Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of a remarkable citizen, Mr. Eugene Parks of Madison, Wisconsin.

Eugene Parks was a complicated man who confronted complicated issues head on, no holds barred. He was the outspoken conscience of our community and he wasn't afraid to remind us of our shortcomings. He is remembered as a man who worked passionately against the racism and injustice he saw and felt in our community and in the world. ``As a black man,'' he told his nephew, ``you aren't going to be heard unless you say it like you mean it.'' Gene Parks was never afraid to say it and he always, always, meant it.

Most important, no matter how contentious his relationship with his community and its government, Gene never abandoned either. As Madison's first African-American alderman, Gene was a role model and catalyst for change by the age of 21. Decades later, as the city's first African- American candidate for mayor, he showed the same commitment to civic responsibility.

Most in our city knew Gene as a firebrand, but he was also a devoted father, a music lover, and even an actor. I still have the Playbill from a UW-Madison Theatre Department production of the musical ``Finnian's Rainbow'' in which I was a five year old member of the chorus and Gene Parks played a lead role.

I think Gene would have been humbled by the many heartfelt tributes and the overflow crowd at his memorial service in Madison's Memorial High School auditorium. Our city was shaken by the depth of the void left by his passing.

Of all the descriptors by which we remember Gene Parks, there is none more accurate nor more honorable than that of ``citizen.''

Thank you, Gene.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to draw attention to some of the hundreds of letters that I receive every week from constituents who are outraged or frightened by the President's plan to privatize Social Security. Americans of all ages know that the President's private accounts are a risky change that will do nothing to alleviate Social Security's long-term financial pressures. As more details of this plan trickle out of the White House, Americans are not communicating a mandate; they are expressing outrage and fear.

Social Security is the single most successful anti-poverty program in our country's and government's history. I intend to do all that I can to make sure that this program survives this current attack, and I know that millions of Americans are joining in this effort.

I hear from those that I have the honor of representing in Wisconsin's Second Congressional District every day. They write to tell me about their profound concern with this plan, and they also write to tell me about the profound difference that Social Security has made in their lives. They write to share their fears about how privatization could jeopardize their retirement. They write to express frustration that our President has proposed a scheme that would dismantle Social Security, not strengthen it for future generations.

I have come to the floor tonight to share portions of these letters that I receive on a daily basis, and I hope that those who seek to privatize and to dismantle Social Security are listening this evening. I will also be joined by colleagues tonight who wish to share the words and stories of the constituents that they represent with the American public.

I would like to start this evening with excerpts from a few letters concerning the general importance of the Social Security program.

Ann, from Madison, writes: ``I am appalled at the changes suggested for Social Security. If you have known anyone living on it entirely, the monthly

amount cannot be cut at all without leaving the retiree or the disabled person in utter poverty. Private plans have been tried and failed in a number of other countries. You only have to look at the last several years to see what could happen to someone reaching retirement age in the wrong time or period. If the administration wants to experiment, let the government do it and take the risks. If this fails, are we really going to let that frail, 80-year-old for whom work is no longer an option, starve sitting on the curb?''

Mary, also from Madison, writes: ``I stand behind you in your fight against privatization of Social Security. I do not believe that privatization is a good idea at all. From everything I have learned about this issue, Social Security privatization would reduce benefits because of increased overhead costs and would also transfer the risk from the government to the individual. Also that move is likely to reduce benefits.''

Mary continues: ``I am 31 years old, so I am a person who supposedly would be helped by the privatization of Social Security. But I don't believe it. And even if I were personally helped, I do not believe the financial risk to my fellow Americans that they would incur is worth any possible benefit I would receive.''

Doug writes: ``Among many other things that concern me deeply in regards to the Bush administration, it is this whole Social Security business that is going on. Inherent in the definition of the name `security' and the principle of Social Security is the fact that it is secure and guaranteed. That fundamental right, that we pay in, that we will get out, is essential to the whole idea of the plan and the system. I think it would set a very bad precedent if that whole idea were struck down.''

Marcie, from Madison, writes: ``I find the changes Bush proposes for Social Security to be very scary at best. There is already an ever- growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country, and this will only make the situation worse. The haves already know about investing or can afford to hire someone to advise them. How many of the have-nots know much about investing or have the time or the ability to learn? If the changes go through, I hope they will at least change the name. There will be no social, all citizens contributing to the well- being of others in our society, and no security. There will no longer be a safety net for those retiring and those who are disabled.''

And Marcie brings up a very important point: ``Seniors are not the only people who rely on Social Security benefits. People receiving survivor benefits and disability benefits make up 31 percent of the Social Security program. Social Security is insurance, a safety net that we can all expect to benefit from when we retire, but it is also an insurance or safety net that you could benefit from before you retire. None of us aspire to benefit from the survivor or disability portions of Social Security, but they are there for all of us, just in case we need them.''

