Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the week of April 18-24, 2004 as National Minority Cancer Awareness Week. This national campaign, initiated by Congress in 1987, seeks to heighten awareness of the unequal cancer burden borne by racial and ethnic minority populations and other medically underserved communities.

Despite all the progress that has been made in the battle against cancer, a disproportionate burden of cancer continues to fall on specific populations. African Americans have the highest death rate for all cancers. Cancer is the leading cause of death for Asian American women. And even when controlling for income level, African American, American Indian, Alaska native, Asian American, and Pacific Islander men have a lower 5-year survival rate than non-Hispanic white males.

In my state of Wisconsin in 2003, 25,800 new cancer cases were diagnosed and 10,800 people in my community died from cancer. Once these statistics are analyzed, I believe we will find that a disproportionately high burden of these cancer deaths will be borne by minority populations. The future health of Wisconsin--and of America as a whole--depends

on our success in improving the health of minority and other medically underserved populations.

I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 918, the Patient Navigator, Outreach, and Chronic Prevention Act. This legislation would set up patient navigator systems, which would provide patients with a trained navigator ``buddy'' from their own community, who speaks their own language, and who will act as their advocate in navigating the health care system. This program would do wonders to increase awareness of programs and services in minority communities, and provide an opportunity to empower impacted communities in the fight against cancer.

By passing legislation like H.R. 918 and lending support to National Minority Cancer Awareness Week, we can reduce and ultimately eliminate the disparate burden of cancer and other diseases on minority and medically underserved communities. I urge my colleagues to support both of these important initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the men and women in our Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in Iraq. Their bravery and dedication is something all Americans should admire and honor.

It is not just their martial skill and training that proved outstanding during the combat phase of the Iraq campaign, their exceptional abilities to begin the rebuilding of Iraq have been essential. Our military forces have demonstrated again and again their professionalism when faced with incredibly difficult challenges. They truly are the best in the world.

I want to also give special recognition to our citizen soldiers--the men and women in our National Guard and Reserves--and their families. For them to leave their jobs and loved ones, in many cases for more than a year, requires tremendous sacrifice and commitment. In the last year, I have been there when many of our local Wisconsin units have left for deployment and been there when many have finally returned home. When they leave, I have seen their determination to get the job done combined with great sadness about their separation from their families. When they return, I have seen their pride at a job well done and their joy at being reunited with their families. No country could be better served than we have by the members of our Guard and Reserve.

I also want to pay my respects to the ultimate sacrifice paid by the 709 military men and women who have died in Iraq and express my heartfelt condolences to their families. Each one of them is a hero. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid but must always be remembered.

We also owe a great debt to the more than 3,200 who have been wounded in Iraq. Medical advances and improved safety equipment have meant fewer deaths, but many are surviving with serious injuries. We must fulfill our commitment to caring for them, ensuring that our veterans health care system can meet their needs.

Mr. Speaker, there is no Member of this Congress who is not grateful to our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. No matter our positions on what the proper U.S. policies should be, let there be no doubt that we honor and appreciate their sacrifices.

It is with regret that I voted against the resolution presented to this House. I am very disappointed in the Republican leadership of this House for bringing forth a resolution under a closed rule without providing the opportunity for Democrats to participate in the drafting.

Honoring our troops should always be a non-partisan effort and should never be used as a partisan maneuver.

The resolution that came before us could have, and should have, won the backing of every Member of the House. A non-partisan resolution, drafted with input from both sides of the aisle, would have attained unanimous support, allowing the House of Representatives to speak with one resounding voice in honor of our men and women in uniform.

It is not simply the partisan nature of this resolution that caused me to vote against it. If that were my only concern, my desire to recognize our troops would have been stronger than my indignation about the means employed to do so. However, I voted against the resolution because it is being used to distract us from the very real and very important debate that we should be having about our Iraq policy and our counter-terrorism policies.

Mr. Speaker, there is a debate going on among the American people about Iraq and the war. The American people are concerned about our intelligence failures, the use of intelligence, the Administration's apparent obsession with Iraq, the failure of post-war Iraq planning, the cost of the war, the costs of reconstruction, the long-term demands on our military and how Iraq affects the war on terrorism. This Congress and this Administration has a responsibility to answer, or find the answers, to these questions. The American people deserve no less.

The American people are wondering if we are safer as a result of the war to remove Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq. This is a difficult question to answer, and to be quite frank, I don't know. But it is a question that is important to ask. And it should not be dismissed with an ``of course'' or the suggestion that anyone who thinks we may not be safer is unpatriotic or would be happy if Hussein were still in power. We must draw an important distinction between the following questions: Is Iraq better off? Is Iraq less of a security threat to the United States? And, is the United States safer as a result of the President's choice to go to war in Iraq. I believe the answer to the first two questions is yes. However, it is the final question that is by far the most important.

