Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Resources Subcommittee of National Parks, I have had the privilege to visit many of our Nation's National Parks. From my own personal experiences, I have come to love the beauty of these parks and am grateful for the recreational opportunities they have to offer. Over 100 years ago, our predecessors displayed historic vision and took a bold step forward in a quest for protecting our Nation's natural wonders. On March 1, 1872, Congress established the Yellowstone National Park, our Nation's first and still one of our most beautiful and pristine national parks. President Theodore Roosevelt strengthened our Nation's conservation system through the Antiquities Act of 1906, creating 18 national monuments by the end of his presidency, including the beautiful cliffs of Mesa Verde National Park in southwestern Colorado, Arizona's Petrified Forest, and our own natural wonder, the Grand Canyon. These monuments laid the groundwork for our current park system, a vision completed in 1916 as President Woodrow Wilson established the National Park Service. There are thousands of individuals in the National Park Service as well as volunteers like Friends of our Parks, who dedicate their talent and lives to our National Parks. Without all of their hard work and dedication, our National Parks could not retain their immaculate beauty, nor could they continue to provide critical habitat for our nation's world-renowned wildlife. It is because of the work of these individuals that I, as well as my children and my grandchildren, will be able to enjoy the Park System. Today, there are 390 National Parks throughout America, with at least one in nearly every state and U.S. territory. These parks attract over 280 million visitors every year, for their beauty and their recreational opportunities. These figures far exceed any expectations that Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson may have had. Our National Park System is truly a triumph of American vision and commitment to responsible stewardship of our unparalleled natural heritage. I rise today to not only emphasize the importance of our National Parks, but also to honor those who work to protect these invaluable resources. I would like to especially commend Frank Walker, who I recently met while on my family vacation to Yellowstone National Park in early August. Frank has dedicated over 39 years of his life to protecting our Nation's historical National Parks. An avid outdoorsman and wildlife lover, Frank studied biology at the New Mexico State University. He then embarked on his career and years of service as a seasonal ranger at Yellowstone National Park in 1967, and he received his first permanent position in 1970, serving as a park technician at the White Sands National Monument in New Mexico. His success and dedication continually earned him challenging and rewarding positions all over the country. Frank has worked at the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in Missouri, the Gulf Islands National Seashore in Mississippi, the Fort Clatsop National Memorial in Oregon, the Nez Perce National Historical Park in Idaho, and the Saguaro National Park in Arizona. After working for over two decades outside the prestigious Yellowstone National Park, Frank returned to Yellowstone in June 2001 as the Acting Superintendent, and he was promoted to his current position of Deputy Superintendent in February of 2002. Frank has rightfully received numerous awards for his hard work and dedication to protecting our Nation's resources. These awards include the Interior Meritorious Service Award, the General Council Award from the Nez Perce Tribe, the Vail Partnership Award, the Western Region- Superintendent's Award for Cultural Resources Stewardship, and in 1985 the Southwest Region's Freeman Tilden Award. Just as these awards have done, I want to honor Frank here today. I wish to congratulate him on his retirement and thank him for his life's dedication to our Nation's parks. It is because of his work, and the work of his colleagues, that America's resources will be enjoyed by future generations. I wish Frank and his wife, Judy, his two sons, Mark and Phillip, and his daughter, Kathy, all the luck and well-being in the future, and it is my hope that his work will inspire others to continue to protect our National Parks and other natural resources.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 994, ``expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.'' The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, were monstrous and cowardly acts that will be forever etched in our national memory. In remembrance of that tragic day, I wish to express my condolences, and the condolences of a mournful nation, to all those who suffered losses. Today, America again honors the courage and bravery of those who willingly risked their lives to save others and recognizes those dedicated men and women in service now, defending worldwide peace and security. In the 5 years since the appalling acts of September 11th, our country has been fighting a global war on terrorism to protect America and our friends and allies. On July 22, 2004, the independent and bipartisan 9/11 Commission provided a full and complete report to Congress and the American public regarding the failures of the government and included 41 recommendations to improve homeland security. I praise the Commission for its excellent work, leadership, patriotism, and service to our country. We owe it to the families of the victims of 9/11 and to the citizens of our country to use the report to make certain such attacks never happen again. That is why I fully supported the unanimous and bipartisan recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission and supported passage of H.R. 10 in December of 2004 to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Almost 2 years have passed since passage of H.R. 10, and yet the President still has not fully implemented these recommendations. In addition, despite the