Before I read some additional letter excerpts from those who have received Social Security for disability or as survivors, I would like to yield to my colleague who I thank for helping to co-organize this evening's Special Order on Social Security, my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words and also for the spotlight he has put on the words of his constituents.

I was mentioning, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) just did, about the 31 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries who are not retirees but are, in fact, disabled workers or survivors. I would like to have my colleagues hear from some additional constituents of mine who fit in that category and are advocating in that manner.

Martha from Madison writes, ``I can speak to the power of Social Security professionally as well as personally. I work for an agency that assists adults with developmental disabilities. For these individuals, much, if not all, of their livelihood comes from monthly Social Security checks. Few of us could live on $58.77 a month. Their lifestyle is not extravagant, but it is possible. More personally, my family has seen the effects of Social Security.''

Martha writes, ``My husband became unable to work just as he was entering the prime of his life. How would a privatized plan secure my family as we raise our three children? How would a privatized plan continue to address my family's needs over the next 40 years as we age and retire? My greatest fear is that those who are most removed from poverty are in the decision-making positions. It is perhaps too easy for the President and those like him to assume that all Americans have the means to weather life's most unexpected storms.''

Kathy from McFarland, Wisconsin, wrote, ``I lost my daughter in July. She was 31 and left two children, ages 12 and 8. It is Social Security that is providing a safety net for my grandchildren. My daughter paid for this. My husband and I paid for this. And my son, who served in Iraq, paid for this.''

Stephanie from Madison writes, ``I am writing to encourage you to reject President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security. When my father died in 1958, my sister and I were 9 and 15 years old. My mother had never graduated from high school, so she was only able to get low-paying jobs. If it hadn't been for our survivor benefits, I don't know what we would have done. As it was, my mom's budget was very tight. People need to realize that Social Security isn't just for seniors; it also pays out survivor benefits as well as disability benefits. All of us are simply one accident or disease away from needing Social Security.''

Before proceeding to other letters from my constituents, I would like to yield time to my distinguished colleague from the State of Michigan, a leader on this issue, a champion on this issue on the Committee on Ways and Means, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

I thank the gentleman for his tireless leadership on protecting our Social Security system and amplifying the voices of your constituents' very powerful letters. I would like to yield to my distinguished colleague from the State of California (Ms. Watson).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for sharing with America the powerful words and

stories of those who she proudly represents.

I am now delighted to yield to one of our new colleagues who we are so proud has joined us from the State of Missouri. We know that this gentleman has been home in his district listening to his constituents actively providing them an opportunity to speak to him and tonight to America through him. I am honored to recognize the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Madam Speaker, I thank the Congressman and I am very pleased that he brought up the issue of the risk that Social Security would be subject to if these private accounts were allowed to occur, and I have just a couple of letters on that point too that I wish to share.

Jack from Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, writes me, ``Tammy, thanks for your hard work to keep the promise of Social Security. This privatization plan is about the dumbest thing that Bush has come up with besides the war in Iraq. We have a privatization deal now via IRAs, and let me tell you, my wife and I lost over half of our investment in our IRA accounts after 2000. The only people that will make money in this deal are the brokers.''

Another one here, Cheryl, from Madison, writes, ``I have deep concerns with President Bush's proposal. By privatizing a portion of Social Security, you have added an element of risk. Some people may come out ahead, others may not. The safety net is gone. For many people Social Security will only be a small part of their retirement. These people can invest their disposable income in the many options available, IRAs, 401(k)s, et cetera. Those that are not as well off and are not able to put much away on their own should be able to count on a known amount from Social Security.''

Before continuing, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson ), my colleague, who is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and has really tackled this threat to Social Security with great vigor, and I appreciate his organizing this evening's Special Order with me.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) mentioned the fear tactics that are being used.

The President, in advocating for his privatization, has made the case or attempted to that Social Security faces an impending crisis, and I just want to let the administration know I think the American public sees through this fear tactic, this scare tactic.

I just want to read one quick letter on that point from Robert from Madison in my district. As he writes, ``Bush has in recent weeks been repeatedly inflating the significance of 2018 and 2042, especially the early date, so as to imply that Social Security is in imminent danger of bankruptcy and must be overhauled very soon. The sheer urgency of Bush's tone is unsettlingly consistent with his demonstrated tendency to conjure up a crisis where none exists, as he did during the run-up to the war with Iraq.

``The overblown nature of Bush's alarms over Social Security is reflected in the Social Security trustee's estimate that, even if nothing drastic is done between now and 2042, Social Security will still be able to pay retirees'' almost 75 percent ``of the promised amount'' and ``this timeline hardly suggests any crisis that necessitates pounding away at a need to overhaul Social Security'' or dismantle it ``now.''

I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my colleague.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would like to thank all of my colleagues who joined me here tonight in giving voice to these very real, very human stories. These are real letters from real people, and privatization would have a real and ultimately negative effect on their lives.

