Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the city and people of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, and their celebration of the life and work of one of the most important artists of the 20th Century, Georgia O'Keeffe.

Georgia O'Keeffe was born on a small dairy farm right outside the city of Sun Prairie-- near Highway T and Town Hall Road--on November 15, 1887. She grew up on the farm together with her parents and six siblings. While growing up she received art lessons both at home and at school, and she was certain she wanted to be an artist by the age of nine. As Georgia's artistic ability grew, she began to receive more advanced training in art, and it eventually became an important part of her life.

Her work was first exhibited in 1916 at the avant-garde gallery, 291, of Alfred Stieglitz. Initially, the famous gallery included only ten of Georgia O'Keeffe's charcoal abstractions, but within a year the gallery stopped showing any other artists and was devoted to exhibiting all of O'Keeffe's works. Not long after Georgia O'Keeffe moved to New York, she and Alfred Stieglitz fell in love and then married in 1924.

Georgia O'Keeffe wanted her art to express as she said ``the wideness and wonder of the world as I live in it.'' Today, everyone can instantly recognize the paintings with intensely colorful large-scale flowers, sun-bleached animal bones, and the dramatic landscapes of the Southwest as Sun Prairie's own Georgia O'Keeffe. She became the most famous American woman artist and an influential modernist, receiving many awards, including medals from two U.S. presidents and ten honorary doctorates.

As a historical marker is dedicated on the spot where Georgia O'Keeffe spent her formative years, I join Sun Prairie in its celebration of the life and contributions of the pioneering artist Georgia O'Keeffe.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the FY 04 Defense Authorization bill.

Since September 11, 2001, our nation has faced the threat of international terrorism.

Every Member of Congress has taken seriously one of our most important responsibilities; protecting the lives and property of all Americans. I have supposed many of President's Bush's initiatives to address the threat posed by Al Qaida and international terrorism when I believed they would enhance our country's security. I have opposed proposals when I believed they would not.

The test of any defense related legislation is: Does it make our country safer? This bill fails that test. In fact, in some ways, this bill will decrease our security.

First, this bill encourages nuclear proliferation. This bill will eliminate the prohibition on the research, development and deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons, even as the United States works to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons elsewhere. The list of countries with nuclear weapons keeps growing: the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan. Now North Korea has them. Who's next? The United States committed to work toward disarmament when the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) went into effect in 1972. We should be taking bold steps toward ending the threat of nuclear holocaust once and for all, not creating new ones.

The United States must show leadership by refraining from the use of nuclear weapons. Developing new ones sends exactly the opposite message. By continuing the development of new nuclear weapons at the same time we are trying to convince other nations to abstain from such weapons, we undermine our credibility to fight proliferation. Now is not the time to send an ambiguous non-proliferation message to those nations who would try to join the nuclear club.

These ``tactical'' nuclear weapons are not needed for our defense. Conventional ``bunker buster'' bombs have been used and additional research is ongoing to improve their effectivess. A ``robust earth penetrator'' would not be a targeted ``smart bomb,'' since fallout would harm human beings in the area of the blast. One that successfully penetrates deep enough to contain the fallout would need to have sufficient explosive power to no longer be considered a ``mini'' or tactical nuclear weapon. The only permanent solution to the nuclear threat is to eliminate these weapons entirely through a global legal commitment, backed by strong oversight and enforcement mechanisms.

Second, the overall spending level in this bill is excessive. This will be the largest defense budget in the history of the United States. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment has calculated that it is 10 percent higher in real terms than the average military budget during the Cold War. At $400.5 billion, this bill is $7.6 billion higher than the current authorized level. It represents 51 percent of Fiscal Year 2004 discretionary spending. The first Defense Authorization bill passed after I was elected to Congress in 1998 was the FY 2000 bill. That legislation authorized $291.0 billion.

Clearly we are the preeminent military power in the world. Our military spending is 8 times as large as the next largest military-- Russia. No other nation, or collection of nations, is anywhere close to being able to challenge American military power. Continuing to increase our military spending beyond the rate of inflation and in a time of budget deficits and a stagnant economy is not a wise use of taxpayer dollars. We can be safe without spending more.

Before significantly increasing defense spending, we need to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse within the department. The department's inspector general found that the department could not account for more than $1 trillion in spending. Yes, $1 trillion. That's two and half yearly defense budgets. A General Accounting Office report found that the Army could not account for 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 missile command launch-units. The GAO found that the department has 2,200 overlapping accounting systems which cost a total of $18 billion per year. $18 billion, and apparently they don't even work. The GAO estimates there is at least $20 billion in savings that could be found in the defense budget.

Third, this bill continues funding for weapons systems that are expensive and unnecessary. The bill would authorize $1.05 billion to purchase 9 new MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and continue program research and development. This aircraft has had continuing design problems that have already cost us $15 billion, four crashes and the lives of 23 Marines. We don't need these planes. We also do not need the F-22 Raptor. Like the Osprey, it has continuing technical problems and cost overruns. Each aircraft costs $260 million. We could save $3.5 billion if we did not purchase the proposed 22 this year.

