Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise before you today to honor the historic village of Stoddard, Wisconsin. This year, from July 11 to July 13th 2003, Stoddard will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. This beautiful village, the crossroads of western Wisconsin, is bordered by majestic bluffs and the mighty Mississippi River. Located along the great river road, Stoddard quietly represents Wisconsin's heritage and natural beauty.

The first to arrive in the Stoddard area were the native Americans who planted their tradition and history in the region. However, it was Henry H. White and his family who really developed the future site of Stoddard after coming to the area from Vermont in 1868. His son, C.P. White, is credited for the naming of this village after Colonel Thomas B. Stoddard.

Colonel Stoddard originally came to the area in 1853 and helped build and expand the new community. He was a great promoter of railroads and helped form the La Crosse and Prairie Du Chien Railroad Corporation.

With its general stores, blacksmith shops, school, and railroad, life in Stoddard was a shining example of successful rural communities in the united states.

While it already had developed a rich history, it was not until 1903 when a post office was needed that Stoddard was officially born. Interestingly, Stoddard only become a river town in 1937, when the pool created by lock and dam #8 flooded 18,000 acres of bottom land and brought the river to its doorsteps.

Stoddard's centennial celebrates the best of rural America. There are thousands of rural communities across this nation that form the backbone of rural life. These communities are the incubators of local politics, commerce, education, recreation, entertainment and faith for rural neighborhoods. Collectively, the hard working citizens of small town America are the builders of our great nation.

I am frequently in Stoddard because, like many others in the area, I enjoy fishing in the Mississippi off of the new islands created by the E.M.P. program in pool 8, and my wife and I often take our two boys to visit my mother and stepfather, Greta and Don Lake, who live there. As often as we can, we also try to stop by Rocky's Supper Club for one of the best fish fry's in western Wisconsin.

I am proud to congratulate the citizens of Stoddard on their unique anniversary. It is important that we all recognize their unique contribution to the development of western Wisconsin, and I wish all Stoddard residents happiness and success for another 100 years.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I too want to commend the leadership of the committee for putting together this bipartisan piece of legislation.

This is an important piece of the overall higher-education bill that we have to reauthorize during the rest of this session. It recognizes the importance of teacher quality in the classroom. It recognizes the fact that because of attrition and the aging population, retirement, we will have to replace 2.2 million teachers over the next decade. It also recognizes that the quality of a teacher is the second most important determinant of how well students perform in the classroom, right behind the active involvement of loving and caring parents in their own child's education. But it also recognizes the new mandates that are being placed on schools and school districts throughout the entire country under No Child Left Behind that mandates that every classroom have a qualified, certified teacher by 2005 and 2006 under the No Child Left Behind legislation. And in part, this bill is meant to address these growing challenges as a Nation.

But like my friend from Maryland indicated, there is a growing gap between the rhetoric for support for education in this country and what is actually being appropriated and the resources and funds that are going to achieve the success that we are demanding of our school districts.

I am particularly pleased that under this legislation it is reauthorizing the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology program. This is a program that has been highly successful in preparing prospective teachers to use technology to help students reach their highest potential. Unfortunately, in the education appropriations bill that will start later today and tomorrow, the Republican majority has zeroed out funding for that technology program, even though we have this powerful new learning tool and yet there exists a gap between the integration of that technology in classroom curriculum. We need more resources and more training for teachers on how to use this technology rather than zeroing it out.

I am also disappointed that under the labor-HHS and education appropriations bill that we are $8 billion short in

fully funding the No Child Left Behind legislation. We are setting up these school districts for failure unless we provide them the tools and resources they need to meet the new Federal mandates that are passed under this legislation. The President ran as an education President. He got passed the No Child Left Behind, which establishes these new Federal mandates. And I think it is outrageous that he is not funding this now, as the promise was just a short year and a half ago that he would.

Let me say in conclusion that I am very proud and I think every Member in this House is very proud of the military force that we have protecting our country. We have a lot of well-motivated, well-trained individuals that comprise our Armed Forces; but it does not just happen by accident. We invest a lot of money in our military to make sure they have the proper training and the proper equipment so they can be an effective military force around the globe as they carry out our orders as policymakers. But we have another national security threat that I am afraid is going neglected, and that is the investment in the future of our Nation, in our children, and in these education programs which will also make our country strong. We need to do a better job of backing up the rhetoric around here with the resources. This bill is a start if the funding follows, and I would encourage bipartisan support for it.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I supported H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003 and I am pleased to have the opportunity to support it on the House Floor today.

The 1998 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act established a loan forgiveness program for teachers in title I schools. Borrowers with no outstanding loan balance as of 1998 could receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness after teaching for 5 years in a title I school with at least 30 percent poverty.

This legislation would increase the amount of loan forgiveness for math, science and special education teachers from $5,000 to $17,500. It is critical that we ensure all classrooms have highly qualified teachers, especially in schools with high populations of students disadvantaged by poverty. This bill, however, could be significantly improved by expanding loan forgiveness to teachers of all disciplines in high poverty schools, to Head Start teachers, and to teachers in rural schools.

