Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA. This landmark piece of legislation was the world's first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities, making it the most significant piece of civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There is no doubt that the ADA has improved the lives of the 54 million Americans with disabilities, including 450,000 disabled adults in Wisconsin, and the evidence of this progress can be seen all around us. Thanks to the ADA, we have curb cuts, wheelchair lifts, Braille signs, accessible transit systems, and perhaps most important, the ADA has begun to change peoples' attitudes towards people with disabilities.

But as part of the recognition of the progress that has been made, it is important for us to remember why the ADA was needed in the first place. Prior to the ADA's passage, the isolation of and discrimination against people with disabilities was staggering. Many disabled Americans were not working, even though they wanted to have a job. Many did not finish high school, and many lived in poverty. The ADA established a comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability in the areas of employment, public accommodations, public services, transportation, and telecommunications.

So while I celebrate the ADA for the progress it has brought about, the fact remains that the promise of the ADA remains unfulfilled for far too many people. According to a 2004 survey done by the National Organization on Disability, only 35 percent of people with disabilities reported being employed full or part time; people with disabilities are three times more likely to live in poverty with household incomes below $15,000 than their non-disabled counterparts; and people with disabilities remain twice as likely to drop out of high school. And I fear that ongoing efforts to cut the Medicaid program and dismantle Social Security will threaten the wellbeing of many more people with disabilities.

I remain committed to the goals and promise of the ADA--equality and opportunity for all Americans, and I am delighted to reaffirm this commitment as we celebrate the ADA's 15th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my disappointment in the bills that the House of Representatives is considering during this so-called ``Health Care Week.''

While I applaud House leaders for turning their attention to the health care crisis, I do not believe that the bills we are considering will solve the problem we face, and I fear that some of these measures may actually worsen the crisis. I look forward to the day when we will consider real solutions to ensure that all Americans have access to quality, comprehensive, affordable health care.

According to the latest figures released by the Census Bureau, 45 million Americans are uninsured. Millions more are underinsured. Just last month, the Commonwealth Fund released a study estimating that there are 16 million Americans who are underinsured--meaning their insurance would not adequately protect them in the event of catastrophic health care expenses. That means that 61 million Americans either have no health insurance or have insurance coverage that leaves them exposed to high health care costs. Sixty-one million is nearly 21 percent of all Americans, or one in five. Put simply, this is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, the health care legislation that the House will consider this week fails to address our nation's health care crisis. These bills will not do anything to provide quality, comprehensive, and affordable health care to these 61 million Americans or to the millions more who constantly worry about losing their health care.

As in years past, I remain opposed to proposals to create ``association health plans'' or AHPs. AHPs purport to offer affordable health care to small business owners and employees, but this is accomplished by exempting insurers from state insurance and consumer protection laws including benefit mandates, solvency standards, and pricing rules. This evasion of state laws could be devastating to the consumer who thinks that they have comprehensive coverage only to discover, after the fact, that their policy offers a bare bones minimum of benefits.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that AHPs will cause 10,000 people

to lose their health care coverage. Because AHPs are exempted from state insurance laws, AHPs can ``cherry pick'' the healthiest employees and deny coverage to those who are more costly to cover. This would drive up insurance premiums for everyone who remains in state-regulated insurance plans, making health insurance less affordable and forcing people to drop their insurance because of rising costs. I recognize the frustration and struggles faced by the self-employed and small business owners trying to provide health care to their employees, but AHPs are not the answer to the uninsurance crisis, if they will result in more people becoming uninsured.

Similarly, the House will consider a medical malpractice bill that will fail to lower health care costs for Americans. Proponents of this bill claim that rising costs of medical malpractice insurance and ``excessive litigation'' are driving up health care costs so much that caps must be instituted, placed on the amount of money a victim of malpractice can receive for a lifetime of pain and suffering or other non-economic damage.

Unfortunately, these caps will have little effect except to limit patient rights to sue for medical injury. Numerous studies have shown that medical malpractice awards, legal fees, and other costs account for less than one percent of the nation's health care spending. This bill represents nothing more than a false promise.

Soaring malpractice insurance rates need to be addressed with two principles in mind. First, do no harm to the victims of medical errors. Second, start addressing insurance abuses by focusing on the malpractice insurance industry, not the victims of medical malpractice. Narrow federal caps on non-economic damages are not the way to address the problems with malpractice insurance.

Health care costs are rising for many reasons. Given the relatively small role that medical malpractice verdicts and settlements play in rising health care costs, this bill is really more of a distraction that is keeping us from making headway on the real culprits. Congress should leave regulation of insurance and tort law to the states. Congress should not spend its time demonizing victims and their advocates.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of underlying issues that come up when considering America's health care crisis: uninsurance, underinsurance, affordability, and quality, just to name a few. All Americans deserve quality, comprehensive, and affordable health care, and I look forward to the day when we will consider legislation that truly responds to these challenges.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3199. As the gentleman just mentioned, I was a member of the Committee on the Judiciary on September 11, 2001. And in the weeks that followed, I joined my colleagues in committee to carefully craft a bill to give law enforcement personnel additional and powerful tools to fight terror. But as many of you recall, the work product of our committee was rejected at the eleventh hour in favor of a far more expansive act which has continued to raise concerns among those who cherish our constitutional liberties.