The bill also makes it harder to close unneeded military bases. We have and will continue to restructure our forces to meet our new security needs. That process requires us to reduce our expenses by closing excess bases. Keeping unnecessary bases open wastes valuable defense dollars that could be used to enhance our security.

Perhaps the biggest boondoggle in the defense budget is the national missile defense system. The bill calls for $9.1 billion to continue research, development and initial deployment in Alaska. Each year we put more and more resources into this unproven technology that does not address the most likely threats from weapons of mass destruction. Is a nuclear weapon likely to arrive on an intercontinental ballistic missile? Homeland security experts don't believe so. They are worried about our ports and our borders. The GAO found that ``an effective port security environment may be many years away.'' The U.S. maritime system consists of more than 300 sea and river ports with more than 3,700 cargo and passenger terminals. In excess of 6 million transport containers enter our ports each year. With $9.1 billion we could secure our ports, and have money left over to address other urgent homeland security needs like funding for first responders, research on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons detection, improving our border security, and providing more resources for non-proliferation efforts overseas. These should be our priorities.

Fourth, the bill includes many unwise, inappropriate and unnecessary provisions. The bill would exempt the Department of Defense from certain aspects of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. These laws already contain exemptions in cases where national security is at stake. Both the General Accounting Office and EPA Administrator Whitman have testified that environmental laws have not affected military readiness. This provision will undermine our environmental laws and threaten endangered species.

The bill gives the Secretary of Defense unprecedented ability to bypass civil service personnel rules and establish new personnel systems. Civil service rules were established to protect workers and protect the public interest by ensuring that fair rules and professionalism replace political favoritism and cronyism. The Bush Administration submitted this sweeping and unprecedented request at the last minute. We don't even know what kind of system the Secretary of Defense intends to create. Any major change like this one requires extensive hearings and in-depth analysis before Congress makes a decision. We should not be railroaded into dismantling an effective, honest civil service system. Furthermore, we should not give a blank check to the Administration in designing this system.

Finally, I am concerned about the continued funding of counter- narcotics military operations in Colombia. The involvement of our military in Colombia's civil war is counterproductive and dangerous. This bill allows counter-narcotics funding and equipment to be used by the Colombian government to fight its civil war. This policy should come to an end.

Mr. Chairman, we can keep our nation secure. Unfortunately, this defense authorization bill does not do so. This defense budget wastes money. If I believed that the increased expenditures were appropriately focused on paying our brave servicemen and women what they deserve and increasing their readiness, I would support it. But this defense budget is targeted at the wrong threats. This defense budget sets the wrong priorities.

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

Mr. Speaker, no one doubts the need to reduce the threat of forest fires after last summer, when our country experienced the second-worst fire season in 50 years. However, H.R. 1904 is not the answer, and, contrary to its name, does little to make our forests healthier.

Sections 106 and 107 of this bill make unwise changes to the Federal appeals and judicial review process. Under the guise of expediting fire control programs, the intent of these two sections is clear: to limit public input and to shift the review authority from an independent judiciary toward Federal agencies run by political appointees.

Section 106 of this bill would limit the amount of time the public has to file a legal challenge to a mere 15 days, inclusive of holidays and weekend days. Clearly, this time limit is not long enough for someone to grasp and analyze how a project will affect the health of their family and the communities around them.

Ironically, this provision could exacerbate the problem it proposes to address. I suspect more people might dash up the courtroom steps and file preemptive lawsuits against projects, since failing to do so closes the door thereafter.

Section 106 also attempts to limit the time judges have to review cases and mandates that they inform congressional committees whenever they extend injunctions beyond 45 days. Besides making judges postpone other important cases, like criminal matters, civil rights or terrorism, this provision makes judges subject to constant legislative scrutiny.

Section 107 also seeks an unwise change in American legal standards by requiring courts to give unprecedented deference to Federal agency findings when considering whether to grant a restraining order or injunction. This provision would essentially allow the executive branch agencies to decide what is in the public's best interest without taking the concerns of judges or communities into consideration.

This so-called Healthy Forests Restoration Act is anything but. It is yet another example of the Bush administration rolling back our environmental protections. Now is the time for those who understand how important the environment is for future generations to stand up to this administration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to myself to respond to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke made reference to earlier remarks I had claimed on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary.

As you may be aware, the Committee on the Judiciary received referral on this bill for sections 105 through 108, a very narrow part, to engage in scrutiny in what we believe is our area of expertise. And I would certainly defer to the gentleman on his areas of expertise. But you may or may not be aware that numerous civil rights organizations in this country have taken a strong stance against those provisions. I specifically spoke to sections 106 and 107 of the bill that create a new sort of inequality, a tipping of the scales, an unevening of the playing field which I find very dangerous in terms of a precedent.

