceit and double-speak that we have before us this evening.

I encourage my colleagues to reject this budget resolution. We can and must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 409, which recognizes the 16,000,000 Americans who served in the armed forces during World War II and the millions more who supported them at home. As the dedication of the National World War II Memorial and the 60th anniversary of D-Day approach, our country will rightfully be thinking of those Americans who bravely gave or risked their lives to a great cause.

I remain in awe of this generation, of men who accepted the call to travel around the world to spend years fighting in the Asian and Pacific theaters, and of women who kept the country running by assuming jobs in factories, growing victory gardens, and serving overseas in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps and other capacities.

It has been my good fortune to spend some time with veterans and their families in my home district of western Wisconsin, and I always enjoy hearing their stories of wartime. In fact, it was the experience of listening to my uncle, a World War II veteran, that inspired me to introduce legislation creating The Veterans Oral History Project. Almost four years after becoming public law, the Veterans History Project at the Library of Congress has collected 16,000 stories and is working at a feverish pace to collect more everyday. This living legacy is testament to the millions of Americans who sacrificed so much during World War II.

Now, almost 60 years after the end of the war, a monument has at last been built in our nation's capital that pays tribute to the generation that fought and won World War II. The monument, set in the middle of the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument, will remind all visitors to the city that World War II was the defining event of the 20th Century and the seminal point for what is often and aptly called ``the Greatest Generation.''

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support providing tax relief to middle-income Americans by extending the 10 percent tax bracket expansion that is scheduled to expire next year.

Without action, the current amount of income subject to the 10 percent tax bracket will decrease by $1,000 for individual filers and $2,000 for couples as required under the 2003 tax cut package. While the majority of the 2003 tax proposal that passed the House was fiscally irresponsible and designed to benefit only the wealthiest of Americans, its provision expanding the 10 percent tax bracket to benefit more middle-income taxpayers had bipartisan agreement. The legislation before us today and the substitute offered by Congressman Tanner will permanently extend the current income levels failing under the 10 percent tax bracket.

As we extend the 10 percent tax bracket expansion, we need to act in a fiscally responsible manner. It is unfair to Americans today, and especially the next generation, to delude ourselves by thinking the record budget deficits facing our Nation, estimated by the White House at over $500 billion this year alone, will simply go away.

As a member of the House Budget Committee, I supported a budget resolution that would have extended the 10 percent tax bracket expansion while still reducing the deficit. This approach requires tough choices, prioritization, and a bipartisan commitment to helping working families. With the House-Senate conference committee still negotiating the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005, I remain hopeful that we will be able to provide Americans continued tax relief today without raising the debt burden on our children's generation.

The substitute offered today by Representative Tanner is a more responsible bill that will provide relief to millions of families while not increasing the budget deficit. By adding a rate adjustment of 1.9 percentage points of the tax cuts for households making over $1 million, the Tanner substitute provides a reasonable offset to benefit more American families without burdening our children with added debt that they will have to pay off. Further the Tanner substitute also completely protects against these tax cuts being taken back by the Alternative Minimum Tax, and provides incentive to address mounting Federal deficits by making permanency of this tax provision contingent on a balanced budget in 2014. This is a superior approach, helps more Americans, and ensures most middle income taxpayers will not have to worry about a tax increase related to the 10 percent bracket in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we act today to ensure average- income Americans will not unfairly jump into a higher tax bracket in 2005. However, I believe we can and must provide this relief in a fiscally responsible manner that will not burden future generations of Americans. Just as it was true last week when we passed legislation permanently repealing the marriage penalty tax, our work is far from over in helping working families face the challenge of today's economy. We must come together in a bipartisan manner to craft a fiscally responsible budget resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for the fine work and the leadership that he has shown on such an important issue. This is an important issue.

It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again without any change in the result. Yet that is what we have been having this week in Congress, bills that have already been debated and deliberated upon and voted upon last year coming back again for another kick at the can, which is fine. In an issue as important as this, I think it is important for the Congress to take a moment and start talking about the plight of small businesses and family farmers across the country who are suffering under rising health care costs and fearful of the inability of being able to provide coverage for their families or their employees because of the cost of insurance today.

