Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano for all their hard work in putting the Commerce-State- Justice and Related Agencies Appropriations bill together. This legislation, while never perfect, includes important funding for programs helping our local economies grow, and keeping our communities safe. I particularly commend the Appropriations Committee for providing $106 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program within the Department of Commerce's National Institutes of Standards and Technology. Through a national network of manufacturing extension centers. MEP is designed to benefit domestic manufacturers by providing expertise and services tailored to their most critical needs. This includes assistance in process improvements, worker training, and information technology applications. In Wisconsin, MEP has served over 110 firms. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has repeatedly cut funding for MEP; the President's budget request has consistently cut funding for MEP, proposing an 83 percent reduction in FY04 and a 60 percent reduction in FY05. In western Wisconsin, the Northwest Manufacturing Outreach Center (NWMOC), one of two MEP Centers in Wisconsin, has provided assistance to more than 900 companies over the past 10 years. Frank Borg, Joe Benkowski, and their team at NWMOC travel throughout northern Wisconsin helping companies ensure businesses are able to compete and grow in the global marketplace. Restoring funding to $106 million is critical to MEP's success in Wisconsin and throughout the Nation. I also want to thank the Committee for restoring funding for State and local law enforcement activities which the President's budget proposed slashing by over 80 percent. The legislation restores funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and Bryne Discretionary Grants. In addition, the legislation rejects drastic cuts proposed by the President for the COPS program. In western Wisconsin, and throughout the Nation, the COPS program is more important than ever. As many rural law enforcement offices are being called up for service in the National Guard and military Reserves, the COPS program provides resources necessary to help communities meet law enforcement challenges. In addition, the legislation provides $60 million to help fight methamphetamine production and distribution. Methamphetamine abuse has been increasing in rural Wisconsin, and we must continue to help fight against this dangerous drug. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us provides many important resources for our local communities, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for his leadership on the committee and for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, in a few minutes, I am going to be offering a very important amendment to highlight an incredibly valuable program that affects the Upper Mississippi River basin, the Environmental Management Program. It has been in existence since 1986. It deals with habitat restoration along the river, along with long-term resource monitoring so we can better manage the river basin and the ecosystem. I look forward to being able to continue the work on this important project with the chairman and the ranking member of the committee as we move to conference in dealing with the funding issue. But right now, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize and draw attention in this Chamber to a very important and fun event that is going to occur in the Upper Mississippi River over the next week. It is the re- creation of the Grand Excursion that occurred there 150 years ago. The Grand Excursion is regarded as one of the greatest promotional trips ever devised in our Nation's history, one that changed the face of the Upper Mississippi River forever. In 1854, the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad became the first railroad to reach the Mississippi River. To celebrate, the owners and contractors for the railroad proposed an excursion for a select group of stockholders, friends, and family. But word spread quickly about the occasion, resulting in a 1,200 person entourage traveling from Rock Island, Illinois, to what is now known as Minneapolis, Minnesota. It was the Grand Excursion of paddle boats up the Mississippi River. My district in Western Wisconsin has more miles along the Mississippi River than any other district and will play host to this excursion coming through our communities over the next week. According to the Chicago Tribune, the excursionists were considered ``the most brilliant ever assembled in the West.'' Statesmen, historians, diplomats, poets, newspaper editors. As the media wrote home to their newspapers, word spread about the wonders of the Nation's ``dark interior.'' This event turned into an opportunity to show some of our Nation's most influential people the fantastic beauty, numerous resources, and the unlimited opportunities that the Mississippi River and the West could provide. The year after, steamboat traffic along the Upper Mississippi River doubled, flooding the region with new settlers. The Grand Excursion also brought millions of dollars of investment to the area and positioned the Upper Mississippi region as a dominant force in the development of the Nation in the 19th Century. The Grand Excursion of 2004 is an opportunity now to draw awareness from around the Nation and around the world about the recreational, the commercial, and the environmental opportunities that the Mississippi River and all its communities provide. In addition to the ``Grand Flotilla,'' the retracing of the Grand Excursion's journey by trains, paddlewheelers, and steamboats, over 50 communities along the 419 mile route will hold festivals and educational events to commemorate their 150th anniversary. Those who are unable to participate firsthand in the celebrations will be able to experience the excitement through the dynamic Web site that has been created. I wish the participants of the Grand Excursion much fun and success in the upcoming week.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, based on previous conversations and the agreement I had with the Chair and the ranking member of the committee, I was offering this amendment with the intent to ask unanimous consent to withdraw and continue working with them and with the conferees in regards to a very important program that affects the upper Mississippi river basin, the Environmental Management Program. It is an authorized program that first passed in 1986. It was reauthorized on a permanent basis in 1999. The authorization level has gone up to $33 million. My concern is that we have over the last few years been backtracking in regards to the funding of this important program. As co-chair of the bipartisan upper Mississippi river basin Congressional task force, I have worked with my colleagues from this five-State region to build consensus about how best to protect and restore the nationally significant and environmental treasures of the upper Mississippi River. I want to commend my colleagues who are here today, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Hulshof, for their strong support for the EMP program and the support we have had in the bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus. Earlier this year, 013 of us of the River Caucus wrote to the committee asking the committee to respect and appropriate funds for EMP at the President's budget request of $28 million. The committee, however, in this underlying report is only recommending $16 million. The fear is we are backsliding on current projects that are in the works that will delay the completion of these projects by years. It will delay the implementation of new identified habitat restoration projects along the upper Mississippi River, along with the crucial long-term resource monitoring and the data collection which helps us better manage this important national treasure that we have in middle America. The upper Mississippi and the entire Mississippi River basin area is North America's largest migratory route for waterfowl. It is the primary drinking source for 33 million Americans. It adds countless billions of dollars to our regional economy through industry and companies and farmers