Through the PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism measures, we have become a country that permits secret surveillance, secret searches, denial of court review, monitoring of conversations between citizens and their attorneys, and searching of library and medical records of citizens. This does not sound like America to me.

Mr. Chairman, reauthorization of this act is an opportunity; it is an opportunity to restore the checks and balances that must exist in a free society. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to allow us that chance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. Since his death a little more than a week ago, at age 89, much has been written about this extraordinary statesman, environmentalist, husband, father, and friend.

Gaylord Nelson was a giant in Wisconsin history. In a life dedicated to public service, Gaylord Nelson embodied the ethics of his state: hard work, perseverance, honesty, integrity, compassion, and good humor.

Gaylord Nelson was a patriot who, as a young soldier, courageously served 46 months in a just war, and then, as a U.S. Senator, courageously took a stand against a war he believed was unjust.

As a State Senator and Governor of Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson was an effective leader and natural-born politician who practiced the fine art of governing by always striving for the common good, seeking common ground, and practicing common decency. His political battles were never personal, and his personal friendships knew no political boundaries.

As a U.S. Senator, Gaylord Nelson brought his energy and activism to the national stage. His concern for the environment was visionary and relentless. Gaylord Nelson's efforts led to the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. In 1995, President Bill Clinton honored him with the Nation's highest civilian award: the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Gaylord Nelson was an advocate for consumers, small business owners, farmers, and all who shared his belief in the promise of America.

Above all, he was, as one report noted, ``A voice crying out for the wilderness.'' As the father of Earth Day, he leaves a legacy of environmental awareness and action that has changed lives and livelihoods for the better in communities throughout the world.

Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin was a citizen of the world, a leader of the highest ethical standards, and a model public servant whose life's work will continue to inspire Americans for many generations. I join with all of Wisconsin in saluting him today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Beloit, Wisconsin native Danica Patrick for her outstanding achievement at this year's Indianapolis 500. Anyone who watched the race knows that her performance this past May was simply remarkable.

Even before the green flag dropped, Danica amazed the racing world by qualifying in the fourth position, marking the highest beginning position for a woman in the Indianapolis 500's history. When the race started, fans across the country watched as Danica advanced as high as third place. At lap 80, Danica's engine stalled, causing her to drop back to 16th place. It looked like the race was over for her, but she fought back. As the race sped to its end, Danica charged through the field, advanced place after place, and eventually led the race for a total of 19 laps. Rather than play it safe, Danica gunned it out for the win by using all the fuel she had instead of taking a pit stop. As the checkered flag waived, Danica's efforts came up just short as she finished fourth--the highest finish ever for a woman. While Danica did not win this year's Indy 500, her performance won her this year's Rookie of the Year award and helped her capture the attention of racing fans around the world.

Danica's philosophy is that ``life is what you make of it,'' and she says she prepares for races by visualizing herself making laps around the track. She gives her work her full attention, and it is clear that her dedication is strong and her perseverance fierce. I join Wisconsin in applauding Danica for her performance at this year's Indianapolis 500 and for her hard work and dedication in becoming one of Formula 1 Racing's most exciting drivers. I cannot wait to see Danica's future electrifying races and I wish her the best of luck.

Congratulations to you, Danica.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater men's baseball team who in a stunning display of athleticism, captured the NCAA Division III national championship. Led by head coach John Vodenlich, the Warhawks capped an extraordinary season by winning their first national championship in school history. UW-Whitewater compiled a 45-7 overall record, the best in school history, and became the first team since 1999 to not lose a single game in the double elimination championship tournament.

UW-Whitewater demonstrated impeccable skill both in the field and at the plate. The pitching duo of Senior Kevin Tomasiewicz and Junior Greg Reinhard led the charge for the Warhawks. Tomasiewicz, who was recently selected by the New York Mets in the 2005 Major League Baseball Draft, garnered MVP honors for the championship series after earning two wins and a save during the Warhawks' four game run. Reinhard, who was also selected in the Draft by the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, earned first-term All-American Honors and was named the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and ABCA Division III Pitcher of the Year. At the plate, junior designated hitter Eddie Adamson batted a Ted Williams like .417 and set the single season school records for hits, RBIs, runs scored and doubles. The Warhawks also demonstrated their toughness and determination off the field. Outfielder Eric Baldwin earned the WIAC Max Sparger Scholar Athlete of the Year award in honor of his academic excellence.