This is such a fundamental and crucial issue if we want to be serious about economic growth, if we want to be concerned about the 43-million- plus uninsured that exist in this country. As I travel through my congressional district in western Wisconsin meeting with small business owners and their employees, meeting with family farmers, the number one, chief concern that they continuously raise is the expensive health care and accessing the quality system that exists in this country right now on an affordable basis.

It is a travesty that 20 percent of my dairy farmers in Wisconsin have no health coverage at all for themselves or their families, one of the more dangerous occupations in the entire country. It is a travesty that as I talk to small business owners who would like nothing better than to provide some health coverage for their employees, tell me that they cannot because they cannot afford it. In a country as great and as powerful and as wealthy as ours, we have got to do better and we have to get serious.

What we are about to talk about in the remaining minutes of the duration of this debate is there is a better way. The gentleman from New Jersey and I have drafted a substitute to what is being offered before the House today. It is one based in common sense, in reality in regards to what will work and what will not, what will extend coverage to the uninsured and what will not; what will bring more affordability to the health care system, to these small business owners, their employees and to our family farmers, and what will not.

Our bill is very simple. It is based on the Federal Employee Health Plan. It does establish national purchasing pools but it goes through State-licensed insurers so we do not have Federal preemption of State law over such crucial areas as cancer screening, whether it is mammograms, breast cancer, cervical cancer screenings, whether it is emergency care or maternity care, issues that the States have wrestled with with themselves and found it important enough to pass law on a State-to-State basis to provide coverage for these important services. And also to cover autism health care. I am proud that the State of Wisconsin is one of 17 that does mandate the coverage of autism health care for our citizens in the State, one that is exploding right now and very expensive for society. Health care experts and those affected by autism, those families of autistic children, realize that the key to effective treatment is early identification. If we allow this AHP plan to pass, which preempts State law, that says, hey, insurers, you don't have to provide coverage even though the State of Wisconsin says this is the right policy to do, it is only going to exacerbate the system in this country in regard to effective autistic treatment for children in our communities.

That is what this debate is all about. It is a very simple, commonsense approach to dealing with what is a national crisis and, I view, a national emergency.

Rather than offering a piece of legislation where the American Academy of Actuaries, where Mercer has released a study indicating that it would increase rather than decrease the rolls of the uninsured by 1 million people, our substitute version that provides national purchasing options, that provides subsidy payments to employers with 50 or fewer employees in order to keep those health care premiums down and our ability to potentially extend health care coverage to the 43 million uninsured to an additional 33 million Americans, we think this is the best approach to take. This is not an issue about who supports small business or family farmers more or who is more concerned about the plight of the uninsured. This is about what will work and what will not work. That is why we have the National Governors Association, the Republican and Democratic Governors Association, the National Association of Attorneys General and Insurance Commissioners, over 1,000 organizations including 66 chambers of commerce who are saying that the majority AHP plan will not work. Not because they desire some power grab and to maintain their own State regulations, but because it is based on reality and an independent and objective study of what will and what will not work.

That is why I would hope that my colleagues, before they ultimately make up their mind and cast their vote today, that they have a chance to quickly look at the actuary study, to quickly look at the Mercer study and to pause before we embark upon a road that could potentially lead to another million uninsured in our society. Enough is enough.

We need to be going in the opposite direction rather than where I fear the AHP bill would go. The substitute that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering offers that hope and that potential to achieve that, and I would encourage my colleagues to support the substitute, vote ``no'' on the AHP bill, and let us move forward together on something that has the potential of working very well for small businesses and family farmers throughout the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a true champion of small business owners and their employees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), an expert in the health care field and one who does not want to embark upon a course of adding an additional 1 million people to the uninsured ranks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

With all due respect to the chairman of our committee, and I have great respect and admiration for him and I think he is well motivated with this underlying bill, but our bill does, in fact, cover self- employed. Under the definition of what constitutes an employer, an individual who is self-employed would also be covered. So I just wanted to clarify the record in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the co-author of our substitute bill before us.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, this debate really is about two very distinct and different options: one that, again, through independent analysis and review, indicates could lead to an increase of 1 million more uninsured in this country, as opposed to the substitute that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering today; one that is based on reality and supported by a host of organizations throughout the Nation, including the Governors Association, the Attorneys General, and the insurance commissioners, those who work with this on a day-to-day basis and see the real impact it is having on real people in their individual States.