with the commercial navigation that is available along the Mississippi, not to mention a $6 billion tourism impact on the upper area and close to $2 billion recreation impact in the upper Mississippi River area. And we have always recognized the legislation that has preceded us today that this is a multi-use river system between commercial navigation, which has existed in the past since the 1930s when the lock and dam system was created to harness the power of the river, to the recreation and the tourist impact. The EMP program was established in the 1980s recognizing the need to maintain that important balance along the river between the infrastructure needs that are ongoing, but also the habitat restoration and long-term resource monitoring that the EMP program currently does. But, unfortunately, again, we have had backsliding over the last few years in regards to the commitment of the program. Fortunately, the administration sees it a little bit differently. Based on a letter that I wrote to the administration requesting funding earlier this year, the President responded to my request by a letter dated April 20, and I quote, ``As you know, the President submitted his 2005 budget on February 2004. I am pleased to say that the budget identifies EMP as one of the eight highest priority Army Corps of Engineer construction projects in the Nation and proposes $28 million in funding for it an increase of $9 million or 47 percent from the previous fiscal year.'' The point is, this has received wide bipartisan support, support from the governors and the five States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, that have supported this project. Various groups that are concerned about river management issues are very supportive of the environmental management program. The Corps of Engineers has had a multiyear, multimillion dollar navigation study that they have initially released a preliminary report upon asking in part for $5.3 billion ecosystem management project to go along with a proposed lock and dam expansion project. In light of where we seem to be heading in regards to the river management issues, we would hope we could get more support for the funding of a program that has proven itself year in and year out with wide bipartisan support, with tangible results that we see along the upper Mississippi River, something that thousands of people will see in the coming week as the 1854 grand excursion is recreated with a grand flotilla going up the Mississippi and finally ending up, I believe, in the district of the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) for a 4th of July celebration. The river has played an incredibly important role in the development of middle America, the Great Plains States, and the upper Midwest generally. From the exposure it received in 1854 with the Grand Excursion to the great American novels that Mark Twain wrote of two kids growing up on the Mississippi, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, to the ongoing uses of the river, we believe we need to do a better job of funding the EMP; and hopefully with the leadership's cooperation, we can accomplish that in conference.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, budgeting is all about priorities. I strongly believe that we can invest in those priority programs important to people in western Wisconsin and throughout the nation, while reducing the record deficits that threaten our economic prosperity. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I worked with my colleagues to draft an alternative budget proposal that would have done just that. Our alternative provided important funding for chronically underfunded education programs such as No Child Left Behind and IDEA. The federal government promised that when these programs went into effect, it would provide funding to carry them out. Under the President's budget and the Majority's budget, we are not meeting this promise, and it is hurting local school districts. Our alternative budget also provided increased funding to meet the demands on our local first responders, provide more for veterans' health care needs, and improve the quality of life for our armed service members. Further, by making tough choices on spending and taxes, we provided more tax relief for middle income Americans while reducing the record federal budget deficits. We can do this if we can work in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, the budget resolution narrowly passed by the House earlier this year failed to make these key investments while still leading us down the road to the largest budget deficits in the history of our nation. Today, we have been given the opportunity to address our budget shortfalls. The resolution offered by Congressman Obey targets increased funding toward ten top priority issues, while providing $4.7 billion to reduce future taxes on our children resulting from the these current budget deficits. The Obey resolution: Restores funding for training and equipment needs of state and local fire fighters, police, paramedics, public health officials, and emergency managers. Fully funds veterans medical care at levels advocated by the bipartisan House Veterans Affairs Committee. Veterans organizations expressed outrage at the inadequate healthcare funding levels included in the Majority's budget. Adds funding for military housing needs to help the families of our armed service members. The Department of Defense notes that over 120,000 service members do not have decent housing. Funds the No Child Left Behind program. Meets the minimum funding necessary to meet promises for special education. Increases Pell Grants to more closely resemble inflation increases, helping lower income student afford college. This is by no means unnecessary or wasteful spending. It simply restores cuts to programs important to the people of western Wisconsin and provides adequate levels of funding to meet government promises. It is also fully paid for. As I mentioned earlier, budgeting is about tough choices, and included in this resolution is a reasonable trade off. In order to provide this important funding for military service members, students, veterans, and local first responders, the resolution propose reducing future tax relief for those wealthiest Americans with over $1 million in annual adjusted gross income. The tax packages of 2001 and 2003 included enormous benefits for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. The Obey proposal will keep many of these tax provisions in place. In fact, those with annual adjusted gross incomes over $1 million will still get around $24,000 in tax relief if this resolution is passed. Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the other side, this will not hurt the vast majority of small business owners. This resolution only impacts those with over $1 million in adjusted gross income. I know and work with many business owners in western Wisconsin, and this resolution will provide more help to them and their communities. Mr. Speaker, we need a new approach to help our local communities and this resolution provides important funding to meet critical priorities. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey resolution.