Tammy Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will disprove the old saying ``the third time's a charm.'' Three times in the last three years, this House has brought an energy bill to the floor with the charge of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and charting our nation's future energy course. And three times this House has failed miserably in drafting a bill that meets these goals. My constituents in Wisconsin and the rest of America are starting to think Congress has not only lost its long-term memories, but its short- term memory as well. After all, rolling burnouts along the coast of California three years ago, a massive blackout that shadowed much of the northeast last summer, and skyrocketing prices at the pump right now, should be motivation enough to compel Congress to pass comprehensive energy legislation. Sadly, it has not. The four energy bills on the House floor today are more for political show rather than good-faith efforts to meet America's current and future energy needs. Their sole intent is to put the blame for having a stalled energy bill on the shoulders of Democrats, and to provide evidence to big energy lobbyists that they have done what was asked of them. I believe the reason past energy bills have not been signed into law, and the reason this one will not either, is because our President and House Republicans have ignored the real energy problems facing our country and allowed special interests to come before the nation's best interests. This is government at its worst. I think it may be helpful to do a quick recap of some of the reasons why Congress has been unable to get an energy bill to the President's desk. The first energy bill gave oil companies $50 billion in tax subsidies to give them more incentive to drill for oil and gas. Continuing their record profits from the year before obviously wasn't incentive enough. The last energy bill (and the identical one on the floor today) included many of these same subsidies, but added millions more for ``pork'' projects to Members' congressional districts to help muster additional support for the bill. For example, the bill includes $180 million to build an ``energy efficient'' Hooters Restaurant in Louisiana. Ultimately, the bill stalled because the Republican leadership insisted on giving liability protection to manufacturers that produce the fuel additive MTBE. MTBE helps vehicles burn fuel cleaner, but also causes widespread groundwater contamination. The provision would shield MTBE manufacturers from paying for the $29 billion worth of damage they knowingly caused in 36 states, and would even provide $750 million in taxpayer dollars to help them ``transition'' to another line of work. I do support a provision in the bill that would provide more incentives to use ethanol to replace MTBE. High fuel prices are hurting consumers everywhere. However, there is nothing in this week's energy bill that would lower these prices anytime soon. Almost $8 of the increased price per barrel of crude--or about 30 cents per gallon of gasoline--is directly related to the market's fears about violence in the gulf region and our difficulties in Iraq. While OPEC's decision to boost oil output will help meet the demands of China's economic surge and the U.S.'s rebounding economy, consumers shouldn't expect prices to fall dramatically during the busy summer travel season. Since gas prices wouldn't be affected anytime soon even if the current energy bill was signed into law today, the bill is primarily about what our energy policies will be tomorrow and will into the future. I believe there are two different courses we can take. The first course continues our reliance on finite natural resources and mistakenly assumes that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil even though the U.S. has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. This course calls for no political will to harness American ingenuity to develop technology that makes our fuel more efficient and healthier for our environment. This course is simply more drilling. It continues the way of our past energy policies and inspires no one except CEOs at Chevron, Exxon Mobile, and BP. The second course is much different, and is the one I believe we must take. It requires our Nation to ``think big'' and make difficult choices. We can give electric utilities tax credits to increase the amount of energy they produce from wind and other alternative sources. Ask almost any electric utility executive--if you give them incentives to use coal and gas they will, if you give them incentives to use renewable they will. To me, it's an easy choice to make. Some legislators have proposed a sort of ``Apollo-like project'' to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This undertaking would call for much more investment into the development of alternative and renewable fuels, fuel-efficient technologies, and other measures to conserve energy. While this undertaking would be expensive, I believe it is something this Congress should consider. These energy sources would be entirely under our control: no terrorist could seize them; and no cartel or foreign government can play games with them. It is my hope that Congress will come to its senses, ``think big'', and address our nation's current energy needs while confronting its future challenges head-on. The energy bill on the floor this week does none of these things despite being over 1,000 pages long and taking hundreds of hours to draft--possibly making it one of the biggest wastes of energy in recent memory.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Katharine C. Lyall, who served for more than 12 years as president of the University of Wisconsin System. Dr. Lyall's work has made an indelible mark on the great UW System, and her leadership will be missed by all when she retires this year. Dr. Lyall has dedicated her life's work to the promotion of people and knowledge. A professor of Economics, she held teaching posts at Syracuse University, Cornell University, and Johns Hopkins University before arriving at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Lyall's commitment to education and to her field of study persisted long after her transition to university administration. Beyond her expertise in the study of economics and her strong administrative leadership, Dr. Lyall brought to the University of Wisconsin System a background in public service and policy. During the Carter administration, Dr. Lyall served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. She was later Director of Johns Hopkins' prestigious public policy program. Dr. Lyall's focus on public service and policy has served the University of Wisconsin System well. Her accomplished tenure saw the implementation of new diversity policies, increased enrollment, and continued distinction of an already outstanding public university system. In her dedication to access and excellence, in her tireless work for the University of Wisconsin, and in her wholehearted devotion to the democratic ideal in public education, Dr. Lyall exemplifies the Wisconsin Idea. She will be sorely missed.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the proud tradition of the Wisconsin Memorial Union as it nears the conclusion of its seventy-fifth anniversary celebration. The Union opened its doors on October 5, 1928 in dedication to the men and women of the University of Wisconsin who served in our country's wars. Since then the Union has functioned as a gathering place for both students and Madison community members. The Union has been a staple of university life since its opening; any University graduate can relate fond memories of eating in the Rathskeller dining room, the first site at a public university union to serve beer, or enjoying a refreshing summer breeze while sitting on the infamous ``sunburst'' chairs on Union Terrace. Students go to the Union to relax and to study; it truly is, as past University President Glenn Frank described, the University's ``living room, which converts the University from a house of learning into a home of learning.'' Today students flock to the Union at the beginning of the school year for Wisconsin Welcome, which includes an ice cream tasting contest at the Daily Scoop, the Multicultural Orientation and Reception, free boat rentals courtesy of the Hoofers Outdoor Club, and live band performances. During the academic year students and Madison community members can visit its impressive art gallery, throw pottery at the Craftshop, take a mini course, view the Paul Bunyan murals painted during the New Deal, participate in the annual Kites on Ice event, and hear speakers at the Union Theater through the Distinguished Lecture Series. I am proud to rise today and honor the Wisconsin Union for its seventy-five years of outstanding service to University students and the Madison community. It stands as a symbol of the many different kinds of learning that the University promotes. Over the years the Union has established a long-standing tradition of promoting volunteerism and community involvement, while also serving as a center for University festivities. The Union's impressive past presents exciting prospects for its future.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, we come together, as we do every year, to observe this national day of remembrance--to honor the men and women who've given their lives in the service of our country. This year we sadly add the names of 19 sons and daughters of Wisconsin, killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, to those rolls. We join with their families in grieving the loss of: SPC Bert Hoyer, PVC Nicholas Frye, MAJ Christopher Splinter, SGT Warren Hansen, SPC Eugene Uhl III, 2nd LT Jeremy Wolf, PFC Rachel Bosveld, SPC Paul Sturino, SGT Dan Gabrielson, MAJ Mathew Schram, SGT Kirk Straseskie, CPT John Kurth, PFC Sean Schneider, CPL Jesse Thiry, PFC Ryan Jerabek, SPC Michelle Witmer, SPC Michael McGlothin, PO Michael Anderson, and SPC Robert Cook. We mourn them as we mourn the loss of all Americans in uniform who've made the ultimate sacrifice. This is a day of great pride and great sorrow. It is a day of sweet memories and bitter regrets. It is a day of despair and, yet, of hopefulness. Yes, despite our sadness, we do have reason to be hopeful. For as long as men and women don the uniform and serve with distinction, they embody the promise of America. This America founded on the principles of equal justice under law. This America which for centuries has stood as a beacon of liberty. This America which, by the sacrifices of those we honor today, we still proudly proclaim the land of the free and the home of the brave. We remember them today and always.