Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am once again introducing legislation to extend authorization of Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code. This legislation should not be necessary, but a permanent Chapter 12 authorization remains a hostage to more comprehensive bankruptcy law changes.

Chapter 12 provides an important backstop for our Nation's struggling family farmers by allowing them to reorganize their debts and keep their farms. It provides an important bankruptcy option to farm families to keep their livelihood and maintain their way of life.

This bill provides a textbook example that what we do here in Washington directly affects the lives of real people facing real financial challenges.

In Wisconsin recently, a Columbus farmer filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy. He works

night and day to make his farm a success. Unfortunately, like many farmers, the weather and the market conspired to disrupt his cash flow. Filing Chapter 12 gave his family time to negotiate with his creditors, while he switched production from corn and soybeans to vegetable production and local market sales. He sells his produce at farmers markets in Madison and Princeton. And he is paying his debts. Under Chapter 12, it was not only the Columbus farmer that benefited. His creditors are receiving their money, the people in my district can purchase his bounty, and he can continue to support his family.

Chapter 12 does not just provide a direct benefit to those using its protections. Many farmers who face possible bankruptcy never get to a court filing. The very existence of the option of a Chapter 12 filing promotes negotiations between farmers and creditors.

Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection expires at the end of 2003. Before we leave town for the year, Congress should renew this bankruptcy law. That is why I am introducing this bipartisan bill today. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Nick Smith of Michigan and Tim Holden of Pennsylvania.

Once again, we are forced to approve a temporary extension of this vital protection. Since I was first elected to Congress 5 years ago, we have passed 8 temporary extensions. Making this noncontroversial program permanent is beyond overdue. In both this Congress and last Congress, I introduced legislation to modify Chapter 12 to include more family farmers and make it a permanent part of our bankruptcy law.

There is great consensus that Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection works well. It is for that reason that we have included a permanent authorization in the comprehensive bankruptcy reform bill for the past three Congresses. In fact, it is considered so popular that it has been held hostage to the bigger bill. 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 popular items will slow the bill's momentum. We were told we had to strip the permanent extension from last year's farm bill because it would slow down 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. It is time to just get this done. Let's end the uncertainty these extensions cause by passing a permanent authorization.

In reluctant acknowledgment that passage of the permanent Chapter 12 legislation is unlikely this year, I am introducing this 6-month extension. In the absence of a permanent authorization, I would prefer even longer than 6 months. This legislation is a realistic time period that can ensure passage in the few days we have left in this session.

Since the current authorization will expire at the end of the year, farmers will need the relief provided by this extension. As our family farmers begin to decide whether they can afford to plant next year, we need to make sure they have the ability to stay in farming by using Chapter 12 to reorganize their debts. This bill will provide the security family farmers to make that difficult decision.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee move this bill before we adjourn for the year. Chapter 12 has expired before, leaving many farmers in great uncertainty. Let's not let that happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report which will dismantle Medicare as we know it, harming millions of women who depend on that program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this sham of a bill. It does not provide the real, guaranteed, affordable drug benefit that our seniors desperately need. Worse yet, this bill sets the stage for dismantling the entire Medicare program.

I think that all of my colleagues would agree with me when I say that one of the issues we hear most about is the need for affordable prescription drugs. Whether I am at the grocery store, at the airport baggage claim, or in meetings all across my district in Wisconsin, the one thing that I hear over and over is that seniors cannot afford to pay for their prescription drugs.

The bill on the floor today does not contain the prescription drug benefit that seniors deserve. Instead of providing an affordable prescription drug benefit, this bill creates an incomplete and expensive benefit--a benefit with a hole, where seniors will be paying premiums and receiving no benefit.

Aside from the meager benefit, there is nothing in this bill that addresses the ever-rising cost of prescription drugs. Instead of including measures to ensure that prescription drugs are affordable, this bill actually prohibits the federal government from negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. Instead of helping seniors obtain affordable prescription drugs, this bill provides partial coverage of drug spending until total costs reach $2,250 and then leaves seniors high and dry. There is a huge gap in coverage where seniors must pay 100 percent out of pocket and continue paying premiums, until they reach a high out-of-pocket cap. Millions of seniors will fall into this gaping hole. I believe seniors deserve affordable drug coverage, and this bill fails to achieve that goal.

Further, this bill takes us down the dangerous road of privatizing Medicare. It is my strong belief that privatization of Medicare is unwarranted. Our Nation's seniors and persons with disabilities have counted on Medicare since it was first enacted in 1965. It has provided health care insurance to the oldest, sickest, and frailest in our society and done so in a cost-efficient manner. Why then, would we seek to dismantle such a successful program? This bill relies on private insurers to provide a prescription drug benefit. Seniors would have to join HMOs and private insurance plans to get the benefit, meaning that premiums and benefits would vary across the country and seniors would not be able to choose their own doctor or pharmacy.