What this bill does in those provisions is it tilts the playing field by giving executive agencies with political appointees greater weight on the issue of injunctive relief and other provisions than the public or other parties. And that is a slippery slope that I think we should not go down. I certainly object to the gentleman's characterizations of my understanding of those provisions in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, Congress just does not get it. That is exactly what I would be thinking if I was one of the 14,400 workers in my home State of Wisconsin or the 1 million workers nationwide who are unemployed and are about to exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits in 2 weeks. I cannot imagine the frustration these workers must feel after months of looking for jobs with little to no success, only to come home after a long day of looking for work to pick up a paper and read that the House of Representatives adjourned after another week of light legislative work without extending unemployment benefits.

Earlier this week more than 80 employees at Riverwood International Corporation, a beverage carton plant in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, were told that they were losing their jobs. This is just one example of many companies in Wisconsin that have decided to close their doors for good. Wisconsin had the third highest number of massive layoff claims this past March.

Congress should stay here and extend unemployment benefits.

Mr. Chairman, last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the unemployment rate rose to 6 percent. In my home state of Wisconsin, we had the fourth highest number of massive layoffs in the country behind much larger states like California and Texas. Sadly, it seems like many here in Washington have gotten used to these grim statistics; after all, under the economic stewardship of President Bush we've lost close to more than 2.7 million jobs since he took office. We have been losing 73,000 jobs a month, which accounts for President Bush having the worst jobs creation record of any President in U.S. history.

We can't count on the stewardship of the Bush administration to get America back to work. It has become clear that this Congress needs to step up and put the task squarely upon its shoulders. This week we have a chance to do this as we take up the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the proposed tax cut. Both of these bills are important in how we not only help people find and maintain jobs, but how we will create new ones. However, I believe we may miss our opportunity to accomplish these goals unless both bills are torn up and rewritten. Today, I would like to specifically talk about the WIA.

The WIA was signed into law in 1998 with the intent of cementing the Federal government's commitment in helping states improve their employment, training, literacy, and vocational rehabilitation programs. Before the act was signed into law, states had a fragmented and duplicative number of programs that were meant to help prepare workers for jobs and to assist them in their searches.

Since its inception, thousands of displaced workers, veterans, and young adults have taken part in--and relied on--programs implemented by the WIA. The ``one-stop'' system created by WIA has provided them with consolidated services, such as job retraining classes, to get them out of unemployment lines and back onto the payrolls. Title II of the Act has played a critical role in helping adults with low-literacy, basic skill levels and limited English proficiency, by providing them with the training, tools and skills necessary to compete in today's knowledge-driven workforce.

The bill before us today takes the progress made over the last four years and stops it in its tracks. The WIA was custom designed to be effective in an economic downturn like the one we are experiencing now. American workers need the WIA strengthened, not scaled back, but that's exactly what the House Republicans want to do.

Those who have are unemployed will run out of unemployment insurance benefits in 23 days. The last time we extended unemployment benefits was shortly after Christmas and the holidays--when many people had already run out of benefits. For many families, the restoration of benefits was too little, too late. By not including the extension of unemployment benefits in this bill, we will in all likelihood delay helping workers who need it most. Not only does this diminish the original intent of this legislation, but it's also a slap in the face

to the unemployed moms and dads who will to worry if they will be able to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. This is just wrong.

The bill today also block grants adult, dislocated worker, and employment service funding streams. In doing so, the bill would eliminate the funding focus for dislocated workers and terminates the existence of the employment service--the very service which connects individuals to jobs. By block granting the money, it also permits Governors to take funds from partner programs such as Adult Education, and Veterans Reemployment and job training programs for individuals with disabilities to fund other state workforce programs or other administrative costs. Governors would be allowed to take any amount of funding from any of these programs. Given the fact that 45 states have budget deficits, I believe the opportunity to use these funds for other purposes will be too tempting of a fruit for Governors not to pick.

To make matters worse, the bill removes a civil-rights protection that bans employment discrimination based on religious affiliation. This bill allows organizations receiving funds--taxpayers dollars-- through WIA to discriminate in hiring based on religion. I believe this provision only serves to politicize the debate surrounding this bill and takes away from the debate we should be having, which is that we should be doing everything we can to help any unemployed worker find a job, not making it easier to discriminate against someone because of what they believe.

The WIA has played a critical role in coordinating state efforts to find people jobs and provide essential services to some of our most vulnerable citizens. At a time when our President's economic plan continues to fail in creating jobs and putting our economy back on the right track, now is not the time to weaken the WIA. I urge my colleagues to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 1261 and to bring a better bill--one that reflects Congress' commitment to putting Americans back to work-- to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, what are the tests that an economic stimulus package should pass in order for us to conclude that it will be successful?