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Robert L. Habush. On May 24, 2004, the Milwaukee Chapter of the American Jewish Committee will bestow upon Mr. Habush the 2004 Community Service Human Relations Award at the Pfister Hotel. The Community Service Human Relations Award honors individuals who have demonstrated outstanding service and leadership. Mr. Habush has shown through his significant contributions to Wisconsin and the law that he is richly deserving of this award. As anyone in Wisconsin can tell you, Mr. Habush has achieved a high level of professional success. He has practiced law for forty two years as a litigator, principally for plaintiffs, and over the years has been involved in some of the most significant cases in Wisconsin, as well as the development of the law. His law firm, Habush Habush & Rottier S.C., is well known in Wisconsin with its ten offices throughout the state. Mr. Habush is widely admired for his philanthropy, including his strong commitment to the two law schools in Wisconsin. He has established the Robert L. Habush Bascom Professorship in Trial Advocacy and the Robert L. Habush Moot Court Advocacy Fund at the University of Wisconsin Law School. At Marquette Law School, he has funded a scholarship and a gift to create the Howard Eisenberg Memorial Hall. Mr. Habush has also been honored by serving as President of the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers and President of The Association of Trial Lawyers of America. In 2001, he was named by the National Law Journal as one of the top ten litigators in the United States. In 2002, he received The Association of Trial Lawyers of America's highest award, The Champion of Justice. Mr. Habush has also been named as one of the top Wisconsin leaders in the law, by the Wisconsin Law Review. In honor of Mr. Habush's esteemed work, The Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers has named its Trial Lawyer of the Year award after him, as well as The Association of Trial Lawyers of America naming their endowment in his honor. Today, I join the Milwaukee Chapter of the American Jewish Committee in offering my sincere congratulations for receiving the 2004 Community Service Human Relations Award. Robert Habush is one of Wisconsin's best and I am proud to recognize him today.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Sesquicentennial of the Sauk City Fire Department. On May 23, the Sauk City Fire Department will celebrate its 150 years of service to community in a festival at the Saint Aloysius Church. Sauk City was founded in 1854 as Wisconsin's first incorporated village. That same year a Sauk City merchant, J.J. Heller, had a small wooden fire engine built to protect his store from fire. Mr. Heller organized a meeting seeking assistance with the labor-intensive fire engine, making Sauk City home to Wisconsin's oldest volunteer fire department and oldest standing fire station. During the 19th century, there was a great need for organized and responsive fire departments due to the fire prone stoves, lamps, and chimneys of that era. Furthermore, the business districts, composed of crowded rows of wooden buildings, were constantly at risk for a rapidly spreading fire. Sauk City was a pioneer for this region in stopping these devastating fires. This is a wonderful success story about a community coming together to fill a need. In 1859, the fire department had a new locally made fire wagon. In order to raise money to purchase a bigger fire engine, the town and its several breweries organized a festival. The outpouring of support was so impressive at the first festival that it became a boisterous event. As the community grew and the technology advanced, the Sauk City Fire Department kept pace with new stations and fire engines. Today, the thirty-eight volunteer professional firefighters of the Sauk City Fire Department serve a 170 square mile area in south central Wisconsin. While the sheer length of the Sauk City Fire Department's service to the community is worthy of praise, it boasts several other impressive qualities. The Sauk City Fire Department has done a remarkable job of restoring two of its locally manufactured fire engines from 1924 and 1928. It was also first fire department to use the two-toned Decot siren, which was created by Sauk City Fire Chief Ted Decot and became a nationwide commercial success. Mr. Speaker, I join Fire Chief Michael Fehrenbach and all the residents of Sauk City in celebrating the Sauk City Fire Department's 150 years of service to the community.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of my constituents, Julie Spencer, of Baraboo, Wisconsin. Julie was the fastest U.S. female in the 108th Boston Marathon. She finished 16th in a time of 2:56:39, her personal best. The Boston Marathon is a competitive international race, and it is an honor to recognize Julie Spencer for her great athletic achievement. The Boston Marathon ranks only behind the Super Bowl as the largest single day sporting event in the world. Approximately 500,000 spectators line the streets of the 26.2 mile course. In this year's historic Boston Marathon the elite women runners started before the elite men runners for the first time in marathon history, giving Julie a truly unique Boston Marathon experience. In addition to being a dedicated runner, Julie is a teacher at East Elementary School in Baraboo, Wisconsin. She uses her running expertise to help coach Baraboo High School's cross country team and track teams. By coaching, she shares and passes on her passion to the high school teams. Obviously, it is an impressive feat to accomplish the 26.2 mile Boston Marathon on the fifth hottest day in the race's 108 year history, but to be the top female U.S finisher is worth the praise of all. It is my esteemed pleasure to contribute to the recognition of Julie Spencer's first place finish for the United States. Mr. Speaker, Julie's friends and family have been quoted as saying, ``We're so proud.'' I know Wisconsinites and runners across the world share this message and join me in recognizing her today.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I have several additional letters from constituents that really, I think, emphasize the crisis that we are in right now, and their voices are so powerful in this debate. This is ultimately what is going to make the difference in this debate, what will ultimately bring us to pass effective legislation, not just things with feel-good titles to them. And their voices are very powerful in this debate. One letter, Norm from Mazomanie, Wisconsin, Norm writes: ``I had short-term coverage through COBRA, but that was cut short when my last employer reorganized. With that change came a loss of coverage, without notice. For some this would be a case of purchasing private coverage. For me it was a crisis as my medical records include treatment for skin cancer, angioplasty with two stents in my heart, and one episode of a transient ischemic attack (ministroke). I was lucky in all three cases as early detection and proper treatment left me able to work without limit and able to carry on life normally. However, it also made me uninsurable. I am grateful for living in Wisconsin as I was able to secure coverage through the Wisconsin Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan. The coverage is expensive and has a high deductible. It is, in fact, best described as an asset insurance rather than health insurance. ``My bottom line is that if one can get the insurance, many can ill afford it. And if they can afford it, it commands such a large portion of the budget for a retiree or unemployed person that it is often a choice of insurance or having access to other normal things as well. ``Would there have been any value in saying we have a medical coverage crisis in this country and it's not only for the homeless or indigent. It has arrived for the common man. There is no place to turn. We can fund billions to defeat Iraq and will spend billions more to repair that country. We give aid to half the world and spend billions on one questionable project or another. Yet we cannot seem to find a way to provide decent, affordable health care to those of us who have faithfully paid large portions of our income to the tax system. It is time for Congress to get off their figurative and collective behinds and address this issue.'' And that is what Norm writes. Niki from Madison, Wisconsin says: ``I'm fighting a battle right now just to get coverage. After a layoff 6 years ago, I had a year of COBRA and then found an agent and got insurance rather easily with a company the agent represented. That company'' was bought by another company and now the new company ``has decided to get out of the medical insurance business. My agent recommended switching companies and that's where the sledding has gotten tough. One company ``turned me down for a jammed little finger and removal of a benign growth and again on appeal, despite a letter from my doctor saying I have been a perfectly healthy person all my life with no predisposition to anything uninsurable,'' a second company asked `` `Have you ever been turned down for insurance?' Well, yes, just last week, for a jammed little finger and removal of a benign growth.'' That company ``gave me no specific reason for also turning me down. I have to make a request in writing to them for that information and then they won't send the information to me, only to the health provider of my choice. ``What really irks me is the years and years that I have never made a claim.'' Along with these individuals, there are millions of Americans who are fortunate enough to find an insurer willing to cover them at an affordable price. But oftentimes the coverage turns out to be inadequate, and necessary medical procedures and treatments simply are not covered. Jean from Stoughton, Wisconsin writes: ``Please continue the fight for coverage for mental health with medical coverage. We know all too well the devastating sadness that we have endured having an immediate family member with a severe eating disorder complexed with Type I diabetes. We have fought with the insurance company for 3 years with little success. Twenty visits for mental health is all