I know that those who seek to dismantle the Social Security System must receive similar letters, and I sincerely hope that they pause and consider what Social Security means to Americans. It is not an arbitrary government program. Social Security is a support system, it is an insurance program, and, in many instances, Social Security is the difference between a comfortable life and a life of poverty. We must do all that we can to protect this vital safety net, this lifeline.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution.

In Wisconsin, our State laws provide protections from discrimination to people that go beyond what many other States and what the Federal Government have put into law. Such protections as nondiscrimination based on age, gender, marital status, membership in the National Guard and sexual orientation are a part of Wisconsin's nondiscrimination laws. Wisconsin has chosen to provide its citizens with these greater protections because we have decided that these are in the best interests of our citizens and are good public policy.

The University of Wisconsin in Madison has a history as a leader in social justice. It adheres to State laws and has tried to apply those laws appropriately across its campus. That has included the requirement that campus organizations, departments and campus recruiters adhere to State law. Yet Federal law has intervened to block enforcement of campus policy and State law in regard to military recruiters.

The Solomon amendment was passed by a previous Congress because students, like those at the University of Wisconsin, were having success in blocking recruiters from campus if they discriminate against lesbians or gays or bisexuals in violation of State law and campus policy.

Access to and use of campus facilities to recruit students for higher educational opportunities, employment or military service should be at the discretion of the institution. Of course, public institutions should not arbitrarily discriminate against any particular recruiter. Reasonable and legitimate criteria should be evenly applied to every recruiter. The Federal Government should not use Federal funding as a weapon to force noncompliance with State law or to create special rights for military recruiters.

I believe that the court made the correct decision in invalidating the Solomon amendment. I also believe that today's resolution is unnecessary. In fact, I believe that today's debate is the wrong debate. We should be looking at ways to strengthen our military and expand our resources for winning the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Mr. Speaker, when will we have the debate about the harm caused by excluding so many qualified, skilled Americans from serving in our military simply because they are gay or lesbian? When will we have a debate about the waste of resources used to discharge fully trained personnel who are serving our country honorably? When will we have the debate about how much our fight against terrorism is hurt by the discharges of Arab linguists?

The resolution before us today makes vague reference to the costs to the military in having to arrange alternative recruitment strategies to meet its goals, but it does not mention the significant cost of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to our defense budget and to our national security. Since Don't Ask, Don't Tell took effect in 1993, approximately 10,000 military personnel have been discharged. That is a huge amount of training and experience that we have lost.

In a study of discharges between 1998 and 2003, University of Santa Barbara researchers found that, of 6,273 discharges, many were in critical specialties such as 88 linguists, including many Arabic speakers, 49 WMD experts, 90 nuclear power engineers, and 150 rocket and missile specialists. To compensate for some of these discharges, the Pentagon has been calling up members of the Individual Ready Reserve. The harm to our military readiness and the cost to our security caused by Don't Ask, Don't Tell is clear. Urging the administration to try to reinstate the Solomon amendment will in no way make our country safer.

Let there be no mistake. I strongly support our men and women in uniform. I want to take this opportunity to honor the men and women in our Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in Iraq and to the many serving our country here and around the world. Their efforts allowed the Iraqi people to vote in a free election this week. Their bravery and dedication is something all Americans should admire and honor.

Mr. Speaker, there would be no clamor for a Solomon amendment if we simply allowed all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform. Our country would be safer, our human resources would be greater, our country would be stronger if we treated all Americans equally, regardless of their sexual orientation. It is time to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It will make our military stronger and our country stronger.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for yielding to me and also for her efforts in organizing this evening's Special Order so that we can bring greater attention to this critical issue.

Of all the programs instituted by government during our Nation's history, Social Security is arguably the most successful, one of the most meaningful. It is the only universal defined benefit, inflation- protected pension system for American workers.

It is a little known fact that Wisconsin had a very strong connection to Social Security in its origins, its authorship and its administration. In the 1920s, lured by the promise of quick profits, millions of Americans invested all of their assets in the stock market, losing everything when the Market crashed in 1929. In the Depression that followed, no group suffered more than the millions of senior citizens who had no income, no resources and were forced to live in poverty.

Spurred by that tragedy, two Wisconsin natives and University of Wisconsin-trained economists led President Roosevelt's Committee on Economic Security in drafting and shepherding through Congress what became the Social Security Act of 1935. The conceptual underpinnings of Social Security came directly from what we call the Wisconsin Idea, the concept that governments and the university could and should collaborate to address serious social and economic problems.

The successful results of this collaboration cannot be questioned. For nearly 70 years Social Security has served as a vital resource for our Nation's seniors, preventing millions from spending their final years in poverty.

In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the national poverty level among senior citizens is 10 percent, which is two-and-a-half percentage points lower than the national percentage of the population living in poverty.

Social Security benefits are predictable and steady. They protect against inflation, and they also provide vital disability and survivor benefits. No private pension or savings account can provide that type and kind of protection.

