Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, we have had hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means. We have had hearings in the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures on tax reform ideas.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Well, in the subcommittee we had a lot of hearings.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I will explain the chart so the gentleman from Washington can understand it. Even if he cannot see it, I will explain it all to him.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, these are not sales tax charts, by the way, I say to the gentleman from Washington. Let me explain what these charts do in a second. We are here to talk about tax reform. We are here to talk about, can we have a better way of raising revenue for the government without doing so much harm and damage to our economy, to the daily lives of individuals and to the businesses and job creation in this economy. There is an issue that is also important, not only to mention the fact that our Tax Code consumes so many hours of preparation, wastes so many trees, and the fact that it is just so large; but it also inhibits our competitiveness globally. Where we work on the Committee on Ways and Means, we are experiencing this on a day-to-day basis. But the point that I want to make here today, the reason we need to reform our Tax Code is not just to make it easier for people to keep more of the money they earn, but to make it simpler, to make our Tax Code less punitive. Let us take it for a fact, the Tax Code punishes all the qualities that make America great. It penalizes us if we get married, it penalizes us if we want to have kids, it penalizes us if we have a small business, it penalizes us if we save, it penalizes us if we invest, it penalizes us the more we work and the more successful we become. These are things we should not be penalizing in this country; we should be rewarding those things in America. Where it really is arrogant is in the fact that we are losing jobs to foreign trade every day in this country. When we look at our Tax Code, and this is what this chart goes to, if we look at the effective top central and local corporate rate, meaning how much do we tax businesses in this country, if we look at the entire industrialized world from Ireland on up to Japan and every other industrialized nation in the world, the United States has tax rates on business income that are higher than any other industrialized country in the world except for Japan. Japan is in their second decade of recession. If we take a look at just the tax rates on capital, and what I mean when I say ``capital'', that is investment, that is plant and equipment, that is expansion of businesses, that is capital. When we take a look at the tax rates on capital such as the tax rates on dividends, that tax rate is the second highest in the world except for Japan, again, a country that is in its second decade of recession. So when we sit here and tax capital, when we sit here and tax our businesses at not 20 percent, not 15 percent, but at an effective tax rate of over 35 percent in America, we are taxing jobs overseas. More importantly, what is also harmful with our Tax Code is, unlike our industrial competitors, we tax our income on a worldwide basis. Not only do we have the second highest tax rates in the world, we tax all worldwide income made by U.S. companies at that higher rate. If you are an American company making money in Ireland, a country with a corporate tax rate of 17 percent, you are going to end up paying that U.S. tax rate of 35 percent, whereas it will be much less for France or England. Mr. Speaker, we are losing jobs because we tax our companies and businesses more than anybody else does. We tax them overseas. What happens? Foreign companies are taking over U.S. companies, pushing income and jobs overseas. We need to lower our tax rates, we need to fix our Tax Code and make it more efficient so we can keep jobs here at home.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation, along with my colleague Congressman Ben Cardin, that would allow charitable and educational organizations to make grants to fraternities, sororities, and other collegiate organizations to provide housing and student facilities to the same extent that tax-exempt colleges and universities may provide such facilities for students. By way of background, taxpayers may generally deduct contributions to non-profit educational organizations (i.e., educational organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (``Code'')) such as colleges or universities. These colleges and universities may expend their funds (including donated funds) on student facilities such as dormitories, dining halls, study areas, libraries, computers, laundry facilities, physical fitness facilities, and social or recreational areas without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. State and private colleges and universities do not, and cannot, provide all of the housing and related student facilities necessary for their student bodies. Collegiate organizations such as fraternities, sororities, and other student associations (e.g., Muslim Students Association, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Hillel) fill a large part of the collegiate housing gap. Fraternities and sororities alone provide housing for more than 250,000 students each year. These student associations take on significant financial burdens in order to provide student housing without cost to affiliated colleges and universities. Fraternities, sororities, and student associations provide collegiate housing through