Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 1779, the Guardsmen and Reservists Financial Relief Act, which will allow members of the National Guard and military Reserve forces to make penalty free withdrawals from retirement accounts if they are called to active duty for an extended period of time.

Our National Guard and reserve forces are playing a leading role in our operations abroad. Nationwide, over 325,000 members of the Guard and reserve have been called up to active duty since September 11, 2001. Serving in Iraq and elsewhere, these service members have fought side-by-side with their Active Duty counterparts in often difficult and dangerous conditions.

Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to meet with many National Guard and Reserve members and families from Wisconsin who have been called up in support of operations Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq. Members of the 229th Engineer Company out of Prairie du Chien and Platteville, the 829th Engineer Detachment out of Richland Center, and the 652d Engineer Company out of Ellsworth all recently returned from yearlong deployments in Iraq. Their sacrifices, and those of their families, are greatly appreciated by Wisconsin residents.

With many Guard and Reserve members taking large pay cuts when called to active duty, it is proper that Congress act to relieve this additional burden. The legislation before us today helps by allowing activated Guard and Reserve members to withdraw money from retirement accounts without penalty.

While this legislation assists those Guard and Reserve members and families who need financial assistance to make ends meet, it is only a minor step. I, along with many other members of Congress, support additional tax relief for military families, pay increases for certain personnel, health care improvements, and reenlistment bonuses for members of the Reserve Component.

Our military commitments in Iraq and throughout the world are not likely to diminish in the near future, and the Defense Department expects Guard and Reserve units to make up about 40 percent of our total force in Iraq by May 1, 2004. With this in mind, we need to do all we can to support the men and women of the Guard and Reserve who are called to active duty and their families.

My thoughts and prayers are with those serving our country overseas, as well as their families. America is firmly behind our troops, and we are all hoping to see them home safe, secure and soon.

May God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act. I want to acknowledge the work of the Transportation Committee on this complex bill and especially thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, for his leadership on the legislation; the Wisconsin delegation is lucky to have such a strong advocate for our citizens.

We all know that transportation bills are job bills, and now is certainly the time that we need more jobs throughout the country. Over 8 million Americans are looking for jobs, and last month only 21,000 new jobs were created, none of which was a private-sector job. I consistently hear from constituents who are searching for work; who have sent out dozens of resumes and updated their skills but remain unemployed. Each billion dollars spent on highway funding creates not only safer and better roads: It also creates an estimated 47,500 new jobs. An investment in highway funding is an investment for steady work for those in Wisconsin and around the Nation.

Furthermore, I am pleased that the bill recognizes the importance of funding crucial highways, transit centers, and bridges in Wisconsin's Third Congressional District. Specifically, the inclusion of funding for the Stillwater Bridge, which connects Houlton, Wisconsin and Stillwater, Minnesota is great news for those of us who have been working on this project for years. The bridge is only one example of an important project that will provide the Nation with safer roads, shorter commutes, and better jobs. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of The Whole

Mr. Speaker, we had our own form of March madness last night, and I am here to gloat, I mean to report, that the Democratic Slamming Dunking Donkeys defeated the Fighting Elephants by a one point blowout margin. It came down to a last-minute shot by our rookie and MVP, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), and it was all for a good cause, Gallaudet University, to raise funds for a wonderful university for the deaf and hearing impaired.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my Republican counterparts under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Coach Oxley). It was 1991 when the Democrats last won the game. The Republicans have learned to be very gracious winners, and now they are learning to be very gracious losers, and the Democrats appreciate that.

There were, however, 7 seconds remaining in the game, and some of us feared the gentleman from Ohio (Coach Oxley) would figure out a way to keep the clock running for another 3 hours until he determined he agreed with the final outcome.

Mr. Speaker, it was a lot of fun, and it was good to see in the midst of a heated budget debate we could come together for some fun and camaraderie, and raise money for a good cause.

Mr. Chairman, the President and majority party in Congress have presented budgets that continue down the path of fiscal recklessness and misplaced priorities. Their plan continues to fail working families, continues to fail seniors, continues to fail veterans, and continues to fail children by expanding already record deficits that will hamper economic growth and burden future generations.

Perhaps most disturbing is that the majority has no plan to return the federal government's books to balance. While they claim that their budget plan will cut in half the current record deficits that their economic policies helped create, realistic projections, including pages in the President's own budget. show deficits as far as the eye can see under their plan.