An economic stimulus plan should be fair, should be fast acting, it should be fiscally responsible, like our Democratic plan is. We all know the Republican tax plan does not meet any of these criteria. That is why they have essentially given up claiming that it is a stimulus package.

No matter how many gimmicks the Republican tax cut plan uses, the one thing it cannot hide is the fact that this bill predominantly benefits the very wealthy. Like the first Bush tax cut passed in the summer of 2001, it seems custom designed by and primarily for the benefit of the very wealthiest of Americans.

Today I would like to show how different people fare under the House Republican budget proposal. I guess it all boils down to who you are and what you do. For example, are you a prize fighter or a firefighter? A prize fighter, like Mike Tyson, had reported earnings of $48 million last year. He stands to gain well over a $100,000 from the House Republican plan. While a firefighter making an average salary of roughly $35,000 will save $332 through the Republican tax cut. $100,000 is the absolute minimum that millionaires will receive from the tax cut passed earlier today. Most will receive a lot more.

How will other people fare under the Republican tax cut? Well, again, it depends on who you are. Are you the Terminator or an average exterminator? Arnold Schwarzenegger will gain in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from this tax cut while the average exterminator could save about $452. Yes, it all depends on who you are.

Are you a Texas Ranger or a forest ranger? This year Alex Rodriguez will earn $23 million playing shortstop for the Texas Rangers while the typical forest ranger will make a little over $21,000. Alex would scoop up way more than a hundred thousand dollars in tax savings. The forest ranger, he might pocket a little less than $200.

Well, are you a recording artist or a tattoo artist? Music artist Britney Spears' tax savings compares quite handsomely with tattoo artist Rene Mezechenko. Rene's tax cut will be around $300. Britney's will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It all depends on who you are.

Are you an executive officer or an executive assistant? Jeffrey Barbakow, CEO of Tenent Healthcare made $115,600,000 last year, according to the New York Times. Pamela Taylor, an executive assistant, made $39,000. Pamela's tax cut will be $452.

You get the picture. Those who need tax relief the most are getting the least. Congress should stop pandering to the rich special interests and get around to the tasks of putting Americans back to work.

Now, I have had a little bit of fun with these pairings, but this is serious business. I represent a lot of people who hold jobs with titles like firefighter, executive assistant, factory worker, store clerk, nurse, and teacher. I also represent a lot of people who have recently lost their jobs in this turbulent economy. None of these folks are calling me on the phone to beg for a dividend tax cut. They are calling me to say put Wisconsin back to work. Put America back to work and do so in a way that is fair, fast acting, and fiscally responsible. That is what the Democratic plan would do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my constituents and everyone across America to participate in the National Association of Letter Carriers' 11th Annual National Food Drive, which will take place on May 10th of this year. Every year, on the second Saturday of May, the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) collects non- perishable goods that generous people have donated to those in need.

Those interested in donating should place a non-perishable food item near their mailboxes or bring it to their local post office. All of the donations will be distributed to local food banks, shelters, and pantries to help people in need in the local community. This is a great opportunity to share with people right in our local communities.

Over the past ten years, the NALC has collected over half of a billion pounds of food for those less fortunate. In 2002 alone, over 60 million pounds of food was collected. Nearly 1,500 offices of the NALC--in every state in the nation--will be involved in the drive. In fact, it is part of the largest one day food drive in the nation. This is an impressive record. I hope that everyone who is able to participate will contribute what they can, and that this year's food drive will be the most successful ever.

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2001, the President and some Members of Congress told the American people that we could afford a $1.6 trillion tax cut that was custom designed by, and primarily for, our wealthiest citizens, and still we would have money left over to shore up Social Security and Medicare, make investments in our education system, so that no child would be left behind. And still, we would have enough money left over beyond that to pay down our national debt.

Well, today we know that that was not true. Except for the passage of the tax cut, none of the rest of those things happened. And to make matters worse, the tax cut left no room for unexpected events like the terrorist attacks on September 11 or the economic downturn that our country is still experiencing. Projected surpluses have been replaced by deficits as far as the eye can see.

Fast forward 2 years to today and this Congress is debating yet another tax cut. President Bush has made ending double taxation of corporate dividends the centerpiece of his $1.4 trillion package, because he says that this tax is contraindicated by certain economic models.

Well, since January of 2001, our country has lost more than 2.3 million jobs, an average of 73,000 jobs per month. And the long-term unemployment level is the same as it was during the recession under the first Bush administration.

Now is not the time to have philosophical debates about economic models. Now is the time for this President and Congress to be acting on measures that would truly put America back to work.

The President said in an April 15 speech that Congress needed to take quick action on his plan to get the economy back on track. Well, I agree with the President that we must act quickly on a plan; but not the President's plan, because it is not a stimulus plan. His package provides no immediate stimulus and fails to create jobs. Studies predict that in the year 2003, the President's plan would only restore a small number of the jobs recently lost in our economy. Moreover, only about 5.5 percent of the President's plan would go into effect in calendar year 2003, while nearly 80 percent of the plan would be phased in in the future during the years 2005 through 2013. Well, people need jobs now. They cannot wait 2 weeks, let alone 2 years.