that is included with most medical plans, and this does nothing to address a severe eating disorder and very possible death being a fact at all times for our family. It takes no rocket scientist to understand that being put in the hospital every 3 weeks in intensive care for the last 3 years is not saving any money for the insurance company, and yet the company will not budge. They would rather let a patient die than to open up the door and give mental health access to get better and become healthy.'' Barbara from Madison, Wisconsin writes: ``In August, 1997, both my husband and my college-age child required major medical care. One had a disease of the kidneys and one suffered severe clinical depression. Both patients required emergency visits and extended treatment. Both patients were compliant and followed their doctor's treatment instructions. Both patients were covered under the same family policy, which had been in effect for over 25 years. ``But our insurance company paid his expenses at a rate twice as high as it paid hers, because he had kidney stones and her severe depression was `mental illness.' ``My husband underwent three outpatient treatments to dissolve the stones, as well as the required X-rays, tests, and office visits. When these treatments failed, he underwent surgery to remove the kidney stones. He was not expected to remain in extreme pain for the next several months until the new calendar year came in order to have insurance coverage. He was not told that he had used up all of his allotted benefits. ``My daughter required an emergency room visit as the result of a depressive self-harm episode. Since this was not a psychiatric visit, the insurance paid 75 percent of the cost to treat her. But when she required psychiatric hospitalization to prevent any more self-harm, the insurance paid only 44 percent. And since she has been faithful about seeing her psychiatrist regularly, her insurance would not pay anything towards future psychiatric visits because she had used up her allotted number of visits for the year. She was expected to wait several months for psychiatric care to be covered, even though she was in extreme emotional pain, since she had used her allotted number of psychiatric visits for that year. Even though she was dangerously suicidal, the insurance company would not cover her psychiatric treatment. Of course, if she had harmed herself and survived, the medical bills would have been covered. Needless to say, we are not willing to take a risk with our daughter's life, so we accumulated an exorbitant amount of medical bills. ``Was my husband's health of more value than my child's? Of course not. But our insurance company paid his expenses at a rate twice as high as hers. Justice demands parity in insurance.'' Mr. Speaker, as Cover the Uninsured Week comes to a close, I am very grateful to know that I have colleagues here fighting tirelessly for a better answer to our health care crisis in this country. Before I close, I yield additional time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the midst of an escalating health care crisis. As health care costs soar, it becomes increasingly difficult for Americans to obtain comprehensive and affordable health care. Our current health care system is failing not only the 43.6 million Americans who are uninsured, but also the millions more who do not receive comprehensive health care. We can no longer turn our backs while millions more lose access to health care. The lack of comprehensive and affordable health care affects every single congressional district in every State. To highlight this issue this evening and its real impact that Americans are experiencing, I have invited my colleagues to join me in sharing letters and thoughts, but letters particularly from our constituents who have had difficulty obtaining and affording comprehensive health care. I think it is really important that their voices are heard in this debate. I would like to begin with just a few letters from my district in Wisconsin that express real people's difficulties in dealing with the ever-rising cost of health care. Jen, from Oregon, Wisconsin, starts, ``Please help. I cannot find affordable health insurance. My husband works for a small employer that cannot afford to provide medical insurance. We have a tiny 2-bedroom home, a car payment and a 2-month-old baby. We choose to live very modestly in order to provide the margin to pay for health insurance, but the cheapest premium I could find was $200 per month with a $3,350 deductible, and there are no maternity benefits. The amount is heartbreaking. There is no money to pay for clothes, let alone emergencies. If I worked full time for the health insurance, there would not be enough to pay for day care and somebody else would be raising my baby. ``It simply is not right that people in our society lack medical coverage when every other First World country provides for all of their citizens. Plus, how many people are underinsured? Also, our businesses are starting to go bankrupt just trying to maintain their health care benefits. ``Something has to change. Would you please help all of us as soon as possible?'' Next is from David, from Cross Plains, Wisconsin. David writes, ``My wife and I have been self-employed for over 18 years, and have paid thousands of dollars for health insurance premiums. As of a few months ago, we had to drop out and are now without health insurance. The cost is completely out of reach. In fact, it is nuts. Now that I am 50 years old, it is not a matter of if I will have health problems, it is when. ``Tammy, we will lose everything we have worked for. So much for the American dream. We now look forward to dying broke and homeless. I still work 60 hours a week at my print shop and can only hope that I drop dead in front of my press some night so I will not be a burden to society.'' Emily from Stoughton, Wisconsin writes, ``I am writing to you to express my utter frustration at the status of the United States health care system. It is my opinion that it is rapidly failing, and many, many people are finding themselves paying staggering monthly premiums and getting substantially fewer benefits every year. ``My husband runs a small business, less than 10 employees, and our family is being financially penalized for offering group health insurance to seven workers, two of which have had some significant health care needs in the last year. These two employees, just by getting illnesses not in their control, have jacked up our monthly premium by a staggering amount. It seems to us that offering health insurance is an ethical responsibility of ours as employers, yet our family still must pay a ridiculously escalating sum monthly just because of these two employees with unexpected health problems. In addition, I am routinely getting surprised upon regular visits to dentists, eye doctors, et cetera, to find we have no coverage at all from our HMO when only 1 year ago we had full coverage for these services. ``Thanks for letting me vent. I feel powerless and at times hopeless.'' Before I continue with some additional letters from my congressional district, I am delighted to be joined this evening by one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, a tireless advocate for health care.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the midst of National Cover the Uninsured Week to draw attention to the 43.6 million Americans who do not have health insurance and the millions more who are underinsured.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who this evening amplified the voices of their constituents. The crisis is dire. I know that we are rededicating ourselves as Democrats, but also as Members of this body who have constituents in dire need, to work towards the day where there is no need to have a Cover the Uninsured Week because we found solutions, workable solutions, to this problem. Again, I thank my colleagues who shared this hour.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield time to my colleague the gentleman from Rhode Island. The gentleman has distinguished himself on this issue since he joined us here in Congress. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Ms. BALDWIN. I too share the gentleman's passion for creating a system where everybody in this country has health insurance. I guess I agree that the short-term prospects are dim, especially given this administration, this majority. But I do have some hopefulness, because frankly I think that the voices of 44 million Americans cannot be silenced and ultimately will lead to that political change that we are seeking. Along that line, I would like to share the words of a few more of my constituents. I want to share the words of Roger from Waunakee, Wisconsin. He writes: ``I'm a baby boomer that was rejected for health care. The explanation was vague, so I'm taking efforts to address it and resolve it but I'm frustrated with the realization of flaws in our health care system. At 54 years old, I'm healthy enough to exercise year round and race competitively in triathlons but not risk-free enough for the insurance companies. My wife is also healthy but she has so many riders on her coverage that her policy is almost worthless. An issue that may haunt us is what I call use it or lose it. Our main problem appears to be that we once had insurance and used it to stay healthy. Our claims were very small, much smaller than our annual fees but the insurance companies are using the knowledge that we learned about staying healthy as a logic to reject us. I normally don't like to see government getting into private matters, but health insurance does not appear to be a private matter anymore. We could easily pay out of pocket for the health costs we've incurred. We just wanted protection for potential major losses but now we're being rejected because of that.'' Aside from frustration with the higher cost of health care, thousands of other constituents write to me about the trouble they have finding an insurer to cover them. Susan from Baraboo, Wisconsin, writes: ``I am writing you today regarding health coverage for single people with no children. As of this time, I feel that I am left out of the loop in regards to this topic. I am 42 and last September I was diagnosed with breast cancer. In January of this year, the company I worked for informed us that they would be closing down. I was laid off in December while I was out due to my cancer treatment. I have