Their plan continues the downward fiscal spiral of our government at exactly the wrong moment in our nation's history when we have 80 million baby boomers rapidly approaching retirement age and starting to enter the Social Security and Medicare systems. Instead of the irresponsible budget before us, we should be trying to practice fiscal discipline to get the nation on sound fiscal footing in anticipation of that demographic time bomb going off and protect the monies in the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

This requires making tough choices on spending and revenue, and it requires us to move away from the status quo toward a new plan that helps working families, meets the security needs of our country, protects important programs here at home, and finds balance within a specified time frame.

The alternative budget proposal offered by Mr. Spratt meets this challenge and sets a new course toward fiscal sanity. It includes more funding for programs important to people in western Wisconsin such as education, veterans' health care, environmental protection, and first responders. It fully funds our national defense, and provides necessary tax relief for working families. By reducing a portion of the individual tax cuts for those making over $500,000 yearly income, the Spratt alternative provides working families relief from the marriage penalty tax and extends the child tax credit.

In addition, the Democratic alternative returns the federal budget to balance in eight years--something the Republican budget never does. It supports important budget enforcement measures that were present in the 1990's and kept government on track to record surpluses. The Republican leadership has continually refused to reinstate these important, common sense enforcement tools that simply require offsets for spending and revenue changes in law that would otherwise increase the budget deficit. These so-called ``pay-as-you-go'' provisions require government to pay its bills and stop the fiscal bleeding.

Budgets are all about priorities. The alternative budget proposal I support makes education a priority by providing $51.4 billion more than the President's budget over 10 years, helping local school districts meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind and making college more affordable for all students. It makes veterans health care a priority by providing $6.6 billion more than the majority over five years, meeting the request of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and veterans' organizations. And it makes job creation and worker training a priority while proving tax relief for working families.

Let us pass a sensible, fiscally responsible budget that protects important American values so that years from now, we can look back and say, yes, we had to make some tough decisions, but they were the right decisions

under the right circumstances, and American families are the primary beneficiaries as a consequence. I urge my colleagues' support of the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3873, the Child Nutritional Improvement and Integrity Act. As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I am pleased with the process in which this bill moved through the Committee; it is a critical bill that will greatly benefit our nation's children as well as family farmers.

Specifically, I am pleased that several provisions were included in the base bill, which I coauthored in previous legislation, H.R. 3250, the Child Nutrition Improvement Act of 2003, with Representatives Bennie Thompson, Gil Gutknecht, and tom Petri, that will combat the increasing problem of child obesity through increased child milk consumption by preventing commercial beverage companies from pressuring schools to remove milk vending machines.

With 90 percent of teenage girls and 70 percent of teenage boys currently not getting enough calcium, it is imperative to provide increased availability of milk products in schools. This provision is necessary in light of recent stories about school districts being pressured to remove milk vending machines at a time when kids need milk more than ever. This amendment will ensure milk vending has a chance and that machines are not ripped out of schools; yet at the same time it does not force soda companies to sell milk. Wise choices can only be made when choice is provided and real milk vending is a logical part of a healthy school environment.

Another provision included in the base bill, from H.R. 3250, will improve child nutrition by making it easier for schools to offer milk in a

variety of flavors and fat contents to better meet students' varying tastes and needs, thereby increasing milk consumption by children. It is important to maintain milk's unique role in the reimbursable school milk programs. Since 1946, schools have offered milk with each school meal. The natural calcium found in milk plays a vital role in minimizing the risk of students developing calcium deficiency--which is already a serious problem, especially for our teenage girls, as I mentioned earlier.

During Committee consideration, I also offered an amendment that would have augmented the reimbursement rate for school meals in schools implementing a plan to increase milk consumption. Under this amendment schools would have been allowed to use various measures to enhance milk products sold in schools. The National Dairy Council and the American School Food Service Association conducted a school milk pilot test to specifically measure the impact of an enhanced milk product on milk consumption and student attitudes towards milk in schools.

The milk enhancements included: Plastic packaging and various sizes; a third flavor; improved storage and refrigeration; and better milk product merchandising.

The results of this pilot were significant in that they showed milk sales increased 18 percent in all participating schools and milk consumption increased 28 percent in elementary schools. I withdrew this amendment, however, with the Chairman's agreement to continue working on it between now and conference. I hope we will be able to work out a compromise and include it in reauthorization.

Numerous studies have proven how important milk is in young people's diets. A study published in 2002 in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association showed that teens who drink flavored milk drink fewer soft drinks and juice drinks, and have an overall better nutritional profile. Another study released recently found that children with the lowest intakes of dairy products gained much more body fat over an 8-year period and that a diet low in calcium may increase the levels of certain circulating hormones that in turn promote the storage of energy in fat cells.