ongoing war in Iraq, I am very concerned that the main threat against the United States, al Qaeda, is still a global threat with global reach, and that the person who was directly responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Laden, is still at large. I believe the President has taken his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and is not doing everything in his power to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice. It sends a terrible message to would-be terrorists who may be interested in striking us that all they have to do is go in hiding and lay low until our attention and resources are directed elsewhere. Additionally, the big winners are countries with nuclear ambitions, like Iran and North Korea. Our message to the world during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has been, if you have nuclear weapons we will not attack you, but if you do we will stay away. This sends the message to would-be terrorists that if they do not arm themselves, there is a potential for the United States to attack. The President should have, with the support of the American people and international community which we enjoyed at the time, made it our mission to never rest, never sleep until those responsible for 9/11 were brought to justice. Instead, he diverted precious resources and personnel from Afghanistan and redirected them into Iraq. As a consequence, Osama bin Laden is still at large, the Taliban are reconstituting themselves, and al Qaeda remains a global threat. Furthermore, last week NATO's top operational commander in Afghanistan, U.S. General James Jones, appealed for 2,500 more troops, saying the force was about 15 percent short of full strength. Once again, the President has failed to respond to a call from military commanders for reinforcements to try to quell the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan, by denying the request for more troops. If as the President said on September 11, 2006, when speaking about bin Laden and other terrorists is true, ``Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice.'' Then we should be sending in these additional troops to Afghanistan, not ignoring another plea from our military commanders. On this solemn day, I again stand up to recognize our brave men and women that tragically lost their lives on that fateful day in September of 2001. I wish to show my deepest appreciation to our military men and women fighting terrorism around the world. I feel the best tribute we as a Nation can give them and their families is to redirect our focus to bringing those responsible for the attacks against us on September 11th to justice. The opportunity has not yet passed to make serious and thoughtful change and to ensure that another tragedy does not befall our Nation. May God bless our men and women in uniform and their families during this difficult time. May God provide his special blessings and care for those who fell in the line of duty. And may God continue to bless these United States of America.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before us tonight. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, is dangerously underfunded, current pension law is antiquated, and this Congress must do all it can to shore up America's private pension system. The bill addresses the concerns of both workers and employers and makes necessary changes to shore up the Federal pension system. Among the welcomed reforms are greater transparency and accountability in the PBGC, the special consideration given to airlines, and the overall tightening of rules so that companies will meet their financial obligations to their employees and retirees. As a cochair of the New Democrat Coalition, I believe it is important to reform pensions so that promises to workers are kept, taxpayers are not left footing the bill, and companies can continue to be good actors and offer pension plans. In addition, any discussion of pension reform must include an increased emphasis on personal responsibility. Americans are not saving enough for retirement. In fact, the national savings rate is at its lowest level since the 1930s, declining from 9.4 percent in 1970 to just 1 percent in 2004. In response to these weak savings rates, we need to create new, simpler incentives for middle- class Americans to save. Fewer than 40 percent of U.S. workers have calculated how much they will need to retire, 30 percent have not saved anything for retirement, and only 20 percent feel very confident about having enough money to live comfortably in retirement. Therefore, I am pleased by provisions in this bill making the saver's credit permanent and encouraging automatic enrollment in 401Ks. This legislation makes the necessary reforms to strengthen the Federal pension system to the benefit of workers, retirees and taxpayers alike.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in appreciation that House Leadership has at last brought a health information technology bill to the floor. As a cochair of the New Democrat Coalition, I have been a long-time supporter of health IT. I believe health IT, if done correctly, will highlight the need for personal accountability in health care, advance technological innovation, promote fiscal responsibility and, most importantly, improve health and save lives. Additionally, great strides can be made in homeland security as well as tracking disease and infection. I am pleased that H.R. 4157 will codify in law the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and that the coordinator will be tasked with devising a national strategic plan for implementing health IT. Additionally, the grant money authorized by the bill is a worthwhile, if small, step in the right direction. Representing western Wisconsin, I know too well how difficult it is for small medical practices to afford the purchase and upkeep of software and hardware needed for electronic medical records. The $5 million in grants to rural or underserved urban areas is the first of many such grants Congress must facilitate. While I am pleased the bill is moving forward, I am disappointed that negotiations were not done in a more bipartisan manner. It is good to see that harmful and invasive policies on privacy issues were removed from the bill, and I am hopeful that when the House and Senate meet in conference, members will take a hard look at strengthening further the bill's privacy provisions. Mr. Chairman, I plan on voting for this health IT bill and look forward to working with the Senate on improving it. America's doctors, nurses, and patients deserve 21st century technology in the health care system, and it is past time for Congress to be acting on this issue.