Our plan is simple. It also talks about establishing a national purchasing pool, but one working with state-licensed insurers, so we do not preempt State law and the judgment being made by State legislatures and local decisionmakers on what is or is not appropriate health care coverage in that particular State.

I am proud of many of the coverages that the State of Wisconsin has chosen to include under the State regulations. I am also proud of the fact that the State legislature and Governor are signing into law and setting up model programs of this purchasing pool concept in Wisconsin, allowing small business owners and family farmers to join cooperatives with a menu of health options, but under State regulation, not exempting them and not preempting what the State has already done.

I have a feeling that that is going to work, and work very well, if the demand that exists from back home is any indication of the desire to enter into these pilot programs.

That is the identical version that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering and talking about today, allowing this purchasing pool concept to go forward under State law, so that important health care services and screening does not get preempted and lead to a diminution in the quality of care that citizens in States have come to expect and desire.

Why is this important? 44 million uninsured is a travesty and a blemish on our national character. It gets to the real root and basis of us and what we are all about as a Nation. Being able to access quality and affordable health care is something that affects all of us, from businesses large and small, from individuals to small business owners, to farmers, to us here in Congress; and the fear we see in constituents' eyes back home when they know they do not have health coverage for their families and their children, it is real.

And when they do not have coverage and they do get sick or they do get hurt, they still are able to access the health care system, just through more expensive means, typically through the emergency door. And those costs then are shifted on to private plans that do have coverage, which contributes to the rising premium expenses that are sweeping the Nation today.

So I think it is in our fundamental national interest to do what we can to make sure that the 43 million or 44 million currently uninsured receive coverage, so we have better preventive care up front, so the children of our Nation have a way to access the health care system, which can save us money and pay dividends in the long run.

I think this is an objective that we share in a bipartisan fashion, but it is one that I think can better be achieved through the Kind- Andrews substitute.

It is paid for within the budget resolution that the majority party has passed in this session of Congress. It does offer premium support payments to employees with 50 or fewer employees, because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is correct, even if we have some savings in premium expenses, your average small business employer probably is still prohibited from being able to access an insurance pool and being able to pick up the expense and providing coverage for their employees.

We are saying we can do better by offering them some of this premium price assistance to make it more affordable and to create the incentives so we have small business owners who I believe want desperately to be able to provide coverage, to be in a position to better afford that type of coverage.

This is what we need to try to achieve. This should be a dream we all hold in this Congress. Because unless and until we fix this fundamental flaw in the health care system in our country, we are not going to see the robust job growth that we desperately need today. We are not going to see businesses, either large or small, anxious for additional hires for fear of incurring the additional health care expense. I think it is one of the reasons why we have not seen the explosion of job growth over the last couple of years, even though the administration has been fond of pointing to expanding economic conditions in this country. It is the health care system, and it needs to be addressed.

I think we desperately need to do it, and I think we have the opportunity today to make a significant step in that direction.

I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the majority Associated Health Plan and support a real plan that can work for real Americans, the Kind-Andrews substitute.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my home State of Wisconsin has sensible medical malpractice laws that make the State attractive to doctors and safe for patients. The components of this successful law include a cap on non-economic damages of $442,000, which is indexed annually for inflation; a requirement that all providers carry malpractice insurance; and a victims' compensation fund.

The victims' compensation fund is a unique entity that has served both patients and health care providers well. The fund operates by collecting contributions from Wisconsin health care providers and paying the victims once an award has been determined. The physicians are liable only for the first $1 million in an award. If the award exceeds $1 million, the compensation fund will pay the remainder of the award. For several years now, this system has served the State well. Like many of my colleagues, I believe that we need sensible malpractice reform, and were the bill before us today similar to Wisconsin's system, I would be proud to support it.

Unfortunately, H.R. 4280 is vastly different from Wisconsin law and goes too far in defending negligence and not far enough in protecting patients. The legislation goes beyond medical malpractice law by including provisions regarding pharmaceutical and medical devices and completely exempts from liability medical device makers and distributors as well as pharmaceutical companies, as long as the product complies with FDA standards. These provisions would have no effect on medical malpractice insurance rates. Instead, they would leave victims with little recourse and render them unable to hold pharmaceutical companies and the makers of defective medical products accountable for faulty or unsafe products.