Additionally, H.R. 3873 includes legislation that I sponsored with Representative Upton, H.R. 2626, the Farm-to-Cafeteria Projects Act of 2003. This provision focuses on connecting local agriculture to schools in every State, through a competitive, one-time matching grant directly to local communities. This allows each locality to design a farm-to- cafeteria project tailored to specific farm and school community needs. Experience has shown that kids' food choices can be improved by connecting farms to the lunchroom. This program directly benefits the food and health needs of our Nation's children. At the same time, the program will help family farms, and provide markets and community support for agriculture.

A final amendment I offered in Committee authorized a 3-year pilot project in elementary schools that links the school breakfast program with morning educational activities, similar to those authorized in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. The goal is to increase participation by removing the stigma that accompanies the current school breakfast program. If the school breakfast program is perceived as an enrichment program that will benefit all students, it is suggested that more students will participate.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am pleased to support this bill on the floor today and I look forward to continuing to working on it as we move towards conference. Our goal in the 21st century should be to ensure that every child receives proper nutrition needed to succeed in school. It is a simple fact: good nutrition is an educational tool that improves children's performances in school.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask my friend if he would confirm for me, it is my understanding that the largest purchaser of our government debt right now is Japan and that is followed shortly behind by China. Is it in our country's best long-term national interest to be so dependent on China to finance the national debt that is being accumulated by this great Nation?

I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, just to wrap up this debate, I would love to have a national referendum asking the American people what economy they would more likely adopt today, the economy of the 1990s or the current economy that this majority party and the administration have given them because, to set the record straight, it was in the first Bush administration in 1990 when, in fact, some tax increases were had on the wealthiest Americans. And then the budget that passed in 1993 by just one vote had a slight increase on the wealthiest 1 percent in this Nation. With all the doom and gloom and procrastination and the prediction of recession and great depression, it led to 28 million new jobs being created in the 1990s, 4 consecutive years of deficit reduction followed by 4 consecutive years of budget surpluses, where the Social Security and Medicare trust fund was not even being touched.

That is what is so disturbing about the vision that they offer in their budget today. It is a status quo budget based on a failed economic policy that is not working for working families in this country, and especially is not going to be working for the future of our Nation, our children and grandchildren with historically large budget deficits that are due to explode in future years.

That is the only reason they are offering a 5-year budget resolution, to mask the true size of these budget deficits that occur in the second 5 years with the permanent extension of their tax cuts; and they have no plan to turn that around.

Our party brings balance to the budget within 8 years. We believe balanced budgets are a good economic dynamic that does help job creation, and at the end of the day, that is the big difference between our plan and their plan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately what we have before us today by the majority party is a status quo budget. It is a budget that continues the failed economic policies which have not been working for American families. It has been failing our seniors, failing working families, and certainly is failing our veterans. We have heard debate about that today.

But most importantly, I believe, it is going to fail the future of our country, our children, by the underinvestment that is being made in crucial education programs, by not fully funding the No Child Left Behind law, by not reaching that guidepath to full funding of special education.

It undercuts vocational and technical education programs, the Perkins loans, it underinvests in community colleges. We will pay a heavy price in the future if this underinvestment continues.

As this chart demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, the history of the Republican Congress when it comes to living up to the promise of fully funding No Child Left Behind, over the last couple of fiscal years, they have fallen way short of the promise to fully fund. This has been the track record. Make no mistake, these are new Federal mandates, requirements on local school districts, requiring them to do certain things with our children; but they are not providing the resources and tools they need to succeed.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we had Chairman Greenspan testify before the Committee on Education and the Workforce. In his opinion, he felt one of the most important priorities of investment we need to make in the Federal budget is in education and job training programs so that our children, our workers, are as competitive as they can be in this new global marketplace. This Republican budget falls short of that investment.

The Democratic substitute that we will be offering tomorrow has substantial increases in investments in No Child Left Behind, special education, vocational education, Perkins loans and investment in our community colleges.