In addition, this bill includes a provision that authorizes a massive ``demonstration'' project that could affect up to 6 million seniors. Starting in the year 2010, this ``demonstration'' project forces Medicare to compete with private plans. This competition is wholly unfair

and on an unlevel playing field. Seniors will be given a voucher to purchase health care insurance, either from Medicare or from private insurers. We know from past experience what will happen: the youngest and healthiest seniors will go to private insurers, leaving the sickest and frailest seniors in Medicare. This will automatically drive up Medicare's costs and will give Republican legislators ammunition for dismantling this program. Make no mistake about it; this massive ``demonstration'' project will be the beginning of the end of Medicare.

Today, we will vote on the most dramatic changes in the Medicare program since its inception. This bill does include unprecedented benefits--unfortunately the benefits will go predominantly to the politically-connected pharmaceutical and insurance industries, rather than to America's seniors who need relief. It saddens me that the legislation we vote on today will not provide seniors with what they need most: comprehensive prescription drug coverage and affordable prices. Seniors need a comprehensive prescription drug benefit that is affordable and dependable for all--with no gaps or gimmicks in coverage. The conference agreement before us fails on all these counts, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this House considered H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Our country has been waiting almost three years for a sound and comprehensive energy bill, and I am sad to say that they will still be waiting if H.R. 6 is signed into law.

It was my hope that rolling blackouts in California three years ago, the terrorist attacks on September 11 two years ago, and the massive blackouts in the northeast this past August would have provided Congress with the will and fortitude to pass a truly comprehensive energy bill. This bill should have presented a clear vision of what our energy policies should be well into the 21st century; provided us with the tools and resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and improve the security of our nation; and made investments in alternative and renewable fuels to provide better answers to our energy needs than simply encouraging more drilling and more pollution. It is crystal clear that H.R. 6 fails on all these counts.

The Republican leadership crafted this 1,700-page bill in secret and sold out to special interests. For months, Republican leaders presided over meetings in which they were supposed to be laying the foundation for the nation's long-term energy priorities. Instead, they chose to negotiate the bill alone, refusing even to tell their Democratic colleagues where or when important sessions were being held. I believe that cowering under the cloak of darkness and cutting backroom deals are not the ways a bill of this magnitude should be debated, discussed, and crafted.

The Energy Policy Act makes a number of changes to our nation's electricity system. The blackouts that wreaked havoc across parts of the Midwest and Northeast four months ago prompted legislators to include much-needed electricity reliability standards in the final bill. I believe this is a good first step in improving the transmission and distribution of the electricity that powers our homes and businesses. Despite this sound provision, H.R. 6 is wrong to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). PUHCA was designed to oversee mergers and prevent power companies from investing in unrelated businesses. PUHCA has been the linchpin in protecting investors and consumers from market fraud and abuse by utilities. By repealing PUHCA and not replacing it with a better alternative, the

risk of future Enron-type abuses increases exponentially and our constituents will be the victims.

I am pleased H.R. 6 does not include language that would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or allow for an inventory of oil reserves in our nation's Outer Continental Shelf--but, any benefits of this bill provides our environment stop there. The bill expedites the approval of permits for drilling and mining on federal lands. H.R. 6 also exempts oil and gas drilling activities from some of the major tenants of the Clean Water Act, such as exempting the industry from certain requirements when they inject diesel fuel and other harmful chemicals underground when drilling.

The most egregious provision of this bill grants the producers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that pollutes underground drinking water, a liability waiver. While the bill phases out the use of MTBE over the next decade, it makes taxpayers pick up the bill for cleaning up the mess. More incredulously, the bill provides the producers of MTBE $2 billion in subsidies to help them convert MTBE into other types of chemicals. I believe this is simply unacceptable. Polluters should be made to clean up and pay for their messes, not the American taxpayer.

Altogether, the energy proposal includes $23 billion in tax giveaways over 10 years and calls for tens of billions of dollars in additional spending. The Republican leadership rejected Senate provisions that would have partially paid for these costs, despite a deficit in the federal budget that could top $500 billion this year. Two-thirds of the tax breaks would go to the oil, natural gas and coal industries, helping to perpetuate the country's dependence on fossil fuels. Less than a quarter of the tax breaks would promote the use and development of renewable-energy sources, and less than a tenth would reward energy efficiency or conservation.

It makes no sense to lavish billions of dollars in subsidies to companies that consistently earn large profits every year. The bill does encourage the use of some alternative fuels such as ethanol--which I strongly support--and $2.5 billion to boost development of hydrogen- powered vehicles. However, the money allocated for renewable and alternative fuel development is a mere pittance of what is given to producers of traditional sources of energy.

This bill is equally bad for what it does not contain: the legislation does almost nothing to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign gas and oil and nothing to reduce global warming. For example, this bill does not increase the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. The bill may even wind up lowering the current 27.5 miles per gallon average since it discourages tougher standards. It also scraps a Senate plan that would have required electric utilities to generate more of their power from renewable sources like wind and solar energy by 2015. Finally, outside of a few provisions on electrical appliances and heating systems, the bill does not significantly encourage energy conservation.

Instead of creating and carrying out a vision in this bill, lawmakers have put together a jigsaw puzzle with hundreds of unrelated pieces crammed together. A few initiatives are worthwhile, but most look more like a laundry list of special-interest subsidies. Together, they do not add up to a policy that I believe will come close to meeting our future energy needs. While it took three years to finish this energy bill, it is my fear that Congress will spend the next several decades fixing the problems this bill could eventually create.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has ably served the House of Representatives and the citizens of Wisconsin for more than 20 years. In the offices of four Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, Andrea Bagley has worked diligently and compassionately to better the lives of our constituents.