Another problem with H.R. 4280 is that it overrides some State laws. While the bill would not override Wisconsin's own cap on non-economic damages, it would supersede our State laws regarding statute of limitations, attorney's fees, and the criteria for punitive damages. This bill is a one-size-fits-all solution that is not right for Wisconsin.

The successful components of Wisconsin's medical malpractice laws could be the basis for a much better bill. Wisconsin law protects patients and keeps physicians in business. These laws are threatened, however, by the current proposal. Therefore, I oppose H.R. 4280 and ask my colleagues to defeat the bill, revisit the issue, and create a more sensible plan that will protect patients and help doctors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of our seniors. May is Older Americans Month, and I commend communities around the country for the special work they are doing to honor senior citizens.

The theme of Older Americans Month for 2004 is ``Aging Well, Living Well.'' Every day I see examples of seniors in my district in western Wisconsin who are indeed aging and living well. Eighty-year-old constituents who continue to work every day stop by my office to discuss issues that impact their businesses; grandparents tell me about the hours they spend each week volunteering at The Boys and Girls Club or other sites; and seniors faithfully show up at town hall meetings, asking questions, sharing opinions, and demonstrating their knowledge of what goes on here in Washington.

It is especially fitting to celebrate seniors this month as we prepare for the dedication of the World War II Memorial. More than perhaps any other event, World War II will long define the heroism, patriotism and strength of what is aptly called ``the greatest generation.'' Sixteen million Americans served in the armed forces during the war. Millions more served at home by growing victory gardens, collecting scrap metal, and taking factory jobs to support the troops overseas and keep the country running. Men who had never left their home states were shipped halfway around the world to serve in the Asian and Pacific theaters. And women who had never held jobs outside the home took work in factories, offices, and on faraway battlefields. Nearly sixty years after the conclusion of this war, the stories of these brave men and women remain moving.

After serving and sacrificing on the war front and the home front, this generation then returned home to construct the interstate highway system, explore outer space, and see America through an unprecedented era of growth and improvement. Clearly, we can never adequately thank this generation for what they have done. No words can express how grateful we are for the milestones--surviving the Great Depression, winning World War II--or for those everyday struggles and sacrifices that go largely unrecorded.

The seniors throughout our country--the retired schoolteachers, the millions of veterans, the farmers and all those who helped make our country great--deserve more thanks than we can give them. I am glad, though, that we have this month to recognize the generation that defined America in the 20th Century and continues to impact us all today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 409, which recognizes the 16 million Americans who served in the Armed Forces during World War II and the millions more who supported them at home. As the dedication of the National World War II Memorial and the 60th anniversary of D-Day approach, our country will rightfully be thinking of those Americans who bravely gave or risked their lives to a great cause.

I remain in awe of this generation, of men who accepted the call to travel around the world to spend years fighting in the Asian and Pacific theaters, and of women who kept the country running by assuming jobs in factories, growing victory gardens, and serving overseas in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps and other capacities.

It has been my good fortune to spend some time with veterans and their families in my home district of western Wisconsin, and I always enjoy hearing their stories of wartime. In fact, it was the experience of listening to my uncle, a World War II veteran, that inspired me to introduce legislation creating the Veterans Oral History Project. Almost 4 years after becoming public law, the Veterans History Project at the Library of Congress has collected 16,000 stories and is working at a feverish pace to collect more everyday. This living legacy is testament to the millions of Americans who sacrificed so much during World War II.

Now, almost 60 years after the end of the war, a monument has at last been built in our Nation's Capital that pays tribute to the generation that fought and won World War II. The monument, set in the middle of the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument, will remind all visitors to the city that World War II was the defining event of the 20th century and the seminal point for what is often and aptly called ``the Greatest Generation.''

Mr. Speaker, the acts of abuse against Iraqi prisoners by American service members are abhorrent and sad. This is not behavior reflective of American values; it is not behavior that helps our cause, and it is not behavior that will be tolerated. Thorough investigations need to root out those responsible, directly and indirectly, for this unlawful conduct no matter how high up the chain of command it goes. Those responsible must be held accountable for their actions.

Congress needs to be highly involved in investigating the actions of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison and the conditions and circumstances that led to these abuses. Reports show that the military was well aware of the situation and conducting its own investigations for months prior to the release of the photos at Abu Ghraib now circulating through the world media. The failure of the Administration to keep Congress informed of the extent and seriousness of prisoner abuse, and the photos documenting it, is unacceptable.