On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda, an international terrorist group that was then based in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban regime. Military action against Al Qaeda and the Taliban was widely supported by Americans, including me, to hunt down the perpetrators of 9-11 and eliminate their ability to operate in Afghanistan. We were joined by numerous countries who understood that the fight against Al Qaeda was their fight too. The initial phases of that campaign were successful in shutting down their training camps, capturing or killing many of their members and

deposing the Taliban. Like in Iraq, our military men and women performed exceptionally well.

But the victory in Afghanistan is not complete. Just last month, we launched, with Pakistan, another military initiative to find additional Al Qaeda forces hiding out in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Security in Afghanistan is largely absent outside of Kabul and traditional tribal leaders and warlords have real control over most of the country. Scheduled elections may need to be postponed because of the inability of the international community to register voters in the countryside due to lack of security. Opium production is reaching record new levels. Our job in Afghanistan is clearly not done.

Our national security officials cannot focus on an infinite number of problems at once. There are only so many hours a day for the National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and other top officials to do their work. They can't focus on everything and must make choices. There can be no doubt that Iraq required an incredible amount of time and resources in order to succeed. What is the opportunity cost? I fear that part of the reason for the slow progress in Afghanistan is the result of diversion of resources and attention to the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq.

The commitment of time, money and resources to Iraq has also impacted our homeland security. The war, occupation and reconstruction costs in Iraq are likely to exceed $250 billion. That is a huge expenditure. By focusing our scarce resources during an economic downturn on Iraq, much less has been available to fund our first responders and protect our country.

A recent independent review of our homeland security efforts by the Century Foundation found major deficiencies. Their Homeland Security Report Card clearly indicates that a safer America will require significant improvements by the Department of Homeland Security. While there have been successes in passenger screening, the air marshall program and infrastructure analysis, this report highlights serious and disturbing shortcomings that leave Americans vulnerable. Protecting private planes, securing air cargo, providing funding for first responders, and better immigration oversight are critical to our security. It is disappointing to find that, according to the Century Foundation's report, in these areas we may be worse off than before September 11.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to stop focusing on rhetoric about Iraq and begin to focus on the facts. We need to spend less time trying to portray loyal Americans as soft on terrorism because they raise questions and want to debate the most effective ways to prevent terrorism and protect Americans. A full and healthy national debate, in Congress and around the country, will not weaken our resolve, it will strengthen us. Building a consensus policy to combat terrorism will allow us to move forward united. A consensus policy will reduce friction about dedication of resources and will allow us to sustain a consistent policy for the duration of our fight against terrorism. That is the debate we should have had. That is the debate our country needs to have.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pat Richter and his incredible career as Athletic Director for the University of Wisconsin. After over fourteen years in that position, he is retiring on April 1, 2004.

Pat Richter played basketball, football, and baseball during his college days at the University of Wisconsin, lettering three times in each. He also went on to a professional career in football, but it is his legacy as Athletic Director that will carry on for years to come. Badger fans will always be grateful for his successful efforts in turning around an athletic department that faced financial difficulties, out of date stadiums, and waning fan support. Today, the University of Wisconsin boasts an athletic program that has attained nationwide acclaim for success and innovation both in athletics and academics.

Under Pat Richter's watch, the University of Wisconsin has built modern athletic facilities, including the Kohl Center, University Ridge Golf Course, the Fetzer Academic Learning Center, and the Goodman Softball Diamond. The University has also renovated the McClimon Track/ Soccer Complex, and recently began renovation of Camp Randall Stadium. Badger fans will be able to enjoy these facilities for generations to come.

I am most proud of Pat Richter's efforts toward equality in the athletic department. In his fourteen year tenure, the University of Wisconsin has added three women's sports--softball, lightweight crew, and hockey. The University of Wisconsin now has a policy that strives to have a percentage of female athletes proportionate to the overall female population of students on campus.

The success of Wisconsin athletics under Pat Richter has been phenomenal. The Badgers have won three national championships--men's hockey in 1989-90, men's rowing in 1989-90 and men's soccer in 1995-and a remarkable 49 Big Ten Championships. The football team has won three Rose Bowl games. The women's basketball teams have played in six NCAA tournaments, while the men's basketball team recently played in their seventh NCAA tournament in eight years, a remarkable run that also includes a trip to the Final Four by the 2000 team.