Those who seek to privatize the program have sought to portray Social Security as unaffordable, unsustainable and facing some sort of imminent financial crisis. Yet a close look reveals that the facts are otherwise. According to the Social Security Trustees' Annual 2004 Report, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits to all retirees until the year 2042. The Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security will be able to pay 100 percent of benefits until 10 years later, 2052.

However, if current workers are allowed to divert money out of the Social Security Trust Fund and contract into private accounts, there will not be enough revenue to pay benefits to current beneficiaries and, without raising taxes, the government would be forced to borrow that money, raising the deficit by an estimated $2 trillion.

So why the clamor to create private accounts? Despite its undeniable success, there have always been people opposed to Social Security who have worked repeatedly to dismantle the program. They simply do not believe that government should insure Americans against poverty. I find this indefensible.

Social Security is a product of, among other things, the Wisconsin idea, reflecting Wisconsin values that government should work to further the common good. As generations did before us, it is now our duty to strengthen the Social Security program and keep this promise to all generations that follow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest the inclusion of the federal refusal clause in the FY2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill. As a strong supporter of a woman's constitutionally guaranteed right to choose, I fear that this provision chips away at this right and will place women's health in jeopardy.

A woman's right to exercise control over her own body and to make her own health care decisions is vitally important. This right, as guaranteed by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, has been the target of systematic attacks in recent years. This most recent attack--the federal refusal clause--is particularly egregious due to its radical change of current law.

The federal refusal clause allows a broad range of health care entities to refuse to comply with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to abortion services. The bill severely limits patients' rights and access to services and information, thereby impeding their ability to make informed decisions about their health care options.

This drastic departure from current law will have devastating effects on countless women. This clause would change existing law to say that federal, state, and local governments may not require a health care entity to perform, provide coverage of, pay for, or even refer for abortions. Further, the clause was drafted so as to encompass the broadest possible range of health care entities, including insurance companies, hospitals, HMOs, and many others.

This clause will be far-reaching. It will override federal Title X guidelines ensuring women receive full information. It will strip states of their ability to set the parameters of their own Medicaid programs. It will block states' attempts to improve women's access to full reproductive health services.

But most disturbing, the end result of this clause will be that women will be prevented from obtaining the reproductive health information and care they need and deserve.

This radical change is unacceptable and I hope that my colleagues will join me in working to repeal this dangerous provision.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for coordinating a discussion of a very important topic as we ask ourselves, ``In the arena of health care, are we better off now than we were 4 years ago?''

In order to answer this question, are we better off, I need look no further than the innumerable, and often heartbreaking, letters and calls that I receive from people of Wisconsin's 2nd Congressional District every single day.

I get letters from seniors who detail the unbelievable choices they are forced to make, deciding whether to use their limited and fixed incomes for food or prescription drugs.

I get letters from small business owners who are agonizing over the fact that they can no longer afford the costs associated with offering insurance to their employees.

I get letters from countless people who have lost their health care coverage and are wondering where they can turn for the needed care or how they will once again be able to get coverage, given a preexisting condition.

I get letters from young mothers who spend sleepless nights worried that the rising health care premiums are fast becoming unaffordable and they might soon join the ranks of America's 45 million uninsured.

I get letters from parents, frustrated that their children's treatment for a mental illness is not covered by their insurance.

I get letters from parents of children with diabetes who cannot believe that their own government's restrictive stem cell policy is standing in the way of a possible cure.

So when asked, ``Are we better off now than we were 4 years ago?'' the answer is a resounding no. But if these personal stories are not enough proof for my colleagues, let us look at some recent statistics.

Today, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, a record-breaking 45 million Americans do not have health insurance coverage. Millions more are underinsured. This is the highest level of uninsured in our Nation's history, and it grew by 5.2 million people over the past 4 years.

Health care costs have continued to skyrocket during the last 4 years as well. The prices for prescription drugs have seen double-digit increases in the last 4 years.

The average family's share of health insurance premiums has risen by almost $1,000 in the last 4 years, a shocking 57 percent increase. In fact, just recently, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that health insurance premiums rose again between 2003 and 2004, the fourth straight year of double-digit increases.

While health care costs have been growing, the percentage of Americans receiving health care coverage through their employers has dropped.

What has been the Republican response to this health care crisis of rising numbers of uninsured and rising costs? Unfortunately, the Republican response has been to put forward the same old proposals as they have in years past: tort reform, association health plans, the health savings accounts, proposals that study after study have shown to be ineffective in holding down health care costs and also ineffective in providing coverage to the uninsured.

Republicans have ignored the pleas of our seniors, calling on us to stop skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, and have instead created a prescription drug benefit in Medicare that does more to help drug companies than it does to help senior citizens.

The Republicans have failed to stop $1.1 billion in State child health insurance program funding from being taken from the States, funding that could have been used to provide health insurance to 750,000 children in America.