been searching for health care elsewhere because my COBRA will be going up. I am on unemployment, and I am barely able to pay the $244.76 for coverage now. I cannot get insurance because of the breast cancer. The health insurance risk-sharing plan, HIRSP, the Wisconsin State program, is too expensive for me to get coverage since they want 4 months of premium up front and they only cover some things. What are single people supposed to do? We do not qualify for any government assistance because we are single. I cannot go without insurance. There are no programs to help us out. So when you are working on health care in the House, please remember that there are other single people out there also in my shoes. I am at a crossroads because I have no avenue for assistance when it comes to health care. Come November, I will be unable to get coverage when I need it at this point in my life.'' Florita of Madison, Wisconsin, writes: ``I am a divorced parent and am having difficulty obtaining health care coverage for my young adult son. My son, now 19, was dropped from my group HMO and this was based on his age and not being a full-time student. His employer offers a health care plan but there is a 1-year waiting period. When I tried to apply for individual coverage for him through my current HMO, my son was rejected because they needed more detailed information on his health status. When I telephoned them and discussed his recent diagnosis of high cholesterol and the medication prescribed to control it, I learned that this alone would make him ineligible for coverage. I learned from other insurers that he would have been rejected in that he had high blood pressure, migraines, obesity, et cetera. In other words, the HMOs deny applicants for the conditions that are quite common for a large segment of the population. This entire situation frustrates me. The government provides free health care for prisoners, but law-abiding, hardworking citizens are either denied health care coverage by the major HMOs, often for ridiculous reasons, or are drained financially if lucky enough to find individual coverage due to the high deductibles and premiums, coupled with dental, prescription and optical costs that are not even covered in these plans. Health care has become a for-profit business at the expense of people's health. All citizens, regardless of their income, should not be denied full health care.'' At this point I would like to yield again to the gentleman from New Jersey to share some of the remarks from his constituents.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing his constituent's words as well as his own to this critical debate. I must note that the gentleman points out that we are the only industrialized Nation in the world that does not offer health care to all of its citizens. I was listening to the Special Order which occurred the hour before this, where Members from the majority were talking about nations with universal health care plans and berating them for rationing care. I cannot imagine how anyone believes that a system where 43.6 million people are uninsured, and many more underinsured, we are clearly rationing care here in this country and need to step up to the plate and address that. I am delighted to be joined by another one of my colleagues whose work on the issue of health care I admire so greatly. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is also a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Day and night, the gentleman works on the issue of health care. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit the humble, humorous and insightful remarks of my dear friend and Dean of the Wisconsin Congressional Delegation, the Honorable Dave Obey. The gentleman was the honored guest recently at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Department of Political Science as it celebrated its Centennial. I was given a copy of his remarks and was captivated. Written with his characteristic no nonsense Wisconsin affect, this wonderful speech is a treasure to be shared. To that end, I submit it for the Congressional Record. I came to Madison in 1958--after two years at the UW- Marathon County Center in Wausau--to get a poly-sci degree. Arthur Henderson, my high school history teacher, who had worked with the great William Hesseltine, told me that I should seek out Ralph Huitt as my faculty advisor and take as many courses from him as possible if I wanted to understand how government and politics really worked. That's exactly what I did. I had many other fabulous professors: Leon Epstein, Bernie Cohen, Fred von der Mehden, David Fellman, John Armstrong, Henry Hart, to name a few. And in the history and econ departments, people like: Selig Perlman, Michael Petrovich, George Mosse, David Granick. It's amazing to me how much of what they taught me has had direct relevance in my later life. I treasure what I learned here--in and out of class--and I treasure the memories. I attended here at the same time as Bill Steiger, who later was my Republican opposite image in Congress and one of the finest politicians I have ever known. Bill was elected to the State Assembly in 1960; I followed him in 1962. He was elected to Congress in 1966; I followed 27 months later. But in the late 1950s, we were both still here and had two classes together. One was Constitutional law with Dave Fellman. For those of you who do not know Fellman, his style was much like the law professor played by John Housman in the TV series ``Paper Chase''--dry and acerbic. Steiger was ``Big Man on Campus.'' His father, Carl Steiger, was President of the Board of Regents, and Bill was well known and active in everything. On the first day of class, Steiger walked into Fellman's class about 5 minutes late. Chagrined, he walked gingerly to his seat. Fellman paused, peered at Steiger over his glasses, and said icily, ``Please pardon me, Mr. Steiger. Ordinarily we would have an usher escort you to your seat. Unfortunately, our carnations have not yet arrived.'' Bill turned blood red. No one in that class was late after that. I remember in 1960 the first time I met Jack Kennedy. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey were running against each other in the Wisconsin presidential primary. I was running Humphrey's campaign on campus. One evening I was chairing a meeting in the student union. We knew Jackie Kennedy was upstairs at a fashion show, but we didn't know that Jack was with her. Halfway through our meeting, the door to our room opened and Kennedy poked his head in. ``I understand this is a meeting of the Young Democrats he said.'' ``Not quite,'' I responded, ``this is a meeting of the Humphrey for President club.'' ``Well, do you mind if I come in and say hello?'' he asked. ``Of course not,'' I responded. Kennedy came in, shook hands around the table, wished us luck but not too much, and moved on. That same year I met Jackie Robinson and wound up wanting to strangle him. Gaylord Nelson, the new Governor, called me one afternoon. Nelson was officially neutral, but personally favored Humphrey over Kennedy. When he called me, he said, ``Dave, Jackie Robinson is coming to town to endorse Hubert. Get a room at the union, build a crowd, and you can introduce us.'' We had a huge crowd for him. I emceed the meeting and introduced Gaylord, who introduced Robinson. Robinson gave a ringing endorsement of Humphrey and then opened up to questions. The first question from the press was, ``Mr. Robinson, you have endorsed Senator Humphrey, but what if he loses to Senator Kennedy in the primary?'' Robinson said, ``Why then I'll endorse Nixon.'' The crowd gasped and the press ran for the phones to call their papers. What was supposed to be a good day for Humphrey turned into an even better one for Nixon. As you know, Kennedy did win the nomination and squared off against Nixon. The last week of the election it was announced that Nixon's plane would touch down for an early Saturday morning rally at Truax field on the way to California. Bill Whitford, Tom Eckerle, and I decided we wanted to crash the rally. We went down to GOP headquarters and wheedled a bunch of Nixon Lodge signs (Nixon's running mate that year was Henry Cabot Lodge). We cut Lodge's name off the bottom of the sign, moved it to the top, added the letters ``D-1-S'' in front of Lodge's name so the signs read ``Dislodge Nixon'' and sounded a small dissent at the rally the next morning. After the election we needed the help of the faculty to get one of our friends out of trouble. In 1961 the Republican Leadership in the Legislature called upon Governor Nelson to fire his Secretary, Esther Kaplan, after she had circulated a petition calling for the abolition of the House Un-American Activities Committee. The Republican Leadership introduced a resolution praising HUAC and held a Nelson bashing hearing on it in the State Assembly Chambers. My friend, Dave Sheridan, was so angered by the resolution that he put on his ROTC uniform, walked down to the Capitol, and testified against the resolution. ``I know that you are claiming that anyone opposed to HUAC is either a traitor or a communist dupe,'' Sheridan said. ``I'm wearing this uniform to demonstrate that while I may be a dupe, I'm certainly no traitor.'' The Republican Leadership was enraged and moved to have Sheridan thrown out of the ROTC program because he had worn his uniform to testify--in violation of Army rules. A number of Dave's friends on the faculty went to Ralph Huitt and several others to get some advice on how to save Sheridan's hide. Huitt (or someone else on the faculty) called Carlisle Runge a UW law professor who had been named a high Pentagon post by Kennedy, and got Sheridan off with a reprimand. Years later it was to be my great pleasure to cast a vote that disbanded HUAC. And there were some other pleasures. In his course on legislation, Huitt scheduled a Mock Senate, role playing exercise one weekend in the State Assembly Chambers at the Capitol. Each student was assigned to play an individual, real life U.S. Senator. Fittingly, Bill Steiger was assigned to play Everett Dirksen, the Republican Floor Leader. I was assigned to play Senator William Fullbright. It was my task to try to push a foreign aid bill through the Senate. I had no idea that 25 years later I would Chair the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, which had the responsibility to handle all foreign aid appropriations. And there were so many other links in the