tax-exempt organizations, but their exemption comes under Code section 501(c)(7), with the result that direct contributions to these organizations are not deductible. However, educational organizations established to benefit these fraternities, sororities, and other student associations may qualify under Code section 501(c)(3) to receive deductible contributions. The current IRS position is that it will not give a tax-exemption ruling to these educational organizations unless they limit student facility grants to those that are solely for educational use (with exceptions for minor social or recreational use). According to this IRS position, a fraternity foundation, for example, may make grants to a fraternity for the construction (or for annual operating expenses) in a fraternity house of a library, study area, computer area, or instructional area. The fraternity foundation may also make grants, for computers, computer desks, and chairs, if similar to what is provided by the specific college with which the fraternity is associated, and for internet wiring, if the specific college also provides internet wiring. However, the IRS says that fraternity foundations may not make student facility grants for the construction or operation of sleeping quarters, dining areas, laundry facilities, or dedicated social or recreational areas (such as physical fitness facilities or equipment), or hallways or rooms used for both educational and other purposes. Under the current IRS position, a charitable organization could not make a grant to a section 501(c)(7) collegiate housing organization (or to an affiliated section 501(c)(2) or (c)(7) organization) to provide fire safety upgrades unless those upgrades were limited to areas that are solely for educational use. However, fire safety upgrades will not provide necessary protection unless they are made throughout an entire building. It has been estimated that just the cost of installing sprinklers in fraternity and sorority housing is over $300 million nationwide. There is no policy reason for distinguishing between the types of student facilities that may be provided by a tax-exempt college and those that may be provided by another tax-exempt charitable or educational organization to a collegiate organization for the benefit of individuals who are full-time college students. The current IRS position, which we believe is an incorrect interpretation of the law, puts collegiate organizations at a significant disadvantage in obtaining the funds necessary to provide or maintain housing and infrastructure, including the funds necessary to provide fire safety upgrades. I believe that clarifying that tax-exempt charitable or educational organizations may make collegiate housing and infrastructure grants will encourage private sector contributions to address student housing needs, thus relieving a burden that would otherwise fall on financially strapped colleges and universities. Accordingly, this bill provides that charitable and educational organizations may make grants to collegiate housing organizations (including affiliate organizations holding title to property) for the construction or operation of collegiate housing and infrastructure facilities that are of the type tax-exempt colleges are permitted to provide for their students, including, but not limited to, sleeping quarters, fire safety equipment and upgrades, dining areas, social and recreational areas, study areas, libraries, and computers and related furniture and wiring. I urge our colleagues to support this worthy legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this hour of debate is dedicated to the Joint Economic Committee to talk about the economy, so I would like to spend a few moments to do just that. Our economy is in trouble. Just in the last month of February, we lost 308,000 jobs. That is one of the sharpest drops in recent history. The unemployment rate at this time stands at 5.8 percent. While this is relatively low by historical standards, it is high by recent history. Unemployment was only 4 percent as recently as the year 2000. Mr. Chairman, there are three parts of our economy by definition, consumption, investment and government spending. Consumption is relatively high in this country: retail sales, new refinancings on homes, car purchasing. It is why our economy grew at 2.75 percentage points last year. Government spending, even though you would not hear it from the other side, is at an all-time high. Investment on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, has declined in this economy. In fact, investment spending in this economy has declined for eight consecutive quarters, for 2 years. What are we going to do about it? That is an important question, and that is a question that is addressed and answered in this budget. Mr. Chairman, there are two schools of thought here in Washington. One school of thought we are seeing on the other side of the aisle is that we just need to spend more money, and that way we will grow the economy. Let me review that for a moment here with this chart, and let me explain why more government spending does not create jobs. Number one, to spend a dollar the government first must tax or borrow that dollar from an individual or business. Second, that individual or business now has 1 less dollar to spend or invest. Third, the government then spends that dollar. But, fourth, there is no net effect in economic activity. Government spending goes up by a buck, personal private spending goes down by a buck. What is the alternative vision to that, Mr. Chairman? The alternative vision is to create jobs and promote economic growth by reducing taxes. How does that