Given this dismal 4-year track record, it is obvious that we need a new approach to address this health care crisis, one that would truly control costs and expand access.

I join my fellow Democrats in telling America that we are ready to lead in a new direction, one that would make quality health care affordable and available and assure health care security for every American.

Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is a radical action which should only be undertaken when absolutely necessary. Preemptively amending the Constitution to prevent something that has yet to happen is a dangerous principle that this Congress should not endorse. We must always remember what President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The Constitution is the sole source and guaranty of national freedom.''

Mr. Speaker, our Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights, and with the exception of prohibition, which was promptly repealed, the amendments to our Constitution have always been used to secure greater rights and liberties for the American penal system. We have amended the Constitution to make our union more perfect, to ensure all Americans are free to secure the blessings of liberty, that all Americans may achieve the American dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Never in our history have we used our most sacred governing document to deny the rights of any group of Americans, nor should we do so today.

This debate today is not simply a theoretical debate. It has a real impact on millions of Americans. I believe that the institution of marriage enhances our social fabric in many positive ways. I think we all agree that loving, supportive marriages provide strong environments for raising children.

Children with two-parent families who are actively engaged in their lives typically have greater financial and emotional stability during the time they grow up than those who are able to only rely on a single parent.

Marriage's role in protecting children is about providing sustenance. It is about teaching. It is about sharing cultures and beliefs. It is about transmitting a family's values. It is about providing love and emotional support. These are all important components of marriage, and none of them are exclusive to a couple consisting of a man and a woman.

Marriage laws in the United States provide important rights, responsibilities, privileges and obligations. In each State, literally thousands of rights, responsibilities, privileges and obligations are conferred upon the receipt of a State marriage license. Likewise, there are more than 1,000 Federal rights that benefit married persons, among them: the right to make decisions on a spouse's behalf in a medical emergency; the right to take the benefits of the Family Medical and Leave Act for an ill spouse or ill parent of a spouse; the right to petition for spouses to immigrate; the right to assume parenting rights for children who are brought in to a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means; family-related Social Security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits; the right to inherit property from a spouse in the absence of a will; the right to purchase continued health coverage for a spouse after the loss of a job.

When making this point, many times I have heard opponents say that these rights can be obtained in other ways besides marriage. Some of them can, at a cost, with enough legal help, but many cannot.

I want to return briefly to the role of marriage in protecting children because, contrary to the opponents of same-sex marriage and civil unions, I believe that this is a powerful argument in favor of marriage recognition for same-sex relationships. There are over 1 million children being raised in gay and lesbian families in the United States. These children do not have the same legal protections as children of opposite-sex married couples have, and their parents have significantly increased financial burdens in providing for them.

The rights of gay and lesbian and transgendered Americans have been at the center of a national debate for the past decade and more. Attitudes have changed dramatically, as more and more Americans have discovered that their friends, their neighbors, their coworkers, family members are gay or lesbian and that they are just like other Americans, with the same hopes, dreams, fears, the same challenges. I believe our country has taken major steps forward toward the American ideal that all people are created equal.

Mr. Speaker, change is never easy. Some people push for change with all their might, while others struggle to maintain the status quo. Most of the others are somewhere in between, trying to apply their competing values to assess the merits of change. Our political leaders can try to facilitate this debate and discussion and work towards consensus or they can exploit those tensions and fears to divide America.

I firmly believe that too many of our leaders have decided to use this issue to polarize Americans in order to win this election, and this is wrong. Today, we must reject this attempt to use the Constitution of the United States simply as a wedge issue to win an election.

Bringing this issue to the forefront now, five weeks before the election, with no chance to pass it in this House, accomplishes only one thing. It distracts the American people from the urgent issues and immediate policy decisions that are at the heart of this election.

Each hour this Congress spends on a constitutional amendment that will divide America, we are not working to help provide health care to the 45 million Americans who have no health insurance. Each hour this Congress spends on a constitutional amendment that will divide America, we are not working to help the millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans.

These must be our priorities, not writing discrimination into the Constitution of the United States.

I implore my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to a tragic issue that faces our country today: youth suicide. On September 9th, the House of Representatives passed, with my full support, S. 2634, the Garrett Lee Smith Act. The Act was named in honor of Senator Gordon Smith's son who committed suicide last year. This legislation establishes grants for suicide prevention efforts directed at young people, authorizes the creation of a technical assistance center to help local and state providers of suicide prevention programs; and establishes a grant program for suicide prevention programs on college campuses. I am proud to support for this bill and confident that it will make a difference in the lives of countless young people in south central Wisconsin and across our Nation.

We must do all we can to nurture and support our Nation's greatest asset--our children. Suicide is currently the third leading cause of death among teenagers in the United States. Too many young people think they are facing lives that lack hope and promise. We must do everything we can to help our youth through difficult times and teach them that life is indeed worth living. The Garrett Lee Smith Act will go a long way to help in that effort.