chain. A large part of that Foreign Operations Committee responsibility would be to shape development aid to the Third World, the region that was the focus of Fred von der Mehden's and Henry Hart's courses on Third World politics. Another strong focus for the committee was the Middle East. Next to the Soviet Union, my main regional interest in Congress has been the Middle East. That interest was first triggered by series of debates that two faculty members at the UW-Marathon County Center, Dr. Sam Weiner and Dr. Bob Najem, had conducted after the 1956 Mid-East war. Of course, I knew nothing of those future linkages then. Certainly, in graduate school under John Armstrong where I focused on Russian area studies and expected to wind up teaching Russian government somewhere, I had no idea that 30 years later I would be partnering with Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton to shepherd through Congress aid packages for Russia and Eastern Europe after Gorbachev allowed the Soviet block to crumble, virtually without a shot. I'm grateful for all those memories and for the substantive grounding the University gave me to prepare me for my congressional responsibilities. But the grounding I received from the University was not just because of the courses I took. It was also because of the spirit, the philosophy, the progressive mind-set that defined the University and set it off as something special in the American experience. You simply cannot live in Wisconsin and go to the University of Wisconsin without recognizing the centrality of the La Follette progressive tradition that is at the heart of Wisconsin history, and the linkage the University has with that tradition. The greatest public servant Wisconsin ever produced was Robert La Follette. Before La Follette led his Progressive revolution, Wisconsin's politics was owned lock, stock, and barrel by the railroads, the mining companies, and the timber interests. Government was geared to promote the welfare of those engaged in the production of wealth. The interest of the working class was an after thought. La Follette changed all that--aided and abetted by the University. La Follette changed the focus of Wisconsin government from enriching the few at the expense of the many to enriching the few by enriching the many. In short, he was Hubert Humphrey before Hubert Humphrey. The original Wisconsin practitioner of the art of ``Percolate Up'' rather than ``Trickle Down'' economics, La Follette's mission and passion was to keep the big boys honest in order to include everybody in the circle of prosperity and progress. He was the Andrew Jackson of his time and place. He understood that America is a capitalist economy, but it is also more than just an economy; it is democracy. And as a democracy, it is supposed to stand for the greatest good for the greatest number, even as it respects the rights of the individual. He understood that capitalism works through market forces that cannot be repealed, but that democracy is not just ``Of, By, and For the Markets.'' It is designed to be ``Of, By and For the People!'' He believed that Darwin's law of the survival of the fittest might be good enough for the animal world, but not good enough for the world of man. He wanted balanced capitalism, not a new feudalism in disguise. And he intended to use the tools of government to achieve it. And he used the resources of the University to help him in his task. Helped by scholars, such as Frederick Jackson Turner, Richard Ely, and John R. Commons, he began the process by writing legislation to loosen the stranglehold of the railroads on Wisconsin's farmers and economy. What La Follette began, before he moved to the U.S. Senate, reached its zenith under Governor Francis McGovern. The legendary Charles McCarthy, a University product, created Wisconsin's pioneering Legislative Reference Bureau. He and more than 40 other University figures were at the center of pioneering progressive achievements-- Achievements like: The nation's first workers' compensation program, workers' safety legislation, a State Industrial Commission, limits on the hours of work for women and children, forest protection legislation, the nation's first progressive income tax, and so many others. In his autobiography La Follette explained his passion for economic justice and the role the University played in nurturing and furthering it. In that autobiography, a Follette wrote the following. ``I shall never forget the speech I heard the old Chief Justice of Wisconsin, Edward G. Ryan, make to the graduating class at Madison in June of 1883 just before I entered the University,'' La Follette said: ``There is looming up a new and dark power . . . the enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching not for economic conquest only, but for political power. For the first time really in our politics money is taking the field as an organized power . . . The question will arise in your day . . . which shall rule--wealth or man; which shall lead--money or intellect; who shall fill public stations-- education and patriotic free men or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?'' La Follette then goes on to say that that speech kindled in him the spirit he carried throughout his public service. As La Follette described it, ``It grew out of the intellectual awakening . . . the very center and inspiration point of which in Wisconsin was then, and has been ever since, the University at Madison. It is difficult indeed to overestimate the part which the University has played in the Wisconsin revolution,'' La Follette said. ``For myself,'' he said, ``I owe what I am and what I have done largely to the inspiration I received while there. It was not so much the actual courses of study which I pursued; it was rather the spirit of the institution--a high spirit of earnest endeavor, a spirit of fresh interest in new things, and beyond all else, a sense that somehow the state and the University were intimately related and that they should be of mutual service.'' La Follette's attachment to the University was understandable and fitting. He was the first graduate of the University to become Governor. The legendary Charles Van Hise was a member of that same graduating class--the first person to obtain a PhD from the University, he was later effectively appointed University President by La Follette. And I must say that it was that same sense of the spirit of the institution, so intimately connected to Wisconsin's progressive traditions, which sparked my passion for public service. What I learned here that inspired me is that while La Follette and other Progressive Reformers like George Norris and Theodore Roosevelt were regarded as secular men, they really were at the moral core of a movement that had deep roots in the Jewish Prophetic Tradition and the Christian Social Gospel, which implied that there were certain norms of decency that must be the objectives of political choices in a democracy. That tradition was rooted in the belief that politics must be more than merely transactional. It must be more principled than ``who gets what.'' That it could and should be, as Bill Moyers has said, transformational--that it must try to ``even the starting gate so that people who are equal in humanity but not in resources have a reasonable opportunity to pursue a full and decent life.'' The Wisconsin tradition dictates that political leadership must challenge people to see beyond their own self-interests and prerogatives. That is why whenever anyone comes into my office asking me to do something, I first ask them to read aloud a sign hanging on the wall which asks, ``What do you want me to do for someone besides yourself that is more important than whatever it is you want me to do for you?'' If you cannot answer that question you are failing the ultimate test of good citizenship in a democracy. For the past 40 years, in the Legislature and the Congress, I have tried to pursue that special Wisconsin vision of the role of government in shaping a more just society. Wisconsin has so often in its history been informed by a special sense of commonwealth--of using our common wealth to invest in efforts to spread the blessings of society more broadly. I wish I could say that we are still following that special calling today, but we have drifted away in so many ways. Over much of the last three decades we have seen the country retreat from those ideals. Anna Quindlen has written that ``America is a country that now sits atop the precarious latticework of myth. It is the myth that work provides sufficient rewards, that working people can support their families. It's a myth that has become so divorced from reality that it might as well begin with the words ``Once upon a time.'' Why does Quindlen say that? Because one out of every four American workers makes less than $8.70 an hour-- poverty level for a family of four. La Follette and the past greats of the University would be stunned to see that in one generation America has gone from being the industrial society with the smallest gap between rich and poor to the one with the largest. They would be astounded to see that the safety net, which they fought so hard to construct, has not been nearly strong enough for large portions of our population. They would be appalled that the number of Americans without health insurance has grown by 4 million people in less than a decade. They would see shame in the fact that the most well off 1 percent of America's families enjoy control over 33 percent of the nation's wealth while the bottom 50 percent struggle to maintain 2.8 percent of the nation's wealth. They would be dismayed to see how little heed has been paid to the warning of Adam Smith, the founding high priest of capitalism, that without fair rules of the game to keep markets honest that capitalism could be misaligned into a system that provided insufficient protection for the legitimate interests of workers and consumers alike. They would find it unbelievable that the percentage of American workers who belong to unions has contracted rather than expanded over the last half century. They would be outraged that the ownership of news outlets is much more heavily concentrated today than it was in their era. They would not be surprised, but they would be repelled by a tax system that provides greater rewards for accumulated wealth than it does for work. And most of all, La Follette himself would be disheartened by the growing financial