happen? How does this work? Number one, the higher taxes are, the less incentive there is to work or invest. It is an economic principle that economists from the left and the right agree upon. For example, an individual will invest more money when their after-tax income on each dollar invested is 80 cents than they would likely invest if their after-tax income is 50 cents. Put another way, if half of your money goes to taxes, you have less of an incentive to work and invest. If more of your money goes into your own pocket, you have a higher incentive effect to work and invest. More investment means more capital to expand, create businesses and to grow jobs. So new and expanded businesses means new jobs. That is why the net effect of reducing taxes in this budget will create jobs. What kind of tax cuts are we talking about? How many new jobs are we looking at? To give you a quick preview of what Americans are looking at in the President's economic growth package, in the economic growth package that is accommodated in this budget, it is basically this. Under the President's proposal to speed up tax relief, 92 million American taxpayers would receive, on average, tax cuts of over $1,000 in this year alone. Forty-six million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,716. Thirty-four million families with children would benefit from an average tax cut of $1,473. Six million single women with children would receive an average tax cut of $541. Thirteen million elderly taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,384. Twenty-three million small business owners would receive tax cuts averaging $2,042. For example, a typical family of four with two income earners earning a combined $39,000 in income would receive a total of $1,100 in tax relief and would wipe out their Federal tax liability. Mr. Chairman, how many jobs is this going to create? This is something that has been a topic of discussion for quite a while this year, and there are a lot of estimates on this point. According to conservative estimates by the Council of Economic Advisers, this plan will generate 2.1 million jobs over the next 3 years. According to other estimates, like the Business Roundtable, they put that figure at about 3 million new jobs at the end of the year. Macroeconomic Policy Advisers from St. Louis estimates that this economic growth package would increase new jobs, create brand new jobs, to the tune of 2 million new jobs by the end of 2004. This is what it is all about, Mr. Chairman. The reason we went into deficit is because people went from working and paying taxes to getting laid off and collecting unemployment. Sixty-eight percent of the loss of the surplus that occurred last year alone occurred because of this. We realize more spending is necessary to fight the war on terrorism, to win the war in Iraq, but we also realize that if we can get people back to work, the most moral economic policy is getting a person a job. It is becoming good economic policy, it is good fiscal policy, because if a person has a job, they are paying taxes, and they are bringing more money to the Federal Government. An issue that often comes around when we are talking about the tax bill is dividends. I would like to shed some light on why we are trying to repeal the double taxation of dividends. It is no secret if you go around this country and talk to manufacturers, talk to farmers, talk to small business men and women, that we are in global competition, that we are under pressure from trade from China, from Mexico, from other areas. One area where our Nation is so uncompetitive is in the area of taxes. When you take a look at how dividends are taxed, it is done basically like this. First a company makes money, and then it pays taxes on that money. Then if it wants to share its earnings with its owners, its shareholders, it passes that on to its shareholders in the form of a dividend. But in this country, that dividend gets taxed again. And so we have double taxation on dividends, which actually looks at about 60 to 70 percent of every dollar moving through our economy. To put it another way, Mr. Chairman, we tax dividend income higher than any other industrialized country in the world except for Japan. Looking at this chart here, which shows us basically a list of all the industrialized countries in the world, the United States of America taxes dividend income more than any other country except for Japan. I would not want to be Japan because they are entering their second decade of recession right now. What is accomplished by repealing the double taxation on dividends? Who benefits? This is a discussion that we have heard a lot. Mostly who benefits by repealing the double taxation on dividends are senior citizens. Half of all Americans who receive dividend income are senior citizens, and half of all seniors in America receive dividends. But more than just that. The people who own stocks, half of all households in America own shares in the stock market. People who have pension plans, people who have 401(k) plans, people who have IRAs will benefit from this because by repealing the double tax on dividends, you are increasing the after-tax rate of return on investment. What that means is you are increasing the value of all equities in the stock market. This is why economists from all over the spectrum, liberal and conservative, are telling us that if we repeal the double tax on dividends, we will increase the value of the stock market by anywhere from 7 to 20 percent. Imagine that, a 20 percent increase in the value of stock markets. Mr. Chairman, we all heard the stories about seniors who have seen their savings portfolio