There is good reason why Americans are not sold on the President's tax cut. They realize that it is cast in the same mold as the first one, which was too much for too few. The President is proposing to accelerate the reduction of the 4 top income tax rates that was part of his original tax package.

Well, if you are a policeman, a forest ranger, an average service or retail sector employee, or one of our Nation's 400,000 enlisted servicemen or women, you would receive no tax relief from any sort of acceleration of these marginal tax rates. But consider yourself blessed if you are a professional athlete, for example, playing football, basketball, or hockey. Combined, these particular 4,000 professional athletes would get approximately $240 million in tax relief if this plan were signed into law.

The democratic economic stimulus plan is fast-acting, it is fair, and it is fiscally responsible. The entire $136 billion stimulus package would be injected into the economy right away, this year. It would also extend benefits for unemployed Americans whose emergency benefits right now are going

to expire on May 31. Most importantly, it would provide tax relief to all Americans. It was designed for average working families, not just the wealthiest investors.

Congress just had a 2-week break where most of us could spend extended time meeting with our constituents. I like to ask my colleagues after a recess if their constituents are concerned about the same issues that mine care about in Wisconsin. Most of the time, our constituents' concerns are very similar. That is why it is hard for me to believe now that Congress can fathom this fiscally irresponsible and misguided tax cut.

When I have talked to unemployed workers in my district, they certainly have not come up to me pleading for accelerated tax cuts. They have asked how Congress plans to help put them and the rest of America back to work. They have asked for help in getting temporary health care coverage for their kids and their families in case they get sick. My constituents wonder if Medicare is going to be able to provide their parents health care or when their kids grow up, if they will be able to find a job that pays a livable wage. They are worried, and they should be. They should worry, because this budget places tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of job creation for families. They should worry, because this budget adds over $5 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

This budget takes our country down the wrong path. While some Members of Congress complain about how long our budget and fiscal process is every year, I believe it is a good thing. It means we still have time to craft a better plan, one that does not put the fiscal health of our economy and the livelihood of our communities and our families and the ability of our children to have a better life in jeopardy. We must tackle that task.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Michael B. Kitchen, an outstanding business and community leader. On May 17, 2003, the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations will bestow upon Mr. Kitchen the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in New York City. The Ellis Island Award honors an immigrant who exemplifies outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional life. Michael Kitchen, a Canadian and United States citizen, has shown through his significant contributions to the greater Madison area that he is richly deserving of this prestigious award.

Michael Kitchen has achieved a high level of professional success. After three years as head of the CUMIS Group of Canada, Mr. Kitchen was appointed President and CEO of its subsidiary, CUNA Mutual Group, in 1995. Since Michael Kitchen took over, the organization has achieved dramatic growth in revenue, significant improvement in productivity, and a near doubling of financial strength. Mr. Kitchen's work in this particular field has furthered economic growth not only in the Madison community, but worldwide.

Michael Kitchen is firmly committed to furthering the insurance and financial service industry. For more then thirty years he has worked tirelessly to foster the credit union movement. He serves on both the Board of Directors for the American Insurance Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In addition, Michael Kitchen has a long record of service to the community. He is on the board of directors for the United Way of Dane County and the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce. Both of these commitments show his strong sense of civic duty as he generously gives of his time and talent.

Today, I join the extensive circle of Michael Kitchen's friends and colleagues in offering my sincere congratulations for receiving this honor. Michael Kitchen is one of Wisconsin's best and we are proud to recognize him today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Joann Orfan, who has been a tireless civil servant in the great city of Sun Prairie for over twenty years. This spring, much to the regret of the Sun Prairie residents, Mrs. Orfan will be retiring from her post as Mayor. The indelible mark that Joann Orfan has left on the city will be long felt after her tenure as Mayor is over.

Joann has described herself as a farm girl from Nebraska who sought to find a city with small town values to settle down in and raise her family. While Sun Prairie is the third largest city in the Second District of Wisconsin, it has been able to retain a friendly, small town appeal. Through her hard work over the last twenty years Sun Prairie continues to be a great place to raise a family.

Joann Orfan has served the city in many capacities. She began serving as Mayor in May of 1990 after being a member of the Sun Prairie City Council for sixteen years. While serving on the City Council, she was a leader on the Planning and Zoning Committee. Joann was a charter member of the Prairie Industrial Corporation, a member of the Chamber of Commerce, and has on the Colonial Club Long Range Planning Committee. Each decision she made in these various positions has shaped Sun Prairie into a town that all residents can be proud of.