barriers to opportunity that are encountered by the children of so many working families who seek to attend this very University. La Follette himself is Wisconsin's most distinguished example of how crucial it can be to eliminate financial barriers to higher education. In his autobiography, La Follette made the following observation: ``My single term at the University law school had been rendered possible only through the consideration of the faculty in making an extraordinary exception in my case and permitting me to enter without paying the usual matriculation fee. I had no money . . .'' How little we have learned, despite all the blather uttered by both political parties about how much we have expanded opportunity for higher education. UW Chancellor John Wiley observed in a speech last November that the median family income in Wisconsin is a little over $45,000, but the median family income for this year's new freshman at Madison is $90,000.'' Think about that for a moment. As Wiley pointed out, ``The distribution of brains, talent, ambition, and creativity is independent of family income. We will ignore that fact and freeze out the children of average and low income families at our peril.'' Now tie that to another fact. Pell Grants, the principal student aid program for low income students, now pay for only one-half of the cost of instruction that they paid for in 1976. I feel acutely about this because I'm the Ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee that funds all education programs. Next, add in another fact. More than half of all college graduates graduate with debts above $15,000. If La Follette were planning to go to law school today, he couldn't afford it. How many La Follettes or Gaylord Nelsons or Bill Steigers are we today passing over? What would he and the University greats of old say about a government which, when struggling with a $500 billion deficit, a huge Social Security deficit, record long-term unemployment, and 44 million people without health insurance, decides that the number one priority in the budget next year is to provide a $155,000 tax cut to someone making a million dollars while we short fund elementary and secondary education by $9 billion and continue to tolerate a two-tier system for access to higher education or quality health care. We all love this country. In spite of all its short comings, this is a great country. But shame on us for allowing such an outcome. We must do better. I thank the University--and you should, too--for its tradition of producing graduates and citizens who are never satisfied, for it's tradition of saying ``We can do better!'' For the sake of the kind of country we want America to be, let's all do our part to live up to that tradition. Now, I'm sure that some of you may strongly disagree with the thrust of what I have said today. That's o.k. As Will Rogers observed, ``If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.'' That difference would probably be rooted in the fact that we follow different philosophers. Some of you may follow Plato or Aristotle or even Ayn Rand, God Forbid. But my favorite philosopher is Arch the Cockroach. Archy was a character invented by a writer by the name of Don Marquis in the 1920s. He was supposedly a poet who had died and had come back to life in a body of a cockroach. He lived in a newspaperman's office and every night would crawl out of the woodwork, climb onto the typewriter, dive head first on the keys, and leave little messages which would appear in the newspaper the next day. He had a thought for every occasion. One of the things he said was this: ``did you ever notice that when a politician does get an idea he usually gets it all wrong'' But my favorite was this: ``im too small to feel great pride and as the pompous world goes by i see things from the under side'' Like Archy, I try to see life from the underside. I make no apology. I learned it here!

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the week of April 18-24, 2004 as National Minority Cancer Awareness Week. This national campaign, initiated by Congress in 1987, seeks to heighten awareness of the unequal cancer burden borne by racial and ethnic minority populations and other medically underserved communities. Despite all the progress that has been made in the battle against cancer, a disproportionate burden of cancer continues to fall on specific populations. African Americans have the highest death rate for all cancers. Cancer is the leading cause of death for Asian American women. And even when controlling for income level, African American, American Indian, Alaska native, Asian American, and Pacific Islander men have a lower 5-year survival rate than non-Hispanic white males. In my state of Wisconsin in 2003, 25,800 new cancer cases were diagnosed and 10,800 people in my community died from cancer. Once these statistics are analyzed, I believe we will find that a disproportionately high burden of these cancer deaths will be borne by minority populations. The future health of Wisconsin--and of America as a whole--depends on our success in improving the health of minority and other medically underserved populations. I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 918, the Patient Navigator, Outreach, and Chronic Prevention Act. This legislation would set up patient navigator systems, which would provide patients with a trained navigator ``buddy'' from their own community, who speaks their own language, and who will act as their advocate in navigating the health care system. This program would do wonders to increase awareness of programs and services in minority communities, and provide an opportunity to empower impacted communities in the fight against cancer. By passing legislation like H.R. 918 and lending support to National Minority Cancer Awareness Week, we can reduce and ultimately eliminate the disparate burden of cancer and other diseases on minority and medically underserved communities. I urge my colleagues to support both of these important initiatives.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the week of April 19th as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. Primary immune deficiency diseases (PIDD) are genetic disorders in which part of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. The World Health Organization recognizes more than 150 primary immune diseases which affect as many as 50,000 people in the united States. Fortunately, 70 percent of PIDD patients are able to maintain their health through regular infusions of a plasma product know as intravenous immunoglobulin. IGIV helps bolster the immune system and provides critical protection against infection and disease. I am familiar with primary immune deficiencies because of a constituent of mine who has a primary immune deficiency disease called selective antipolysaccharide antibody deficiency syndrome. Linda Keegan, like so many primary immune deficiency patients was not diagnosed until adulthood. Linda spent a great part of her life winding her way through the health-care system, suffering from recurrent sinus and ear infections, sinus surgery, and the mid-life onset of asthma. She felt that virtually nobody with a medical degree of any sort was willing to understand or believe that she was unable to resist infections in the same way that most people do. She spent her life being sick and on antibiotics. Finally, one morning in an urgent care unit, a physician's assistant listened to her medical history, and said ``there might be something wrong with your immune system.'' Linda took it upon herself to research the immune system on the Internet, and eventually met an immunologist who diagnosed her correctly, in her mid- 40's. Linda is eligible for IGIV therapy, but so far a daily dose of two antibiotics is preventing sinus and ear infections, and her asthma symptoms have become sporadic, rather than chronic. She knows that someday she might have to depend on IGIV, but for now she is trying to make good lifestyle choices and keep a positive attitude. One way Linda has done this is by becoming a volunteer peer contact for the Immune Deficiency Foundation. In my home State of Wisconsin, Linda provides information and support to other PIDD patients or parents who have children with PIDD. Linda is not unique with the delay in diagnosis of her primary immune deficiency disease. Despite the recent progress in PIDD research, the average length of time between the onset of symptoms in a patient and a definitive diagnosis of PIDD is 9.2 years. In the interim, those afflicted may suffer repeated and serious infections and possibly irreversible damage to internal organs. That is why it is critical that we raise awareness about these illnesses within the general public and the health care community. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Immune Deficiency Foundation for its leadership in this area and I am proud to join them in recognizing the week of April 19th as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. I encourage my colleagues to work with us to help improve the quality of life for PIDD patients and their families.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the men and women in our Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in Iraq. Their bravery and dedication is something all Americans should admire and honor. It is not just their martial skill and training that proved outstanding during the combat phase of the Iraq campaign, their exceptional abilities to begin the rebuilding of Iraq have been essential. Our military forces have demonstrated again and again their professionalism when faced with incredibly difficult challenges. They truly are the best in the world. I want to also give special recognition to our citizen soldiers--the men and women in our National Guard and Reserves--and their families. For them to leave their jobs and loved ones, in many cases for more than a year, requires tremendous sacrifice and commitment. In the last year, I have been there when many of our local Wisconsin units have left for deployment and been there when many have finally returned home. When they leave, I have seen their determination to get the job done combined with great sadness about their separation from their families. When they return, I have seen their pride at a job well done and their joy at being reunited with their families. No country could be better served than we have by the members of our Guard and Reserve. I also want to pay my respects to the ultimate sacrifice paid by the 709 military men and women who have died in Iraq and express my heartfelt condolences to their families. Each one of them is a hero. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid but must always be remembered. We also owe a great debt to the more than 3,200 who have been wounded in Iraq. Medical advances and improved safety equipment have meant fewer deaths, but many are surviving with serious injuries. We must fulfill our commitment to caring for them, ensuring that our veterans health care system can meet their needs. Mr. Speaker, there is no Member of this Congress who is not grateful to our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. No matter our positions on what the proper U.S. policies should be, let there be no doubt that we honor and appreciate their sacrifices. It is with regret that I voted against the resolution presented to this House. I am very disappointed in the Republican leadership of this House for bringing forth a resolution under a closed rule without providing the opportunity for Democrats to participate in the drafting. Honoring our troops should always be a non-partisan effort and should never be used as a partisan maneuver. The resolution that came before us could have, and should have, won the backing of every Member of the House. A non-partisan resolution, drafted with input from both sides of the aisle, would have attained unanimous support, allowing the House of Representatives to speak with one resounding voice in honor of our men and women in uniform. It is not simply the partisan nature of this resolution that caused me to vote against it. If that were my only concern, my desire to recognize our troops would have been stronger than my indignation about the means employed to do so. However, I voted against the resolution because it is being used to distract us from the very real and very important debate that we should be having about our Iraq policy and our counter-terrorism policies. Mr. Speaker, there is a debate going on among the American people about Iraq and the war. The American people are concerned about our intelligence failures, the use of intelligence, the Administration's apparent obsession with Iraq, the failure of post-war Iraq planning, the cost of the war, the costs of reconstruction, the long-term demands on our military and how Iraq affects the war on terrorism. This Congress and this Administration has a responsibility to answer, or find the answers, to these questions. The American people deserve no less. The American people are wondering if we are safer as a result of the war to remove Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq. This is a difficult question to answer, and to be quite frank, I don't know. But it is a question that is important to ask. And it should not be dismissed with an ``of course'' or the suggestion that anyone who thinks we may not be safer is unpatriotic or would be happy if Hussein were still in power. We must draw an important distinction between the following questions: Is Iraq better off? Is Iraq less of a security threat to the United States? And, is the United States safer as a result of the President's choice to go to war in Iraq. I believe the answer to the first two questions is yes. However, it is the final question that is by far the most important. On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda, an international terrorist group that was then based in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban regime. Military action against Al Qaeda and the Taliban was widely supported by Americans, including me, to hunt down the perpetrators of 9-11 and eliminate their ability to operate in Afghanistan. We were joined by numerous countries who understood that the fight against Al Qaeda was their fight too. The initial phases of that campaign were successful in shutting down their training camps, capturing or killing many of their members and deposing the Taliban. Like in Iraq, our military men and women performed exceptionally well. But the victory in Afghanistan is not complete. Just last month, we launched, with Pakistan, another military initiative to find additional Al Qaeda forces hiding out in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Security in Afghanistan is largely absent outside of Kabul and traditional tribal leaders and warlords have real control over most of the country. Scheduled elections may need to be postponed because of the inability of the international community to register voters in the countryside due to lack of security. Opium production is reaching record new levels. Our job in Afghanistan is clearly not done. Our national security officials cannot focus on an infinite number of problems at once. There are only so many hours a day for the National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and other top officials to do their work. They can't focus on everything and must make choices. There can be no doubt that Iraq required an incredible amount of time and resources in order to succeed. What is the opportunity cost? I fear that part of the reason for the slow progress in Afghanistan is the result of diversion of resources and attention to the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq. The commitment of time, money and resources to Iraq has also impacted our homeland security. The war, occupation and reconstruction costs in Iraq are likely to exceed $250 billion. That is a huge expenditure. By focusing our scarce resources during an economic downturn on Iraq, much less has been available to fund our first responders and protect our country. A recent independent review of our homeland security efforts by the Century Foundation found major deficiencies. Their Homeland Security Report Card clearly indicates that a safer America will require significant improvements by the Department of Homeland Security. While there have been successes in passenger screening, the air marshall program and infrastructure analysis, this report highlights serious and disturbing shortcomings that leave Americans vulnerable. Protecting private planes, securing air cargo, providing funding for first responders, and better immigration oversight are critical to our security. It is disappointing to find that, according to the Century Foundation's report, in these areas we may be worse off than before September 11. Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to stop focusing on rhetoric about Iraq and begin to focus on the facts. We need to spend less time trying to portray loyal Americans as soft on terrorism because they raise questions and want to debate the most effective ways to prevent terrorism and protect Americans. A full and healthy national debate, in Congress and around the country, will not weaken our resolve, it will strengthen us. Building a consensus policy to combat terrorism will allow us to move forward united. A consensus policy will reduce friction about dedication of resources and will allow us to sustain a consistent policy for the duration of our fight against terrorism. That is the debate we should have had. That is the debate our country needs to have.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Tiara Purifoy of Beloit, WI, who recently appeared on the popular reality television show ``American Idol.'' After being named a semifinalist with her powerful rendition of Whitney Houston's song ``I Wanna Dance with Somebody,'' she was surprisingly eliminated before the singing even started on the wild card show on Tuesday, March 9, 2003. The show, which first aired in 2002, draws a nationwide audience in the millions, two nights a week. ``American Idol'' brings aspiring singers from across the nation to Hollywood, and awards the winner a recording contract and celebrity status. Tiara was selected at an audition in Hawaii. While her dream of being the next ``American Idol'' has not yet come to pass, Tiara is still a star in the hearts of Wisconsinites. Tiara began singing as a small girl at age four in her church choir. She will continue to sing and perform with her traveling family group the Gospel Belles, where she sings lead. Her appearance on ``American Idol'' was not her first brush with fame, however. She describes her greatest accomplishment thus far as being named Miss Beloit in 1999 because she was able to be a positive example for young people. Indeed, Purifoy proved to be a positive example to both young and old across the nation when she stood up to judge Simon Cowell, who is known for his hurtful and critical remarks to budding stars' performances. Despite praise from the other judges, celebrated performer Paula Abdul and Grammy Award winning producer Randy Jackson, Cowell told Purifoy she was capable of much more. With her absolute confidence and positive attitude, Purifoy retorted, saying she would let America decide. Indeed, America responded, and Purifoy moved on to the next round. Even though Tiara is not the nation's new ``American Idol,'' she will continue to share her sweet voice with her friends and family who continue to cheer for her back home in Beloit. Please share this opportunity with me, Mr. Speaker, to honor Beloit and Wisconsin's own American Idol.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pat Richter and his incredible career as Athletic Director for the University of Wisconsin. After over fourteen years in that position, he is retiring on April 1, 2004. Pat Richter played basketball, football, and baseball during his college days at the University of Wisconsin, lettering three times in each. He also went on to a professional career in football, but it is his legacy as Athletic Director that will carry on for years to come. Badger fans will always be grateful for his successful efforts in turning around an athletic department that faced financial difficulties, out of date stadiums, and waning fan support. Today, the University of Wisconsin boasts an athletic program that has attained nationwide acclaim for success and innovation both in athletics and academics. Under Pat Richter's watch, the University of Wisconsin has built modern athletic facilities, including the Kohl Center, University Ridge Golf Course, the Fetzer Academic Learning Center, and the Goodman Softball Diamond. The University has also renovated the McClimon Track/ Soccer Complex, and recently began renovation of Camp Randall Stadium. Badger fans will be able to enjoy these facilities for generations to come. I am most proud of Pat Richter's efforts toward equality in the athletic department. In his fourteen year tenure, the University of Wisconsin has added three women's sports--softball, lightweight crew, and hockey. The University of Wisconsin now has a policy that strives to have a percentage of female athletes proportionate to the overall female population of students on campus. The success of Wisconsin athletics under Pat Richter has been phenomenal. The Badgers have won three national championships--men's hockey in 1989-90, men's rowing in 1989-90 and men's soccer in 1995-and a remarkable 49 Big Ten Championships. The football team has won three Rose Bowl games. The women's basketball teams have played in six NCAA tournaments, while the men's basketball team recently played in their seventh NCAA tournament in eight years, a remarkable run that also includes a trip to the Final Four by the 2000 team. Mr. Speaker, I join all of Wisconsin in recognizing Pat Richter's achievements as Athletic Director and we wish him much success.