Andrea first became a congressional caseworker in 1983, in the office of Representative Steve Gunderson, for whose father she had initially worked as a bookkeeper. In her first case, she helped a young person resolve a problem with a student loan. As a mother of three sons, Andy was already adept at solving problems and offering caring support.

When she began her congressional service, Andy handled roughly 500 cases a year, without benefit of fax machines or computers. It's hard for young staffers to even imagine a world of onion skins and carbon copies or the joy of an electric typewriter with memory. In 20 years, she's seen the technology grow with her caseload . . . to more than a thousand a year, yet she's handled them all with calm persistence. To every constituent with a problem she says, ``We can't guarantee you'll get the answer you want, but we guarantee you'll get fair consideration.'' Thanks to her, they have.

Andy describes her job as being part detective, part problem-solver, part researcher, and part social worker. For every case, she meticulously amasses bits of information, institutional knowledge, documentation, and paper trails to piece together solutions to problems as finely stitched as the elaborate quilts she makes for her dozens of fortunate friends and family.

The gratitude of our constituents is apparent--from the thanks Andy recently received from a man gaining citizenship, to the wedding photos of a bride whose family needed visas to attend the wedding, to the visits of grateful parents and the children they adopted from foreign lands.

Congressmen Gunderson, Klug, and Barrett join me in adding our words of gratitude to Andrea Bagley for her 20 years of honorable service to our offices and our constituents. Selfishly, I wish for many more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 125th anniversary of the Belleville Public Library, in Belleville, Wisconsin. Since 1878, the Belleville Public Library has been providing an invaluable service to the community.

The Belleville Library opened its doors on December 14, 1878 when a local businessman, Henry Story, donated a collection of 133 books. The library's collection has grown over the past 125 years to an impressive 20,000 items, serving the community with print materials, audio books, videos, and CD ROM products. Belleville residents are also fortunate to have access to the library interchange network, a consortium of South Central Wisconsin libraries that operate a shared automation system providing access to over 2 million items.

A public library is a strong component of a democratic society. Providing an equal opportunity for its residents to learn and grow is just one of the many functions a public library serves. In the library's 125 years of service, the Belleville Public Library has provided programs which foster learning for all within the community. The library has consistently encouraged learning through programs catering to all members of the community including summer reading programs for children, book discussions, and biweekly story hours.

For 125 years, the Belleville Public Library has recognized the vital importance of free access to information in a democratic society. I wholeheartedly believe that access to information allows everyone in a community to prepare themselves for the future, experience personal growth, and to perform the civic duties encouraged of all citizens in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today and join the residents of Belleville in honoring the impressive 125 years of service from the Belleville Public Library.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). Our amendment is simple. It would prohibit funds authorized in this bill from being used to acquire the main propulsion diesel engines for the Coast Guard's new fleet of ships in the Integrated Deep Water System, unless the engines are manufactured in the United States of America.

Earlier this year I offered a similar amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. At that time my amendment was not in order; so it did not come up for a vote. But during consideration of my prior amendment to the homeland security bill, a lively debate ensued; and I believe that there was some confusion at that time, and I wanted to take a moment right now to address those misimpressions.

A colleague opposed my amendment, arguing that the diesel engines for the new Coast Guard ships were being made in America and that my amendment was not necessary. The gentleman was incorrect. While it is true that there is a Michigan company that was selected to be the vendor for the propulsion system, I have a letter received from the Coast Guard 2 days after the conclusion of that debate that states clearly that the diesel engines are foreign made. The Coast Guard letter states that the components of the propulsion system ``include MTU Diesels of German design and manufacture.'' So while Detroit Diesel may be the vendor for the whole system, the diesel propulsion engines are designed and made in Germany by German workers, not Michigan or other American workers as the gentleman had claimed.

As we all know, Congress has made a commitment to overhaul the Coast Guard's fleet, phasing out older and obsolete ships and building new ones. It is a large taxpayer investment, one that I am proud to support. But for goodness sake, let us build those ships and all of their components in America.

Our amendment would require that the main propulsion diesel engines, a critical component of this new fleet of large ships, are made in the United States. There are several good U.S. firms with U.S. plants that are ready, willing, and able to provide the diesel engines for the Coast Guard at or below total operation cost of the German-made engines. And in the interest of full disclosure, one of those companies is in Wisconsin. But I also note that the Michigan vendor that I referred to earlier would also qualify for the engine contract under this amendment if it were to pass, if the engines were to be made in Michigan or in other U.S. locations and not in Germany.

Madam Chairman, we are bleeding well-paying, family-supporting manufacturing jobs in this country. Since 2000, we have lost over 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. When manufacturing jobs go away, economic history shows us that it is hard to get them back.

Let me remind Members that these are United States taxpayer dollars. They should be supporting U.S. workers, and not just U.S. CEO's who are contracting out with foreign sister corporations to take these good jobs overseas. Our amendment would help keep some of those jobs here at home, making vital products for vital parts of the defense of our Nation.