Since October of 2002, Joann Orfan has been confined to a wheelchair as a result of neuropathy in both her legs. With the same spirit, strength and courage that the people of Sun Prairie have seen so many times she has taken on this new challenge. As Joann Orfan retires as Mayor, the people of Sun Prairie will miss her leadership, but Joann's friends and family look forward to spending more time with her. Today, I join Joann Orfan's friends, family, and colleagues in sincerely thanking her for her service to Sun Prairie and its residents.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments, and I also want to express my appreciation for the distinguished ranking member for yielding to me this evening.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget is the most irresponsible I have seen. Their proposal makes deep cuts in numerous important programs, such as veterans health, as we have heard earlier this evening, and education programs to make way for a tax cut that was custom designed to benefit the very wealthy, a tax cut that would give almost 2 million Wisconsinites less than $100 each.

This budget will also add more than $800 billion to our national debt over the next decade. An average family of four would pay $4,500 in taxes this year just to satisfy their portion of the interest on our rising debt. Do not tell my constituents in Fort Atkinson or Beloit, Wisconsin, that deficits do not matter. Deficits are a hidden tax that affects the bottom line of every household.

But to make matters worse, the Republican budget fails to address the health care crisis that plagues our cash-strapped States. While the Republican budget impacts a number of important health programs, perhaps one of the most negatively affected is Medicaid. Republicans have proposed cuts totaling nearly $100 billion to Medicaid over the next decade. If enacted, these cuts will be nothing short of devastating to some of America's most vulnerable citizens.

Nearly 5 million of our poorest seniors currently rely on Medicaid for nursing home care, prescription drugs, assistance with Medicare out-of-pocket expenses, and other services. An increasing number of seniors will need Medicaid in the coming years as your baby boom generation retires. Republican cuts could leave millions of seniors with nowhere else to turn.

Medicaid is also the Nation's single largest payer of children's health care. Combined with the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, Medicaid is the Nation's foremost health care safety net for children. Today, in America, over 6.7 million children lack health insurance. To me, this is simply unacceptable. These children need immediate preventive care and regular medical care to set them on a path to become healthy adults. The proposed Republican cuts would put dangerous obstacles along this path.

With States facing record deficits of nearly $80 billion this year alone, now is not the time to pare back the Federal government's commitment to helping States improve the health of their communities with these devastating cuts to Medicaid. Republicans recently buckled under intense pressure from their constituents and restored over $200 billion in proposed cuts to Medicare just hours before the resolution was taken up before this House.

While the House-passed budget appears to back away from earlier calls for Medicare cuts, it still requires the Committee on Ways and Means to make undesignated cuts of $62 billion and the Committee on Energy and Commerce to make undesignated cuts of $107 billion over 10 years. And there is absolutely no language in the budget resolution that protects the Medicare program against these cuts within those committees.

The cuts to Medicaid and possibly to Medicare to pay for another large tax cut has been justified by Republicans who say it will stimulate the economy. Well, I have talked to small business owners and most have not mentioned dividend tax cuts at all. Instead, they have pleaded for Congress to do something about the high cost of providing health insurance to their employees. They have explained to me that they may not be able to afford coverage for much longer. And when I have talked to unemployed workers, they have not asked me to accelerate tax cuts. Instead, they have asked me how they can afford to maintain health coverage for themselves and their families and how Congress plans to help them put the rest of America back to work.

It is my hope that conferees emerge this week with a budget that is better for all Americans, one that makes progress on the difficult challenges that face our Nation, problems like the rising cost of health care, problems like the loss of quality jobs, rather than providing a tax cut that few are asking for and far too few would ever receive.

Mr. Speaker, I once again would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who is a champion of health care for all.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern Amendment. The war on drugs in Colombia should not receive funding in an emergency supplemental spending bill. Additional funding for Colombia should properly be considered as part of our regular appropriations process for fiscal year 2004. Muddling the important issues at stake in Colombia with an amorphous definition of terrorism and then burying the funding in a bill that is on a fast-track is not the way we should proceed.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

The balance of my remarks relate to the underlying issue of war in Iraq and this Supplemental Appropriations bill.

I am one of the 133 Members of this body who cast a ``no'' vote on the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq last October. I believed then as I do today that alternative means exist to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I believed then as I do today that the world will not be a safer place because of this war. I believed then as I do today that the new Bush doctrine of preemptive military action threatens to further destabilize our world.

For those of us who voted against war in Iraq, this is an incredibly painful and difficult time. Many of our constituents are feeling angry and frustrated, powerless and hurt, worried and disappointed. We've been searching for ways to take meaningful steps toward peace, having failed to convince this President, a majority of this Congress and a majority of the American people that war in Iraq is not the right path. When I refer to the phrase ``meaningful steps toward peace,'' I have three very specific goals in mind. First, I deeply believe that the Bush policy of preemptive war must end, here and now.

Secondly, I believe that we must take immediate responsibility for rebuilding strong trusting relationships with the international community because too many of these relationships have been strained and damaged when this administration turned away from pursuit of a diplomatic resolution to this problem. Lastly, I believe that we must take immediate responsibility for rebuilding Iraq.