Youth suicide is at epidemic proportions. All youth are at risk. But I want to speak about a group of youth who are sometimes invisible, ignored, or worse--condemned for simply being who they are. I am talking about America's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth.

Allow me to tell you a true story. When the people of Wisconsin first elected me to Congress, I received a letter from an 18 year-old from a small town in southern Illinois--population forty-four hundred. This young man had a passion for public service. He wrote, ``I was president of my graduating class, treasurer of the student council, and senior board member on a local community service youth group . . .'' Here was a young man who cared about others, and who was already a valuable, productive member of his community. But then I read the next lines of his letter, and was devastated. It read, ``I was following my dreams, until I realized that I am gay. At that point, I gave up.''

Luckily, this story has a happy ending. Surfing the internet one day, this young man read an article about my being the first out lesbian elected to Congress. Thankfully he realized that he could be honest about himself as an openly gay man and still devote his life to public service. But, he went on in his letter to explain the real reason he was writing me. He told me that by reading about my story, ``You not only saved my hopes and dreams, you saved my life. I have never told anyone this. I was on the edge before I read that article. The pressures had built up in me to the point of suicide. I was going to give up, not only on my hopes and dreams, but on my life altogether.'' The pressures he was talking about were not only the difficulties that all American youth face today, but the steady drip, drip, drip of intolerance and discrimination he experienced as he tried to live his life honestly as a gay man.

That young man needed and did not have access to adequate suicide prevention services. According to the Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth are four times more likely to report attempting suicide than their heterosexual peers. Along with the growing acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans, the Garrett Lee Smith Act will help ensure that all young people, including our LGBT youth, have access to high quality and effective suicide prevention services.

None of America's youth should consider suicide as an option to end pain in their lives. I am thankful for the passage of the Garrett Lee Smith Act, and am committed to doing all I can to combating youth suicide.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of our Democratic leader's motion.

It is tragic that hate crimes occur, but they do; and it is irresponsible and naive to deny that there are people out there who seek to commit violence against others because they are gay, lesbian or transgender, because they are female, because they have a disability. It happens far too often, and we must not be silent about it.

Enactment of Federal hate crimes protections is important for both substantive and symbolic reasons. The legal protections are essential to our system of ordered justice; but on a symbolic basic, it is important that Congress enunciate clearly that hate-motivated violence based on gender, sexual orientation, or disability is wrong. Because, quite frankly, too much of what we have been doing in this Chamber conveys the message that we really do not believe in full equality for all, and it is sort of like a wink and a nod that maybe a little discrimination is okay.

I want to speak briefly about why hate crimes differ from other violent crimes. A senior Republican Member of the other body said a few years ago, ``A crime committed not just to harm an individual, but out of motive of sending a message of hatred to an entire community is appropriately punished more harshly, or in a different manner, than other crimes.''

Hate crimes are different than other violent crimes because they seek to instill fear and terror throughout a whole community, be it burning a cross in someone's yard, the burning of a synagogue, or a rash of physical assaults near a gay community center. This sort of domestic terrorism demands a strong Federal response because this country was founded on the premise that persons should be free to be who they are without fear of violence.

The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act should stay in the defense authorization bill. For too long this body has failed to act to prevent or respond to hate crimes. We have the opportunity today to say something and do something about it.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of the Stoughton Hospital located in Stoughton, Wisconsin. Since 1904, Stoughton Hospital has provided high quality individual healthcare to the people of Stoughton and the surrounding communities.

Stoughton Hospital was founded by Dr. Michael Iverson in 1904 as the Stoughton Surgical Hospital. The hospital was purchased by the city in 1924 upon Dr. Iverson's retirement. Over the years, the hospital has seen many renovations and improvements, but Stoughton Hospital's core values have remained the same. The Norwegian born and educated Dr. Iverson was committed to a small hospital that offered personalized care to each of its patients. Today, a century later, Stoughton Hospital is still firmly committed to that same philosophy.

The hospital offers a variety of services to the community in its facility that include an urgent care complex, intensive care unit, medical and surgical inpatient units and both outpatient surgery and rehabilitation facilities. At Stoughton Hospital, state-of-the-art care is provided for each patient. In addition to providing care for community members, the hospital also meets the needs of the community by offering community education courses and service programs.

Today, I proudly join the Stoughton Hospital staff and volunteers, residents of Stoughton and the surrounding communities in celebrating Stoughton Hospital's 100 years of quality healthcare and personalized service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mark Kohl, a teacher at Lodi High School, who was recently named Wisconsin Teacher of the Year. Kohl is one of only four teachers to receive this honor. His success as a teacher comes from the trust and encouragement he gives his students. He allows his students to establish the standards and expectations that govern the classroom, and encourages them to take ownership of their learning. Education is put into action in Kohl's classroom where both teacher and students voice the characteristics of the kind of teacher and student they want to be, and together they pledge to be the very best. Activities such as these make Kohl and his students partners in the learning process.