There is a clear difference in the vision of the future of this Nation, where our priorities as a party lie, where our values are shared throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, this majority budget falls short of that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am obviously referring to the broken promise the President made in fully funding No Child Left Behind when he signed it into law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, in response to that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Just a quick response to my good friend from Iowa. Just to be clear, the Democratic substitute is offering close to 10 billion more in additional funds over the next 5 years to fund No Child Left Behind and special education; over the next 10 years, $50 billion more than the President's baseline budget that he submitted in regards to education programs. Yet we still achieve balance, a balanced budget within 8 years, given the limitations that we face with these historically large budget deficits that we have the majority party to thank for.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), from the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, what we have been doing here all day, and what we will resume doing tomorrow, is talking about the priorities of our Nation, the values that we hold dear; and that is the essence of budgeting, making tough decisions with the allocation of the limited resources that we do have available. And it is true that during times of budget deficits, those who typically suffer the most are those who are most in need and especially our children; and we are seeing that now with the Republican budget proposal before us where they are shortchanging crucial education programs, even though I would think that if we sit down and work through this in a bipartisan fashion, we could reach some common ground in regards to the priority of investing in the future, in education, in job-training programs.

It is the only chance we really have to hold out the opportunity and the hope to the next generation that there will be a place for them in the 21st-century economy. But when they pass Federal mandates requiring certain things of local schools, it is fundamental fairness to require that they be given the tools and the resources to do it, and they are not. We are shortchanging No Child Left Behind. We are shortchanging special education. And that financial burden falls back on local property tax rolls. It affects the local school boards and the ability for them to be able to allocate the resources that they need to make sure that the children are succeeding in their classrooms. And I think it is a disservice that we are doing to the wonderful school districts that we have throughout the Nation, but especially to our children.

If the majority wants to come and talk about fiscal responsibility, there would be wide bipartisan support on this side to embrace new budget tools that worked well in the 1990s, the pay-as-you-go rules that basically said that if we propose an increase in spending in one area or tax cuts, we have to find offsets to pay for it. They worked remarkably well in the 1990s: four consecutive years of deficit reduction, 4 years of budget surpluses. But they do not want to go there for obvious reasons, and unfortunately it is the next generation that will be paying a very high price due to the fiscal management of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in enthusiastic support of H.R. 2408, ``The National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Act.''

Since the first refuge was established in my home state in 1912, the Wisconsin refuge system has become an integral part of life for our citizens. Our five wildlife refuges and two wetlands management districts attract nearly 2 million visitors each year. They provide critical habitat for our state's world-renowned wildlife resources, as well as opportunities for recreation and groundbreaking research.

Thankfully, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has help in meeting President Teddy Roosevelt's commitment of protecting our country's diverse wildlife heritage for future generations. Volunteers like my constituent John Wetzel, and the ``Friends of the Upper Mississippi River Refuges,'' work constantly to improve our local refuges and serve as advocates at the national level.

John Wetzel is only one of over 45,000 individuals across the country who provide support for our refuge system. These ``Friends of the Refuge'' do whatever is needed--whether it is raising funds, guiding tours, battling invasive species or restoring wetlands. As noted anthropologist, Margaret Mead, once said, ``Never doubt that a small thoughtful group of concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.''

I am proud to support the National Fish and Wildlife Service in its vital mission, and I'm pleased this legislation will provide these dedicated activists the tools and information necessary to help them in their efforts on behalf of us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month. In 1987, Congress passed a resolution designating the month of March as Women's History Month as a time to honor, ``American women of every race, class and ethnic background [who] have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways.''

For 2004, the theme of Women's History Month is ``Women Inspiring Hope and Possibility.'' To celebrate this month, I would like to honor four of the numerous women from Wisconsin's history who inspired hope and possibility through their selfless efforts in gaining suffrage for women in America.

First, I would like to recognize Ada James, who served as president of the Political Equality League from 1911 to 1919. As a dedicated women's suffrage advocate, Ms. James spent these eight years preceding the ratification of the suffrage amendment to the U.S. Constitution on an automobile tour through Southern Wisconsin. She spoke at state and county fairs, and to farmers and workers in factories with her fellow suffragists. Ms. James was a native of Richland Center, a city in Wisconsin's Third Congressional District, and I am honored to be able to share Ms. James' story here.

Reverend Olympia Brown resided in Racine, Wisconsin, where she was elected president of the Wisconsin Women's Suffrage Association, holding this post for 30 years. Reverend Brown lived a life of activism, and after being refused at Wisconsin polls, she took her case to the State Supreme Court. Despite a decision rendered in favor of the election inspectors, she never accepted defeat. She continued to fight for women's right to vote, and was one of the few suffrage leaders who lived to be able to cast a vote in the Presidential election of 1920-- the first in which women could vote.