Winning the title in Grand Chute, just outside of Appleton, Wisconsin, the Warhawks brought tremendous pride for people from all over the great state of Wisconsin. I would like to sincerely congratulate the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater men's baseball team for their remarkable achievements and wish them the best of luck in their quest to repeat as National Champions.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1815, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This legislation reflects misplaced priorities, wrong choices, excessive spending, and a failure to make hard choices. This bill also fails to assert any meaningful Congressional oversight over the war in Iraq which has been mismanaged from the very beginning.

Passage of this bill today will set our annual defense spending in Fiscal Year 2006 at $490.7 billion, including additional funding for the war in Iraq. This will account for 55 percent of all discretionary spending. In real terms, it will be 20 percent higher than the average defense budget during the Cold War. We will spend just shy of a million dollars a minute, 24 hours a day, for all 365 days next year.

Mr. Chairman, in the past, I have supported many defense authorization and defense appropriations bills. As a Member of this House, I take extremely seriously my oath of office that obligates me to provide for the protection of the American people. Providing for our common defense is critical, but like other federal government programs, we are bound to ensure that each dollar that we spend is necessary and used wisely.

Not only will this be a record defense budget, it will also be nearly as large as every other country in the world combined. Let me repeat that, this defense budget will nearly equal all other military spending in the world, including nations that are our allies and nations that are potential adversaries. According to estimates by the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, all nations except for the United States are spending a total of $527 billion. This includes our NATO allies like Britain at $49 billion and France at $40 billion, and Japan at $45 billion. Our spending dwarfs those of countries that are considered possible threats to our security: Iran at $3.5 billion, North Korea at $5.5 billion, Syria at $1.6 billion, and Sudan at $500 million.

We have already appropriated approximately $250 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. The day after we passed our latest FY 2005 supplemental, the Administration signaled that we should expect another supplemental request in the $50 billion range. It is clear that the Administration has no idea what the costs of the Iraq operations will be or is withholding that information from the Congress and the American people.

In March 2003, before the war began, I wrote to the President with 22 of our colleagues to ask him to specifically define our objectives and to provide an exit strategy. We asked the President a number of questions including: ``Under what circumstances will our military occupation of (and financial commitment to) Iraq end? And how will we know when these circumstances are present.'' We, and the American people, never received an answer to these crucial questions. Even today, the Administration is unwilling or unable to answer. This is simply unacceptable.

Time and again, the President has requested money to fund the war in Iraq while refusing to answer our questions about this war and provide a comprehensive strategy for bringing our troops home. We must insist that the administration articulate the conditions necessary to bring our troops home, and push them to do that as soon as possible. The administration's refusal to address these is quite astounding to me and should be of great concern to all Americans who believe in principles of accountability and checks and balances.

It is absolutely essential that President Bush formulate an exit strategy. This strategy must specify our objectives clearly, benchmarks to measure our success, or lack of success, and a realistic time line for withdrawing our troops. I know that many argue that a timeline for withdrawal would encourage insurgents to ``run out the clock.'' I disagree. A timeline would establish deadlines for us and the Iraqis to achieve our objectives. It gives us deadlines with which to hold ourselves accountable. For example, we set a date for elections, and despite the violence, we were successful in holding them on time.

My colleague from California, Lynn Woolsey, offered an amendment today to ask the President to develop a plan for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. This amendment did not set a date for withdrawal, nor did it require that any plan developed by the President have a fixed timeline for withdrawal. It simply said that the President should put together a plan and share it with Congress and the American people. Yet, the House leadership only allocated 30 minutes for this crucial debate.

This legislation fails to make tough choices about our military priorities. I support transformation of our armed forces into a more mobile, flexible force that can take on a wide variety of missions, from combat to peacekeeping, from hurricane relief to securing weapons of mass destruction. Our country cannot afford to maintain our current Cold War structure and legacy weapons systems while fully transforming into the modern force we need in this century. Yet this bill fails to make the tough choices and instead tries to fund both. And it fails to fully succeed at either.

I want to focus on some of the weapons systems we are funding in this bill.

Since 1983, we have spent $100 billion on missile defense. President Bush decided to move forward with deployment of a system that has been inadequately tested. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted last year, the system is ``largely unproven.'' The GAO went on to state that tests so far have been ``repetitive and scripted'' and that ``decision makers in the Defense Department and Congress do not have a full understanding of the overall cost of developing and fielding the Ballistic Missile System and what the system's true capabilities will be.'' Each year we put more and more resources into this unproven technology that does not address the most likely threats from weapons of mass destruction. Is a nuclear weapon likely to arrive on an intercontinental ballistic missile? Homeland security experts don't believe so. Moving forward with another $7.9 billion this year and plans for at least $50 billion more in coming years does not make military or fiscal sense.

I am pleased that the committee report on this bill raises serious questions about the future of the Future Combat System (FCS) program. The GAO found in March 2005 that ``the FCS program faces significant challenges in setting requirements, developing systems, financing development, and managing the effort.'' Let me quote from the report:

The FCS has demonstrated a level of knowledge far below

that suggested by best practices or DOD policy. Nearly 2

years after program launch and about $4.6 billion invested to

date, requirements are not firm and only 1 of over 50

technologies are mature--activities that should have been

done before the start of system development and

demonstration.