Mr. Speaker, I join all of Wisconsin in recognizing Pat Richter's achievements as Athletic Director and we wish him much success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Tiara Purifoy of Beloit, WI, who recently appeared on the popular reality television show ``American Idol.'' After being named a semifinalist with her powerful rendition of Whitney Houston's song ``I Wanna Dance with Somebody,'' she was surprisingly eliminated before the singing even started on the wild card show on Tuesday, March 9, 2003. The show, which first aired in 2002, draws a nationwide audience in the millions, two nights a week. ``American Idol'' brings aspiring singers from across the nation to Hollywood, and awards the winner a recording contract and celebrity status. Tiara was selected at an audition in Hawaii.

While her dream of being the next ``American Idol'' has not yet come to pass, Tiara is still a star in the hearts of Wisconsinites. Tiara began singing as a small girl at age four in her church choir. She will continue to sing and perform with her traveling family group the Gospel Belles, where she sings lead. Her appearance on ``American Idol'' was not her first brush with fame, however. She describes her greatest accomplishment thus far as being named Miss Beloit in 1999 because she was able to be a positive example for young people.

Indeed, Purifoy proved to be a positive example to both young and old across the nation when she stood up to judge Simon Cowell, who is known for his hurtful and critical remarks to budding stars' performances. Despite praise from the other judges, celebrated performer Paula Abdul and Grammy Award winning producer Randy Jackson, Cowell told Purifoy she was capable of much more. With her absolute confidence and positive attitude, Purifoy retorted, saying she would let America decide. Indeed, America responded, and Purifoy moved on to the next round.

Even though Tiara is not the nation's new ``American Idol,'' she will continue to share her sweet voice with her friends and family who continue to cheer for her back home in Beloit. Please share this opportunity with me, Mr. Speaker, to honor Beloit and Wisconsin's own American Idol.

Mr. Chairman, budgets are about priorities and America's budget ought to reflect America's priorities.

Once again, Republicans have presented a budget that makes spending billions of dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy a higher priority than confronting the issues my constituents worry about, such as fixing our broken health care system and putting America back to work, educating our children, and keeping our promises to our seniors and veterans.

In short, people who make over a million dollars a year come first, while millions of hard-working Americans foot the bill. Those who need it the very least get the most, and those who need the help the most get the very least.

Perhaps some of you have heard of a popular TV reality show called ``The Simple Life.'' It introduces two young wealthy heiresses onto an Arkansas farm where they are exposed to hard work and a set of struggles they have not witnessed firsthand before.

Under this budget resolution, hotel heiress Paris Hilton would make out big. Given her family's $300 million fortune and her earnings from filming the show, she belongs to an elite group of Americans who make over $1 million per year. She would save over $150,000 in taxes per year under the policies that are embraced in this Republican budget resolution.

So what about the family she stayed with? Well, I confess I do not know the annual income of the farm family that hosted them, but I can tell you that the average farm family in my home State would save roughly $600 from the tax cut policies in this budget. But at what cost to maintain these tax cuts?

First, the Republican budget resolution pays for them by borrowing from future generations, so we can all pay a little bit of the interest on the debt incurred to pay for Paris Hilton's tax cut.

Second, the Republican budget resolution pays for these tax cuts by ignoring pressing American problems like our health care crisis and job losses.

Lastly, this resolution pays for these tax cuts by cutting or freezing vital investments in our future like education and keeping our promises to seniors and veterans.

Now, I have had a little fun with ``The Simple Life,'' but the bottom line is very serious. I can tell you that putting tax cuts for the wealthy before the needs of hard-working Americans will have serious impacts on their lives and our future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Devin Harris of the University of Wisconsin men's basketball team, who was recently named the 2004 Big Ten Conference player of the year. Devin is only the fifth Badger player in history and the first since 1950 to receive the honor. He led his team to a twenty-four and six record entering the NCAA tournament and a second-place finish in the Big Ten while scoring over twenty points a game. He was also among the Big Ten leaders in assists, steals, assist-to-turnover ratio, and three-point field goal percentage. In addition to being the player of the year, Devin was the only unanimous first team all-conference selection, and was also named the Most Outstanding Player of the Big Ten Tournament after leading the Badgers to the tournament championship, the first in school history.

Beyond statistics and awards, Devin has continually amazed the Badger faithful with his effervescent style of play and penchant for playing even better when it mattered most. His silky smooth ballhandling and signature step-back jump shot contribute to his astounding ability to break down a half-court defense and find a way to score, while his speed and leaping ability have led to some spectacular dunks in transition. His versatile game makes it difficult for one defender to stay with him, which opens up opportunities for his teammates, and he consistently gets them the ball when those opportunities arise. Everyone plays better when Devin is on the court, and that is what makes him a truly special player.