wiped out by the losses in the stock market that have occurred over the last year or two. We have seen the stories where pensioners, where people getting close to retirement have seen their retirement go away to the point they have to go back to work or work longer than they had planned. If we can do something that would actually improve the value of people's pension funds, IRAs, the stock market, that would be a good thing, I would think. And so, Mr. Chairman, that is why it is important to do this kind of economic policy. If we repeal the double tax on dividends, not only will we help senior citizens, not only will we help revive the stock market, not only will we help get people their jobs back and grow the economy, but we will also help restore good corporate governance to our Nation's corporations. One of the reasons why the stock market declined so much in this past year is because of all that corporate malfeasance that occurred. One of the reasons why we have bad decisionmaking in America's boardrooms is because in our Tax Code is an incentive to actually grow your corporation through borrowing, through debt financing, rather than honestly through equity growth. What I mean when I say that is we give companies a tax break if they borrow and borrow and borrow to grow their companies. And when we go into tough times, like a recession, what happens is these companies go bankrupt. That is one of the reasons why WorldCom, Global Crossing and all of these companies went bankrupt. But if we give companies an incentive to share the wealth with their shareholders, to grow their companies honestly through equity, we can strike a blow for good corporate governance. For many reasons, this is why this economic growth plan makes sense. The most important reason, Mr. Chairman, why we are trying to pass this budget is, number one, protect our priorities, win the war on terrorism, win the war in Iraq, and get people their jobs back. The best way to get this economy growing is to let people keep more of what they earn and allow businesses to keep more of what they make. One of the other great provisions in this tax bill is the fact that we lower the small business tax rate down to the level of large corporations. What we do not see that is being offered later in the budgets that are the alternative budgets, the Blue Dog budget, the Spratt budget, is that they raise taxes. They actually raise taxes on small businesses. What we are doing here is recognizing the fact that today, this very day, we are taxing small businesses at a higher tax rate than we tax large corporations in America. And so what we are simply trying to do is lower the tax rates on small businesses, not below the tax rate that large corporations pay, but down to the tax rate that large corporations pay. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this budget, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out, the veterans budget increases in this budget. The discretionary budget increases by 6 percent; the mandatory budget increases by 7 percent. We increase veterans spending in this budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We have enough speakers to fill up the time. Would the gentleman like us to catch up?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how to respond to all that other than just to say I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to point out that veterans spending has increased in this majority budget. Discretionary veterans spending goes up by $1.6 billion, and mandatory spending goes up by $2.3 billion, about a $4 billion increase in veterans spending. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I am, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. This is the period of debate where the Joint Economic Committee takes over to discuss the Humphrey-Hawkins period of debate, which is supposed to be about monetary policy. I see from my colleague, the last speaker, we are going to move beyond monetary policy, I guess. So in that spirit, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). (Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, we do not know how much the war is going to cost. The war just got started, and it is not over yet. When we know how long it will have lasted, then we will know how much it will have cost. Then we will be able to budget for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today, together with my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr Jefferson of Louisiana, Mr. Shaw of Florida, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tanner of Tennessee, Mr. Foley of Florida, Mr. Cantor of Virginia, as well as Mr. Ney of Ohio, Mr. Green of Wisconsin and Mr. Hayes of North Carolina, Mr. Radanovich of California I am introducing legislation that will extend the mortgage interest tax deduction to include mortgage insurance premiums, government and private. This is an important piece of legislation because making mortgage insurance payments tax-deductible will boost homeownership for lower-income, minority and veteran borrowers that typically need mortgage insurance to purchase a home. It is widely recognized that homeownership helps create stable and safe communities. Thus, the expansion of homeownership has been a longstanding goal of the Federal Government. The Bush Administration announced a goal of 5.5 million new homeowners by the year 2010. To achieve that goal, groups that have typically been unable to purchase homes--young people, low-income, members of minority groups--must be able to participate in the housing market. Government and private mortgage insurance programs help first-time, low-income and veteran borrowers