If everything goes as planned, the program will attain the

level of knowledge in 2008 that it should have had before it

started in 2003. But things are not going as planned.

Progress in critical areas, such as the network, software,

and requirements has been slower than planned. Proceeding

with such low levels of knowledge makes it likely that FCS

will encounter problems late in development, when they are

costly to correct. The relatively immature state of program

knowledge at this point provides an insufficient basis for

making a good cost estimate.

Despite the clear concern of the committee expressed in the committee report, FCS is funded at $3.4 billion, only $400 million less than the President's request.

The F/A-22 Raptor is the most expensive fighter ever built. Originally budgeted at $96 billion for 648 planes, it is now going to cost us $68 billion for 178 planes. Because of changing capabilities, the planes are now estimated to cost $258 million each, five times the cost of the F-15 and F-16 that they are replacing. This year, we are going to spend $3.8 billion for 24 planes while spending another $480 million for research and development. We have a plane that is way over budget and whose mission is unclear. The answer to this dilemma is to end the program, not spend more.

In December, the Defense Department proposed cutting the C-130J cargo plane, which would have saved $30 billion over the next five years. This made a lot of sense since the plane cannot complete its intended mission. Most of the planes have design flaws that prevent them from dropping paratroopers or heavy equipment. The chief weapons inspector at the Pentagon reported that it is ``neither operationally effective nor operationally suitable.'' Unfortunately, DOD has backed off cancellation and this bill will authorize more than $1 billion for procurement in FY 2006.

I do want to mention some positive features of this legislation. I am pleased that it contains a 3.1 percent increase in military pay. Our men and women in uniform deserve our admiration and respect for their dedication and

commitment. They have demonstrated again and again their professionalism when faced with incredibly difficult challenges. They truly are the best in the world. This legislation contains improvements to benefits and facilities that will help members of our armed forces and their families. It also increases hazardous duty pay, raises the caps on enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, and enhances the TRICARE Reserve Select Program (TRS). I support those provisions.

I was disappointed that expanded eligibility for TRICARE for our guard and reserve that the committee added to the bill was dropped by Chairman Hunter. This bill should also have included full concurrent receipt and ended taxation of survivor benefits.

This bill fails to make the tough choices necessary to transform our military force for the 21st Century. This bill fails to account for the real costs of war in Iraq and fails to press the President to put together a realistic exit strategy. I therefore must vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where Dr. Jamie Thompson and his team were the first to derive and culture human embryonic stem cells in a lab. These cells can be described as the parent cells of all tissues in the body. Embryonic stem cells open the possibility of dramatic new medical treatments, transplantation therapies, and cures.

But at 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001, the hope and promise of this embryonic stem cell research was greatly curtailed. President Bush declared that researchers who received Federal funding could work only with embryonic stem cell lines created before that date and time. There were supposed to be 78

lines that were eligible for federally funded research. However, due to age, old technologies, contamination, only 22 are useful for research today.

Mr. Speaker, why are we tying the hands of our scientists who receive NIH grants or other Federal dollars to support their research? Why are we curtailing scientific progress in America while scientists in other countries rapidly seize the opportunity inherent in advancing this research?

H.R. 810 creates strong new safeguards and guidelines concerning research on human embryonic stem cells. Strict criteria, including written informed consent for donation, must be met before Federal researchers can derive and culture new stem cell lines.

Some Members on the other side of this debate say their constituents are opposed to their Federal tax dollars being used on this groundbreaking science. Well, I have constituents as well, like young Jessie Alswager of Madison, Wisconsin. Jessie has juvenile diabetes, and every year he comes to Washington to lobby for this research to move us closer to a cure. Jessie is only 8; so I do not think he pays taxes yet; but his mom, Michelle, sure does. And Michelle, like millions of other Americans who could be helped by this science, very much want their tax dollars spent on stem cell research.

I urge support of the Castle-DeGette bill.

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

I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), in consideration of H.R. 627,

legislation designating a postal facility in Hamden, Connecticut after the late Linda White-Epps.

This measure was introduced by my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), introduced on February 8, 2005 and unanimously reported by the Committee on Government Reform on May 5, 2005. It enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the entire Connecticut delegation.

By all accounts, Linda White-Epps was a very active member of her community. A member of the Hamden Legislative Council, Ms. White-Epps served on the executive board of the local NAACP and on the Board of Directors of the local Boys and Girls Club. Most importantly, she was a two-time presidential Point of Light recipient and a breast cancer activist.

Linda White-Epps will forever be remembered for founding ``Sisters' Journey,'' a nonprofit support organization for women of color who have survived breast cancer. The organization published a calendar featuring African American cancer survivors and their stories and their words of support. The calendar also serves as an important reminder to conduct breast self-exams and schedule mammograms.