Further, Congress must address and investigate the role of private security forces in Iraq. These forces, which constitute the second largest army in Iraq and account for over 40 percent of all contracting costs in Iraq, are outside the U.S. chain of command. The ability to hold these individuals accountable for their actions under law is questionable.

We must not lose focus, however, that the over 300,000 U.S. military personnel who have served and are serving in Iraq are doing an honorable job under difficult and dangerous conditions. While the Department of Defense investigation into the actions and conduct of the abuses at Abu Ghraib list a number of officers and enlisted personnel who failed to perform their duties as required, it also notes a number of officers and enlisted personnel who acted honorably and reported abuses up the chain of command. When I visited Iraq in October, 2003, I met with many honorable troops, including soldiers from western Wisconsin, who were performing their mission with outstanding commitment and professionalism. The abuses at Abu Ghraib serve only to cloud the accomplishments and sacrifices of our troops and put honorable U.S. service members in greater danger.

Mr. Speaker, perception matters when trying to execute our foreign policy and especially a military mission. We are dangerously losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and the rest of the Arab world, and the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison serve only to exacerbate this unfortunate reality. We must reinforce to the international community through our words and our actions that the United States is committed to helping the Iraqi people prosper in a free society.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support providing relief to middle- income Americans from an encroaching Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

Without action this year to extend the current AMT exemption levels passed in 2003, millions of Americans will feel the AMT crunch in 2005. While the AMT was enacted in 1969 to prevent high-income earners from using loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying their fair share, the AMT is increasingly becoming an unfair tax burden on millions of middle-income Americans. Because of factors including inflation and income tax reductions, the complex calculations used by individuals and couples to determine if they must pay any AMT have adjusted and now unfairly punish middle-income families, particularly those with children in high-tax states.

For the third year in a row, the Internal Revenue Service's Taxpayer Advocate Service's Report to Congress lists AMT encroachment as the most serious problem encountered by taxpayers. The AMT now impacts more than 2.4 million Americans. Unless reformed, the AMT will impact 12.4 million in 2005 and more than 30 million Americans in 2010. On top of that, even more taxpayers will be forced to perform intense computations to determine if AMT applies to them.

While the majority of the 2003 tax proposal that passed the House was fiscally irresponsible and designed to benefit only the wealthiest of Americans, its provision providing increased AMT exemptions in 2003 and 2004 had bipartisan agreement. However, while everyone seems to agree that the AMT needs to be reformed, the President's budget for fiscal year 2005 again covered up the full cost of fixing the AMT--estimated by the CBO at over $500 billion--by proposing another one-year extension. A comprehensive, bipartisan proposal is long overdue to address the problems of the AMT, and it is important that Congress account for this necessary reform in its budget resolutions.

As we reform the AMT to provide relief to middle-income Americans, we need to act in a fiscally responsible manner. It is unfair to Americans today, and especially the next generation, to delude ourselves by thinking the record budget deficits facing our nation, estimated by the White House at over $500 billion this year alone, will simply go away.

As a member of the House Budget Committee, I supported a budget resolution that allows for extending AMT relief while still reducing the deficit. This approach requires tough choices, prioritization, and a bipartisan commitment to helping working families. With the House- Senate conference committee still negotiating the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005, I remain hopeful that we will be able to provide Americans continued tax relief today without raising the debt burden on our children's generation.

The substitute offered today by Representative Neal is a more responsible bill that will provide relief to more than 10 million families while not increasing the budget deficit. By closing corporate tax shelters, the Neal substitute provides a responsible offset to benefit more American families without burdening our children with added debt that they will have to pay off. Further the Neal substitute unambiguously and completely exempts married couples with incomes under $250,000 from the AMT. This is a superior approach, helps more Americans, and ensures most middle income taxpayers will not have to worry about the AMT.

Mr. Chairman, it is important that we act today to ensure average income Americans will not unfairly face the alternative minimum tax in 2005. However, I believe we can and must provide this relief in a fiscally responsible manner that will not burden future generations of Americans. Just as it was true last week when we passed legislation permanently repealing the marriage penalty tax, our work is far from over in helping working families face the challenges of today's economy. We must come together in a bipartisan manner to craft a fiscally responsible budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 605, which recognizes the importance of increasing awareness of autism, advocates increased research, and pays tribute to those who care for individuals with autism.