Keep in mind, the Coast Guard is part of our homeland defense. Do we want to be reliant on overseas suppliers for essential parts and services for our defense infrastructure, or do we want to produce these important components here at home? I urge Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Wisconsin Citizen Action's 20th Anniversary as the state's leading public interest organization. I am honored to share with you today the accomplishments of this powerful Wisconsin organization.

I applaud Wisconsin Citizen Action's twenty year commitment to political activism for progressive change that benefits all of us in Wisconsin. They have helped pass twenty laws, trained and developed hundreds of citizen leaders, and organized tens of thousands of residents to work for social, economic and environmental justice. Just a few of their recent victories include SeniorCare, a vitally important program to provide seniors with prescription drug coverage, a mining moratorium protecting Wisconsin's precious northwoods against unsafe mining, a tough ordinance for lead poisoning prevention in Milwaukee, and they also obtained a five-fold increase in the funding for the SAGE program, which reduces classroom size for our Wisconsin school children.

As a former Wisconsin Citizen Action board member, I had the privilege of seeing firsthand the truly remarkable impact Wisconsin Citizen Action has had on our great state. Wisconsin Citizen Action has given Wisconsin residents the power to improve their communities. It is through people working together and sharing ideas that social change is achieved, and as these recent accomplishments demonstrate, Wisconsin Citizen Action does just this. I commend this group for their insight and their tireless action in joining the political power of a few with the voices and ideas of many.

Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow Wisconsinites in congratulating Wisconsin Citizen Action on their 20th Anniversary and for their many great achievements. I wish them continued success for another 20 years and beyond.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with a heavy heart. It is weighed down by the many peace and security challenges our nation faces in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Colombia, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, China and Taiwan, and India and Pakistan. It is weighed down by the humanitarian crises we face: famine, displaced persons, AIDS and other health care challenges. And it is also weighed down by the very serious challenges we face here at home: unemployment, budget deficits, the need for affordable health care, improving education for our kids, keeping our promises to our veterans, investing in our infrastructure, guaranteeing Social Security and Medicare, and protecting our homeland and our civil liberties.

I wish we had the ability to work on all of these challenges simultaneously. I wish our leaders in the executive branch and those of us here in Congress could give each of these challenges the focused attention needed to make significant progress.

I wish we had enough resources to pay for a war, rebuild two countries, fight the war on terrorism, stop nuclear proliferation, negotiate peace in the Middle East, stop the spread of AIDS, return refugees to their homes, ensure that every child in every country has food to eat and is vaccinated against preventable diseases. I wish at the same time we could get our economy growing and put people to work. I wish we could give everyone a tax cut without underfunding our health care, education, and homeland security, or borrowing from our retirement and leaving the bill for our children.

I have all of these wishes, but simply wishing will not make it so.

Our job is to listen to the American people as they talk about their needs and their desires, and then set and fund our nation's priorities. Our job is to keep our homeland safe. And our job is to protect our freedom and liberty.

Mr. Chairman, the war in Iraq is the wrong priority, conducted in the wrong way, at the wrong time.

We all were shocked and horrified by the attacks of September 11. All Americans faced a new sense of vulnerability, one that could find them here at home, out of the blue. It was natural for us to be afraid. Our reaction as Americans was to demand action. Our reaction as national leaders was to act to confront the threat and protect our homeland.

All Americans were united in the desire to seek justice by finding and punishing the perpetrators of September 11. The world came together in solidarity with our loss, working with us to find the perpetrators, to break up Al Qaeda, arrest its leaders, and to interrupt the flow of money to terrorists. It should have been crystal clear that fighting terrorism and protecting American security would require friends and allies; cooperation, not confrontation.

Yet, the Bush Administration instead engaged in a singled-minded drive to achieve its Iraq objectives at any cost, instead of developing a policy to deal with Iraq by working with our allies and the entire world community. It is particularly troubling that the very rationale used by the Bush Administration to try to win the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council--the urgent threat of Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction--cannot now be verified. Some in the Bush Administration have even suggested that the imminent threat of WMDs was not the main reason for the war. The shifting justifications for war and the lack of WMD evidence undermines U.S. credibility around the world. If the intelligence that Colin Powell brought before the U.N. Security Council now appears inaccurate, how will future intelligence presented by the U.S. be received? Will it be believed?

Throughout our history, the United States has been viewed by the world as a beacon of freedom and a pillar of democratic principle. Following the devastation of World War II, the United States showed tremendous leadership as we created international institutions and a framework of international law to prevent war and to sustain and maintain peace. We were the leaders in promoting a world where conflicts could be resolved peacefully and cooperatively. While never perfect, this system of international institutions has been remarkably effective. The United States was seen as a constructive force in the world. Right now we are seen by many as a destructive force in the world. That is not the vision for America that I have, and it is not the vision that Americans have.

Many around the world are shocked and dismayed by the unilateral, confrontational approach that the Bush Administration has taken in the world arena. I share their concern. We must recognize the consequences in the world community of our rejection of Kyoto, of the International Criminal Court, of the treaty to ban land mines, our failure to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and our own withdrawal from the ABM treaty. We must be mindful about how our criticism of the UN and NATO are heard throughout the world community. Calling longtime allies ``Old Europe'' is terribly counterproductive. The war in Iraq is seen against this larger backdrop.