Although Linda survived breast cancer in 1990, it eventually took her life in October of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for seeking to honor the legacy of Linda White-Epps and urge the swift passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of this bill, and I would first like to thank my colleagues from the Wisconsin delegation, Representatives Obey, Sensenbrenner, Petri, Moore, Kind, Green and Ryan, who have joined me as original cosponsors of this bipartisan resolution to designate the Post Office at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin as the ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building.''

Mr. Speaker, Robert, otherwise known as ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette, is a true Wisconsin hero and a leader of the progressive movement. He was born on a farm in Primrose, Wisconsin on June 14, 1855. This would have been the 150th year of his birth. La Follette was elected to this body at the young age of 29 and served three terms as a Republican from 1885 to 1891. It is such a privilege to hold his congressional seat over 100 years later.

After losing his seat, La Follette returned to Wisconsin to practice law in Madison. It was at that point that La Follette reached a turning point in his political career, when he felt that a party stalwart was trying to bribe him to fix a court case. La Follette decided that it was time to challenge corruption in politics. He did so by taking his ideas directly to the people. La Follette went on speaking tours at county fairs and as a Chautauqua lecturer. He spoke about his commitment to eliminating the corruption in government and in corporations, the railroads, and banks.

He was elected Governor of Wisconsin in 1900, as a Republican, and during his tenure La Follette was able to pass and implement many progressive reforms and anti-corruption measures, including instituting the direct primary election in Wisconsin.

La Follette was elected by the Wisconsin State Legislature to the U.S. Senate in 1905, over 100 years ago, and he was elected while he was still serving as Governor of the State. He resigned as Governor in 1906 to once again return to Washington to represent the people of Wisconsin.

In the Senate, he fought against corruption and led the investigation into the infamous Teapot Dome scandal that revealed the oil lease scandals of the Harding administration. His principled work in the Senate was so highly regarded that a mural of La Follette was placed in the Senate Reception Room in 1959 as part of a collection of five outstanding Senators.

La Follette ran for President on the Progressive ticket in 1922. The Progressive Party championed a populist agenda, which included reforms to outlaw child labor, allow workers to organize, increase protection of civil liberties, and end discrimination on the basis of race, class, and creed. Just outside the House chamber doors, you can visit a statue of ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette. Wisconsin chose La Follette as one of two State heroes to be included in the U.S. Capitol's National Statuary Hall collection.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had the privilege of addressing graduating students as a commencement speaker at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. In that speech, I spoke to the graduates about the obligation to carry one of Fighting Bob's legacies forward, the Wisconsin Idea.

The Wisconsin Idea is the notion that government should collaborate with the State's public universities to address serious social and economic problems. In simple terms, the Wisconsin Idea is often expressed by saying that the boundaries of the university are the boundaries of the State.

I would also like to share with you one other of my personal heroes, La Follette's wife, Belle Case La Follette, who La Follette regarded as an equal partner in life. Belle Case La Follette was the first woman to graduate from the University of Wisconsin law school. She was a woman before her time, supporting women's suffrage and advocating civil rights legislation for ethnic and racial minorities.

La Follette referred to her as my wisest and best counselor. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with how appropriate the location of the Madison Capitol Station Post Office is in honoring La Follette. This post office is in the shadow of the Wisconsin State capitol, where La Follette developed many of his progressive ideas and support for farmers and the working person, opposition to monopolies and corruption in politics, and his belief that a strong democracy requires fair distribution of both wealth and power.

This summer, on June 4, Fighting Bob's greatest supporters will come to Madison for his 150th birthday celebration. And I am particularly grateful that this bill has been brought to the floor for a vote in time for this celebration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, each day peace officers nobly protect our families, friends, and neighbors from crime. Peace officers work to improve the quality of life for all of us. For that, they deserve our sincere appreciation and respect.

While it is impossible to suitably thank these brave Americans for the tremendous sacrifices they make, we pause this week to salute them for their courage, dedication and service, and to pay our respects for those who have fallen in the line of duty.

Currently, more than 850,000 men and women guard our communities, and do so at great risk. Each year in the United States, one in 15 officers is assaulted, one in 46 officers is injured, and one in every 5,255 officers is killed in the line of duty. In total, more than 17,500 men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice.

In 2004, 154 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 169 deaths annually, and well below the 2001 total of 237.

A number of factors have contributed to this reduction, including better equipment, increased use of bullet-resistant vests, improved training, and advanced emergency medical care.

But the work of peace officers continues to take the lives of too many men and women who work to ensure our safety. So far this year, 42 peace officers have been killed in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, I support the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day to honor Federal, State, and local peace officers killed or disabled in the line of duty; and I call upon the people of the United States to observe such a day with appropriate ceremonies and respect.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for increased awareness and education around the potentially life- threatening disease, hepatitis B. Hepatitis B is the most common liver infection in the world, and approximately 5,000 Americans will die from complications of this disease in 2005.

The hepatitis B virus is extremely infectious. In fact, it is 100 times more infectious than the HIV virus. Twelve million people in the United States are already infected, and an additional 100,000 more will become infected this year. In my home state of Wisconsin, nearly 600 cases of hepatitis B are reported each year.