Rural schools across America are struggling as they attempt to provide a strong and sound educational experience for their students. Their remoteness, limited resources and small faculties present numerous challenges for school administrators and school boards. In addition, rural teachers in Wisconsin earn 11 percent less than teachers in urban school districts. School loan forgiveness for teachers in rural schools would allow new teachers to view careers in small rural school districts as positive professional options.

During committee consideration of H.R. 438, and again during Rules Committee yesterday evening, I offered an amendment that would have helped small rural school districts increase their competitiveness for recruitment of teachers. This amendment would have expanded the eligibility of the loan forgiveness provision to teachers in rural schools. Moreover, because this amendment did not increase the cost of the bill, I am disappointed that it was prevented from being considered on the House Floor.

Ensuring that all of our children have highly qualified teachers is critical to ensuring their achievement. In the 1999-2000 school year, over a fifth of secondary students took at least one class from a teacher who neither majored nor minored in that subject in college; over a third received instruction in at least one class from a teacher who was not certified in the subject nor had academic training in that subject.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 438 will help put qualified math, science, and special education teachers in the classroom and although I am concerned that H.R. 438 does not go far enough in assisting our local schools and teachers, it is a step forward. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I hope we can continue to work to ensure that all our students have highly qualified teachers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over the recent terrorism conducted by Palestinian extremists against the citizens of the state of Israel. This comes just weeks after a groundbreaking summit where both Palestinians and Israelis came together and agreed to the Road Map to Peace. It is most unfortunate that one small sect of extremists shake the relationship between the two.

My colleagues and I mourn the loss of 22 innocent Israeli citizens who have fallen victim to this terror since the summit. In addition, we morn the loss of the dozens of civilian Palestinians who have also died as a result of terrorism. These lives, I believe, should also be mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of this measure today, but I think we missed a great opportunity to send a clear message that this Congress is fully committed, along with the President, in support of the Roadmap for Peace. The Roadmap recognizes the importance of including both Israelis and Palestinians in establishing much desired peace in the region. While the Roadmap may have its flaws, I believe it is the only way to get both parties back on the track to peace.

The people of the United States stand firm in our commitment to the security and health of a democratic Israel. We must continue to do all we can to promote negotiations to advance the peace process in the Middle East. Together we can root out the terrorism that plagues the region and move forward with one goal in mind, peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have a real and honest debate today, and make in order the Dooley substitute.

I, along with others in the New Democratic Coalition, have worked long and hard to offer a viable alternative to the base bill. The bill before us, unfortunately, will jeopardize the very sanctity of the Medicare program. The Dooley bill, on the other hand, is simple, progressive and affordable. It helps those seniors who needs the most assistance, the low-income and those with high drug costs. It offers zero premium payments; it is Medicare as seniors know it. The benefits are integrated into Medicare part B, and every beneficiary gets a guaranteed benefit for no additional premium.

Unlike the House and Senate Republican bills, this bill has no gap in coverage, and it is fiscally responsible. It fits within the budget resolution that was passed earlier this year.

Later today, it is my understanding that Senators Hagel and Clinton and Ensign will be offering the same exact Dooley substitute on the Senate floor. We should be allowed to debate the same measure today. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, providing affordable Medicare prescription drug coverage for our nation's seniors is one of the most pressing issues facing our country today. Even though the elderly use the most prescriptions, more than 75 percent of seniors on Medicare lack reliable drug coverage. It is time to modernize Medicare to reflect our current health care delivery system. The use of prescription medications is as important today as the use of hospital beds was in 1965 when Medicare was created.

I have heard from a number of seniors in western Wisconsin regarding the problems they have paying for prescription drugs. One woman from Deer Park, Wisconsin, a small town in my district, wrote to me and said:

My medication is $135.00 per month. Fortunately my husband is not on any medication. If we both were not working part-time, I guess that we would have to make a choice between food and Medication--does one eat to survive or take the medication for a ``long and happy life''?

What is to happen to this couple if the husband falls ill and has high drug costs too?

The cost of prescription medicines should not place financial strains on seniors that would force them to choose between buying drugs and buying food. We need to make prescription medicines affordable and accessible to all of our seniors.

I came to Congress to work toward a real solution to this problem. Unfortunately, today's debate is a sham. We will not have the opportunity to discuss this issue in a fair and open process. There were several alternatives presented at the Rules Committee late last night and they should be debated on the floor today. The majority, however, chose to dedicate only one day to this debate and allowed only one alternative and no amendments to be made in order. Our Nation's seniors deserve better. They deserve an open process, but the Republican leadership has failed to deliver this.

The Leadership has also failed seniors with their prescription drug proposal. The Republican plan is doomed to fail because the plan relies on health insurance companies to offer drug only policies which they have said they won't offer. Further, there is no fall back option. So, if insurance companies won't offer these policies, how will seniors actually obtain prescription drug coverage under the leadership plan?

Providing a drug benefit through private plans could be problematic, specifically for folks living in rural and small communities. There are no requirements as to what has to be covered and the coverage may vary from area to area depending on the plan. Because is there is no guaranteed benefit, Wisconsin may end up on the short end of the stick like we have in the past under Medicare.