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise before you today to honor the historic village of Galesville, Wisconsin. On June 26, 2004, Galesville will be celebrating its 150th anniversary, and activities will include the opening of a capsule that was buried fifty years ago on the town's 100th anniversary. This quaint community in western Wisconsin overlooks Lake Marinuka and sits among rolling hills, towering cliffs, forests and spring-fed streams. The first settlers of the Galesville area were the Native Americans, who planted their history on the same soil the town of Galesville rests today. The influence of the Native Americans remains strong; this is apparent in the naming of Lake Marinuka, which was named after the legend of Princess Marie Nounko, who was the granddaughter of the Great Chief Decorah, the chief of the Winnebago tribe. Princess Marie's grave lies at the north end of the lake, where she was buried in 1884. In addition, the town of Galesville is blessed with a unique 100 year old bowstring bridge, located alongside the historic McGilvray Road. Judge George Gale founded Gales College 150 years ago; soon after the town was born. In 1869, Rev. D.O. Van Slyke, circuit-riding preacher and Civil War veteran, believed Galesville was the biblical Garden of Eden because of its breathtaking surroundings. The term ``Garden of Eden,'' is still fitting to those walking the streets of this quiet village. Galesville's Apple Affair has become a major Trempealeau County event. Since 1983, this annual event takes place on the first Saturday in October as part of Wisconsin's effort to promote the state's apple orchards. The Apple Affair draws many families from throughout the region. From apple pie to caramel apples, this annual celebration is a wonderful time to enjoy the outdoors, as well as get to know the friendly people of Galesville. The 150th anniversary of Galesville highlights what is good and important about rural America to our country. There are thousands of small rural communities across this Nation that form the backbone of rural life; these communities are the incubators of local commerce, politics, education, recreation, entertainment and faith of rural neighborhoods. The hardworking citizens of small town America are the builders of our great Nation. I am pleased to congratulate the citizens of Galesville on their sesquicentennial, and believe it is important to recognize their unique contribution to the growth of western Wisconsin. I wish them happiness and prosperity during the next 150 years.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act. As a member of the Education and the Workforce or Committee, I am pleased with the process in which this bill has been considered; it is a critical bill that will greatly benefit our nation's children as well as family farmers. Ensuring that our youth receive proper nutrition is a top priority for me in Congress. I have traveled across western Wisconsin, meeting with people both in and out of the schools who are active in administering child nutrition programs, and consistently I hear how important these programs are for our youth. I have also met with parents and children who participate, and I hear how many of these families depend on federal child nutrition programs for a healthy start in life and healthy meals as their children grow. Sadly, too often, a federally subsidized meal is the only complete meal some children eat in a day. This reality underscores the importance of this bill that will improve access to such important programs while also increasing the nutritional value of federal food programs. Specifically, I am pleased that several provisions were included in the base bill, which I coauthored in previous legislation. H.R. 3250, the Child Nutrition Improvement Act of 2003, which I sponsored with Representatives Bennie Thompson, Gil Gutknecht, and Tom Petri, will combat the increasing problem of child obesity through increased child milk consumption by preventing commercial beverage companies from pressuring schools to remove milk vending machines. Another provision included in the base bill from H.R. 3250 will improve child nutrition by making it easier for schools to offer milk in a variety of flavors and fat contents to better meet students' varying tastes and needs. With 90 percent of teenage girls and 70 percent of teenage boys currently not getting enough calcium, it is imperative to provide increased availability of milk products in schools. Additionally, S. 2507 includes legislation that I sponsored with Representative Upton, H.R. 2626, The Farm-to-Cafeteria Projects Act of 2003. This provision focuses on connecting local agriculture to schools in every state through a competitive, one-time matching grant directly to local communities. This allows each locality to design a farm-to- cafeteria project tailored to specific farm and school community needs. Experience has shown that kids' food choices can be improved by connecting farms to the lunchroom. Mr. Speaker, again, I am proud to support this bill on the Floor today. Our goal in the 21st century should be to ensure that every child receives proper nutrition needed to succeed in school. It is a simple fact: good nutrition is an educational tool that improves children's performance in school.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and I rise in opposition to the Republican budget legislation. Mr. Chairman, we are here today to debate a very important issue, and that is reinstituting fiscal disciplinary rules in the budget process. We need a meaningful pay-as-you-go rule, one that offsets both spending and tax cuts to achieve balance. Unfortunately, what is before us today is more like ``pray-as-you- go'' or more like ``pay-a-little-bit-as-you-go'' and leave a legacy of debt to the next generation to inherit. Unfortunately, we hear a lot of talk on the other side that the problem is always spending, too much spending. Well, if that is the case, then what have you been doing the last 4 years? Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives. Republicans have been in control of the Senate. There is a Republican President sitting in the White House, and he has not vetoed one spending bill in the last 4 years. Instead, he inherits a 5.6 projected surplus, converts it into a $3 trillion deficit and now claims that spending has run away. Instead, we could go back to a tried and true method that worked in the 1990s, a pay-as-you-go rule that made sense and brought balance and then budget surpluses that actually allowed us to reduce the national debt. That is what the Spratt substitute allows, and I encourage my colleagues to support the Spratt substitute.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, United States leadership in pursuit of peace in the Middle East is essential if we are to help bring about an equitable and fair peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians and end the bloodshed. The situation in the Middle East is a dominant issue on the minds of people in the region and throughout the world, and we cannot lose sight of the fact that stability in this region is tied directly to our own national security. I applauded the United States leadership in crafting the ``Roadmap'' to Middle East peace coauthored by the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations. This promising commitment has suffered at the hands of continued bloodshed and disagreement. However, I believe we must push for follow-through on the principles embodied in the Roadmap as a building block for a viable Palestinian State and secure Israel. Given the lack of progress in tandem by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the region has suffered from the violence continuing to engulf the region. The need to break the deadlock is greatly apparent, and Prime Minister Sharon's proposal for Israel to unilaterally withdraw certain military installations and settlements from the Gaza Strip and West Bank is an opportunity for progress toward peace. Involvement by regional governments such as Egypt in pressuring reforms from the Palestinian Authority also hold promise that progress can be made. With continued involvement, we maintain the hope the next steps will be done through successful negotiation and compromise. The resolution before us supports the concepts included in President Bush's letter to Prime Minister Sharon dated April 14, 2004, regarding recent actions taken by Israel and the United States commitment to the peace process. It includes a reaffirmation of America's commitment to Israel's security and reinforces that Israelis and Palestinians, and all states in the region and beyond, must work together to fight terrorism. It also highlights highly sensitive issues including future refugee resettlement and border lines based on negotiations, which have been part of peace talks started under President Clinton. While I would prefer the language in this resolution to more closely focus on the international commitment to Middle East peace and the obligations of the parties involved, I believe the intention of the resolution is consistent with the Roadmap for Peace, and I will support it. We must stay engaged in this matter and constantly work toward peace and security for Israel and the Palestinian people.