This disease is easily transmittable through blood and blood products, bodily fluid, from mother to newborn, unprotected sex, and intravenous drug use. Furthermore, this disease is especially dangerous because many people are completely unaware that they may have come into contact with it until they develop more serious complications such as cirrhosis of the liver or liver cancer. Less than ten percent of Americans suffering from hepatitis B are receiving proper treatment for their disease.

Last week, I was proud to join my colleagues in supporting House Resolution 250, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Hepatitis B Awareness Week. Though vaccinations, increased awareness and education initiatives surrounding hepatitis B, this disease is largely preventable. During the week, community events across the country will bring together patients, public health advocates, physicians, and at risk populations to increase awareness and bolster education efforts on preventive measures and disease management.

As we recognize National Hepatitis B Awareness Week, I am hopeful that we can join together and work towards an end to this life- threatening disease.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order this evening.

Mr. Speaker, for the third consecutive year, this week our country has designated Cover the Uninsured Week. Led by former Presidents Ford and Carter, hundreds of national and local organizations, as well as thousands of Americans in all 50 States, are participating in week-long activities to highlight the national health care crisis. This is one of those annual events that I wish we did not need to observe.

Cover The Uninsured Week should be unnecessary. Moreover, millions of Americans who are underinsured should not be paying such a high price both emotionally and financially. There is simply no justifiable reason

why the United States is the only industrialized country in the world that does not guarantee health care for all. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to draw attention to the 45 million Americans who do not have health insurance and the millions more who are underinsured.

Our Nation is in the midst of an escalating health care crisis. As health care costs soar, it becomes increasingly difficult for Americans to obtain comprehensive and affordable health care. Our current health care system is failing not only the 45 million Americans who are uninsured, but also millions more who do not receive comprehensive health care. We can no longer turn our backs while millions more lose access to health care.

Additionally, health care is becoming increasingly expensive even for those who are fully insured. Rising premiums, increasing deductibles, and the increasingly high cost of prescription drugs are making health care more and more unaffordable for those who have insurance. The lack of comprehensive and affordable health care affects every single Congressional district in this Nation. To highlight this issue and the real impact that being uninsured has on the lives of Americans, I have decided to read to my colleagues from some of the people that I represent in their own words. Often the people most affected tell the story of our uninsurance crisis more eloquently than many policymakers.

I would like to begin with a few letters from my district in Wisconsin that express real people's struggles as part of our Nation's 45 million uninsured. Starting with Kimberly from Madison, Wisconsin, Kimberly writes ``I am writing you today because of my family's frustration and anxiety over health care. My husband recently quit his job to launch his new company. Obviously, it will take some time for his new company to see any profit, much less income. In the meantime, we are without health insurance.'' She writes, ``I am 5 months pregnant, and we have a 2-year-old son. Because of my preexisting condition, we cannot buy affordable health insurance. COBRA would cost us $1,200 a month. I am currently applying for Medicaid and other forms of public assistance as a last resort. This is ridiculous.''

``As someone with no insurance, I wonder what could possibly be the problem with implementing a public health care system. Oh, I have heard the horror stories about having fewer choices and doctors, longer waiting lists for procedures, and less incentive among doctors and researchers to develop new techniques. What is most frightening for me is the chance that my son might get sick or my baby might be born with expensive complications and we are uninsured.''

Janet from Portage, Wisconsin writes to me: ``I have a 53-year-old brother who has psoriasis all over his body and arthritis caused by this. Three weeks ago he fell and needs surgery on his shoulder to repair it. He has no job, no money and no insurance. We started looking for a program to help him. There are none that we can find. There is nothing to help him get his shoulder fixed, but after it heals wrong and he is disabled because of it, then there are programs to help him. They will not help him get it fixed so he can find a job. Instead, they would rather support him for the rest of his life instead of trying to help him now.''

Gail from Janesville, Wisconsin writes: ``My husband lost his job in October 2003. He has applied for over 100 positions only to be told that he lacks a college degree or he is overqualified or they can only pay $8 an hour.'' Gail writes: ``I was diagnosed with breast cancer in June 1989 and again in 2003. I have gone through breast cancer twice, and have undergone a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery. COBRA has run out and without a stable income, we cannot afford to pay the premiums of our own health care policy. My husband is 59 years old and I am 58 years old. We have no medical coverage. I have looked in every insurance company and get turned down because of my medical history. All our lives we paid into these insurance companies only to be turned away when we need that coverage the most.''

Lisa from Madison writes: ``I write to tell you and let you know that I understand why most people would not think there is a health care crisis. Most middle-class employed people never have to do an insurance questionnaire. We just sign on the dotted line and get into a group policy with our employer.'' Lisa writes: ``I am a very healthy person and my husband and children are very healthy. We cannot get insurance. I think everyone should attempt to get an individual health insurance policy to see just how impossible it is. I am not a risk, really I am not. I am terrified right now because we are uninsured. The insurance companies are not concerned with our health. They are concerned with profits. That is sad and that is wrong.''