The biggest problem with the leadership bill is the fact that it will fully privatize Medicare in 2010. This is a radical provision that will be the demise of the traditional Medicare program on which our seniors have depended for nearly 40 years. In 2010, seniors will be given a lump sum to purchase health isuruance, including traditional Medicare. There is concern that the healthy seniors will leave traditional Medicare and the premiums will increase dramatically, up to 47 percent. In addition, under the leadership bill, each local area will have a different premium for fee-for-service Medicare. For example, seniors in Wisconsin might have to pay more to enroll in fee-for-service Medicare than seniors in Florida. This is a drastic departure from Medicare's fundamental principle that seniors across the country pay the same premium for the fee-for-service benefit.

We must provide a real solution to the problem of prescription drug coverage for our seniors. The Republican plan falls woefully short.

All of the Democratic alternatives offered at the Rules Committee would be better than the leadership bill. One proposal, the Medicare Rx NOW Act, is a simple straightforward plan that provides assistance to the seniors most in need, those with low incomes and seniors with high drug costs. This proposal builds on the Medicare program seniors know and provides them with a guaranteed benefit for no additional premium.

Another proposal put forward by the Blue Dogs is based on the bipartisan Senate bill. Unlike the House bill, this proposal includes a fall back provision to ensure that all seniors would have access to a prescription drug plan. In addition, this bill does not include the privatization components of the leadership plan.

In addition, both of these alternatives provide substantial improvements to Medicare payments for rural providers. Both pieces of legislation include equalizing the disproportionate share hospital payments for rural hospitals, an increase in the bed limit for critical access hospitals, and a geographic adjustment for rural physicians. None of these provisions are included in the leadership's bill.

It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership has squandered an excellent opportunity to try and solve the problem of prescription drug coverage in a bipartisan fashion. Instead they have steamrolled ahead and present our nation's seniors with an unworkable solution to a grave problem. I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Wisconsin native Mr. Charles Mulcahy for his nomination by HM King Albert II of Belgium to become a Knight in the Order of Leopold.

Mr. Mulcahy has served with distinction as Honorary Consul of Belgium since 1985. He has provided guidance to the development of bilateral economic, commercial, cultural, scientific and educational relations, assisted Belgian citizens, and promoted Belgian interests over the past 15 years.

Mr. Mulcahy has been an active participant in business and economic development matters for over 25 years. He is a senior partner with the law firm of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is known for his

representation of commercial business concerns, from initial organizations, capital formation, developing strategic alliances and joint ventures between Wisconsin companies and overseas business interests. He has guided numerous companies through various growth and development phases involved in building a business. He has worked closely with businesses on their legal matters, including negotiating distributor agreements and establishing subsidiary or branch operations for clients throughout the United States, Europe and Asia, and serves on the Board of many companies engaged in international trade.

Mr. Mulcahy's leadership in the area of world trade is reflected in his role as founder of the Wisconsin World Trade Center (WWTC) in 1987. He served as the initial President of WWTC and continues to serve as a member of the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors. Mr. Mulcahy is past president of the Milwaukee World Trade Association and is also past chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Institute of World Affairs of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Mr. Mulcahy's record of service to Wisconsin businesses and to the Belgian of is distinguished and worthy of praise. His nomination to become a Knight in the Order of Leopold is truly deserved.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time and also commend him for his leadership and the energy he has shown on this subject, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Madam Speaker, there is a serious problem throughout America in regards to the rising cost of health insurance, double-digit premium increases. As I travel around my congressional district in western Wisconsin visiting businesses large and small alike, it is the number one topic on their lips, the difficulty of being able to provide health insurance coverage for their employees with the double-digit increases that they are facing today.

Part of the problem in western Wisconsin deals with the inadequacy of Medicare reimbursement rates, which then is cost-shifted on to the private plans; but also part of the problem is the number of uninsured and the cost shifting that occurs when they receive treatment. We saw the statistics a little earlier, 41 million uninsured. Those numbers are going up. Between 50 and 60 percent of the uninsured are employees working in small businesses. It is a crisis situation out there, and I have not met a small business owner yet that is happy with the fact when they cannot provide some basic health coverage for their employees. Unless we deal with it in an honest and, I think, straightforward plan, the numbers will only get worse.

There are some here today that think H.R. 660 is the answer to the crisis we are all experiencing in our own districts. I happen to disagree. I think there are some serious flaws with H.R. 660. I believe that, at best, the underlying legislation would do very little to address the plight of the uninsured. There is a recent CBO analysis that said that, at best, we might be able to extend additional coverage for half a million Americans, a far cry from the 41 million who are currently uninsured or the 25 million who are working right now in small businesses. At worst, there is a Mercer report that shows that because of the premium increases in other health plans, we could see another million Americans losing their health insurance coverage because of H.R. 660.

What also is a major problem is that it exempts State laws. These are community value judgments made in each of our States in regards to what health care practices should be covered for the citizens. Yet the legislation today is calling for a preemption of that State law, an eradication of the federalism that has existed in this country for a very long period of time. It is one of the reasons why we have so many people opposing the legislation, from the National Governors' Association, from the Democratic Governors' Association and Republican Governors' Association, the State Attorneys General Association, not to mention the Association of Insurance Plans, as well as the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Why would you, if you believe in the free market, as I think most of us do, and believe in price competition, try to set up an uneven system where you have two different sets of plans playing by two different sets of rules? It does not make sense. If you are going to force price competition in the free market system, you need to have everyone playing on a level playing field playing by the same set of rules, such as the State laws that exist right now, rather than exempting a whole category of people.