Beyond the classroom, Kohl is the school district's forensics coach. For more than 20 years he has taken the time to teach and motivate students in the art of public speaking. In addition, he is an active participant in the community. He helped found the Lodi Stepping Stones Theater and volunteers with the Friends of the Arts group as well as the Lodi Challenger 4-H. Every year he assists in a weekend community reading of the local classic, ``The Sand County Almanac.''

Students, colleagues, and parents are fond of Kohl and his work both at school and in the community. His students attest to his caring nature and his ability to understand them and encourage them to reach their potential. Fellow Lodi High School colleagues admire his teaching style that allows him to connect with students and engage them both in the classroom and the world around them. Parents of Kohl's students are appreciative of his work to prepare their students for life beyond school and their place in the community.

Mark Kohl's success and impact as a teacher is reflected in each of the students he has inspired over his many years of teaching at Lodi High School. I join Kohl's family and friends, the Lodi community, and the Wisconsin Department of Education in congratulating him as Wisconsin Teacher of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we face no less than the specter of a sign posted on the Federal courthouse door which reads, ``You may not defend your constitutional rights in this court; you may not seek equal protection here; you may not petition your government for redress here.'' Today, the ``you'' is gay and lesbian American citizens, but who will be next?

Today, the House is considering legislation that were it to become law would do grave damage to our Republic.

I strongly oppose H.R. 3313 and urge all Members to vote against this legislation, and I urge the Members of the majority to reconsider this extreme and radical approach to addressing the issue of same-sex marriage and their concern about so-called judicial activism. Enacting court-stripping legislation would seriously undermine the faith of the American people in this Congress, in the courts, and in the principles of separation of powers.

When writing the Constitution, our Founders wisely decided that the best way to secure our freedoms and liberties was to establish three coequal branches of government: the Congress, the executive, the Supreme Court; and these three branches of government would have different, but overlapping, authorities to ensure that each branch is subject to the checks and balances. Not only will there be times that they will be in disagreement about a particular issue or law; the structure of the Constitution makes these conflicts inevitable.

It is a terrible mistake to strip one branch of government from its involvement in evaluating particular laws, and this is so particularly true when considering the courts whose constitutional and historic role has been to defend our liberties.

Once court-stripping, this door becomes open, where will it stop? Will this language be added to legislation on issues of abortion, guns, prayer, school choice, affirmative action? How about the USA PATRIOT Act? I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The late Senator Barry Goldwater, a stalwart conservative, said about previous court-stripping attempts in this Congress that it is a frontal assault on the independence of Federal courts and a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society. I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary, unconstitutional and unwise legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering legislation that, if it were to become law, would do grave damage to our Republic. I strongly oppose H.R. 3313 and urge all members to vote against this legislation. I urge the members in the majority to reconsider this extreme and radical approach to addressing the issue of same sex marriage and their concerns about so-called judicial activism. In fact, ``court stripping'' is a bad idea in any form. The consequences of enacting H.R. 3313 far exceed the stated objective of the majority and would seriously undermine the faith of the American people in this Congress, in the courts, in the principle of separation of powers, and in the notion of checks and balances.

When writing the Constitution, the founders wisely decided that the best way to secure our freedom and liberties was to establish 3 co- equal branches of government--the Congress, the Executive and the Supreme Court. These 3 branches of government have different but overlapping authorities to ensure that each branch is subject to checks and balances. Not only will there be times that they will be in disagreement about a particular issue or law, the structure of the Constitution makes these conflicts inevitable.

In my home State of Wisconsin, our State university, the University of Wisconsin, dedicates itself to the proposition that through ``continual and fearless sifting and winnowing'' . . . ``the truth can be found.'' In the context of our laws, this sifting and winnowing occurs at many points in the process. In Congress, we hold hearings, markups, and floor votes and we offer amendments, we hold conference committees and we issue reports. The Executive proposes legislation, engages in public debate, signs and vetoes legislation. The Court then interprets, evaluates, settles disputes and invalidates laws based on bedrock principles enshrined in our Constitution. Yes, this process can be slow, frustrating, and messy at times. But, it is through the process, which includes the court, that we sift and winnow our laws to improve them and ensure they are fair and just for all Americans.

It is a terrible mistake to try to strip one branch of government from its involvement in evaluating particular laws. This is particularly true when considering the courts, whose constitutional and historic role is to defend our liberties.

Fortunately for our citizens, it is my belief that H.R. 3313 is unconstitutional and, if it ever becomes law, will ultimately be invalidated. However, we should defeat this bill today, no matter what.

Mr. Speaker, during the Judiciary subcommittee on the constitution's hearing on this issue on June 24, the majority and minority each invited legal scholars to address the questions: ``Can Congress do this?'' and ``Should Congress do this?'' On the former question, the 2 witnesses disagreed, although even the majority witness, Professor Martin H. Redish of Northwestern University, noted that ``Congress quite clearly may not revoke or confine Federal jurisdiction in a discriminatory manner.'' But on the latter question, ``Should Congress do this?'' the legal scholars agreed that we should not.