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Congressman Rush Holt. Yellowstone National Park is the flagship of the National Park Service and is a favorite to millions of visitors each year. Since the first explorers began documenting their discoveries to modern day, the features of Yellowstone National Park have virtually remained the same. The scenic beauty, the thermal features, the volcanic mysteries, the free roaming wildlife are all a throwback to bygone days that continues to captivate the hearts and minds to all who are fortunate enough to witness them. Mr. Chairman, this wonderful experience should remain available to those who responsibly use a snowmobile to enjoy all that Yellowstone has to offer. Snowmobiling is a very important recreational activity for many Wisconsin families each winter. In fact, there are over 210,000 registered snowmobiles in my state, and I am concerned this amendment would unnecessarily curtail a popular method of enjoying Yellowstone and negatively impact on the industries snowmobiling supports. The manufacturers of snowmobiles have successfully labored to build quieter, cleaner machines. The four-stroke engines found in new generation snowmobiles emit far less hydrocarbons and carbon monoxides than the older, two-stroke models. In addition, they operate at a decibel level that is quieter than many vacuum cleaners. The sixty-five thousand snowmobiles that enter the parks each winter on a limited road system is part of a new Winter-Use Plan that allows all Americans to enjoy the majestic beauty of Yellowstone, while still preserving the health of the Park and the wildlife that live there. In fact, the environmental impact of these machines on this national treasure is likely far less than that of the nearly two million cars and trucks that enter in the summer months. Mr. Chairman, responsible snowmobiling has its place in the American outdoors, especially in national forests designed for multiple-use. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources of the Committee on Resources, I rise, once again, in disappointed opposition to H.R. 4503/H.R. 6. The bill before us today is nearly identical to the Conference Report on the Energy Policy Act of 2003--absent of any new ideas that would ensure a more secure energy future for America; but with all of the same fatal flaws that would force ``mom-and-pop-taxpayer'' to fatten the already sizeable bottom line of some of our Nation's largest oil companies and pay for the clean-up of MTBE contaminated groundwater. I won't spend more of Congress' precious time listing all of my objections to this bill, but will simply include the statements I made last year on H.R. 6 for the record. But let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no question our Nation needs a comprehensive and balanced energy plan--one that weens us off of our shaky strategic dependence of Middle Eastern oil toward more sustainable, cleaner, and renewable sources. Unfortunately, this bill--like last year's budget-busting behemoth--does not get us there. There are, however, some worthy provisions in these bills that have wide, bipartisan support. So, instead of political grandstanding, I urge the House leadership to separate and pass these important measures. One such example is the mandatory reliability standards, which would punish utilities who violate rules designed to limit how much electricity can be sold over the Nation's aging power grid. This measure could be perfected and passed by Congress today if it was allowed to be considered separately. The reliability of our Nation's interconnected power grid is critical to our economy and our security, but has been left at risk. In fact, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham was recently reported as saying ``the U.S. power grid is in better shape than before last August's massive blackout but remains vulnerable this summer.'' Another widely supported proposal is the renewable fuels standard provision. This measure would increase the requirement that gasoline sold in the United States contain a specified volume of clean-burning ethanol or biodiesel. Under this measure, the annual average volume of renewable fuel additives would incrementally increase, starting at 3.1 billion gallons in 2005 and reaching 5 billion gallons in 2012--two and a half times the current requirement. The American Farm Bureau has estimated the renewable fuels standard will have a significant economic stimulus tool for rural America by adding $4.5 billion to net farm income; create the need for $5.3 billion in rural captial investments; and create 216,000 new jobs. Ethanol and biodiesel are just two broad-based, diversified, environmentally friendly energy products American agriculture can produce. I have long stated that empowering U.S. farmers to assume a greater role in producing renewable fuels is a win-win situation deserving congressional support. Unfortunately, even though this provision has the consensus approval of Republicans and Democrats alike, House leadership has steadfastly refused to move it separately. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill and immediately move to work bipartisanly to pass these widely supported, and much needed provisions.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, over the past year, I, along with many other Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have been pushing for congressional action to fix the international trade dispute over the extraterritorial income (ETI) and Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) programs. We have a bipartisan, fully paid-for remedy that would reform these tax provisions, put the United States tax code in compliance with the World Trade Organization (WTO), and reduce the tax burden on American manufacturers and farmers. Unfortunately, the Majority leadership ignored this bipartisan approach in favor of a budget- busting, controversial bill that does little for small manufacturers in Wisconsin and includes multiple provisions completely unrelated to the trade problem we need to fix immediately. Because of the House majority's previous inaction on reforming the FSC-ETI trade dispute, the European Union (EU) continues to ratchet up tariffs on nearly 100 categories of U.S.-produced exports. This costs American businesses and workers by making our products less competitive in the major European market. Unless we reform the FSC-ETI tax provisions, EU tariffs on American products will continue to climb, potentially costing American exporters over $4 billion. With over 2 million American manufacturing jobs lost since 2001, it is critical that we act to reverse this trend by eliminating incentives for American jobs to be sent overseas and working to end trade barriers that hurt American exports. Anticipating the EU tariffs, Congressmen Crane, Rangel, Manzullo, and Levin introduced bipartisan legislation last year to address the FSC-ETI trade dispute. H.R. 1769, the Jobs Protection Act, would have eliminated the American tax breaks found in violation of WTO rules, and reinvested the savings back into American manufacturers by reducing their tax rates. I, along with 175 other Members of Congress, cosponsored this legislation and have pushed for the House to consider this legislation. Despite this bipartisan compromise, the Majority leadership has brought to the Floor today a piecemeal, fiscally irresponsible bill that is filled with special interest breaks and will increase already record budget deficits. Further, the major provisions of H.R. 4520 provide over $30 billion in tax incentives for large multinational corporations while providing little to no tax relief to small and medium-sized manufacturers, farmers, and unincorporated businesses. The Republican chairman of the House Small Business Committee has expressed his opposition to this legislation because it fails to include smaller non-Chapter C corporations in its manufacturing benefit. Because of strong bipartisan opposition to H.R. 4520, the majority has attached 400 pages of additional tax reforms, complications, and unrelated add-ons that dilute from our important mission to fix the FSC-ETI trade dispute, add tens of billions of dollars to the budget