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, budgets are about priorities and America's budget ought to reflect America's priorities. Once again, Republicans have presented a budget that makes spending billions of dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy a higher priority than confronting the issues my constituents worry about, such as fixing our broken health care system and putting America back to work, educating our children, and keeping our promises to our seniors and veterans. In short, people who make over a million dollars a year come first, while millions of hard-working Americans foot the bill. Those who need it the very least get the most, and those who need the help the most get the very least. Perhaps some of you have heard of a popular TV reality show called ``The Simple Life.'' It introduces two young wealthy heiresses onto an Arkansas farm where they are exposed to hard work and a set of struggles they have not witnessed firsthand before. Under this budget resolution, hotel heiress Paris Hilton would make out big. Given her family's $300 million fortune and her earnings from filming the show, she belongs to an elite group of Americans who make over $1 million per year. She would save over $150,000 in taxes per year under the policies that are embraced in this Republican budget resolution. So what about the family she stayed with? Well, I confess I do not know the annual income of the farm family that hosted them, but I can tell you that the average farm family in my home State would save roughly $600 from the tax cut policies in this budget. But at what cost to maintain these tax cuts? First, the Republican budget resolution pays for them by borrowing from future generations, so we can all pay a little bit of the interest on the debt incurred to pay for Paris Hilton's tax cut. Second, the Republican budget resolution pays for these tax cuts by ignoring pressing American problems like our health care crisis and job losses. Lastly, this resolution pays for these tax cuts by cutting or freezing vital investments in our future like education and keeping our promises to seniors and veterans. Now, I have had a little fun with ``The Simple Life,'' but the bottom line is very serious. I can tell you that putting tax cuts for the wealthy before the needs of hard-working Americans will have serious impacts on their lives and our future.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Devin Harris of the University of Wisconsin men's basketball team, who was recently named the 2004 Big Ten Conference player of the year. Devin is only the fifth Badger player in history and the first since 1950 to receive the honor. He led his team to a twenty-four and six record entering the NCAA tournament and a second-place finish in the Big Ten while scoring over twenty points a game. He was also among the Big Ten leaders in assists, steals, assist-to-turnover ratio, and three-point field goal percentage. In addition to being the player of the year, Devin was the only unanimous first team all-conference selection, and was also named the Most Outstanding Player of the Big Ten Tournament after leading the Badgers to the tournament championship, the first in school history. Beyond statistics and awards, Devin has continually amazed the Badger faithful with his effervescent style of play and penchant for playing even better when it mattered most. His silky smooth ballhandling and signature step-back jump shot contribute to his astounding ability to break down a half-court defense and find a way to score, while his speed and leaping ability have led to some spectacular dunks in transition. His versatile game makes it difficult for one defender to stay with him, which opens up opportunities for his teammates, and he consistently gets them the ball when those opportunities arise. Everyone plays better when Devin is on the court, and that is what makes him a truly special player. If Badger fans needed any other reason to love Devin, he is also a homegrown talent, coming to UW from Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, where he was the state high school player of the year at East High. Even with that, however, it would have been difficult for anyone to predict that he would develop into the player that he has. This past fall, when the Big Ten coaches named him the pre-season conference player of the year, Devin was as surprised as anyone. But there is no surprise left in awards for Devin Harris. No one who saw him play this year could doubt that he deserves this honor, and our recognition.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of an important historic program that celebrates famous cases throughout Wisconsin's legal history and honors Wisconsin's Women Jurists. This year, Wisconsinites have had the opportunity to take part in a traveling exhibit showcasing the rich history of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The exhibit examines several of the influential cases Wisconsin has confronted during its over 150 years, including slavery, women's suffrage, and mandatory education for children. I commend the members of the Wisconsin Legal History Committee for their efforts in developing this exhibit so that this generation has the opportunity to learn from Wisconsin's extensive legal history. On March 17, 2004, for the first time in Wisconsin's history, Judge Maxine A. White, District Director of the National Association of Women Judges, with the assistance of over 25 sponsoring legal associations and community groups, will unveil the portraits of fifteen Wisconsin Women Jurists who are retired or deceased. I am excited that the changing face of the Wisconsin judiciary is being recognized in this exhibit. These 15 female jurists served the courts of Wisconsin between 1972 and 2003 and covered eight different counties across the State-- Olga Bennett, Vernon County Court (1969-75); Vel R. Phillips, Milwaukee County Court (1971-73); Martha Bablitch, Court of Appeals, District IV (1978-85); Leah M. Lampone, Milwaukee County Circuit Court (1978-93); Donna J. Muza, Dunn County Circuit Court (1979-98); Arlene D. Connors, Milwaukee County Circuit Court (1980-98); Janine P. Geske, Milwaukee County Circuit Court (1981-93), Wisconsin Supreme Court (1993-98); Vivi L. Dilweg, Brown County Circuit Court (1982-99); Marianne E. Becker, Waukesha County Circuit Court (1985-2003); Paulette L. Siebers (1985- 86), Dane County Circuit Court; Susan R. Steingass, Dane County Circuit Court (1985-93); Virginia A. Wolfe, Sauk County Circuit Court (1988- 2000); Louise Tesmer, Milwaukee County Circuit Court (1989-2001); Jacqueline Schellinger, Milwaukee County Circuit Court (1992-2003); Nancy E. Wheeler, Racine County Circuit Court (1993-98). I have had the privilege of getting to know several of these amazing women, and it has been such an honor to learn from them. I would also like to congratulate and commend Judge White on her leadership of this event, and Wisconsin Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who will receive the prestigious American Judicature Society's ``Herbert Harley'' Award at the March 17 event. The ``Herbert Harley'' Award is given to individuals who have made outstanding efforts to improve the administration of justice in their State. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is certainly deserving of this award for her tireless work on behalf of Wisconsin.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Lofgren substitute to H.R. 1997. Violence against women remains epidemic in our society. According to a Commonwealth Fund survey, nearly one out of every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. Acts of violence committed against pregnant women are especially heartbreaking and abhorrent. Congress should and must focus sharply on efforts addressing this issue. But we can address this issue without tangling it in the abortion debate. And the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lofgren) substitute does exactly that. It focuses on the crime of violence against the pregnant woman without undermining a woman's right to choose. The substitute creates a separate and distinct crime for any violent assault against a pregnant woman that harms or ends her pregnancy, in addition to the assault of the pregnant woman. Most importantly, this substitute avoids the issue of fetal rights and fetal personhood. It correctly recognizes that the pregnant woman is the primary victim of an assault that causes harm to, or termination of, her pregnancy. In this way, the substitute we consider today accomplishes the stated goals of the underlying bill, the deterrence and punishment of violent acts against pregnant women, without bogging us down in the abortion debate. I urge my colleagues to ask themselves why H.R. 1997 treats an embryo or a fetus at any stage of development as an individual with extensive legal rights distinct from the mother. How would establishing this legal framework reduce the occurrence of crimes against pregnant women? The answer is that the underlying bill is not directed to the pregnant woman. Instead, it unnecessarily opens up an abortion debate. I applaud the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lofgren) efforts of addressing the serious issue of violence against pregnant women in a way that accomplishes the goal of reducing this violence in a nonaggressive manner, and I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.