I think our substitute offers a better alternative, and I would encourage our colleagues to support that.

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

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

Madam Speaker, we have had I think a very enlightening discussion so far today in regards to the real impact of these associated health plans, what they are potentially capable of doing and what the danger of them are. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has been citing repeatedly, there is an objective study there indicating the potential impact if this legislation enacted of increasing the ranks of the uninsured throughout the country by an additional million people. That is heading in the wrong direction considering we have 41 million uninsured today, many of them, between 50 and 60 percent of that 41 million, working in small businesses throughout our Nation.

We have a serious issue that requires a serious response and a serious plan to provide some real relief for small business employers to their employees. These are people who wake up every morning. They go to work. They play by the rules. They are asking for basic health care coverage like their neighbors next to them.

Unfortunately, H.R. 660 pulls up a little bit short in a couple of respects. First of all, it creates a current two-tiered system exempting the health care plans from currently State-regulated requirements. These are decisions made by State legislatures reflecting community values in regards to what type of health care coverage is important for their citizens, for their communities, for the society at large. And what is being proposed now is exempting a whole category of health insurance plans from basic health coverage such as cancer screening, mammographies, prenatal care, maternity care, diabetes, autism coverage in some States, and for those whoever worked with autistic children understand the importance of treating autism is early recognition, early intervention, and a lot of times that will not occur unless there are health plans that provide such coverage, and if we do not intervene early in these children's lives, there are exponentially greater costs for society at large down the road.

We offer a substitute, which I believe addresses the challenge that we are facing as a Nation more honestly and more fairly. The Democratic alternative that I have worked on with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and others on the committee would provide direct assistance to small businesses and their employees, another shortcoming of H.R. 660. There is no incentive, there is no help financially to enable employers to provide this type of coverage for their employees. And everyone I know is familiar with the small business employer that is operating on the margin, oftentimes losing money rather than making money.

And if there is not some type of financial incentive that our substitute bill offers it is unlikely that they are going to be able to extend their health insurance coverage to their employees who currently do not have them.

What our substitute would do is it would direct the Department of Labor to establish a small employer health benefit plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. Many of the Members of Congress here today are members of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. I have not encountered too much criticism of the health plan that Members of Congress are receiving. I think small business owners and their employees should be given the same opportunity on an affordable basis. The program would contract with State license insurers to offer a minimum insurance package for all employees of businesses of fewer than 100 people. Small businesses would be eligible for a premium assistance under our plan as would employees earning below 200 percent of the poverty level.

This alternative has the potential of providing health insurance coverage to 33 million Americans who currently go without it today. The number stands in stark contrast to the estimated 550,000 that the Congressional Budget Office has calculated under H.R. 660.

Perhaps most importantly, our plan is paid for under the budget resolution that the majority party has passed earlier this year. It fits within the budget confines by providing these premium assistance to small business employers, and to those employees at 200 percent less of poverty, providing financial assistance and the financial means to actually access health plans and provide coverage for their employees. H.R. 660 does not provide any of those means.

What we may see under their budget resolution coming back at us shortly is some form of tax credit or some type of tax deduction, which is not going to help the numerous employees and small businesses operating at 200 percent or less poverty level, who are paying very little Federal income taxes in order to qualify for such credits, unless they are willing to extend that coverage to those employees. But wait a minute. We are right now engaged in a heated debate over a child tax credit on these very same principles; so it is doubtful that they are going to be able to provide that type of tax relief to employees who need it and cannot afford health plans generally.

I mean there is a reason why the National Governors Association, Republican and Democratic governors alike, are in opposition, why the State Attorney Generals Association is opposing, why the State legislatures throughout the country are opposing, why many consumer interest groups and health care providers are opposing H.R. 660, because they fear that the ultimate income will be expanding the ranks of

the uninsured rather than reducing that number.

I think we all have the best intentions in the plans that we are advocating here today to try to reverse course on the 41 million, to try to provide small businesses with an opportunity of providing some health care coverage for their employees, but we believe there is a right and there is a wrong way of doing it. We believe that the Democratic substitute being offered which does not preempt State law, which does provide some financial assistance, premium assistance for small employers, which is paid for under the budget resolution is the way to go if we are truly interested in reducing the number of the uninsured in this country, and thereby affecting the premiums that other health plans have to pay.

Because if the uninsured get sick or get hurt, they still go in, they still access, they still get care, but those costs are then shifted on to those plans that pay for it. Our plan would reduce the number of uninsured and thereby save costs and help reduce the premium increases that so many of our employers, large and small, are experiencing today. And with that, I encourage my colleagues to support the substitute. Vote no on the H.R. 660.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is modeled after the Federal employee health plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a very knowledgeable member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me quickly dispel a couple of myths. We have heard a couple of occasions new mandates are going to add costs to the employers.

First of all, there are no new mandates under the substitute. We merely respect State law. We do not require compliance. It is a voluntary program. If small business employers do not think it is a good financial deal for them, they do not have to join. There is nothing mandating their requirement.