Countless studies, including that of the Institute on Medicine has confirmed over and over again that uninsured has real consequences. One of those most serious and troubling consequences of being uninsured or underinsured is having to postpone or skip needed health care. Families USA reports that one out of five Americans has postponed needed medical care due to lack of coverage. And of those, more than one in three said the delay brought about significant pain or suffering. This is happening every single day all over America.

Another letter I received from Carol from Madison says: ``As someone who has had no health insurance at all for 3 years, I can tell you that it was pretty miserable being one of the 45 million people in this country without health insurance. Not long ago, my best friend died at age 42 because of ovarian cancer because she did not have health insurance and waited too long to see what was causing all of her symptoms. Yes, people in America actually die from not having health insurance.''

Darla from Fitchburg, Wisconsin writes: ``I lost my job because of unpredictable attendance due to my health issues. Upon losing my job, I signed up for COBRA. Last week I received a letter indicating my COBRA eligibility ends soon. In order for me to get health coverage, I would have to work at least 20 hours per week. My physicians believe that would do me more harm than good relating to my health issues. If I do not get some kind of health insurance, I will need to stop all treatments as I have no money to pay for doctors' services. My prescription drugs will have to stop as I will not be able to pay for them either. What can I do?''

Heather from Waterloo, Wisconsin writes: ``I am married. Together with my husband, I own a home. We live a modest, middle-class life, managing always to have what we need except for health care coverage. My husband has excellent health care at his job, but for me to also be covered by the plan, we would need to pay nearly $400 per month. That is two-thirds as much as our mortgage. Through school, I have worked less and less. In order to maintain health care coverage, I have only been able to afford short-term, major medical coverage. I am grateful that we can afford this, but it does make a difference. However, even now if I have a sore throat, I will wait for several days and see how I feel. I will wait because if I do not need to go, I will save money.'' She writes: ``This is disturbing to me as a nursing student because I know about the importance of early treatment and prevention. It is upsetting to me as a person because I value my health, and it is unacceptable to me as a citizen because I know there are people just like me who wait and get sicker, or cannot even get the medications that they need.''

These are heart-breaking stories, but perhaps what is more heart breaking is they are just not unique. Millions of American families are confronted with these impossible decisions regarding their health care every single day. According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, more Americans are personally worried about their health care costs than they are about losing their jobs, paying their rent or mortgage, losing money in the stock market, or being the victim of a terrorist attack.

I will give an example. Roberta from Janesville, Wisconsin writes: ``I think the insurance bills for both medical and dental are horrendous. Both my husband and I work full time with two small children, living paycheck to paycheck. My insurance costs have caused us many heartaches with us owing more money that needs to be paid. As a result, I will not get a needed medical

procedure done. Something drastically needs to change in the United States of America where hard-working families and individuals can get the treatment they need without going broke.''

David from Cross Plains, Wisconsin, writes: ``My wife and I have been self-employed for over 18 years and have paid thousands of dollars for health insurance premiums. As of a few months ago, we had to drop out and are now without health insurance. The cost is completely out of reach. In fact, it is nuts. Now that I am 50 years old, it is not a matter of if I will ever have health problems, it is when. Tammy, we will lose everything we have ever worked for. So much for the American Dream. Now we look forward to dying, broke and possibly homeless.''

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason why I find these letters so compelling and why I make a point to share them with my colleagues and the American public is that finding and affording health care is a challenge faced by all types of Americans, young and old, those living in Wisconsin and those living in Texas, those who have jobs and those who do not. Put simply, this is a national crisis.

I have been especially troubled lately that instead of working hard to find a solution to the health care crisis, the majority party here in the House seems to be making the crisis worse for Americans in need. The House recently passed a bankruptcy bill which makes it more difficult for people to cope with the massive costs brought on by health care crises. This is ridiculous, especially since we know that nearly half of all personal bankruptcies filed in the United States are due to medical reasons, be it medical debt or an illness or injury that keeps somebody from the workforce and earning a living.

We are now poised to enact cuts to Medicaid, the Nation's health care safety net. On that note, I would like to share a few additional stories before I get a chance to call on my colleague from Missouri to make a few statements.

First I share the letter of Chris from Monona, Wisconsin. She writes, ``I'm writing because I'm concerned that the fiscal 2006 budget resolution may include drastic funding cuts to Medicaid. I have lived with multiple sclerosis for 12 years, and I know that significant decreases in funding would be devastating to people like me who have chronic conditions. I'm still able to work, but other folks with MS depend on Medicaid to access critical health programs. I need you to stick up for me and the thousands of Americans with MS.''