I stand here today to urge this President and this Congress to return to our tradition of constructiveness rather than destructiveness. We should be builders rather than destroyers.

Before the war started, I wrote to President Bush asking a series of questions concerning possible U.S. military engagement in Iraq. One question asked was, ``what is the exit strategy and how do we know when the campaign has successfully concluded?'' I still have not received an answer to this critical question, nor have the American people.

In May, the President dramatically declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. It may have made compelling television, but nearly 170,000 American troops are still in Iraq or the immediate region, facing attacks and wondering when they are coming home. No doubt, they are doing the best they can to carry out their mission. All Americans should be proud of their dedication, hard work and professionalism. We must give our troops every tool they need to protect their safety as well as provide them with every possible comfort during their incredible service in this military campaign.

The problem is that the military campaign continues with no end in sight. Since the end of ``major combat operations'' the Bush Administration has been reacting to events and improvising. It is becoming apparent that they still do not have a plan.

And they should have had a plan. Prior to the war, most experts were saying that military conquest was the easy part, rebuilding the peace was the challenge.

While I am very critical of the rosy scenarios painted by the Defense Department, purposely spread to allay the concerns of Americans about the costs and consequences of war, the real problem here is the lack of leadership. It is unacceptable to claim that events in Iraq could not have been anticipated. It is simply not true that the extent of damage to the electrical and water systems in Iraq were unknown. Prior to the war, the United Nations conducted a detailed assessment of Iraq's infrastructure which clearly delineated the problems and the requirements for repair and rebuilding. The report was unheeded.

There was planning for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The State Department organized the ``Future of Iraq Project'' that brought together exiled Iraqis to develop detailed plans for Iraq's economy, security, and governance. A series of working groups completed these comprehensive plans. So what happened to the recommendations of the ``Future of Iraq Project?'' The first civilian in charge of post-war Iraq reconstruction, General Jay Garner, has said publicly that he was instructed to ignore those proposals.

It should be no surprise that so many American troops are still in Iraq attempting to maintain order and begin reconstruction of Iraqi society. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki testified to Congress that ``several hundred thousand soldiers'' would be needed for a year or more. What did Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz say about General Shinseki's estimate? He testified that it was ``wildly off the mark.''

It should be no surprise that the costs of the war and reconstruction are running far higher than suggested by the Administration. When asked about the likely cost of a war with Iraq, then-Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors Lawrence Lindsay said it would cost between $100 million and $200 million. Budget Director Mitch Daniels and economic advisor Glenn Hubbard immediately said the cost would be much less. If we approve this $87 billion request, we'll be approaching $140 million so far. And with no plan, there is no end in sight.

Mr. Chairman, my heart is heavy today because the President of the United States is coming to this Congress and asking us to appropriate $87 billion to a policy without a plan and a military commitment without an exit strategy. The American people have so many questions about our mission in Iraq, but they have received so few answers.

I have no doubt that there has been progress in Iraq. Our servicemen and women are working hard to restore security in the streets. No-bid contractors are working on the electrical system and water treatment facilities. I have heard from Iraqis that progress is being made. But I have also heard their fears and concerns. Despite our best efforts, too many streets are unsafe for women to walk along. Jobs are scarce, leaving people with few options to earn a living. Gas lines are long and telecommunications are mostly inoperable. The problem in Iraq isn't that the stories of our successes are not getting out in American media. The problem is we're not making progress fast enough. No PR campaign will fix the electrical system, purify the water, make the streets safe, restore oil production, reconstitute a representative Iraqi government, create jobs, restore hope, or bring our troops home any sooner. Failure to convey a positive message is not the problem, the policy (or rather lack of policy) is the problem.

Emblematic of the policy failure is the $87 billion emergency supplemental spending request submitted by the Bush Administration. It contained essential funds to support our men and women involved in the military campaign, but even that amount was insufficient in crucial areas like bulletproof vests and spare parts for Bradley fighting vehicles and Humvees. At the same time, the Administration requested: $400 million to construct two new prisons, at a cost of $50,000 per bed; $20 million for a four-week business course at $10,000 per student; $100 million to enroll 100 five-person families in a witness protection program, at a cost of $200,000 per person; $100 million to finance 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity, at a cost of $200,000 per person; $9 million to create zip codes and $4 million to create area codes; $100 million to build seven new model communities; and $900 million to import petroleum products like kerosene and diesel to one of the largest oil producing nations in the world.

The need to import millions of dollars of petroleum products to Iraq speaks volumes about how poorly the administration of post-war Iraq was planned. Officials did not expect oil refineries and pipelines to be sabotaged or U.S. troops to be continually ambushed. Their revenue projections for Iraqi oil production were off the mark. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz testified that oil revenues ``could bring in between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now we know that this year the revenues are only going to be a few billion dollars. Today, Defense Department Comptroller Dov Zakheim told the House Budget Committee that revenues are now projected at $31 billion for the next two years. Even if these oil revenues are achieved, it will not all be available for reconstruction since a large portion will need to be used for essential government services like police, health care, education and transportation.