More prevalent than Down syndrome, childhood cancer, and childhood diabetes combined, autism is a developmental disorder that is affecting a growing number of Americans. Studies show that one of every 250 babies born today will develop some form or autism. Individuals with autism face a wide array of biomedical and neurological difficulties, all of which result in a compromised immune system. The physical toll on children with autism is enormous, and the physical, emotional, and financial burden that parents of autistic children face is great. I have enormous respect for the parents, friends, and families of autistic children who sacrifice so much in order to care for their children.

Residents in my home state of Wisconsin are fortunate to have access to intensive in-home therapy with certified providers, and I applaud universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, which is making great progress with its autism intervention program that trains students in autism behavior analysis and therapy. I believe we have a responsibility to aid colleges and universities that are doing such important work. I am also proud to be a member of the Congressional Coalition for Autism Research and Education, which seeks to educate members on the realities of autism and work to increase federal funding for autism research and services.

I have been fortunate during my years in Congress to meet with many parents of autistic children who continue to amaze me with the selfless work they do each day. Recently, I was able to spend some time at Willow River Elementary School in Hudson, Wisconsin, which has one of the highest rates of autistic children in the state. It was a pleasure to spend time with special education teachers who work so diligently with their students. The morning was a reminder of both the problems and promise autistic children have.

Mr. Speaker, we must work to better the situations of the children and families who live with autism on a daily basis. I commend Mr. Tierney and Mr. Burton for offering this important resolution and am pleased to be an original cosponsor. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue, and I thank my colleague from Indiana for offering this resolution of which I am a proud cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the body tomorrow when it comes up for consideration will adopt this resolution. This is a very serious matter in regard to some of the practices and the abuses I feel that are currently taking place in Laos. The resolution is very simple, expressing the sense of the House regarding the urgent need for freedom and democratic reform and international monitoring of elections, human rights and religious liberty in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The United States owes a debt of gratitude to the Hmong veterans and their families who served as loyal and dedicated allies during the so- called secret war in southeast Asia and the Vietnam conflict, a war that many Hmong members participated in on the side of U.S. soldiers in the jungles of southeast Asia. Between 20,000 and 30,000 Hmong lost their lives during this time and more than 100,000 Hmong were forced to either flee or live in refugee camps after the U.S. pullout in southeast Asia. Through their sacrifices, many American lives were saved, and our Nation must remain committed to recognizing their service.

Today, approximately 170,000 Hmong currently reside in the United States, including 35,000 in my home State of Wisconsin. Many of these Hmong Americans have family members still in Laos facing constant allegations of harassment, imprisonment, even kidnapping and killing of ethnic Hmong by Lao authorities. These have been brought to my attention, and these allegations have been raised in many different forums. Due to modern technology, many of these reports are coming out of Laos almost simultaneously when they are occurring through the advent of cell phones documenting the abuse and some of the atrocities being committed there.

I believe it is time for this Congress and the administration to support international observance teams to go into Laos to observe firsthand the conditions that are occurring there. We need the support from our administration and from the Congress, I think, to put pressure on the government there to accept these international teams of observers. The Lao Government has one of the most egregious human rights records in the world. The State Department's own country report on human rights practices in Laos makes clear the lack of respect for human rights demonstrated by the Lao Government.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are many Hmong families still in Wisconsin and throughout the country who are very concerned in regards to the conditions of their own families or relatives or friends who are still in Laos. They come to Washington from time to time. These are a proud people, many of whom have now achieved their U.S. citizenship. They are productive members of our society. Their children are in our schools, growing up to get an American education and be productive citizens in the country. But their ties back to Laos still remain very strong, and it runs very deep. I think this body, this United States Congress, owes it to them, our friends and allies and in many instances our neighbors and citizens in our own community, to take these allegations seriously, to increase the pressure on the Lao Government to allow inspections, to allow the investigation to go forward within that country so we can document and definitively determine what the situation is inside that border. I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution. I thank my colleagues for bringing it forward this evening.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, as well as co-chair of National Charter School Week, I strongly support the H. Res. 600, legislation honoring the fifth annual National Charter Schools Week.

Public schools are America's commitment to providing a high quality education for every child. I am dedicated to ensuring that all children have the opportunity to receive a quality education regardless of what public school they attend. This includes charter schools, which are models of successful education reform and one of the fastest growing education innovations working to improve our public education.