We have also heard the word ``taxes'' being used, too. Let me reiterate, this is paid for in their own budget resolution. So there is no new taxes that we are talking about with respect to this substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the coauthor of this alternative bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think we may be making major policy based on a few phone calls here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Illinois, my good friend, that is why our substitute is much better. We have one comprehensive pool that small businesses can buy into if they choose, therefore leveraging their bargaining power.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, one of the strengths of the labor union is they are there representing the workers. They leverage the number of workers there, and they are representing their interests, and they oftentimes reduce wages in order to get a better health care plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume for the purposes of a colloquy to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a former State legislator and a colleague on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, it would be, because we respect existing State law.

Again, it is not mandated unless the State offers that right now.

That would be covered.

That would also be covered under our substitute.

That would be covered.

That is right.

Yes, it would.

It would, indeed.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

One other significant difference between our substitute and H.R. 660 is ours would have a uniform premium rate for all employees. Employees could not be discriminated against with higher premium rates because they happen to be sicker than their fellow employees in the workforce. Ours would establish a uniform insurance premium rate for them so there would not be that type of price discrimination against the sicker in our population.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, we state that our substitute is fully paid for under the budget resolution, so we are not asking for new money. And with due respect to my friend from Georgia, we would hope a lot of employers would continue to offer the basic health care coverage that exists today. But the reason there were so many State battles throughout the country in State legislatures is because many of them were not. That is why these hard-fought battles need to be respected, and our substitute does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate that we are having today. Just to correct one of the things just stated by the previous speaker, the Department of Labor, just like H.R. 660, would be in charge of administering the substitute plan that we have before us today. They would actually contract with state-licensed insurers to offer basic insurance plans.

The significant difference, though, is that we are asking everyone to play on a level playing field, to respect States' rights, and to not have Federal preemption. Because for those who believe in the free market system, which I think most of us do, it can only work if everyone is playing by the same rules instead of trying to establish a two-tier system. And that, I believe, is going to be the best hope we have, through price competition, of keeping a check on rising premium costs.

There has been a lot of citing of statistics throughout the afternoon, a lot from the Congressional Budget Office, and so I will provide for the Record a letter from the Congressional Budget Office stating their analysis of H.R. 660.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage our colleagues, in conclusion, to support the substitute, one that does provide an opportunity for more small employers to provide health care coverage to their employees, one that respects State law, one that provides some premium assistance so they can afford it. I encourage support of the substitute and a ``no'' vote on H.R. 660.

Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to above is as follows:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, June 18, 2003.

Hon. George Miller,

Senior Democratic Member, Committee on Education and the

Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman: This letter responds to your request of

June 17, 2003, for additional information on CBO's estimate

of the impact of H.R. 660 on enrollment in the health

insurance markets for small employers and self-employed

workers. We expect that the effects of the bill would be

fully reflected in those markets by 2008, and all of the

following numbers refer to that year.

Under current law, CBO estimates that approximately 30.1

million people will be enrolled in health insurance offered

by plans in the state-regulated small group insurance

market. Under the bill, CBO estimates that combined

enrollment in state-regulated plans and association health

plans (AHPs) would rise by about 550,000 people to a total of

30.7 million people. Of this, approximately 23.2 million

people would retain coverage in the state-regulated market.

About 7.5 million people would be enrolled in AHPs, including

the additional 550,000 people who would not have been covered

by any small-employer plan under current law, and 6.9 million

people who would have been covered in the state-regulated

market.

The same consideration apply to self-employed people. We

estimate that approximately 4.7 million people will be

enrolled in state-regulated coverage purchased by self-

employed workers under current law. Under H.R. 660, CBO

estimates that combined enrollment through state-regulated

insurers and AHPs would rise by about 70,000 people to 4.8

million people. Of this, approximately 3.8 million people

would retain state-regulated coverage. About 1.0 million

people would obtain coverage through AHPs, including the

additional 70,000 people who would not have been insured

under current law, and 0.9 million people who would have been

covered in the state-regulated market.

If you would like additional information on this estimate,

the CBO staff contact is Stuart Hagen, who can be reached at

225-2644.

Sincerely,

Douglas Holtz-Eakin,

Director.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1308, the Relief for Working Families Tax Act. Today, we have the opportunity to help 6.5 million working families with 11.9 million children while maintaining fiscal responsibility. However, the Majority does not wish to do that. Rather, they would prefer to pass an $82 billion tax package without any provisions to offset the cost. The Senate overwhelmingly passed a $9.8 billion tax package that would immediately benefit our children and not increase the deficit; we must do the same.

The federal deficit has now exceeded $400 billion for 2003, a new record, and is approaching $500 billion for 2004. Yet, the Majority wants to borrow another $82 billion. In a time of exploding budget deficits as far as the eye can see, we cannot pass a plan that will further compromise our economy. It is imperative that we put money back in the hands of working Americans to create jobs and build a strong future. The bill before us today, however, only serves to further weaken our economy and burden our children.