I am glad that the House Appropriations Committee dropped many of the most outrageous spending items requested by the Administration. However, I still have major concerns about how much of the reconstruction funds will be used. It is impossible to evaluate whether or not, or how much, money is needed in each area.

Iraq's needs are great. It is a country that has gone years under a brutal dictatorship and subject to debilitating international sanctions. By virtue of being the occupying power, under international law, the United States is responsible for what happens in Iraq. We have no choice but to meet our legal responsibility. Beyond legal requirements, we have a moral obligation to help Iraq rebuild. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has said, ``You break it, you buy it.'' By unilaterally attacking Iraq, we have assumed the task of ensuring it is reconstructed.

I hope that the Administration will succeed at the international donor's conference later this month. Iraq needs more help than the United States alone can provide. Debts owed by Iraq, taken out by Saddam Hussein, should be forgiven. Rebuilding Iraq will be hard enough without large debt payments to wealthy countries absorbing Iraq's oil revenues. In deciding to go to war in Iraq with few international allies, the Bush Administration has left the United States in a very difficult situation and with a very large financial obligation. It should be no surprise that those nations that never supported our war with Iraq remain, at this juncture, unwilling to pay for rebuilding it. Because of Iraq's great need, I hope that other countries will reconsider and provide the Iraqi people with the generosity they so desperately need.

Mr. Chairman, the Administration has come back to Congress for $87 billion, on top of the $62.3 billion we previously appropriated. It is difficult for those of us who opposed the President's decision to attack Iraq to now give the Administration a blank check, a down- payment on an occupation without an exit strategy and a rebuilding fund without a real plan. Based on the Administration's track record, this funding request is just the tip of the iceberg.

Recently, Ambassador Paul Bremer, who is the U.S. Administrator for Iraq, said the country would need $100 billion for rebuilding efforts. Only $20 billion of that is included in the President's current $87 billion request for emergency funding. Since current estimates of likely foreign contributions total a few billion dollars at best, there are huge bills coming due just a short way down the road.

The bill we have before us today is inadequate in so many ways. I think that this House could have significantly improved the bill. Many of my colleagues proposed amendments that, if considered, would have improved the bill. The bill could have been improved in many ways, but there are two changes that I believe are essential. First, the bill should require a detailed report from the President describing how funds in the previous war supplemental have been spent, how funds appropriated in this bill will be spent, and the level and types of funding needed for future years for both military and reconstruction activities.

Second, the bill should require that Congress be notified of non- competitive contracting, require a report from the General Accounting Office on accountability, and tighten public disclosure requirements. The initial Iraq reconstruction contracts were issued without a standard competitive bidding process. These contracts went to firms closely connected with the Bush Administration. One large contract went to Brown, Root & Kellogg, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company formerly headed by the Vice President Cheney. The Halliburton, no-bid contract was worth an initial $948 million. Because of this contract, Halliburton has a competitive advantage over other businesses during future rounds of bidding. Another large contract was awarded to Bechtel, a company that is lead by former officials from the first Bush Administration. We need to make sure that every cent of the $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction is awarded fairly and openly.

What is wrong with the House voting on these and other amendments? I wish someone would tell us. Unfortunately, the Republican House leadership used procedural roadblocks to prevent debate on most of these alternatives and improvements. The Administration is going to get the bill they wanted, with few amendments, requirements or limitations. I believe it is a mistake to reward their previous poor estimates, bad planning, withholding of information, and refusal to provide cost estimates with a blank check now. It is time for some accountability.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the Iraq Supplemental must be considered within the context of our national priorities. We do not have unlimited funds to spend. With our federal budget in deficit, every dollar we spend in Iraq is money that we are borrowing from our children.

Even under the most optimistic scenario for Iraq, in which this is the last request for funding, we will add $178 billion to our nation's budget deficit. Of that $178 billion, $66 billion will be interest payments on that debt. A more realistic scenario, in which our military remains in Iraq until the end of 2006, we draw down our force over that period, and we spend an additional $5 billion for reconstruction, would add $238 billion to the debt, $84 billion just in interest.

It's almost surreal to live in a time when our budget deficit is growing by leaps and bounds, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans get massive tax cuts in the midst of economic difficulties, and now this huge unpaid bill is being amassed in Iraq. We have very real domestic priorities that need to be addressed. We must get our people back to work. We must provide funding for ``No Child Left Behind.'' We must to take care of our veterans. We must protect our homeland. Each of their priorities requires resources. The situation in Iraq does not mean that we should not move forward at home.

This Administration spends a lot of time talking about fiscal discipline. Yet they have spent more than any Administration in our nation's history. Instead of fiscal discipline and instead of providing funding for our nation's key priorities, they squandered our budget surplus and continue to amass greater and greater debt to pay for tax cuts that we cannot afford. This does not serve our nation well.

Our funding priorities must include protecting our brave servicemen and women in Iraq and taking care of their families back home with hazard pay and other tools to make the separation easier to bear. This supplemental bill only takes modest steps to help them.