As a National Co-Chair of Charter Schools Week, I would like to take a minute to celebrate the first decade of Charter Schools in the United States. Traditionally, charter schools are independent public schools, designed and operated by educators, parents, community members and others. Since the first charter school began operation in 1992 in St. Paul, Minnesota, the number of charter schools has grown to nearly 3,000 serving 750,000 students around the country in 37 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Charter schools have consistently been at the forefront of my priority list, and I am pleased that Wisconsin has 137 exceptional charter schools. In my congressional district alone, we have over 24 charter schools presently and that number grows each year. I have consistently advocated for increased funding for charter schools and supported the Charter School Facilities Financing Demonstration Program during consideration of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that charter schools give parents options when determining the best public school in which to enroll their children. Thus, we must ensure that all our students reach their highest academic potential, which may require attending a charter school that provides a model better suited towards an individual student's needs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of making permanent the marriage penalty tax relief Congress passed in 2003. I believe that we should eliminate the tax penalty that some married couples incur because, simply, it is the right thing to do.

The marriage penalty stems from provisions in the Tax Code that impact married couples filing joint tax returns differently than if they filed separate tax returns. In 2001, the marriage penalty hit around 47 percent of married tax filers from all income brackets.

Without action, tax relief from the marriage penalty would lapse next year as required under the 2003 tax cut package. While the majority of the 2003 tax proposal that passed the House was fiscally irresponsible and designed to benefit only the wealthiest of Americans, its provision providing couples complete relief from the marriage penalty in 2003 and 2004 had bipartisan agreement. The legislation before us today and the substitute offered by Congressman Rangel will permanently extend relief from the marriage penalty.

Every week I am back in Wisconsin talking to my constituents about the challenges they are facing in today's economy. With rising costs for college tuition, health care, and other necessities, we need to act today to ensure that working families are not going to be faced with a marriage penalty tax in 2005.

I also believe, however, that we must work to make sure these tax cuts are paid for so that we do not increase the budget deficit. It is unfair to Americans today, and especially the next generation, to delude ourselves by thinking the record budget deficits facing our Nation, estimated by the White House at over $500 billion this year alone, will simply go away.

As a member of the House Budget Committee, I supported a budget resolution that allows for extending marriage penalty tax relief while still reducing the deficit. This approach requires tough choices, prioritization, and a bipartisan commitment to helping working families. With the House-Senate conference committee still negotiating the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005, I remain hopeful that we will be able to provide married couples continued tax relief today without raising the debt burden on our children's generation.

The substitute offered today by Representative Rangel is a more responsible bill that will permanently repeal the marriage penalty tax for millions of Americans while not increasing the budget deficit. By providing a responsible offset to pay for this tax cut, we can benefit all married tax filers without burdening our children with added debt that they will have to pay off.

In addition, the Rangel substitute will benefit 13 million more Americans by accounting for the alternative minimum tax. The AMT will deny many married couples the tax relief intended under this bill because they fall under a complex set of AMT tax provisions.

Mr. Speaker, extending relief from the marriage penalty now will help millions of working families that otherwise would face a tax increase in 2005. I believe we can and must provide this relief in a fiscally responsible manner that will not burden future generations of Americans. Our work is far from over in helping working families face the challenges of today's economy, and we must come together in a bipartisan manner to craft a fiscally responsible budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Oregon for, first of all, taking time this evening for this Special Order to commemorate the 34th anniversary of Earth Day, and for the leadership he has shown on a variety of conservation and environmental measures that we have a chance to work on in the United States Congress.

But I want to take a moment to pay a special tribute and give special thanks to a terrific statesman, a former Governor and former United States Senator from the great State of Wisconsin, the father of Earth Day, Senator Gaylord Nelson.

It was his vision that led to the first Earth Day in our country over 34 years ago. During his maiden speech in the United States Senate, he came out with 11 specific proposals on policy changes that we needed to pursue as a Nation in order to enhance the protection and the quality of our environment and our natural resources.

He was one of the first public officials that recognized that economic growth and development could go hand in hand with the protection of our natural resources and the protection of our environment; that they did not have to be mutually exclusive.