deficit, and curb potential investment in our manufacturing sector. Some of the additional provisions included in H.R. 4520 are items that I have consistently supported including a temporary incentive to repatriate overseas profits in the United States, and extensions of important tax benefits such as the research and development tax credit, wind and biomass electricity production credit, Work Opportunity tax credit, and small business expensing rates. I am hopeful that these items can be acted on by the House separately from this unacceptable legislation. The substitute authored by Congressman Rangel was based on the bipartisan FSC-ETI reform bill, H.R. 1769, and would have included extensions of the R&D tax credit, renewable energy production credits, increased small business expensing provisions, tax deductions for teachers, and other important tax provisions. Further, the substitute would provide better treatment of small businesses, farming cooperatives, and domestic manufacturers, while not adding to the federal budget deficit. Unfortunately, the Majority leadership did not even allow debate on the Rangel substitute fearing it would gain wide bipartisan support and displace the unrelated provisions included in H.R. 4520. Mr. Speaker, with 2.7 million American manufacturing jobs lost over the past years, including over 80,000 in my home state of Wisconsin, we should not be playing partisan games on the House floor. We should be considering legislation that will end European tariffs on American exports, helps domestic farmers and manufacturers be more competitive, closes abused corporate tax loopholes, and does not burden our children with huge amounts of debt that they will have to pay off in the future. The Rangel substitute would do all these things. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4520 in its current form so that Congress can move forward on responsible ETI-FSC legislation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from the great State of Kansas for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I, too, rise today to mark the death of President Ronald Reagan and to pay tribute to a great American. I extend my deepest sympathies and prayers to Mrs. Reagan and the entire Reagan family. With President Reagan's death, our country lost yet another member of the greatest generation, a member who typified his generation with his work ethic, his optimism, and his patriotism. I believe that all of us, regardless of political affiliation, were impressed by how much President Reagan loved America, how much he believed in its basic goodness and the decency of this great country. He was so proud to represent a country that stood for freedom and equality, and he worked for many years to help spread freedom across the globe. I was fortunate enough to witness firsthand the effect of freedom spreading across the world. After graduating from college, I had the privilege of traveling to Europe and spending time in the countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union that were struggling to gain a place in the world as free nations. My travels included a stop in Berlin to celebrate the reunification of Germany. I hammered away with a sledgehammer at the Berlin Wall with thousands of people from all over the world. I still have a piece of that wall, which sits on my desk. It was inspiring to be a part of history in this way, and I can only imagine how wonderful it must have been for President Reagan to have played such a seminal role in the transformation of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc nations. With the end of the Cold War, we face an exciting new world of independent nations throughout Eastern and Central Europe. As we face current challenges throughout the world, I look back to the patriotism and optimism with which President Reagan approached international and domestic issues, and I feel grateful that we have his example. Aside from his leadership on issues of international importance, I also appreciate President Reagan's willingness to find bipartisan compromise in order to achieve results. To him, politics was not a blood sport; it was the art of the possible. Coming to Congress several years after both President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill had retired, I always enjoyed listening to my colleagues tell of the two men swapping stories and jokes as they negotiated important pieces of legislation. President Reagan's bipartisan spirit and constant optimism are testament to his leadership skills and his love for his country. It is an approach to governing and it is an approach to leadership that we need to restore. May God bless his soul.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, rise today to recognize Karen Schoenfeld and all of the faculty and students at La Crosse Roads School, which is a high school in my district in western Wisconsin. The students and faculty at the school are performing a great service to our country and deserve our praise and recognition. Four years ago, after listening to my father and uncle talk about their experiences serving our country overseas, I realized that our Nation needed to record the valuable stories of our veterans and those Americans who supported them. And it was this simple experience that led me to author the Veterans Oral History Project Act. After passing the House and Senate unanimously and being signed into law by President Clinton, the project was turned over to the able staff at the Library of Congress's Folklife Center. This small but dedicated staff relies heavily on volunteers to collect the stories of veterans, and La Crosse Roads School has risen admirably to this challenge. Partnering with the local Rotary Club, of which Karen is a member, the students and faculty at La Crosse Roads have taken on the task of contacting and interviewing veterans and submitting their interviews for inclusion in the Veterans History Project. The interaction between these high school students and our Nation's veterans has been an amazing one to watch. The teenagers tell me that they have never before been interested in history; by hearing our veterans' stories first-hand, they are not only interested, but they also feel that they are a part of preserving an important part of American history. They are making a significant contribution to our country and get enormous satisfaction from doing so. The veterans, some of whom have never talked about their experiences before, feel gratified that their stories are important to others. The excellent work done by Karen and the students has been aided by the National Court Reporters, led by my wife Tawni, who are transcribing the interviews. In all, the work that Karen and the students have done has been incredibly successful. They are an excellent example of the kind of partnerships that make the Veterans History Program a national success. Karen is truly a remarkable person who brings her enthusiasm and energy to the classroom working with these ``at-risk'' students. There is no half-effort or lower gear for Karen, and that is reflected in the success her students achieve. She not only has had her students involved with the Veterans History Project for the past three years; she has also worked with the local CESA office to develop a website and lesson plan for other teachers and students to use for the project. And every year Karen teams with a WWII veteran, Bill Bruring, to have an awards ceremony in La Crosse to recognize the students and particularly the veterans. It is a very moving and patriotic ceremony that I have had the pleasure of attending. Many of us were lucky enough to be on the Mall this past weekend and visit with some of the veterans who were here for the dedication of the National World War II Memorial. It was truly inspiring to talk to these great men and women, who had sacrificed so much and have a great deal to teach us. I believe that Karen and her students have learned many important lessons from our veterans, and I would like to end by reading a poem Karen wrote that beautifully expresses the experience she and her students have had with the veterans: I Never Saw Your Face Before I never saw your face before. I never knew your name. But now our paths have crossed And I will never be the same. I never saw the flag before. Not really, not its soul. I only saw the stars, the stripes, a fabric on a pole. Now as I gaze upon the flag I can see young faces. All called away from our proud land to other distant places. They did what they were called to do. They put their dreams on hold. They knew that others needed them. They did what they were told. And you, my friend, have taught me this-- the sacrifices made. You helped me know what I have earned From the price that others paid. I've been in class, I've read the books. I've seen the movies too. But now I know our freedom's price-- All this I've learned from you. Karen Schoenfeld