I opposed authorizing the use of force in Iraq. I urged the President to not use that authority after it was granted by Congress. This is not a war that I support. Putting tens of billions of dollars into an inadequate plan with no end in sight makes no sense. I cannot in good conscience vote for this supplemental spending bill. What I suggest is that the Administration go back to the drawing board and work to develop a real plan, with Iraqis, the United Nations and other countries. After we have a real plan, with better cost estimates, the President can come back to us with a detailed proposal.

I strongly support our troops. We must ensure they have the resources they need. It is fortunate that a vote against this bill will not harm our troops. An analysis by the Congressional Research Service estimates that already appropriated funds will last until at least early April 2004. That is plenty of time for this Administration to regroup, figure out what they are doing, and return to Congress with a better proposal.

Mr. Chairman, my vote today will be cast with a heavy heart. But I cast it with confidence that it is the best vote to serve our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the nation's leading providers of health care. The role of SSM Health Care in Wisconsin and throughout the country is deserving of a prestigious award.

SSM Health Care is being honored as one of the esteemed recipients of the 2002 Malcom Baldridge National Quality Award, the Nation's premier award for performance excellence and quality achievement given by the National Institute of Standards and Technology within the Department of Commerce. This is the first time in history a recipient has been named in the health care category.

SSM Health Care offers a wide range of medical services centered around the values of compassion, respect, excellence, stewardship, and community. We all benefit from SSM Health Care taking such an active role in our community. By engaging in great technological advances, community projects and charity care, as well as a continuous exploration into medical research, SSM Health Care has demonstrated true leadership and exceptional skill.

With the increasing aging population in Wisconsin, SSM Health Care has been an important provider of quality medical services, including acute care and nursing home facilities to my constituents. I join the National Institute of Standards and Technology as they recognize SSM Health Care with the Malcom Baldridge National Quality Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a person who is a gifted artisan. Mr. Ron Poast is one of our nation's rare makers of the Hardanger fiddles. Mr. Poast's skill in this art has brought him nationwide acclaim.

Ron has recently been awarded the National Heritage Fellowship Award. This very prestigious award was presented to only 16 artists from across the nation.

The Hardanger fiddle is recognized as the national instrument of Norway. Norwegian cultural influences are prevalent in Mr. Poast's hometown of Black Earth, as they are in much of Wisconsin. Ron's passion for the Hardanger was shaped by his Norwegian-American parents and his grandfathers who were both fiddlers. The Hardanger fiddle has a dragonhead scroll, four bowed violin strings, and five sympathetic understrings that produce a unique droning sound. Before shipping each hand-crafted fiddle that he makes, Ron carefully ``plays it in'' to make sure that it has the right distinctive sound. In addition to his rare talent with the Hardanger, he also makes fine banjos, violins, mandolins, and guitars.

Ron has received wide recognition for his excellence in this craft. At the national level, he was recognized by the Smithsonian Folklife Festival. The Wisconsin State Strings Museum Hall of Fame named him Master Luthier of the Year in 1992, and former Governor Tommy Thompson nominated Mr. Poast for the National Living Treasure of the United States Award. When I served in the Wisconsin State Legislature, a photograph of Mr. Poast's great craftsmanship graced the cover of the State of Wisconsin Telephone Directory, a listing of thousands of state employees and their agencies. In 2000, Ron was given the opportunity to display his beautiful instruments internationally at the Chiba People's Days festival in Makuhari, Japan.

Mr. Speaker, I join the National Endowment for the Arts in recognizing Mr. Poast's achievements and congratulate him as he accepts the National Heritage Fellowship Award.

Mr Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Andersen Library at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater. The library's tradition of excellence well deserves recognition.

Opened on February 25, 1953, the Andersen Library exemplifies the high standards of education valued by the Wisconsin state university system. Throughout its tenure, the library has served the Whitewater community, professors, and students alike in a variety of important capacities. One of the more notable among these capacities has been the library's accumulation of volumes. In 1953, the Andersen library opened its doors with 41,000 volumes. Today, the collection has grown to an impressive 2 million documents including a variety of print, audio- visual, and electronic files. It has been through this accumulation that the outstanding staff has been able to fulfill the library's mission to provide quality research, service, and teaching facilities to the Whitewater community.

Commitment to service is also well demonstrated by the library's annual reception and exhibit of works recognizing UW-Whitewater faculty and staff for their scholarship and creative achievements, Now in its fifteenth year, the program's fascinating exhibits recognize employee work in all media, including print, paint, and photograph.

The library's dedication to service and education is highlighted by the life achievements of its namesake, Harold G. Andersen. Mr. Andersen, a lifelong Whitewater resident and graduate of the class of 1917, was one of the many individuals who committed time and energy to the library's opening. In particular, Mr. Andersen helped move the collection with then-university President Robert C. Williams from the old site to the new library on what I can only imagine was a cold February day.

Perhaps the original dedication program said it best when stating that the Andersen Library was ``planned with an eye to the future.'' Indeed, the library's past, present, and future are vital to the Whitewater community and deserve recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a person who has ably served the national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community for over 8 years: Elizabeth Birch, Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign.

Elizabeth is stepping down from the helm of the Human Rights Campaign, but leaves with many victories won and a strong organization that will continue to move our country forward.