Let me quote Professor Redish's testimony on this question because it is compelling: ``I firmly believe that Congress should choose to exercise this power virtually never.'' There has long existed a delicate balance between the authority of the Federal judiciary and Congress, and the exclusion of substantively selective authority from all Federal courts seriously threatens that balance.''

Once the ``court stripping'' door is open, where will it stop? Will this language be added to legislation on the issue of abortion, guns, prayer, school choice, affirmative action? How about the USA PATRIOT Act? I suspect that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Like the FMA, the Marriage Protection Act is not needed. DOMA remains the law of the land and its constitutionality has not been successfully challenged in any United States court. Congress must tread lightly when trying to modify the important doctrine of separation of powers that is the basis for our government. The late Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), a stalwart conservative, said about previous court stripping attempts that ``frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society.'' I urge you to reject this unnecessary, unconstitutional and unwise legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we face no less than the specter of a sign posted on the Federal court house door which reads, ``you may not defend your constitutional rights in this court, you may not seek equal protection here, you may not petition your government for redress here.'' Today, the ``you'' is gay and lesbian American citizens. Who will it be next?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge four extraordinary young people and their teacher for becoming one of eight teams competing nationally as finalists in the Christopher Columbus Awards. The four students, Emily London, Renee Millar, Alexandra Macho, and Sara Weaver, are all eighth-graders who attend River Bluff Middle School in Stoughton, WI. Coaching the team is dedicated teacher Breinne Carroll. Through this team's efforts, they have discovered a way to change their community by using science and technology.

The students from River Bluff were concerned about blind pedestrians in their area and the risks that were involved when blind pedestrians crossed the street. The four students developed a raised strip that rests in the middle of crosswalks in order to help blind pedestrians walk in a safe manner from one side of a street to the other. The team calls their idea the ``Uni-Bump.''

The team has plans for the future as well. They have applied for a provisional patent, which will give the team a year to get a prototype designed and built before a ``plant patent'' can be granted. Also, a company based out of New Jersey, Trellborg Engineered Systems, has even offered to develop the first functional prototype for the team.

With imagination, teamwork, and the will to do kindly unto others, I am proud to say the team from River Bluff Middle School has not only made an impact on those in their own community, but will subsequently make a positive impact for others across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The Australian Free Trade Agreement has been crafted in a way that repeats the flaws and weaknesses of previous agreements such as NAFTA. However, this agreement is particularly bad for Wisconsin dairy farmers and Wisconsin seniors.

This agreement puts Wisconsin dairy producers at a disadvantage. It reduces and ultimately eliminates tariffs on a variety of Australian dairy products, including cheese, which is what most Wisconsin milk is used to produce. While the agreement does eliminate tariffs on U.S. dairy exports to Australia, this will not provide significant new export markets for American dairy producers. The Australian dairy industry is mature and stable, and Australia is a net exporter of dairy goods--they already export more than they import.

Another serious concern I have is how the agreement treats importation of Milk Protein Concentrate (MPC). MPC has been entering our country at an increasing rate since the mid-1990s. One of the biggest exporters of MPC is Australia. MPC can be imported in the U.S. under a very low tariff rate. This makes it an inexpensive substitute for domestically produced milk in American cheese vats and other dairy products. Simply put, MPC takes the place of U.S. milk in a variety of products, thereby reducing the demand for domestic milk, and lowering the price Wisconsin dairy producers receive for their high-quality product. Unfortunately, the agreement did not close the MPC import loophole--the tariff on MPC remains artificially low, and so imports of MPC will continue to displace U.S. milk in the domestic production of dairy products.

Further, I have serious concerns about provisions included in the agreement that relate to prescription drugs. The agreement allows pharmaceutical companies to prevent the importation of drugs to the United States. While this will have a very small practical impact on the importation of prescription drugs from Australia, it does hamper efforts of this Congress to provide our Nation's seniors with access to affordable prescription drugs. We simply cannot stand idly by while American seniors pay 30 percent-300 percent more for the exact same prescription drugs available in other countries. Allowing drug companies to prevent the importation of prescription drugs from Australia sets a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements. We should be expanding seniors' access to affordable drugs, not limiting it.

In addition, this agreement allows drug companies to challenge decisions made by Australia about what drugs should be covered under that country's health plan. This marks the first time that the United States has challenged how a foreign industrialized nation operates its national health program to provide inexpensive drugs to its own citizens. Instead of interfering with the Australian health program, we should learn from it. While our seniors continue to pay exorbitant prices for prescription drugs and lack comprehensive, reliable prescription drug coverage, Australia has developed a program that guarantees its citizens coverage for affordable prescription drugs. We should not be hampering their success.