And then there is Mary from Madison, Wisconsin, who came to meet with me in my office to talk about Medicaid. Mary is a nurse and while she was certainly familiar with the Medicaid program, she never thought she would have to rely on Medicaid. But then her daughter had a child who was born with a heart defect. The child had to have heart surgery almost immediately after he was born and was in the hospital for a very long time. During this time, Mary's insurance for her daughter and her grandson expired, but they were very fortunate to have Medicaid to fall back on. Mary is incredibly thankful that she had Medicaid. Otherwise, her grandson's health would have suffered and she would literally be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

And lastly, there is the story of Silvia from Fitchburg, Wisconsin. Silvia was uninsured when she was hospitalized with a need for an appendectomy. Even after the hospital charity program reduced her bill, she still owed over $11,000 to the hospital. Sometimes bill collectors call her home five times a day. Silvia chips away at this bill, sending $20 to $50 a month.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) who has some words to share about Cover the Uninsured Week.

I thank the gentleman for his words. As I was earlier sharing some of the letters written to me by my constituents, I recognized how powerful those stories are. I thank the gentleman also for sharing his own and his own experience with this issue. I am sure it strengthens his advocacy on behalf of all of his constituents and all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, when I first announced that I was going to seek a seat in Congress several years ago, I chose the location of the football stadium in my hometown, the stadium where the UW Badgers play their football games. It is a stadium with a capacity of just under 60,000 people. The reason I chose that location was to bring to light the fact that if you filled that stadium, every seat, with people who are uninsured from that congressional district, there would still be a line to get in. That is how many people there are. In other congressional districts around the country, you could fill multiple football stadiums of that same size.

It is staggering. It is hard for us to get a grip on what it really means that there are 45 million Americans with no health insurance at all. And these are people who have had longtime uninsurance. In fact, the Census Bureau, who puts out that number, bases it on being uninsured for a full year. If you count the people who are only uninsured for a month or two, some estimates go as high as 70 million Americans who experience some time without insurance. Forty-five million is a staggering number. And add to that some of the people I referenced earlier who have some type of insurance but are still facing exorbitant expenses, whether it is rising premiums, enormous deductibles, copays. It is a system in crisis.

I hope as we observe Cover the Uninsured Week and as we think about our responsibilities as Members of Congress representing many people who are uninsured and underinsured that we take serious aim at this crisis in our country. I hope that in a few years, maybe even next year, that there will

be no need to commemorate and observe Cover the Uninsured Week. This is a problem that screams out for our response. I invite my colleagues to join me in working to provide health care for every American.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 748.

This bill is yet another example of government intrusion into the most private of family decisions, and it once again criminalizes the actions of doctors who seek to provide women with confidential reproductive health care services.

Mr. Chairman, in a perfect world every child would be able to turn to their parents for guidance. In a perfect world, every parent would have their child's best interests in mind. In a perfect world, every parent would create a safe and loving home where their teens could talk openly about important decisions.

But, Mr. Chairman, we do not live in a perfect world. And mandatory parental notification and consent laws like the one before us harm exactly those people whom our laws should be looking out for, those who cannot turn to their parents for guidance. These young women who feel they cannot turn to their parents often enlist the help of a grandparent or an aunt or a trusted family friend. H.R. 748 would make it a Federal crime for any of these people to help the young women in need.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this deplorable legislation.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I voted against passage of H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan and Tsunami Assistance bill.

In March 2003, before the war began, I wrote to the President with 22 of our colleagues to ask him to specifically define our objectives and to provide an exit strategy. We asked the President a number of questions including: ``Under what circumstances will our military occupation of (and financial commitment to) Iraq end? And how will we know when these circumstances are present.'' We and the American people never received an answer to these crucial questions. Even today, the Administration is unwilling or unable to answer. This is simply unacceptable.

Time and again, the President has requested money to fund the war in Iraq while refusing to answer our questions about this war and provide a comprehensive strategy for bringing our troops home. In our democracy, the Congress controls the purse strings. Before allocating additional funds, we must insist that the administration articulate the conditions necessary to bring our troops home, and push them to do that as soon as possible. The administration's refusal to address that is quite astounding to me and should be of great concern to all Americans who believe in principles of accountability and checks and balances.

In addition to my concerns about a lack of overall strategy and benchmarks for success in Iraq, I am very disappointed with the administration's handling of Iraq spending, in both process and substance. Emergency supplemental spending should be reserved for true emergencies, those instances in which the need for expenditures is unforeseen or unforeseeable. The vast majority of funds in this supplemental fail to meet that criterion. Both last year and this year, the Administration excluded Iraq costs from their budget requests, although most of the costs could be estimated. Shortfalls or additional needs then could have been funded through a supplemental. That is the proper way to manage taxpayer funds.

I want to make it clear that I believe that our men and women in the armed forces serving in Iraq are doing their jobs with great honor. They have my unequivocal support and respect. My vote against this spending bill should not be characterized as a rejection of them or the resources they need to carry out their duties, If this bill had been defeated yesterday, funds would have continued to flow to Iraq tomorrow and over the next few months. Voting down this bill would have allowed ample time for the President to respond to our concerns and resubmit his funding request.