As the first Wisconsin-born leader of the state's suffrage movement, Theodora Winton Youmans was able to help the movement gain momentum by writing a regular column for the Waukesha Freeman. She used her column as a platform to educate the public about suffrage and women's rights. After leaving her post as assistant editor in the 1890s, Ms. Youmans worked to create the Wisconsin Federation of Women's Clubs, serving as its president in 1900. In 1924, she lost a bid to Congress, and it was not until nearly 75 years later that Wisconsin would see its first Congresswoman with the election of Tammy Baldwin in 1999, who continues to represent Wisconsin women today.

Lastly, but certainly not least, I would like to honor the achievements of Carrie Lane Chapman Catt. As a native of Ripon, Wisconsin, she played the largest role in the final passage of the 19th Amendment. Her campaign was successful because she pushed for reform in the states, instead of focusing solely on a constitutional amendment. In 1900, she succeeded Susan B. Anthony as the president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Following ratification of the amendment, her leadership abilities were not forgotten as she helped establish the League of Women Voters, which is still active today. I think I speak for all people from Wisconsin when I say that we are fortunate to have had such a remarkable woman in our history.

These four women, along with so many others, inspired hope and possibility not only in Wisconsin, but across the United States. I have no doubt that their devotion to the cause was the sole reason why Wisconsin was the first state to ratify the 19th Amendment on June 10th, 1919. I am honored to share these women's stories today, as their efforts made Wisconsin a leader in this landmark roll call of democracy. In many ways, their hopes are still with us today. As a reflection of this, I will end my statement with a quotation from Carrie Chapman Catt: ``Everybody counts in applying democracy. And there will never be a true democracy until every responsible and law- abiding adult in it, without regard to race, sex, color or creed has his or her own inalienable and unpurchasable voice in government.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 557, ``relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces.'' First and foremost, I believe that it is important to take this time to honor the men and women of our armed forces who have sacrificed under difficult and dangerous conditions to make our military efforts successful in Iraq. It is also important to recognize the sacrifices of the families of our troops, friends, and those who employ the members of our Guard and Reserve forces deployed overseas. Our appreciation goes out to these individuals for their support during these challenging times.

Last October I had the opportunity to visit with our military men and women in Iraq and survey the operations of the U.S. reconstruction mission to Iraq. I have never been more proud to be an American than when I witnessed our troops fulfilling their mission in difficult and dangerous circumstances. While we still have a long way to go in Iraq, I saw many signs of progress in helping meet the basic needs of the Iraqi people.

From Wisconsin alone there are over 1,460 members of the Air and Army National Guard who are serving on active duty. This includes military units activated from the Third Congressional District, which I represent. Wisconsin's 229th Army National Guard Engineer Company from Prairie Du Chien and Platteville, and 652nd Army Reserves Engineer Company from Ellsworth are currently serving in Iraq.

We welcomed the members of Wisconsin's 829th Army National Guard Engineer Detachment from Richland Center back home recently. We also welcomed back members of Wisconsin's 1158th Army National Guard Transportation Detachment from Black River Falls and Tomah, serving in Fort Irwin, CA. In addition, the 128th Infantry Battalion headquartered in Eau Claire was recently alerted for possible mobilization. The people of western Wisconsin are proud of their service and the service of all men and women of our armed forces during this important time in our Nation's history. I also want to recognize the incredible work of the people at Fort McCoy and Volk Field in western Wisconsin. They are working countless hours to get our troops ready.

As the day pass, we must not forget those who have died in the mission to liberate the people of Iraq. Over 540 American soldiers have died while serving in Iraq. 2LT Jeremy Wolfe, MAJ Christopher Splinter, and PFC Bert Hoyer from the Third District in Wisconsin, each paid the ultimate sacrifice to give the people of Iraq the greatest gift of all--their freedom. These young men exemplify all that is good and decent about America. Their loss is tragic; their sacrifices should not be forgotten.

I do, however, have reservations about certain language in this resolution, in particular, the references to the world being safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein. That subject is highly debatable. While I agree that the Iraqi people are better off free from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein, the most critical threat to international security is still at large and still very active. To this day, it is al Qaeda, who remains the number one security threat and we must combat that international threat with an international coalition.

It is al Qaeda that was directly responsible for the attacks on September 11 and it is al Qaeda that is reconstituting itself as a truly global terrorist threat. As we know now, Saddam Hussein's regime, as ruthless as it was, did not possess an imminent threat against its own neighbors, let alone against the United States. We still need a thorough investigation of our intelligence failures so future miscalculations, that change world opinion against us, are not repeated.