afford to purchase a home. The VA, FHA, RHA and PMI programs allow buyers to make a down payment of 3 percent or less of the appraised value. Mortgage insurance is a critical factor in allowing middle-income families and minorities to become homeowners. In Wisconsin, approximately 149,000 families held mortgages with either FHA or private mortgage insurance at the end of 2002. Insured mortgages covered nearly 18 percent of home loans originated in Wisconsin in 2001. Insurance, however, covered about 30 percent of the mortgage loans made to Hispanic borrowers in Wisconsin and 28 percent of the loans made to African American borrowers. In 2001, nationwide, mortgage insurance covered 57 percent of mortgage purchase loans made to African American and Hispanic borrowers and 54 percent of the loans to borrowers with incomes below the median income. The people who use mortgage insurance are policemen, firemen, teachers, and veterans who live in every community throughout the country. Twelve million American families presently use mortgage insurance. Presently these borrowers cannot deduct the cost of their mortgage insurance payments for Federal tax purposes. If mortgage insurance payments were made deductible, the cost of homeownership would be further reduced for these borrowers, enabling new buyers to get into a home that they might not have been able to afford or to purchase a more valuable home. It is estimated that 300,000 more homeowners per year would result from making these payments tax-deductible. Extending the tax deduction for home mortgage interest payments to mortgage insurance payments will significantly contribute to making the American dream of owning a home come true for many more of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and join me in working towards its enactment this year.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of the 50th anniversary of Cub Scout Pack 596 from St. Alphonsus Parish in Greendale, Wisconsin. For the past five decades, the leaders, and members of Cub Scout Pack 596 have made invaluable contributions to their community, to Wisconsin, and to our country. Since 1930, the Cub Scout have helped young boys learn new skills and civic responsibility. Character development, good citizenship, and personal achievement are among the ten purposes of cub scouting. Other goal include spiritual growth, family understanding, respectful relationships, sportsmanship and fitness, friendly service, and fun and adventure. Cub scouts earn merit badges in recognition for physical fitness and talent-building activities. As a former cub scout, I believe that the values I was taught as a member--respect for nature, for other people, and for ourselves--have helped to shape who I am today. Pack 596 makes a difference in their community every year through programs such as Scouting for Food. In this program, scouts leave empty bags at homes in their neighborhood for the families to fill. The scouts then return the following weekend to take the food-filled bags to the local food pantry. Pack 596 also participates in a toy drive for needy children every Christmas. These boys have consistently worked to make the world a better place and steadfastly honored their motto to do their best. Mr. Speaker, Cub Scout Pack 596 has served as a model for all cub scout packs for 50 years. They have set a high standard for cub scouts everywhere through their commitment to God and country and their dedication to helping develop the future leaders of our Nation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with my colleagues Congressman Jerry Weller, Congressman Jerry Kleczka, Congressman Tom Petri, Congressman Mark Green, and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, to introduce the Former Insurance Agents Tax Equity Act of 2003, a bill designed to correct a minor oversight in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This legislation will help ensure that certain retired insurance agents are not unfairly subjected to self-employment tax. It will bring consistency and fairness to the tax treatment of similarly situated former insurance agents. Under current law, a small number of agents are forced to pay self- employment taxes on their retirement payments, while their peers at other insurance companies do not. This is because a change in the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 (TRA) was drafted in a way that unintentionally excluded a small group of agents. In the TRA, Congress enacted a provision designed to clarify that certain termination payments received by valued, long-term former insurance agents should be exempt from self-employment tax. Unfortunately, the changes in 1997 provided clarification for most agents, but not others, as a result of how certain insurance companies structure their agent agreements. As enacted, the 1997 provision provides that payments to a retired agent are exempt from self-employment tax when the agent's eligibility is tied to length of service, but not when the actual amounts of the payments are tied to the agent's length of service. Simply put, this is a distinction without a difference. There is no reason to provide different tax treatment for arrangements that are so similar just because the sum of an agent's termination payment is determined by varying the amount of compensation rather than the term of compensation. Hard-working agents whose payments are tied to their length of service deserve the same fair treatment accorded to their counterparts at other insurance companies. Both types of contract seek to satisfy the same goal of rewarding loyal, long-time agents with more generous retirement payments. All of