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Charlie, they say that politics is a sea of conflict. If that is true, then you have been the steady hand that has guided this ship of state, our democratic process, through so many years of calm and troubled waters. You will be missed. We have appreciated your service. You are the epitome of what public service is all about. And, as I encouraged Terry just before his retirement, and I have enjoyed the conversations that we have had in regards to the tradition and the history and the culture of this place, I encourage you to record your memories and maybe put it in book form to share with the rest of the world because in so many ways, you are also the repository of a lot of the knowledge and memories that are embodied in this place. So we all wish you well today. We wish you Godspeed and may you have a very long and happy and healthy retirement. Thank you.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as we approach Memorial Day, it is proper that the House take a moment to remember the brave American men and women of our armed forces who have died defending freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. In particular, I want to take this time to remember heroes from my district in western Wisconsin. First Lieutenant Jeremy L. Wolfe, U.S. Army, of Menomonie, Wisconsin. Lieutenant Wolfe was assigned to the 4th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He died serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on November 15, 2003. Major Christopher J. Splinter, U.S. Army, of Platteville, Wisconsin. Major Splinter was assigned to the 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He died serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on December 24, 2003. Private First Class Bert E. Hoyer, U.S. Army Reserve, of Ellsworth, Wisconsin. Private Hoyer was assigned to the 652nd Engineer Company, Ellsworth, Wisconsin. He died serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 10, 2004. Private First Class Gregory R. Goodrich, U.S. Army Reserve, of Bartonville, Illinois. Private Goodrich's mother lives in Hillsboro, Wisconsin. He was assigned to the 724th Transportation Company, Bartonville, Illinois. Private Goodrich died serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on April 9, 2004. These young men paid the ultimate price to enhance our security and protect our liberties; they also gave the people of Iraq the greatest gift of all: their freedom. I want to extend my heartfelt sympathies to their families and friends. Young leaders like these exemplify all that is good and decent about America. On behalf of a grateful nation, we thank all our brave men and women serving in hard and dangerous conditions to bring stability and freedom to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. God bless those who are serving and those who have fallen. Their sacrifice is honored by all Americans.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support providing tax relief to middle-income Americans and I support permanent extension of tax cuts aimed at helping working American families. However, I am not in favor of a new tax break for families making over $300,000 per year, which is exactly what H.R. 4359 provides, and I rise in opposition to this legislation. The legislation before us today is a dangerous tax cut Trojan Horse. Disguised as an extension of the child tax credit increase included in the 2001 and 2003 tax cut packages, this bill provides an entirely new tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans by expanding eligibility for this tax cut to families making over $300,000 per year. This more than doubles the previous high point of $110,000 per family where the child tax credit started to phase out, and provides those in the top 10% of income earners over $70 billion in tax cuts. This is not surprising considering the House leadership decided not to include a child tax credit benefit for working families making between $10,500 and $26,625 during the 2003 tax cut package. By loading on tax breaks for the very wealthy, H.R. 4359 is simply another demonstration of the majority's contempt for working American families. Further, it is unfair to Americans today, and especially the next generation, to delude ourselves by thinking the record budget deficits facing our nation, estimated by the White House at over $500 billion this year alone, will simply go away. H.R. 4359 as drafted contains no offsets, and will add $288 billion to the budget deficit over the next 10 years at a time when the raid on the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds continues. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I supported a budget resolution that would have extended the child tax credit at the current levels, while still reducing the deficit. This approach required touch choices, prioritization, and a commitment to helping working families. Unfortunately, this was not the approach taken by the House leadership, putting tax relief for middle-income Americans in jeopardy. I support the alternative offered today by my colleague Representative Levin that fully extends the child tax credit increase for middle-income Americans. It would prevent any tax increase in 2005, and will not increase the budget deficit because it is fully paid for through a responsible offset. Further, it provides more tax relief to more families making up to $110,000 by indexing the child tax credit for inflation--bringing it up to $1,100 by 2009. It also benefits our military families by allowing combat pay to be counted toward the refundable portion of the credit. This approach makes sure that during these difficult economic times, the vast majority of the benefits of the child tax credit help the vast majority of Americans. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Levin alternative and reject the new tax break for the wealthiest of Americans. Without the Rangel alternative, this legislation creates more harm than good; it not only increases the budget deficit of today, but also increases the debt of the future at the expense of working families.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, these are budgets with pay-as-you-go rules. These are budgets that do not have pay-as-you-go rules, from 4 years of budget surpluses to record setting budget deficit. What is hard to understand here? Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the legacy of this administration cannot be historically large budget deficits and rising anti- Americanism throughout the globe. Yet that is exactly what is taking place here this evening. We have an obligation to do better. As the father of two little boys, I did not come to this Congress to leave a legacy of debt for our children and grandchildren to inherit. This will not make us more prosperous, nor will it make us more secure at the end of the day. We can do better, and by applying pay-as-you-go rules just to the United States Senate and not to the House of Representatives is the height of deceit and double-speak that we have before us this evening. I encourage my colleagues to reject this budget resolution. We can and must do better.