The child tax credit legislation passed by the Senate on June 5th, 2003 extends relief to families making between $10,500 and $26,625, who were left out of the Majority's irresponsible tax package we recently considered. Just examine the facts: one in six families would gain from the child credit refund increase; in my home state of Wisconsin alone, 11 percent of families would benefit. In thirteen States, at least 20 percent of families would be helped. In addition, the legislation passed by the Senate would provide benefits for the children of the brave men and women of our Armed Services. However, the House Majority is offering a partisan obstruction impairing our ability to help these children, by adding $70 billion worth of additional tax cuts.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and bring up the legislation the Senate passed so we can get it to the President's desk by this weekend. We must not let the Majority solve a $3.5 billion dilemma with an even greater $82 billion dilemma. It is evident that this plan creates more harm than good; it not only increases the budget deficit of today, but also increases the debt of the future. Thus, for a better today and a brighter tomorrow, I firmly oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to oppose it with me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for making estate tax relief permanent so that family-owned farms and businesses can be passed down from generation to generation. The estate tax should be updated and modernized to reflect both the economic growth so many Americans have experienced in recent years, and the hard work of millions of entrepreneurs and those just trying to make a living. These businesses should not be punished for being successful or for simply having their owners pass away.

The United States is the land of opportunity, encouraging free enterprise and rewarding entrepreneurs. The estate tax should be modified to protect family-owned small businesses and family farms from the threat of having to be sold just to pay the tax.

But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 would fully repeal the estate tax for all Americans at a time when the administration is running record deficits that threaten the futures of our children's children. As we all know, the estate tax applies to fewer than 2 percent of all estates, about 50,000 a year. This bill would initially cost the Nation's treasury $161 billion over 11 years, and $840 billion over the following 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, the majority's policies have turned a projected $5.3 trillion surplus into an estimated $3 trillion deficit over 10 years. This year alone, our budget deficit will reach a record $400 billion and will likely exceed $500 billion next year. However, even with these record deficits, we are debating yet another tax cut on top of the fiscally irresponsible $350 billion tax cut package this House recently passed.

With the majority's policies leading our Nation toward a fiscal train wreck, we should not be talking about totally repealing the death tax and instead talk about doing something about the debt tax, which falls upon all Americans. The growing amount of taxes needed to pay interest on the national debt will double under the Republican budget, costing the average family of four $8,453 in 2013. That is $8,000 a year that the average family will have to pay in taxes that will not go to provide better schools, national defense, or other government services. With the staggering budget shortfalls facing our country, Mr. Speaker, complete repeal of the estate tax is simply not an option I can support.

Therefore, I am supporting the substitute being offered by my good friend Mr. Pomeroy. His legislation will immediately help the small businesses and family farms by increasing the estate tax exemption to $3 million for individuals and $6 million for couples. This meaningful, commensense bill will exempt 99.65 percent of all estates from the estate tax.

Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to avoid towering deficits and reduce the debt future generations will inherit. We must give them the capability and flexibility to meet whatever problems or needs they face. I cannot, in good faith, support legislation that will put our country further into deficit spending with a tax cut that will hurt future generations for the unforeseeable future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support of this measure.

I am a proponent of genetically modified (GM) food, and firmly believe that its continued implementation and use provides a number of important benefits for the American farmer and worldwide consumers. Furthermore, I believe we are legally correct and justified in asking the World Trade Organization (WTO) to impose penalties on the EU for maintaining a moratorium on import permits for genetically modified crops in violation of its rules.

However, I fear that our government's efforts will have the unintended consequence of wreaking havoc on the current WTO trade discussions. As we all know, the U.S. farmer would benefit much more if, in the current Doha Round of the WTO, the EU nations agreed to slash the generous agriculture subsidy assistance they provide their farmers.

According to a recent Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international organization that seeks to help governments tackle the economic, social, and governance challenges of a globalized economy, in 2002, the EU provided $112.6 billion in agricultural subsidies to their farmers. This amount totals approximately 1.3 percent of the EU GDP. Compare this staggering number with that of the United States, which generously provided in 2002 $90.3 billion (0.9 percent of our GDP) to farmers in the form of agricultural subsidies, and you can easily see why reform of domestic agricultural policy and worldwide agricultural trade liberalization is much needed.

In addition to fighting this important fight on GM foods today, the Administration and Congress need to hold the Europeans' feet to the fire on reforming their domestic agriculture policy and making their country more open to imported goods. The Doha Round was devised to accomplish these two objectives.

Moreover, the U.S.'s policy on GM foods must not just single out Europe. In an article, which appeared in yesterday's The Wall Street Journal, many U.S. soybean traders are accusing the Chinese of impeding soybean imports due to the failure of various inspection permits. The article continues by stating, ``China last week announced it will extend to April 20, 2004, strict regulations on crops containing genetically modified organisms that had been set to expire September 20th.''

Thus, the question that needs to be asked--Is China moving toward closing its borders in perpetuity on import permits for genetically modified crops? Will the U.S. government file a similar petition against the Chinese government? If so, when? If not, why not? After all, under commitments China made when it became a member of the WTO in December 2001, it must open its market to agricultural products.

Mr. Speaker, I will support this resolution and encourage my colleagues to do likewise--but I suggest more substantive work be done to reform domestic agricultural policy and worldwide agricultural trade liberalization policies that currently stand in the way of sustainability and prosperity of our farmers.