Throughout our history, the United States has been viewed by the world as a beacon of freedom and a pillar of democratic principle. While never perfect, we were admired for our openness, our charity and our commitment to liberty. Weary of war, we created, supported and enhanced international institutions and agreements to encourage peaceful solutions to world disagreements and conflicts. 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.

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.

A vote against this bill would do nothing to stop this war. If a ``no'' vote would stop the war, that is how I would vote. Rather, I urge Members and citizens to join me in the effort to become constructive as a nation, once again, to become builders, once again. This measure does contain resources to begin the rebuilding process. In light of these considerations, I expect to cast a vote to pass this bill.

We must rebuild and restore our relationships with our allies and our friends around the world. Our long term security rests in working cooperatively in a world community with international standards and laws, seeking peaceful solutions to the many challenges we face.

We must also rebuild Iraq. We can't back away now. American compassion, generosity and respect in Iraq are the essential first step in restoring trust between the United States and the Islamic world.

I said that we must construct and we must build rather than destroy. But, I make one exception to that statement. We must destroy

the doctrine of preemption. In fact the policy of preemption must be buried deep beneath the Iraqi desert, never to appear again. It is illegal and wrong and it harms American security far more than it helps. Beyond preemption lies the American way--democracy, diplomacy, cooperation and compassion.

Mr. Chairman, peace is not simply the absence of war. The seeds of peace must be planted and nurtured. A peaceful world must be tended. It is my hope that it is the rebirth of our true vision of America, in which we reject the ``got-it-alone'' mentality, reject preemption and endorse the hard work of building and growing a peaceful world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Dorothy Shannon, one of Wisconsin's most passionate progressive leaders and a model of civic activism. For over 50 years, Dorothy Shannon was on the front line of every Federal and State election in Wisconsin. She was a tireless supporter of progressive causes. Everyone who knew her remembers her fondly and she will be greatly missed.

Dorothy Shannon was born in Toledo, OH in 1918. Her father worked for the National Supply Company in charge of the shipping department. But when the great depression hit, he was among the millions of Americans who found themselves without a job. After enduring many hard years, Dorothy was given hope with the election of President Roosevelt. Her father found work with Roosevelt's Public Works Administration turning a landfill into a public park. As the nation listened to Roosevelt's ``fireside chats,'' Dorothy's political fire was kindled.

In 1936, Dorothy went to college on another of Roosevelt's creations, a National Youth Administration Scholarship. During World War II she volunteered for the Navy's Women Appointed for Voluntary Emergency Service. After serving our country, she attended graduate school at Yale, where she met Ted Shannon, who would later become her husband.

The Shannons moved to Madison in 1950 when Ted found a job with the University of Wisconsin. They played a key role in shaping the modern day Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Even while raising three children, Dorothy never stopped volunteering. Whether marching at a peace rally or attending a League of Women Voters event, she was recognized everywhere as a passionate voice for progressive Democrats. In 2000, she was honored as the oldest delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

When I close my eyes, I can see Dorothy Shannon sitting in the front row of nearly every political debate, every community forum, and every Democratic Party event. She cared so deeply about public affairs-- whether they involved local or global issues. If ever there was an embodiment of civic participation, it was Dorothy Shannon.

Mr. Speaker, men and women in our armed forces are engaged in battle in Iraq. These volunteers pledged their lives to protect and defend the United States of America.

No words can express the gratitude that I have for their willingness to sacrifice and to risk their lives in a foreign land, far from home. No words can express the compassion and empathy I have for their families and friends, who must carry on with their lives while worrying about their loved ones. Our country must always recognize and honor the loyalty, courage, and commitment of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. I do so today and every day that they are in harm's way.

It is not only our regular military forces who are engaged in this war. National Guard and Reserve units from every state in the union have been called to active duty to serve our country. They have left their jobs and their homes, their husbands and wives, their daughters and sons. They join a long American tradition of citizen soldiers. From the Revolutionary War's Minute Men to the Doughboy's of World War I, from Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders to Vietnam's Green Berets, Americans have answered the call to serve. I am thankful for their courage and sacrifice.

Honoring our men and women in uniform is absolutely the right thing to do. This Congress must recognize and praise our fellow citizens who are placing their lives on the line. It is for this reason that I voted in favor of H. Con. Res. 104. I completely agree with the main message of the resolution: ``unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation . . . to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism, and bravery; and to the families of the United States military personnel serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are providing support and prayers for their loved ones currently engaged in military operations in Iraq.''

I do have significant reservations about other language contained in the resolution, particularly language in the preamble. I strongly disagree with the section of the resolution that notes the President's notice to Congress that ``reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' In the absence of an imminent threat to the United States, working with our allies and other nations to address this threat is the appropriate way to proceed. While the Administration made efforts to engage the world in support of weapons inspections, they did not exhaust means short of war, prior to commencing military action.