As our military effort continues, I, and other Members of Congress will work to ensure that our service men and women have all the resources necessary to fulfill this continuing mission. My thoughts and prayers are with those serving our country, as well as their families. America is firmly behind our troops and we are all hoping to see them home safe, secure and soon.

May God continue to bless these United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month. In 1987, Congress passed a resolution designating the month of March as Women's History Month as a time to honor, ``American women of every race, class and ethnic background [who] have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways.''

For 2004, the theme of Women's History Month is ``Women Inspiring Hope and Possibility.'' To celebrate this month, I would like to honor four of the numerous women from Wisconsin's history who inspired hope and possibility through their selfless efforts in gaining suffrage for women in America.

First, I would like to recognize Ada James, who served as president of the Political Equality League from 1911 to 1919. As a dedicated women's suffrage advocate, Ms. James spent these eight years preceding the Ratification of the suffrage amendment to the U.S. Constitution on an automobile tour through Southern Wisconsin. She spoke at state and county fairs, and to farmers and workers in factories with her fellow suffragists. Ms. James was a native of Richland Center, a city in Wisconsin's Third Congressional District, and I am honored to be able to share Ms. James' story here.

Reverend Olympia Brown resided in Racine, Wisconsin, where she was elected president of the Wisconsin Women's Suffrage Association, holding this post for thirty years. Reverend Brown lived a life of activism, and after being refused at Wisconsin polls, she took here case to the State Supreme Court. Despite a decision rendered in favor of the election inspectors, she never accepted defeat. She continued to fight for women's right to vote, and was one of the few suffrage leaders who lived to be able to cast a vote in the presidential election of 1920--the first in which women could vote.

As the first Wisconsin-born leader of the state's suffrage movement, Theodora Winton Youmans was able to help the movement gain momentum by writing a regular column for the Waukesha Freeman. She used her column as a platform to educate the public about suffrage and women's rights. After leaving her post as assistant editor in the 1890's, Ms. Youmans worked to create the Wisconsin Federation of Women's Clubs, serving as its president in 1900. In 1924, she lost a bid to Congress, and it was not until nearly 75 years later that Wisconsin would see its first Congresswoman with the election of Tammy Baldwin in 1999, who continues to represent Wisconsin women today.

Lastly, but certainly not least, I would like to honor the achievements of Carrie Lane Chapman Catt. As a native of Ripon, Wisconsin, she played the largest role in the final passage of the 19th Amendment. Her campaign was successful because she pushed for reform in the states, instead of focusing solely on a constitutional amendment. In 1990, she succeeded Susan B. Anthony as the president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Following ratification of the amendment, her leadership abilities were not forgotten as she helped establish the League of Women Voters, which is still active today. I think I speak for all people from Wisconsin when I say that we are fortunate to have had such a remarkable woman in our history.

These four women, along with so many others, inspired hope and possibility not only in Wisconsin, but across the United States. I have no doubt that their devotion to the cause was the sole reason why Wisconsin was the first state to ratify the 19th Amendment on June 10th 1919. I am honored to share these women's stories today, as their efforts made Wisconsin a leader in this landmark roll call of democracy. In many ways, their hopes are still with us today. As a reflection of this, I will end my statement with a quotation from Carrie Chapman Catt:

``Everybody counts in applying democracy. And there will never be a true democracy until every responsible and law-abiding adult in it, without regard to race, sex, color or creed has his or her own inalienable and unpurchasable voice in government.''

Mr. Speaker, last week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3030, Reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG). I am a strong supporter of this block grant, as noted in my previous remarks on February 4, 2004.

I am disappointed, however, that H.R. 3030, as passed, failed to correct provisions in current law that permit religious organizations receiving funds under this Act to discriminate in employment based on religion. While these provisions have existed in current law for five years, I cannot condone the continuation of discriminatory policies.

I supported the Democratic substitute offered by my colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee, Representatives Lynn Woolsey and George Miller, that restore basic civil rights for workers while ensuring the ongoing participation of faith-based groups in CSBG programs. I also supported the Miller amendment to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation program for an additional six months.

This extension is long overdue given that 8.4 million Americans are now unemployed--159,344 in Wisconsin alone--and it is taking longer and longer for them to find work. I hear daily from job seekers in my district about how difficult it has been to find employment in this

economy. It is unconscionable that previous attempts to extend aid to those who have lost their jobs as a result of this Administration's misguided economic policies have been blocked by the majority leadership. Passing an extension of this important program has given hope to those who have, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs in these tough economic times.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Woolsey amendment did not pass and that congressional leadership insists on retaining language discriminating against employees at faith-based organizations based on religion. Despite these reservations, I supported final passage of H.R. 3030, as amended by Mr. Miller's unemployment extension amendment, and I hope the Senate will pass this important bill quickly to help millions of job seekers currently unemployed and looking for work.