If Badger fans needed any other reason to love Devin, he is also a homegrown talent, coming to UW from Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, where he was the state high school player of the year at East High. Even with that, however, it would have been difficult for anyone to predict that he would develop into the player that he has. This past fall, when the Big Ten coaches named him the pre-season conference player of the year, Devin was as surprised as anyone. But there is no surprise left in awards for Devin Harris. No one who saw him play this year could doubt that he deserves this honor, and our recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of an important historic program that celebrates famous cases throughout Wisconsin's legal history and honors Wisconsin's Women Jurists.

This year, Wisconsinites have had the opportunity to take part in a traveling exhibit showcasing the rich history of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The exhibit examines several of the influential cases Wisconsin has confronted during its over 150 years, including slavery, women's suffrage, and mandatory education for children. I commend the members of the Wisconsin Legal History Committee for their efforts in developing this exhibit so that this generation has the opportunity to learn from Wisconsin's extensive legal history.

On March 17, 2004, for the first time in Wisconsin's history, Judge Maxine A. White, District Director of the National Association of Women Judges, with the assistance of over 25 sponsoring legal associations and community groups, will unveil the portraits of fifteen Wisconsin Women Jurists who are retired or deceased. I am excited that the changing face of the Wisconsin judiciary is being recognized in this exhibit. These 15 female jurists served the courts of Wisconsin between 1972 and 2003 and covered eight different counties across the State-- Olga Bennett, Vernon County Court (1969-75); Vel R. Phillips, Milwaukee County Court (1971-73); Martha Bablitch, Court of Appeals, District IV (1978-85); Leah M. Lampone, Milwaukee County Circuit Court (1978-93); Donna J. Muza, Dunn County Circuit Court (1979-98); Arlene D. Connors, Milwaukee County Circuit Court (1980-98); Janine P. Geske, Milwaukee County Circuit Court (1981-93), Wisconsin Supreme Court (1993-98); Vivi L. Dilweg, Brown County Circuit Court (1982-99); Marianne E. Becker, Waukesha County Circuit Court (1985-2003); Paulette L. Siebers (1985- 86), Dane County Circuit Court; Susan R. Steingass, Dane County Circuit Court (1985-93); Virginia A. Wolfe, Sauk County Circuit Court (1988- 2000); Louise Tesmer, Milwaukee County Circuit Court (1989-2001); Jacqueline Schellinger, Milwaukee County Circuit Court (1992-2003); Nancy E. Wheeler, Racine County Circuit Court (1993-98).

I have had the privilege of getting to know several of these amazing women, and it has been such an honor to learn from them.

I would also like to congratulate and commend Judge White on her leadership of this event, and Wisconsin Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who will receive the prestigious American Judicature Society's ``Herbert Harley'' Award at the March 17 event. The ``Herbert Harley'' Award is given to individuals who have made outstanding efforts to improve the administration of justice in their State. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is certainly deserving of this award for her tireless work on behalf of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Let us be clear: This bill is nothing more than an attack on a woman's right to choose. By defining the phrase ``child in utero'' to include any member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the woman, this bill provides protections for an embryo or fetus, regardless of the stage of development, from conception to birth. By establishing this fetal personhood in this manner, this bill establishes a legal framework to attack a woman's right to choose as guaranteed by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade decision.

This bill forges new ground in attempting to recognize embryos and fetuses at all stages of development as persons with the same legal status as the mother. In fact, this bill makes no mention of the primary victim of violence, the pregnant woman, and instead creates a new cause of action on behalf of the unborn, and this marks a major departure from existing law and threatens the foundations of the right to choose.

We all agree that every time a criminal causes the injury or death of a pregnant woman through violence, it is a tragedy.

But we must also acknowledge that an attack against an unborn child is necessarily an attack against a pregnant woman. Unfortunately, rather than supporting tougher laws against domestic violence, sexual assault and battery, we are instead debating a bill that does not even recognize the harm to a pregnant woman.

During the debate, I have heard some Members talk about stories they have heard from people they have met. I remember in Wisconsin hearing testimony of a personal story of a woman who was beaten by her spouse when pregnant and lost her child. She was also beaten right after she first got married and beaten before her pregnancy, and beaten in the early stages of her pregnancy. If we had taken a tough enough approach to violence against women, the violence would not have progressed so far.

I have long been a supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, which expands protections for women against these callous acts of violence. I believe we would be much better served by laws to protect women, pregnant or not, from violence, instead of establishing an entirely new framework to protect fetal rights.

By switching the focus of these crimes, we are diverting attention from the victimized women, and this is not a step forward in the fight against domestic violence.

I urge my colleagues to vote against these bills and then work together to do proactive legislation to better attack violence against women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Lofgren substitute to H.R. 1997. Violence against women remains epidemic in our society. According to a Commonwealth Fund survey, nearly one out of every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. Acts of violence committed against pregnant women are especially heartbreaking and abhorrent. Congress should and must focus sharply on efforts addressing this issue.