Elizabeth is a visionary. Her ideas and conceptions are remarkable. She conceived the idea of the HRC Youth College--which trains dozens of young LGBT Americans who then work on congressional campaigns. She also created WorkNet, a program that documents the ever-growing number of businesses who understand it is good stewardship, and good business, to treat their LGBT employees fairly. WorkNet also assists employees who want their company to increase its commitment to equality. These are just two examples out of literally hundreds for which Elizabeth deserves credit.

Elizabeth is a leader. When hired by the then-Human Rights Campaign Fund, she was a Californian and not accustomed to the sometimes harsh ways of Washington. As Executive Director, she secured her political footing quickly and HRC's influence continued to grow on Capitol Hill. Because of her leadership, HRC has helped defeat numerous anti-gay measures and advance policies that are based on fairness. When needed, she would take to the public airwaves to remind our leaders in Washington that Americans do not want a government intolerant to its own citizens.

Mr. Speaker, my remarks cannot adequately describe the exceptional work and accomplishments of Elizabeth Birch. She is an extraordinary human being. She is my friend. I am grateful for the leadership she has provided, and she will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievements of the New Glarus Brewing Company of New Glarus, Wisconsin.

Small businesses provide the backbone of the American economy. Opened in 1993 by Daniel and Deborah Carey, the New Glarus Brewing Company has exemplified excellence in small business for ten years. The Careys' commitment to quality is demonstrated not only in the fine products of their successful brewery, but also by the numerous awards they have received.

Since its inception, the New Glarus Brewing Company has won recognition both nationally and internationally for their microbrewed beverages. At this year's Great American Beer Festival, held recently in Denver, Colorado, the Careys' presence was felt among such nationally-known brewing giants as Miller and Anheuser-Busch. Beating out forty-three entries, and in what the Careys called ``. . . the biggest thing we have ever won . . .'', the New Glarus Brewing Company took home gold and silver awards in the fruit and vegetable beer category for their Belgian Red and Raspberry Tart brews, respectively.

Even more impressive than national accolades is the noticeable cultural impact of this fine Wisconsin establishment. A marker of this pervasiveness can be seen in my own office in Washington, D.C. National awards and recognition combined with regional cultural contributions are truly reasons to be proud. An even better reason, however, are the thousands of Wisconsinites who enjoy the Careys' creations. I have had the honor to personally tour the New Glarus brewery. From this tour I learned that top-notch beers, such as Belgian Red and Spotted Cow, require high quality ingredients, outstanding staff, and remarkable ownership.

The Careys' ability to combine product quality and business savvy is commendable and deserves recognition. I am proud to call the New Glarus Brewing Company a true Wisconsin favorite.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the outstanding 100 year legacy of the School of Human Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The School of Human Ecology, originally named the Department of Home Economics, was founded in 1903 based on the hard work and dedication of numerous women important to the history of Wisconsin. Among these forward-thinking individuals were Helen Campbell, an author, reformer and home economist, and Caroline Hunt, a vibrant lecturer, mentor, and advocate of women's role in the field of science.

From these promising beginnings, the School today houses departments that span a variety of study: from Consumer Science to Foods and Nutrition to Human Development and Family Studies. The School is truly integral to the educational opportunities available at this fine state institution.

The School of Human Ecology has been well recognized for its commitment to individuals, families and communities in aiming to improve the quality of life for all citizens. This commitment has been demonstrated by the outstanding tradition of research undertaken by professors and students alike. The research operations of the School are not limited to pure academic undertakings but extend to include numerous outreach programs. The Helen Louise Allen Textile Collection, an example of both research and outreach, houses one of the premier compilations of fabric and textile art and artifacts in the Nation. It is through programs such as this that the School of Human Ecology admirably achieves its dedication to community.

I am proud to rise today and join the University of Wisconsin in honoring the impressive 100 years of accomplishments at the School of Human Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It is truly an honor to acknowledge the School's impressive past and promising future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Raymond G. Boland who served as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs for eleven years.

Throughout his tenure, Secretary Boland initiated a number of programs aimed at bettering the lives of Wisconsin veterans. Although it is impossible to quantify all Secretary Boland has accomplished, I would like to highlight three programs that demonstrate his unyielding dedication to veterans.

The 1994 establishment of the Veterans Assistance Program made great strides towards ending homelessness among veterans. In working to better the lives of veterans and increase job accessibility, Secretary Boland implemented the Troops to Teachers Program in 1995. This important program has allowed veterans with baccalaureate degrees to obtain teaching certification at an accelerated pace. Finally, Secretary Boland's dedication to veterans was demonstrated by his 1998 creation of the Wisconsin Women's Veterans program, which continues to focus on the specific needs of women veterans.

Secretary Boland's outstanding work has not gone unnoticed. In 1997, Secretary Boland received the American Veterans Silver Helmet Award as the Civil Servant of the Year. The following year, he was awarded the Department of the Army Distinguished Civilian Service Medal. Most recently, in recognition of his commitment to ending veteran homelessness, Secretary Boland was presented with the second annual Jerald Washington Memorial Founders' Award by the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans.

I am proud today to stand with the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans of Wisconsin in recognizing Secretary Raymond G. Boland for his outstanding work and dedication to better the lives of veterans.