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 409, which recognizes the 16,000,000 Americans who served in the armed forces during World War II and the millions more who supported them at home. As the dedication of the National World War II Memorial and the 60th anniversary of D-Day approach, our country will rightfully be thinking of those Americans who bravely gave or risked their lives to a great cause. I remain in awe of this generation, of men who accepted the call to travel around the world to spend years fighting in the Asian and Pacific theaters, and of women who kept the country running by assuming jobs in factories, growing victory gardens, and serving overseas in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps and other capacities. It has been my good fortune to spend some time with veterans and their families in my home district of western Wisconsin, and I always enjoy hearing their stories of wartime. In fact, it was the experience of listening to my uncle, a World War II veteran, that inspired me to introduce legislation creating The Veterans Oral History Project. Almost four years after becoming public law, the Veterans History Project at the Library of Congress has collected 16,000 stories and is working at a feverish pace to collect more everyday. This living legacy is testament to the millions of Americans who sacrificed so much during World War II. Now, almost 60 years after the end of the war, a monument has at last been built in our nation's capital that pays tribute to the generation that fought and won World War II. The monument, set in the middle of the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument, will remind all visitors to the city that World War II was the defining event of the 20th Century and the seminal point for what is often and aptly called ``the Greatest Generation.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for the fine work and the leadership that he has shown on such an important issue. This is an important issue. It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again without any change in the result. Yet that is what we have been having this week in Congress, bills that have already been debated and deliberated upon and voted upon last year coming back again for another kick at the can, which is fine. In an issue as important as this, I think it is important for the Congress to take a moment and start talking about the plight of small businesses and family farmers across the country who are suffering under rising health care costs and fearful of the inability of being able to provide coverage for their families or their employees because of the cost of insurance today. This is such a fundamental and crucial issue if we want to be serious about economic growth, if we want to be concerned about the 43-million- plus uninsured that exist in this country. As I travel through my congressional district in western Wisconsin meeting with small business owners and their employees, meeting with family farmers, the number one, chief concern that they continuously raise is the expensive health care and accessing the quality system that exists in this country right now on an affordable basis. It is a travesty that 20 percent of my dairy farmers in Wisconsin have no health coverage at all for themselves or their families, one of the more dangerous occupations in the entire country. It is a travesty that as I talk to small business owners who would like nothing better than to provide some health coverage for their employees, tell me that they cannot because they cannot afford it. In a country as great and as powerful and as wealthy as ours, we have got to do better and we have to get serious. What we are about to talk about in the remaining minutes of the duration of this debate is there is a better way. The gentleman from New Jersey and I have drafted a substitute to what is being offered before the House today. It is one based in common sense, in reality in regards to what will work and what will not, what will extend coverage to the uninsured and what will not; what will bring more affordability to the health care system, to these small business owners, their employees and to our family farmers, and what will not. Our bill is very simple. It is based on the Federal Employee Health Plan. It does establish national purchasing pools but it goes through State-licensed insurers so we do not have Federal preemption of State law over such crucial areas as cancer screening, whether it is mammograms, breast cancer, cervical cancer screenings, whether it is emergency care or maternity care, issues that the States have wrestled with with themselves and found it important enough to pass law on a State-to-State basis to provide coverage for these important services. And also to cover autism health care. I am proud that the State of Wisconsin is one of 17 that does mandate the coverage of autism health care for our citizens in the State, one that is exploding right now and very expensive for society. Health care experts and those affected by autism, those families of autistic children, realize that the key to effective treatment is early identification. If we allow this AHP plan to pass, which preempts State law, that says, hey, insurers, you don't have to provide coverage even though the State of Wisconsin says this is the right policy to do, it is only going to exacerbate the system in this country in regard to effective autistic treatment for children in our communities. That is what this debate is all about. It is a very simple, commonsense approach to dealing with what is a national crisis and, I view, a national emergency. Rather than offering a piece of legislation where the American Academy of Actuaries, where Mercer has released a study indicating that it would increase rather than decrease the rolls of the uninsured by 1 million people, our substitute version that provides national purchasing options, that provides subsidy payments to employers with 50 or fewer employees in order to keep those health care premiums down and our ability to potentially extend health care coverage to the 43 million uninsured to an additional 33 million Americans, we think this is the best approach to take. This is not an issue about who supports small business or family farmers more or who is more concerned about the plight of the uninsured. This is about what will work and what will not work. That is why we have the National Governors Association, the Republican and Democratic Governors Association, the National Association of Attorneys General and Insurance Commissioners, over 1,000 organizations including 66 chambers of commerce who are saying that the majority AHP plan will not work. Not because they desire some power grab and to maintain their own State regulations, but because it is based on reality and an independent and objective study of what will and what will not work. That is why I would hope that my colleagues, before they ultimately make up their mind and cast their vote today, that they have a chance to quickly look at the actuary study, to quickly look at the Mercer study and to pause before we embark upon a road that could potentially lead to another million uninsured in our society. Enough is enough. We need to be going in the opposite direction rather than where I fear the AHP bill would go. The substitute that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering offers that hope and that potential to achieve that, and I would encourage my colleagues to support the substitute, vote ``no'' on the AHP bill, and let us move forward together on something that has the potential of working very well for small businesses and family farmers throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a true champion of small business owners and their employees.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), an expert in the health care field and one who does not want to embark upon a course of adding an additional 1 million people to the uninsured ranks.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. With all due respect to the chairman of our committee, and I have great respect and admiration for him and I think he is well motivated with this underlying bill, but our bill does, in fact, cover self- employed. Under the definition of what constitutes an employer, an individual who is self-employed would also be covered. So I just wanted to clarify the record in that regard. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the co-author of our substitute bill before us. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, this debate really is about two very distinct and different options: one that, again, through independent analysis and review, indicates could lead to an increase of 1 million more uninsured in this country, as opposed to the substitute that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering today; one that is based on reality and supported by a host of organizations throughout the Nation, including the Governors Association, the Attorneys General, and the insurance commissioners, those who work with this on a day-to-day basis and see the real impact it is having on real people in their individual States. Our plan is simple. It also talks about establishing a national purchasing pool, but one working with state-licensed insurers, so we do not preempt State law and the judgment being made by State legislatures and local decisionmakers on what is or is not appropriate health care coverage in that particular State. I am proud of many of the coverages that the State of Wisconsin has chosen to include under the State regulations. I am also proud of the fact that the State legislature and Governor are signing into law and setting up model programs of this purchasing pool concept in Wisconsin, allowing small business owners and family farmers to join cooperatives with a menu of health options, but under State regulation, not exempting them and not preempting what the State has already done. I have a feeling that that is going to work, and work very well, if the demand that exists from back home is any indication of the desire to enter into these pilot programs. That is the identical version that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering and talking about today, allowing this purchasing pool concept to go forward under State law, so that important health care services and screening does not get preempted and lead to a diminution in the quality of care that citizens in States have come to expect and desire. Why is this important? 44 million uninsured is a travesty and a blemish on our national character. It gets to the real root and basis of us and what we are all about as a Nation. Being able to access quality and affordable health care is something that affects all of us, from businesses large and small, from individuals to small business owners, to farmers, to us here in Congress; and the fear we see in constituents' eyes back home when they know they do not have health coverage for their families and their children, it is real. And when they do not have coverage and they do get sick or they do get hurt, they still are able to access the health care system, just through more expensive means, typically through the emergency door. And those costs then are shifted on to private plans that do have coverage, which contributes to the rising premium expenses that are sweeping the Nation today. So I think it is in our fundamental national interest to do what we can to make sure that the 43 million or 44 million currently uninsured receive coverage, so we have better preventive care up front, so the children of our Nation have a way to access the health care system, which can save us money and pay dividends in the long run. I think this is an objective that we share in a bipartisan fashion, but it is one that I think can better be achieved through the Kind- Andrews substitute. It is paid for within the budget resolution that the majority party has passed in this session of Congress. It does offer premium support payments to employees with 50 or fewer employees, because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is correct, even if we have some savings in premium expenses, your average small business employer probably is still prohibited from being able to access an insurance pool and being able to pick up the expense and providing coverage for their employees. We are saying we can do better by offering them some of this premium price assistance to make it more affordable and to create the incentives so we have small business owners who I believe want desperately to be able to provide coverage, to be in a position to better afford that type of coverage. This is what we need to try to achieve. This should be a dream we all hold in this Congress. Because unless and until we fix this fundamental flaw in the health care system in our country, we are not going to see the robust job growth that we desperately need today. We are not going to see businesses, either large or small, anxious for additional hires for fear of incurring the additional health care expense. I think it is one of the reasons why we have not seen the explosion of job growth over the last couple of years, even though the administration has been fond of pointing to expanding economic conditions in this country. It is the health care system, and it needs to be addressed. I think we desperately need to do it, and I think we have the opportunity today to make a significant step in that direction. I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the majority Associated Health Plan and support a real plan that can work for real Americans, the Kind-Andrews substitute. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support providing tax relief to middle-income Americans by extending the 10 percent tax bracket expansion that is scheduled to expire next year. Without action, the current amount of income subject to the 10 percent tax bracket will decrease by $1,000 for individual filers and $2,000 for couples as required under the 2003 tax cut package. While the majority of the 2003 tax proposal that passed the House was fiscally irresponsible and designed to benefit only the wealthiest of Americans, its provision expanding the 10 percent tax bracket to benefit more middle-income taxpayers had bipartisan agreement. The legislation before us today and the substitute offered by Congressman Tanner will permanently extend the current income levels failing under the 10 percent tax bracket. As we extend the 10 percent tax bracket expansion, we need to act in a fiscally responsible manner. It is unfair to Americans today, and especially the next generation, to delude ourselves by thinking the record budget deficits facing our Nation, estimated by the White House at over $500 billion this year alone, will simply go away. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I supported a budget resolution that would have extended the 10 percent tax bracket expansion while still reducing the deficit. This approach requires tough choices, prioritization, and a bipartisan commitment to helping working families. With the House-Senate conference committee still negotiating the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005, I remain hopeful that we will be able to provide Americans continued tax relief today without raising the debt burden on our children's generation. The substitute offered today by Representative Tanner is a more responsible bill that will provide relief to millions of families while not increasing the budget deficit. By adding a rate adjustment of 1.9 percentage points of the tax cuts for households making over $1 million, the Tanner substitute provides a reasonable offset to benefit more American families without burdening our children with added debt that they will have to pay off. Further the Tanner substitute also completely protects against these tax cuts being taken back by the Alternative Minimum Tax, and provides incentive to address mounting Federal deficits by making permanency of this tax provision contingent on a balanced budget in 2014. This is a superior approach, helps more Americans, and ensures most middle income taxpayers will not have to worry about a tax increase related to the 10 percent bracket in the near future. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we act today to ensure average- income Americans will not unfairly jump into a higher tax bracket in 2005. However, I believe we can and must provide this relief in a fiscally responsible manner that will not burden future generations of Americans. Just as it was true last week when we passed legislation permanently repealing the marriage penalty tax, our work is far from over in helping working families face the challenge of today's economy. We must come together in a bipartisan manner to craft a fiscally responsible budget resolution.