Mr. Speaker, our current bankruptcy system is in need of reform. Bankruptcy filings have risen steadily in recent years--growing by nearly 140% during the past four years alone. In Wisconsin, bankruptcy filings are up two-and-a-half times what they were just 10 years ago.

The costs associated with discharging bankruptcy related debt, calculated at over $40 billion in 2001, hurt all consumers through increased prices on goods and services. In fact, losses associated with bankruptcies alone cost the average American family around $400 per year.

We need to reform our bankruptcy laws to protect those people truly in need of debt relief while holding accountable those who can repay their debt. The reforms contained in this amended legislation before us today accomplish this, and provide new disclosure requirements for lending institutions to offer better information to consumers about credit cards and

debt. This is particularly important for young adults who are bombarded by credit applications and have limited knowledge about the risks that accompany credit card ownership.

Further, the legislation will move child support and alimony payments up to the top of debt repayment priority lists. This will help prevent children from being unnecessarily hurt by the debt of their parents. The National Child Support Enforcement Association, the National District Attorneys Association and the Child Support Council all support this provision and this legislation.

In addition, this legislation will make permanent Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions that provide relief to our family farmers. I have consistently supported temporary extensions of Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection because our nation's family farmers face unique circumstances that often pose unique financial risks outside their control. In Wisconsin, this situation has had the unfortunate affect of driving family farmers out of business at a rate of nearly five per day.

The crisis in our agricultural economy is not contained to Wisconsin alone. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a 13% decline in farmers between 1998 and 2008. This is the largest projected decline of any occupational category in the U.S. economy.

The permanent extension of Chapter 12 protections contained in this bill will allow family farmers facing bankruptcy to reorganize their debt so they do not lose their farms to creditors. Chapter 12 gives hope to financially-strapped farmers who feel that they have no where else to turn. It gives them room to recover from an economic crunch and still hold on to their livelihood--and it has proven to work.

According to one study, 74 percent of family farmers who filed Chapter 12 bankruptcy are still farming, and 61 percent of farmers who went through Chapter 12 believe it was helpful in getting them back on their feet. This protection is critical right now, during this depressed economy, because many cash-strapped producers are under pressure to meet operating expenses and pay off bank notes. I am pleased the House is taking bipartisan action today to make permanent Chapter 12 protection for farmers, giving them the opportunity to reorganize their debts and preserve their farms for future generations.

While I have objections to the majority using legislation that would simply extend the farm bankruptcy provisions of Chapter 12 for six months, as a vehicle for any other legislation, I support final passage of this legislation. The overall benefits of the comprehensive bankruptcy reform and the permanent extension of Chapter 12 now included will provide needed protection to consumers and relief to those in need. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the bill before us today. It was my hope that the conference committee would work in a bicameral, bipartisan manner and produce a bill focused on providing prescription drug coverage to seniors and improving Medicare. Instead, House Democrats were shut out of the discussion completely, and special interest groups were given more information than members of Congress. Even more troubling than the process, however, was the legislation that came out of this conference. This bill is a bad deal for American seniors and an even worse deal for our children and grandchildren. Estimated at $400 billion, this bill is not paid for and, without basic cost containment measures, like price negotiation or drug reimportation from Canada, will leave a legacy of debt for our children and grandchildren to inherit. The easiest thing to do in politics is pass a bill and don't pay for it.

Certainly, there are portions of this bill which I support--portions which generously and correctly bring aid and equity to hospitals, especially those in rural areas like western Wisconsin. For far too long, rural hospitals and critical access hospitals have been treated as second-best, and I have long been a champion of bringing equity to these hospitals which do such important work throughout our country. This bill will at last begin to equalize the base inpatient payment rate, increase the cap for Medicare disproportionate share hospitals, and bring the hospital update to full market basket. Providers also benefit a great deal from this bill, and I am pleased that instead of receiving a cut, Medicare providers would receive a 1.5% update for the next two years. Furthermore, the assistance to our providers is paid for with offsets in the budget, so it does not add to the historically large federal deficit. If these provisions were separate from the bill, I could support them in a heartbeat, and I am confident that such a bill would pass overwhelmingly in Congress. In fact, just today my colleagues and I have introduced a bill that is identical to the rural health care package included in the Medicare Conference Report. We could still pass such a bill if the Republican leadership wanted to, but they do not. Instead, they are holding the rural provisions hostage to all ill-advised and costly prescription drug program to be delivered to private insurance companies after we bribe them with billions to do it, even after they have told us they do not want to do this.