these payments, of course, continue to be subjected to income taxes. The Former Insurance Agents Tax Equity Act of 2003 would simply strike language in the Internal Revenue Code that prevents companies from using a former agent's length of service in determining the amount of termination payment the agent will receive. In doing so, this bill fulfills Congress' intentions with the TRA and provides equitable tax treatment for all former agents. In addition, the budget implications are minor since only a very small number of agents are affected. This provision enjoys the support of thousands of insurance agents around the country, as well as the National Association of Life Underwriters, the Coalition of Exclusive Agents, and the National Association of Independent Insurers. In the interest of ensuring that termination payments to former insurance agents are treated fairly and consistently under our tax laws, I hope that you will join me in supporting the Former Insurance Agents Tax Equity Act of 2003.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Walworth, Wisconsin Masonic Lodge 286. Throughout this period, the Masons of Lodge 286 have made invaluable contributions to their community and to Wisconsin. Faith, honor, integrity, responsibility for one's actions, the absolute right to intellectual and spiritual freedom, and self-control are the Masons' core values and principles. After the first Grand Lodge was founded in England in 1717, Masonry's rich history was solidified in America by such patriots as Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Paul Revere, and John Hancock. Many would argue that the Masons and Masonry played a significant role in the Revolutionary War and an even more important part in the Constitutional Convention. For 100 years the Masons of the Walworth, Wisconsin Lodge 286 have worked to maintain this tradition and standard of excellence. Charitable giving is also a large part of Masonry. Along with scholarship and loan funds to assist young people in furthering their education, Masons support many community-based charitable projects. These projects range from donating to children's hospitals and burn institutes built by Shriners, to simple and much needed services such as buying shoes and clothing for disadvantaged children. They have participated in charitable giving with other lodges in Wisconsin through the Wisconsin Masonic Foundation. Founded in 1925, the Foundation has been committed to educating our youth through an educational scholarship fund; caring for our elderly through the Wisconsin Masonic Home Endowment Fund; and doing good works through the Special Donor Advised Funds Program, which allows special donors to have naming rights as well as advisory capabilities related to the fund's intended purpose. Masons have constantly worked to make the world a better place. Mr. Speaker, the Masons of the Walworth, Wisconsin Lodge 286 have served as a model for all Masons for 100 years. Their commitment to God and country, emboldened by their brotherhood, has set a high standard for all Masonic lodges.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, our nation was unified in sorrow, as we suffered the shocking loss of seven courageous individuals aboard the space shuttle Columbia. Among the astronauts who gave their lives in service to our country and in pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of our world was Commander Laurel Clark of Racine, Wisconsin. Laurel Clark was an inspiration to the people she came in contact with and to many others who read or heard about her numerous achievements. She dared to dream great things and worked hard to make those dreams a reality. A graduate of Racine's Horlick High School as well as the University of Wisconsin, Doctor Clark is a fine example for our students of how much one dedicated person can accomplish when she sets her mind to it. Clark was a Commander in the U.S. Navy, a flight surgeon who was trained as an undersea medical officer and served with a submarine squadron in Scotland prior to becoming an astronaut. While her education and career achievements are unquestionably impressive, Clark's inquisitive mind, adventurous spirit and positive outlook are even more remarkable. The e-mail message that she sent to her mother the day before the Columbia was to return exemplifies this. She wrote of seeing ``some incredible sights: lightning spreading over the Pacific, the Aurora Australia lighting up the entire visible horizon with the cityglow of Australia below, the crescent moon setting over the limb of the Earth, the vast plains of Africa and the dunes on Cape Horn. . . '' among other spectacular sights. She reported flying over Lake Michigan and seeing Wind Point clearly. And Laurel Clark wrote: ``I feel blessed to be here representing our country and carrying out the research of scientists around the world.'' She add: ``Thanks to many of you who have supported me and my adventures throughout the years. This was definitely one to beat all. I hope you could feel the positive energy that beamed to the whole planet as we glided over our shared planet.'' Laurel Clark was not simply admired and respected; she was and is greatly loved. In addition to being a doctor, a scientist, and a pioneer, Laurel Clark was a beloved wife and mother, a sister, a dautghter, a niece and a friend. Our sympathy and prayers are with her family and those close to her. May God bless them and the families and friends of her fellow Columbia crew members. We honor the memory of these heroes, we pray they have found eternal joy and peace, and we take comfort in having been touched by their soaring spirits during their time on Earth.