But we can address this issue without tangling it in the abortion debate. And the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lofgren) substitute does exactly that. It focuses on the crime of violence against the pregnant woman without undermining a woman's right to choose. The substitute creates a separate and distinct crime for any violent assault against a pregnant woman that harms or ends her pregnancy, in addition to the assault of the pregnant woman.

Most importantly, this substitute avoids the issue of fetal rights and fetal personhood. It correctly recognizes that the pregnant woman is the primary victim of an assault that causes harm to, or termination of, her pregnancy. In this way, the substitute we consider today accomplishes the stated goals of the underlying bill, the deterrence and punishment of violent acts against pregnant women, without bogging us down in the abortion debate.

I urge my colleagues to ask themselves why H.R. 1997 treats an embryo or a fetus at any stage of development as an individual with extensive legal rights distinct from the mother. How would establishing this legal framework reduce the occurrence of crimes against pregnant women? The answer is that the underlying bill is not directed to the pregnant woman. Instead, it unnecessarily opens up an abortion debate.

I applaud the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lofgren) efforts of addressing the serious issue of violence against pregnant women in a way that accomplishes the goal of reducing this violence in a nonaggressive manner, and I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my opposition to this rule and the underlying bill, and I rise to ask my colleagues to look at this legislation for what it is, not for what it claims to be.

We all agree that acts of violence against pregnant women are tragic, and our criminal justice system should respond decisively to them. Those committing these abhorrent crimes should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Unfortunately, the bill we will be considering under this rule has another agenda, and that is to erode and undermine the Roe v. Wade decision by treating an embryo or fetus at any stage of development as an individual with extensive legal rights, distinct from the mother. But if we really want to punish crimes that are committed against pregnant women, we can do so in ways that do not tangle this issue with the abortion debate.

As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I was joined by several of my colleagues during the markup of this bill in offering amendments that would have extricated this issue from abortion politics by clarifying its purpose. My amendment, along with amendments offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), sought to focus squarely on the issue of preventing and punishing violence against women and particularly pregnant women. The rejection of these amendments clearly reveals that supporters of this bill have another objective, and that is to legislate fetal personhood as a foundation for depriving women of their right to make their own reproductive decisions.

Violence against women remains a huge problem in today's society; and, yes, we absolutely should focus our efforts on addressing this issue. According to a Commonwealth Fund survey, nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. That is a staggering figure: one out of every three women. And the risk of violence does increase for pregnant women. In fact, murder is the number one cause of death to pregnant women. But this bill will do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence. In fact, the bill makes no mention of the primary victim of violence, the pregnant woman, and instead creates a new cause of action on behalf of the unborn. This is a step backwards for victims of domestic violence. Once again, the attention of the legal system is being turned away from efforts to punish violence against women. Instead of protecting women, this bill lays the groundwork for establishing fetal personhood and eroding the foundation of a woman's right to choose.

I have long been a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, which expanded protections for women against callous acts of violence. I believe we are better served by laws that protect women, pregnant and nonpregnant alike, from the violence than we are by creating a whole new legal framework to establish and protect fetal rights. By switching the focus of the crime from the pregnant woman to the unborn child, we are diverting attention from the problem we should be focused upon, violence against women. Think about it. You cannot do this sort of harm or cause these sorts of injuries to a fetus without harming and injuring the mother.

If we are sincere in our desire to punish crimes committed against pregnant

women, then we should be addressing that issue without tangling it in abortion politics. Let us abandon this thinly veiled attack on abortion rights that is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and address the true issue by providing real punishments for criminals who attack pregnant women.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the great life of Elroy ``Crazylegs'' Hirsch. On January 28, 2004, Wisconsin lost a true state icon, but Crazylegs leaves his rich legacy in the hearts of all Wisconsinites.

Elroy Hirsch was born in Wausau, WI and grew into an incredible high school athlete while playing football and basketball at Wausau High School. He was such an accomplished high school player that in 1998 he was inducted into the National High School Hall of Fame.

After high school, he became a standout halfback for the University of Wisconsin Badgers during the 1942 season. The Badgers finished the 1942 season 8-1-1 and were ranked third nationally by the AP. Hirsch was key to the 1942 victory over top-ranked Ohio State by throwing one touchdown pass and recording more than 200 total offensive yards. It was during this season that he earned the name ``Crazylegs'' after a reporter wrote that ``his crazy legs were gyrating in six different directions all at the same time.''