As important as it is to sustain our hospitals and our doctors, aspects of the bill which will hurt our seniors, our pharmacists, and our states make it impossible to support this bill. Too many seniors in my district in western Wisconsin have told me stories of skipping meals in order to afford prescription drugs or cutting their pills in half to make their expensive prescriptions last longer. I came to Washington to work towards a real solution to this problem, and I have championed the New Democratic Coalition's plan, which is simple, progressive, and affordable. I would be proud to stand on this floor today and support the Dooley prescription drug plan. I would have been able to compromise and support a bill that was close to the Senate's bipartisan bill. But I am unable to support a bill that will do relatively little to provide seniors with drug coverage, that bribes insurance companies, that threatens to destabilize existing coverage for retirees, that undermines Medicaid, and that has no reasonable measures to contain costs.

Sadly, for all the excitement over a prescription drug benefit, this bill would bring little relief to struggling seniors. The drug benefit does no start until 2006, leaving struggling seniors a few more years before they receive any help in paying for their prescription drugs. Once 2006 rolls around, many seniors will find a drug benefit far less generous than the one they expected. In fact, a senior who spends slightly over $5,000 per year on prescription drugs will have to spend over $4,000 of his or her own money, meaning the consumer still pays 80 percent of drug costs. This is hardly the relief from expensive prescription drugs that seniors have been promised and that they deserve.

Also of concern is the effect this bill will have on seniors who currently have drug coverage. Astoundingly, an estimated 58,170 Medicare beneficiaries in Wisconsin will lost their retiree health benefits because of this bill. And they are not the only seniors who will suffer. Wisconsin's Seniorcare program is a shining example of the great work that can be done to aid our nation's seniors when federal and state governments cooperate. The bill before us would punish Wisconsin's leadership on this issue; Wisconsin would most likely lose the matching funds it receives for Seniorcare and be forced to drastically scale back the program. Wisconsin's Seniorcare participants currently pay a nominal enrollment fee, low drug co-payments, and a modest deductible, with those seniors below 160 percent of the poverty level paying no deductible whatsoever.

The Wisconsin Medicaid program, as well as the 110,200 seniors who are dual eligibles, will see a significant risk in their drug costs as a result of this legislation. The bill purports to do good things for low-income seniors, but in my state, it will have exactly the opposite effect. For the 99 percent of seniors in my state who already have health insurance, the introduction of a new prescription drug plan means a confusing new benefit with higher costs to the state and beneficiaries and less coverage than many Wisconsin seniors already enjoy.

All of this speculation over a prescription drug plan assumes, of course, that drug-only plans will be around to offer this less than substantial coverage. Currently, there are no drug-only insurance plans, and representatives of the industry have maintained they do not want to start such plans. Because of this reluctance, the bill bribes private insurance companies, pouring billions into the industry in an attempt to entice the companies to create drug-only plans. Clearly, $400 billion is just a floor, costs will explode, and the insurance companies will return to Congress in the future to ask for more money or they will drop coverage of our seniors, just as many Medicare plus Choice plans are doing today.

The $400 billion price-tag is only the beginning of spiraling costs to the federal government; we have no idea what costs might be in the future for this benefit. Incredibly, even the original $400 billion is not paid for, and there are no attempts at cost control in this measure. The government, for both Medicaid and the Veterans Administration, negotiates drug prices. The 40 million Americans covered by Medicare constitute an immense and potentially powerful purchasing pool. Great savings could be realized by negotiation, yet this bill specifically prohibits the government from negotiating with drug companies. Another potential for savings is reimportation from Canada; once again, this cost-cutting measure is prohibited, as the Secretary of Health and Human Services would have to approve reimportation, and the agency has already indicated no such approval will be granted.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak of a group that has received little attention in a debate focused on seniors--our children and grandchildren. While I fully support providing seniors with a prescription drug benefit, I do not believe it is right to shift the costs of this benefit to future generations. We must devise a way to pay for these benefits now; we cannot and must not rely on future Congresses and future taxpayers to fix a problem of our creation. The party in power in Washington today wants tax cuts for the wealthy and pays no attention to fiscal responsibility. It is wrong to create a larger deficit than the one we already face. To protect seniors, to protect our children and grandchildren, I am opposing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to reject the flawed proposals contained in this bill. We can and must do better.