Madam Speaker, this July the village of Lyndon Station, Wisconsin, in the heart of my congressional district, will be marking its centennial celebration. This beautiful, tranquil village lies in eastern Wisconsin and is surrounded by some of America's richest farmland. The village of Lyndon Station is a jewel in the crown of Juneau County. This community has been a primary contributor to the region's settlement, development of the timber industry, expansion of agriculture, and a hub of community trade and commercial growth for over 100 years.

The first settlers were native Americans who used the banks of what is now called Lyndon Creek to camp and hunt the abundant wildlife in the mixed prairie-woodland of this region. The first European settlement of the present village site was in 1849. Three brothers and two sisters of the Havey family arrived in this area to start a new life, having immigrated from Kildare, Ireland during the worst years of the potato famine. They settled near the present village location and were the beginning of a wave to discover the fertile soils of central Wisconsin.

Other settlers soon followed and established land claims in and near the growing village which became known as Kildare. In 1857, the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad spurred new life into the area when it built a railroad station as it pushed its lines of commerce further west.

By 1870, the name Kildare Village was changed to Lyndon Station Village since the name Kildare was already being used for the township. There has been much speculation as to the origin of the name Lyndon, and it still remains a mystery; but such a mystery only adds to the community's charm. In 1903, Lyndon Station was officially incorporated as a village in the State of Wisconsin, even though the name had been on maps for nearly half a century.

The Lyndon Station Village Centennial celebrates the best of rural America. There are thousands of small rural communities across this Nation that form the backbone of rural life. These communities are the incubators of local politics, of commerce and education, recreation, entertainment, and faith for our rural neighborhoods.

Collectively, the hardworking citizens of small-town America are the builders of our great Nation. I am proud to congratulate the citizens of Lyndon Station Village on their 100th anniversary. I believe that it is important to recognize their unique contribution to the development of central Wisconsin and wish them happiness and prosperity during the next 100 years.

It is one of my chief concerns as a member of the Committee on the Budget, as a Member of this House, the fact that the fiscal decisions being made today, if carried out the way we have intended is going to set up future generations for failure. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I do believe deficits matter. As a father of two little boys back home, I do believe deficits matter. At a time when we should be investing in our children's and grandchildren's future, we are borrowing against their future.

This is happening at exactly the worst moment in our Nation's history, when we have 80 million of the so-called baby boomers all marching in lockstep to their retirement, which will start in a few short years; and we are digging this fiscal hole deeper and deeper and deeper at a time when the next generation will be taking over the reins of leadership. We will be setting up future Congresses and the younger generations for failure unless we can reverse course.

I appreciate the voice of my colleague in this deficit wilderness of warning the Nation of the consequences of these fiscal policies. The ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), has been telling us for a very long time that we need to keep an eye on the bottom line with the spending and the revenue streams and try to maintain some balance.

The question I have for both of the gentlemen here is that it was such a remarkable turnaround during the decade of the 1990s, unfortunately, we do not have another decade like that to prepare for the onset of the baby boom generation's retirement; but were there some fiscal tools available during the 1990s that no longer exist today, that we should consider putting back in place in order to develop some fiscal discipline and some fiscal responsibility in this House again before it is too late?

I think the gentleman makes a very important point. The PAYGO did require fiscal discipline because for any proposed increase in discretionary funding, there had to be an offset in the entitlement in order to maintain balance. And it put the Nation in a position where there was a true lockbox on Social Security and Medicare trust funds, where the money was not being robbed to pay for other aspects of Federal spending which has gone out the window again in 2 short years. They have taken all the money out of the Social Security and Medicare trust fund to pay for these tax cuts or to pay for other spending programs when we should be downloading our debt in anticipation of this massive retirement boom.

One final point on the tax cut that was recently enacted into law, there was a lot of fanfare and Rose Garden ceremony, naturally, for the tax cut that the President signed. But what did not receive as much attention was the day before, unceremoniously and very quietly, within 20 seconds, the President also signed an increase in the debt ceiling by a trillion dollars.

That is over next year alone.

Just to put this in context, the entire national debt in 1980 for the preceding 200 years was roughly $900 billion, and they are proposing to have a $1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling in 1 year alone. This was not economic stimulus that he signed into law. It was major structural tax reform, and it should be referred to as such. And no less an expert on capital accumulation in this Nation and the world, Warren Buffett has also weighed into decrying this tax cut. He says there is something fundamentally unfair with a tax cut proposal which will reduce his marginal

tax rate, Warren Buffett, who is worth about $55 billion, will reduce his tax rate to roughly 5 percent when the receptionist in his own office has a marginal tax rate of 30 percent. Even Warren Buffet says that is not fair; that is not the values that reflects our great Nation. But that is what this tax cut was about. A major restructuring of the Tax Code, who is going to pay and who is going to be left on the hook. And, unfortunately, again, no less an expert on capital accumulation than Warren Buffett, he says it does not fly and it is very troubling.

That is really the point of tonight's Special Order is what is going to get the economy back on track. That is what all of America embraces. We need to grow the economy, create jobs, stimulate investments. There is nothing that solves problems better for our Nation than a growing economy. But the fact of the matter is over the last 2 years, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) recited these stats, is we have lost 3 million jobs in this economy. Two million of our citizens have gone from middle class back into poverty. During the 1990s when we had declining deficits and surpluses, 8 million of our citizens went the other way, from poverty into middle class. We have had over a trillion dollars of corporate assets that have been foreclosed upon over these last 2 years, one of slowest worker productivity rates in the last 30 years.