Due to his assignment with the United States Marine Corps, Hirsch continued his collegiate athletic career with the University of Michigan, and went on to play professionally for the Chicago Rockets from 1946-1948 and then with the Los Angeles Rams from 1949-1957. After a record setting career with the NFL, he was named to the NFL's All- Time All-Star team.

Following his time as General Manger with the Los Angeles Rams, Hirsch returned to Wisconsin and the university where he started his collegiate athletic career. When he arrived as Athletic Director, the Badgers' athletic program was struggling. He was committed and successful in turning around the athletic program in his 18-year role at the University of Wisconsin. During the years following his retirement, Hirsch was the Wisconsin Badgers biggest fan.

Despite living in various communities across the United States during his accomplished career, it was evident that his home was truly with the people of Wisconsin and Wisconsin athletics, as with every autograph he signed ``always a Badger.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to oppose the rule.

I strongly oppose this rule because it would delay the renewal of Chapter 12 family farm bankruptcy protection that is needed desperately by our family farmers. We should not be amending this bill and sending it back to the other body for more debate. This House should take up the 6-month extension bill, pass it without amendment, and send it to the President immediately. Chapter 12 farm bankruptcy protection expired on December 31, 2003. There is no good excuse for additional delay of Chapter 12 extension.

The Committee on the Judiciary chairman, the House leadership and the financial services industry have proposed under this rule that we gut this noncontroversial 6-month extension bill before us to try to force a conference committee on the massive bankruptcy overhaul bill. Groups representing family farmers are opposed to this parliamentary maneuver that will delay the extension of Chapter 12 protection.

On January 23, the National Farmers Union wrote to Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi that ``We reject this legislative strategy as an insensitive, cruel and malicious effort that will only serve to increase the level of distress of farm families who are already experiencing severe financial difficulties.'' The National Family Farm Coalition and Farm Aid have also sent letters urging immediate action to extend Chapter 12 and opposing sending this legislation back to the other body.

Mr. Speaker, the bankruptcy overhaul bill that this rule moves forward is bad for several reasons. Among them is an attempt in this bill to shield people convicted of crimes against women and abortion clinics from fines and damages. Too often, I am sorry to say, criminals who commit these acts of violence have been able to avoid monetary penalties by declaring bankruptcy. Our bankruptcy laws should not be used and manipulated by criminals to avoid their punishment.

Again, the base bill, Senate 1920, could be on the President's desk by the end of this day. It is noncontroversial. Our body has passed this bill unanimously in previous sessions. We are not accomplishing anything by the parliamentary maneuvers that we are engaged in today.

Since I have been in Congress, the family farm protections in the Bankruptcy Code have expired six times, and we have acted to extend these provisions eight times. We should stop using family farmers as leverage to pass larger bankruptcy protections. I know these families; I represent many of them. I hear their struggles, I hear their stories. Let us act today to extend family farmer bankruptcy protection.

I do want to thank the Committee on Rules and the chairman of that committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for making my substitute amendment in order. However, our farmers need immediate relief, and the only way to achieve that goal expeditiously is to defeat the rule and to take up Senate bill 1920 immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record letters from the National Farmers Union, the National Family Farm Coalition and Farm Aid.

Farm Aid,

Somerville, MA, January 27, 2004.

Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chair, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: I am writing to urgently

ask you to take action this week to reinstate Chapter 12

Bankruptcy provisions for our nation's family farmers. Since

the expiration of Chapter 12 on December 31, 2003, thousands

of America's family farmers facing serious financial problems

have not been able to consider filing a Chapter 12

bankruptcy.

Farm Aid operates a national family farmer hotline. Every

day, we receive desperate calls from farm families facing

financial crisis. The stresses these families are under could

and should be alleviated immediately by reinstating Chapter

12.

The reasons for the creation of a separate bankruptcy code

that enable farmers to stay on the land while reorganizing

their farm operation is as urgent now as it was in 1986 when

first created by Congress. This lapse in coverage directly

results in farmers having to face foreclosure and liquidation

instead of seeking a reasonable negotiation with their

creditors that works for farm families, their creditors and

businesses in their rural community.

I urge you to pass this six-month extension so that the

livelihoods of thousands of family farmers are not linked to

the cumbersome and controversial overall bankruptcy reform

bill. When Congress passed the last extension in July 2003,

the vote was 397-3. Every day of delay by Congress has a

direct cost to our nation's family farmers. The immediate

reinstatement of Chapter 12 bankruptcy will restore an

important option for family farmers facing economic crisis.

On behalf of America's family farmers, I thank you.

Sincerely,

Mark Smith,

Campaign Director.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as you know, Chapter 12 family farmers bankruptcy protection is an effective and noncontroversial part of our Nation's Bankruptcy Code. Since its creation in 1986, it has allowed our Nation's family farmers who face economic hardship a greater opportunity to reorganize their debts and continue in farming.