I do not support the concept of preemptive military action, without an imminent threat to our national security and American lives. The Administration's preemption doctrine sets a dangerous precedent, and dramatically lowers the threshold for the use of military force. Is a first strike how we will approach the nearly 30 other countries that possess or are developing weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them? And how will we speak with any moral authority to other sovereign nations who seek to take things into their own hands against other states?

I also disagree with the President's linkage of war in Iraq to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Administration has failed to establish this linkage with any convincing evidence. It is wrong to continue to cloud this critical distinction in the minds of the American people. It also undermines our nation's credibility in the world. I reject the assertion in the resolution's preamble that the ``use of military force against Iraq is consistent with necessary ongoing efforts by the United States and other countries against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.''

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Majority chose to politicize this resolution in support of the troops. This should have been a clean resolution that focused solely on our deep appreciation for our men and women in uniform and their families. Such a resolution would have commanded a unanimous vote of this House, showing our national unity, and conveyed to our troops our unequivocal support for them.

I voted in favor of the resolution, despite my fundamental disagreement with these extraneous provisions, because I felt it was more important to stand in solidarity with our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. My vote is not an endorsement of any other sentiments contained within the resolution, nor should it be construed that way.

I continue to believe that war is not the answer to the threat of Saddam Hussein. I have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I cannot, and will not, simply delegate the responsibility to the President of the United States. As a Member of Congress, I have a responsibility to review the conduct of the war, engage in the policy debate, and cast my vote in the best interests of my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, some will say that questioning the Administration in a time of war is unpatriotic and dangerous to the war effort. My oath compels me to disagree. A democratic country must always have a debate, must always have questions raised, and Congress must never become a rubber stamp.

I am not the first patriotic American to believe this, and I will not be the last. I would like to quote a man known as ``Mr. Republican'' when he served honorably in the U.S. Senate for many, many years. Senator Robert Taft of Ohio understood that maintaining democracy in time of war requires debate. Two weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 19, 1941, he said:

Of course that criticism should not give any information to

the enemy. But too many people desire to suppress criticism

simply because they think that it will give some comfort to

the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that

comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they

are welcome to it as far as I'm concerned, because the

maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do

the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it

will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might

otherwise occur.

I fervently hope for a short military engagement, minimal civilian casualties, and the safe return of American men and women in uniform. Over the past several months, I have heard from thousands of people from throughout my district concerning the situation in Iraq. Nearly everyone expressed their concerns about the uncertainties of a pre- emptive war with Iraq. It is my belief that, before young American men and women are sent to fight in any war, we should work with the international community to exhaust every alternative short of war. Now that war has begun, all Americans--those who favored military action and those who favored alternative approaches--think of our troops and wish for their quick victory and safe return.

Our work as citizens and policy makers does not stop with this expression of our support for the troops. The start of war does not end the debate and it does not end the dissent. It is imperative that the President and our nation not only honor our commitment to rebuild Iraq following the war, but also rebuild our relations with the nations of this world so that we might once again work closely together to avoid war and maintain peace in solving global challenges.

Mr. Chairman, today we have before us one of the most irresponsible budgets I have seen. Republicans have made their priorities crystal clear. Their number one priority in this budget is making room for a $1.35 trillion tax cut that will benefit the very wealthiest of Americans. They are doing this at the expense of programs that constitute the very safety net of this country and on the backs of hard-working Americans.

This careless Republican budget will have dire ramifications for many. Republicans cut most education programs by 8.3 percent. They reduced the maximum Pell grant award. They do not provide enough money for a meaningful prescription drug benefit. They cut funding for the National Institutes of Health by over $3 billion, and would reduce Medicaid spending by $163 billion. This is irresponsible.

To make matters worse, at this very moment, this country is at war. We

have nearly a quarter million servicemembers deployed near Iraq. Despite this, Republicans have proposed $14.6 billion in cuts to veterans programs. We must stop neglecting the health care needs of our veterans. We promised to eliminate the VA case backlog that is currently at a point near crisis. We must deliver the quality health care that was promised to those who have served to protect American lives and interests around the world.

For far too long, the Federal Government has turned its back on our Nation's veterans and the promises made to them. The cuts proposed in the Republican budget for essential veterans programs are unconscionable. The Democratic alternative addresses the rising demand for veterans health care by providing more funding than the President's budget and the House Republican budget in each of the next 10 years, a total of $4.3 billion above the President's budget and $16.2 billion more than the House Republican budget.

It is clear that the Republican budget in no way honors our commitment to the health of our veterans. Today's men and women in the service, today's men and women in uniform, today's men and women in Iraq are tomorrow's veterans. Will the promises we made today be empty tomorrow?

When the government makes promises to ensure the health of our veterans, it ought to keep them. For that reason, we should vote ``no'' for this Republican budget resolution and ``yes'' for the Democratic alternative.