The economic policies are not working. And that is what we need to do is get together in a bipartisan fashion and figure out a plan that is going to work for working families and for all Americans throughout the country so we can stimulate economic activity and create jobs again. That is what we need to do rather than pursuing an idealogical agenda that has a poor track record during the 1980s, the first part of the 1990s, and now it is deja voodoo economics all over again here in the new century. And that is really the task that lies before us today. But unfortunately, there is an unwillingness with the administration and leadership of Congress to admit that things are not working.

Most reasonable and logical people, when they find themselves in a hole, stop digging. Ideological extremists ask for a bigger shovel. And later this year, as true as we are standing in this well today, there is going to be another trillion dollar tax cut proposal coming before this body with everything including the kitchen sink involved in it. They are just clinging to this mantra that tax cuts solve all the problems that this country is facing, when, in fact, the record belies that and it is very troubling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution honoring our brave men and women of the Armed Services. Their duty and sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan are appreciated by all Americans.

New challenges facing our Nation demand increased vigilance on the part of our Armed Services. With these increased demands, the role of the National Guard and Reserve Forces is critical in providing the total force necessary to ensure our security. Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to meet with many National Guard and Reserve members from western Wisconsin who have been called up for service Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

Over 2,300 members of the Wisconsin Air and Army National Guard are serving on active duty. The people of western Wisconsin are proud of their service and the service of all the men and women of our Armed Forces during this important time in our Nation's history.

We still have much to do in terms of peacekeeping and rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan. In this effort, it is important that we engage our allies to share responsibility and pursue an effective, sustained commitment to peace and stability in the region. If we can do this right, we will not have to again, sometime down the road, send our military forces over to fight.

In addition, we recognize today all of the `round-the-clock' work put in by the military personnel and DoD civilian employees at military mobilization platforms around our Nation. In western Wisconsin, I represent Fort McCoy, one of the Army Reserves' power projection platforms. Ft. McCoy has been continuously processing and training mobilized members of the National Guard and Reserve for the past six months. Their efforts have been key in getting our forces ready for combat.

It is also important that we recognize the support and sacrifice of the families and employers of our troops. They are the backbone of our fighting forces, and we appreciate their commitment during these challenging times.

The American people and the Congress of the United States stand behind our Armed Service Members and those that support them. As our military effort continues, I and other Members of Congress will continue to work to ensure that our service men and women have all the resources necessary to fulfil their mission.

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

May God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hoyer/ Greenwood/Johnson substitute, the Late Term Abortion Restriction Act, and in opposition to the underlying bill.

In June 2000, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska statute that ostensibly prohibited ``partial- birth'' abortions. The court based its decision on two determinations: (1) the statute lacked any exception for the preservation of a woman's health; (2) the statute placed an ``undue burden'' on the right to choose abortion because its vague definition of ``partial birth'' abortion could cover multiple procedures, at any time during a pregnancy, regardless of viability. Due to these determinations, the court found the Nebraska statute unconstitutional.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, however, indicated that if changes were made in the legislation to address these concerns, restrictions on late-term abortions could be found constitutional. Unfortunately, the authors of H.R. 760, the underlying bill, failed to follow the outline by Justice O'Connor.

The legislation I support, the Hoyer/Greenwood/Johnson substitute, is a bipartisan effort that meets the Supreme Court's criteria. This substitute would ban all abortions after fetal viability, allowing an exception to protect the life or health of the mother. This bill did not eliminate a particular procedure; it would prohibit all late-term post-viability abortions by whatever method or procedure.

Most people, even those who oppose abortion, would make allowances for pregnancies as a result of rape or incest. There is no doubt that a young girl who becomes pregnant as the result of rape or incest can medically carry the pregnancy to term. However, many of us would say that that young girl should have the option to terminate that pregnancy as a means to safeguard emotional well-being--that is an argument in favor of recognizing the traumatic impact of a pregnancy due to rape or incest.

Some would argue that the pregnancy could be terminated earlier. We would hope so. However, the psychiatric and sociological record is replete with scientific and anecdotal evidence that even in the most supportive environments, girls who are victims of rape and incest are reluctant to reveal their abuse, leaving them vulnerable to emotional and mental breakdown, self-destructive behavior, and, in the worst case, unrecognized or unacknowledged pregnancies up until the last trimester. Only the Hoyer/Greenwood/Johnson substitute would adequately address this serious issue.

While this has been a difficult issue, I must oppose H.R. 760. This bill does not recognize the constitutionality issues raised by the Supreme Court. It does not contain an exception for a woman's health, nor does it adequately define ``partial birth'' abortion in such a way as to address the issue of ``undue burden.'' I am confident that if this bill is signed into law, the Supreme Court would strike it down.

As a Member of the U.S. Congress, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I will not betray that oath. Now that the Supreme Court has determined the constitutional parameters for a partial-birth abortion ban in the Stenberg case, I must adhere to that decision and cannot vote for a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional. H.R. 760 does not comply with the Court's decision.