As with many laws that we pass, the benefits of the direct impact, which can be easily measured, are often exceeded by the indirect benefits. Chapter 12 does not just benefit those using its protections. Many farmers who face the possibility of a bankruptcy never get to the point of a court filing. Bankruptcy trustees and bankruptcy attorneys are quick to point out that the very existence of the option of Chapter 12 filing promotes negotiations between farmers and their creditors, thus preventing bankruptcy filings altogether.

Chapter 12 protection is currently unavailable to our Nation's farmers. It expired on December 31, 2003. The House should have taken up the 6-month extension bill, Senate bill 1920, passed without amendment, and sent it to the President immediately. However, by approving the rule earlier today, we have foreclosed that option; therefore, I am offering this substitute amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides the House with a clear policy choice by allowing a vote on passing a permanent Chapter 12 authorization instead of continuing to keep it tied to the controversial larger bankruptcy bill. My amendment simply uses the Chapter 12 language that was agreed to by bipartisan, bicameral conferees during the 107th Congress. It is the same as the bipartisan bill, Senate bill 2004, introduced by Members of the other body.

The amendment does the following: It makes Chapter 12 farm bankruptcy protections a permanent part of our Bankruptcy Code; it would increase the debt limits that a family farm can hold to qualify for Chapter 12 from $1.5 million to $3.2 million; and it would index those debt limits to the consumer price index. It would reduce from 80 percent to 50 percent the percentage of family farm liabilities that are due to farming operations; it would look at the previous 3 years, instead of only the previous year when determining whether 50 percent of income is from farming operations; and it would expand this type of bankruptcy protection to family fishermen.

These changes to Chapter 12 are not controversial and enjoy widespread bipartisan support.

Since I was first elected to Congress 5 years ago, we have passed eight, eight temporary extensions to Chapter 12. It is time to end this repetitive cycle of extensions and extensions. Our struggling family farmers should not be used as leverage. They should not have to continue to wait while we play games with Chapter 12 protections. This bill provides a textbook example that what we do here in Washington directly affects the lives of people facing real financial challenges.

In Wisconsin recently, a farmer from Columbus filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy. He works day and night to make his farm a success. Unfortunately, like many farmers, the weather and the market conspired to disrupt his cash flow. Filing Chapter 12 bankruptcy gave his family time to negotiate with his creditors while he switched production from corn and soybeans to vegetables, which he now sells in local markets. He sells his produce in farmers markets in Madison and in Princeton, Wisconsin, and he is paying his debts.

Under Chapter 12, it was not only the Columbus farmer that benefited, his family and his creditors now are receiving their money. The people in my district can purchase his bounty, and he can continue to support his farm, his family and his obligations.

Every time we come to the floor to extend Chapter 12, we are told that a permanent extension cannot be passed separately from the big bill because taking out this terribly popular item would slow the bill's momentum. We were told that we had to strip the permanent extension of Chapter 12 from last year's farm bill because it would

slow down the progress of the bankruptcy bill. We were told in June when we extended Chapter 12 again that we had to wait. Our farmers have been waiting for more than 5 years, and it is time to get this done.

Let us end the uncertainty these extensions cause by passing a permanent authorization. That is what my amendment would do. I sort of feel like I am in the middle of the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' Every 6 months we go through a process of extending Chapter 12 extensions again. Every session of Congress we go through a drawn-out debate regarding a larger overhaul of our bankruptcy laws. My amendment would break us out of that cycle.

It is time to stop using our farmers as pawns to push for bankruptcy reform and it is time to restore this important protection. We should not be playing politics with the livelihood of our farmers by putting the special interests who want the bankruptcy overhaul ahead of the real needs of struggling family farmers.

I urge my colleagues to pass the Baldwin substitute amendment.

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

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

This House has already debated and voted on H.R. 975. My amendment does nothing to change that. This is truly a matter between the Republican leadership of the two bodies.

The gentleman notes that the chapter 12 provisions have expired six times of varying length, most recently on December 31, 2003.

I would note that June 23, 2003, the same gentleman said on this floor that ``it is crucial that this specialized form of bankruptcy relief for farmers not be allowed to sunset for two fundamental reasons. First, family farmers absent chapter 12 would be forced to file for bankruptcy relief under the bankruptcy code's other alternatives, none of which work as well for them as does chapter 12.''