But he also recognized that public opinion was way ahead of public officials in this area; that it was the policymakers that needed to catch up with where the American people were; and recognizing the value of doing a better job, of being the stewards of our lands and our water and our air that we breathe, the environment in which we raise our children; and it is to him we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid.

This is a person who today if you talked to him, and he is still very active in the environmental field, working at the Wilderness Society here in Washington, delivering countless speeches every year, traveling extensively throughout the United States and parts of the world, who would probably be a little surprised to realize that last year, during the 33rd anniversary of Earth Day, there were hundreds of millions of people in over 180 countries all joining together to celebrate Earth Day, something that he gave birth to.

He is also someone that recognizes that there is still so much more work that needs to be done. He has been invaluable to me personally with the conversations that I have had, the privilege of going to him for advice, whether it is on work and how better to preserve and protect the Mississippi River Basin, what we can do to guard against the global warming phenomena, which generations, unfortunately, will have to wrestle with today, and the unfinished business he left when he left the United States Senate many years ago, which is our calling today.

There was a very good biography written about Senator Gaylord Nelson by a very talented former journalist and writer in Wisconsin, Bill Christopherson, entitled The Man From Clear Lake. That is the small town in which Gaylord Nelson was born and raised in. It is in northwestern Wisconsin, and it is small-town America. It is not too far from my wife's small town of Cumberland, where she was born and raised.

But Gaylord Nelson is living testimony to the idea that one person with a great idea can have a profound change in the direction of our Nation and of the world. It was that idea of what we needed to do in working together, those of us in decision-making positions, but also all of us as citizens of this planet of ours, what we can do working together to better preserve and protect the natural resources so we

leave a better legacy for our children to inherit.

I come from a State with a very proud legacy of giants, like Gaylord Nelson, like Bill Proxmire, like Fighting Bob LaFollette, that gave birth to the progressive tradition in this country. But there is no one who I have idolized with greater esteem or have greater admiration for than that man from the small town of Clear Lake, Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson, and the idea that he gave the Nation and the world 34 years ago today in envisioning the need for Earth Day celebrations, and the constant reminder to us that there is so much that we need to do to protect our environment, especially during challenging days like today when, unfortunately, there is an administration in power that seems quick to roll back much of the progress and much of the achievement that has been made over the last few decades, rolling back provisions of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts; releasing those 5 p.m. press releases from the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday afternoons when they think no one is paying attention or when people are starting their weekends or going to their Friday night dinners or whatever.

But it is up to us to shed light on what is taking place, and it is up to us to try to foster the bipartisan atmosphere in which we have to work in order to make great strides in this area.

So, again, I thank my colleague from Oregon for yielding me some time on this very special day and for the opportunity to pay tribute to a very special American, a great citizen, former Senator Gaylord Nelson.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the 34th anniversary of Earth Day. Started in 1970 by Wisconsin's own Senator Gaylord Nelson, this annual celebration

marks the birth of the modern environmental movement.

For much of the 20th century, people accepted pollution as the inevitable price of progress. That began to change in the early 1960s. In 1970, when Senator Nelson saw that few U.S. leaders were paying attention to public concern about the environment, he announced a series of teach-ins across the country to be held on April 22. That year, 20 million people participated in the first Earth Day.

Soon after, the Congress passed and President Nixon signed a series of unprecedented laws creating the Environmental Protection Agency, establishing national limits for air and water pollutants, and requiring environmental impact assessments before federally funded projects could begin.

Sadly, the current administration seems to be doing all it can to reverse decades of bipartisan progress on the environment at the behest of large special interests. Landmark legislation that has successfully protected the public health such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act are under assault.

It would appear that Senator Nelson's visionary efforts to build a grassroots movement to demonstrate the public's insistence on a clean and healthy environment for themselves and future generations, is needed as much today as it was 34 years ago.

And, in fact, Earth Day continues to be an event that unites people concerned about their environment, and who strive to protect it for our children's future. Last year, hundreds of millions of people in more than 180 countries around the world came together to celebrate the progress that has been made over the past 33 years.

Today, the vast majority of Americans do not believe that pollution is a necessary price for our progress, and want clean air, clean water and pristine public lands for their children. People want their government to improve, rather than undermine our country's public health and environmental protections. Instead of taking steps backwards, I urge the President to engage in the bipartisan work needed to build on a positive environmental agenda that Senator Gaylord Nelson envisioned when he started Earth Day.