We started the day with a bill before us that was simply a 6-month extension of chapter 12 bankruptcy. We can end the day with a permanent authorization of that bankruptcy code if my colleagues support my substitute amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), who has been extraordinarily active on this issue in fighting for family farmers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and in closing, I would only reiterate what I said earlier, which is that we started the day, this morning, with a very simple bill before us, a bill to extend by 6 months the Chapter 12 protections for family farmers. We could end the day, if we pass this substitute amendment, with permanent authorization of Chapter 12 bankruptcy protections for our family farmers and family fishermen who are struggling today in the United States.

Instead, we have before us a massive bankruptcy overhaul that we have already debated and voted on in this House. These parliamentary maneuvers are most unfair to the farmers across America who woke up today hoping we would provide them relief. That is what we should do, and I urge Members to support the Baldwin substitute amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a thriving small business in Waunakee, Wisconsin. This year, the Michael F. Simon Builders family business celebrates 110 years of service to the community.

Small businesses are vital to the American economy. Founder, Michael Simon began constructing farm buildings in Dane County in 1893, and through the years Michael F. Simon Builders has remained in the family and continued to grow. The business has evolved with the times and now constructs residential and commercial buildings using state-of-art Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD).

Now in the hands of Peter and Philip, the founder's grandsons, Michael F. Simon Builders continues to maintain the family tradition and strives to create structures in Madison and the surrounding communities that have style beauty, quality and value. For nearly fifty years, the Simon family has shown a firm commitment to improving our community through their extensive volunteerism with the Wisconsin Builders Association and the National Association of Home Builders.

The Simon's ability to create and maintain a successful family business for 110 years is commendable and deserves recognition. I am proud to call Michael F. Simon Builders Wisconsin's own. I wish them continued success for another 110 years and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Matt Kenseth, a native of Cambridge, Wisconsin, for clinching the NASCAR Winston Cup Championship after placing fourth at the Pop Secret 400 at North Carolina Speedway on November 9, 2003.

Matt began working on his father's racecar when he was thirteen years old, and then he got the chance to start racing at the young age of sixteen. As a sign of his early talent for the sport, Matt was racing competitively by the age of nineteen. He moved up quickly to the ultra- competitive Wisconsin Late Model ranks, and he became the youngest winner ever in ARTGO Challenge Series history.

After driving the American Speed Association's ACDelco Challenge Series, Matt received a call from Robbie Reiser to drive his Busch Series car. In the NASCAR Busch Grand National Series, Matt excelled in his first full year by finishing second in the points battle. As a tribute to his success, he was called to substitute for Bill Elliott in the elite NASCAR Winston Cup Series at Dover Downs in September of 1998. This was his first start against the biggest names and greatest stock car drivers around, and Matt finished an impressive sixth place. The motorsports world certainly took notice of Matt in 2000, when he took the Winston Cup scene by storm winning the Raybestos Rookie of the Year Award.

This year, in his fourth season in NASCAR's top stock car series, Matt's commitment and consistency paid off because with one win, eleven top-five finishes, and twenty-five top ten finishes, he was able to take the Winston Cup title. Matt's achievements certainly have brought out the community pride and hometown spirit in Cambridge and across Wisconsin. He is a hero to countless young aspiring drivers, and he has shown why with his dedication through this long and challenging season. This December, he and his team will deservingly sit at head of the head table at the Waldorf-Astoria.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honor Cambridge Native Matt Kenseth for his accomplished racing career and his recent NASCAR Winston Cup Championship title.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Mrs. Helen Everson, who has been selected as Edgerton Rotary's Honored Citizen of the Year. Helen and her husband, Harland Everson, purchased the Edgerton Reporter, in 1951 and made the risky yet insightful decision to change from hot type to offset printing, the first paper in Wisconsin to do so. I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent whose life-long commitment to serving her community as an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and mother serves as a shining example to us all.

Helen was raised on a 5,000-acre sheep ranch in northwestern South Dakota and attended a two-room country school until her graduation. Helen's professional experience began at Keating Buick where she quickly gained greater responsibility and expertise and eventually became the Secretary-Treasurer of the car dealership.

Helen's life would change dramatically after she met and married Harland. The couple tackled the challenges of operating a growing and award-winning newspaper, in addition to raising a family. Harland and Helen's daughters, Carol and Diane, are both accomplished women in their own right. Carol is an associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Diane is the publisher of the Edgerton Reporter and past president of the National Newspaper Association.

Diane describes her mother as a ``heat seeking missile with boundless energy.'' She is still a tireless advocate for civic development and the Edgerton community. Under her leadership of Edgerton's annual Tobacco Heritage Days, the celebration grew in popularity and became profitable for the first time. For an

impressive 52 years, the Everson family has been the steward of one of the state's only independent newspapers.

Mr. Speaker, I join the Edgerton Rotary and the Edgerton community in recognizing Helen Everson's achievements and congratulate her as she accepts the Honored Citizen of the Year award.