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in appreciation that House Leadership has at last brought a health information technology bill to the Floor. As a cochair of the New Democrat Coalition, I have been a long-time supporter of health IT. I believe health IT, if done correctly, will highlight the need for personal accountability in health care, advance technological innovation, promote fiscal responsibility and, most importantly, improve health and save lives. Additionally, great strides can be made in homeland security as well as tracking disease and infection. I am pleased that H.R. 4157 will codify in law the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and that the coordinator will be tasked with devising a national strategic plan for implementing health IT. Additionally, the grant money authorized by the bill is a worthwhile, if small, step in the right direction. Representing western Wisconsin, I know too well how difficult it is for small medical practices to afford the purchase and upkeep of software and hardware needed for electronic medical records. The $5 million in grants to rural or underserved urban areas is the first of many such grants Congress must facilitate. While I am pleased the bill is moving forward, I am disappointed that negotiations were not done in a more bipartisan manner. It is good to see that harmful and invasive policies on privacy issues were removed from the bill, and I am hopeful that when the House and Senate meet in conference, members will take a hard look at strengthening further the bill's privacy provisions. Mr. Chairman, I plan on voting for this health IT bill and look forward to working with the Senate on improving it. America's doctors, nurses, and patients deserve 21st century technology in the health care system, and it is past time for Congress to be acting on this issue.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act. As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee and having served on the Conference Committee, I am pleased we have reached an agreement to ensure the continuation of this important program. Research shows that secondary students who participate in career and technical education achieve better employment and earnings outcomes than other students. Further, these students are more likely to pursue postsecondary education, have a higher grade point average in college, and are less likely to drop out in the first year of college. Recognizing the positive contributions of career and technical education, I support swift passage of this bill. This legislation is the product of considerable and effective bipartisan negotiations. While I intend to continue working with my colleagues on the Senate side to improve the particular funding levels for Wisconsin through the appropriations process, I am satisfied with the overall bill. A lot of time and work by committee members and staff have been put into drafting the best bill possible that everyone can support. Specifically, I am glad that S. 250 retains a separate authorization for the Tech Prep program. The House-passed bill eliminated this separate funding and during committee consideration of the bill, Representative Tierney and I offered an amendment to restore Tech Prep as a separate authorization. Tech Prep creates seamless pathways for secondary students to transition into post-secondary education programs in the high-skill, high-wage technical fields. These academically and technically prepared graduates are critical to the economic growth, productivity and internal competitiveness of the United States. Knowing how critical this funding is to our local communities, I am pleased funding for the Tech Prep program has been kept separate from the Perkins block grant. In addition to protecting Tech Prep, the conference report increases the role of math, science and technology in career and technical education programs and encourages the expanded use of technology by teachers and faculty. Increasing the emphasis given to science, technology, and mathematics is critical for the United States to retain its global competitiveness. We cannot afford to ignore growing competition from other countries by directing our resources away from these fields of study. Again, I would like to thank all those in the education community who participated in reauthorization for their input and work on this bill. I am particularly pleased to acknowledge Dr. Bill Ihlenfeldt, President of the Chippewa Valley Technical College in Eau Claire, WI, who testified before the Education and the Workforce Committee in May of 2004. His thoughts and perspective on reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act were invaluable in addressing the needs of our country. His insight was especially helpful in considering issues of importance for the 53,000 students attending technical schools in my district--Western Technical College, Chippewa Valley Technical College, and Southwest Tech--as well as the countless career and technical secondary students in the Third Congressional District of western Wisconsin. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1496, the companion legislation to H.R. 1494 that Representative Chip Pickering and I authored, the Electronic Duck--or E-Duck--Stamp Act. This legislation has a simple purpose: To make it easier for duck hunters, stamp and wildlife art collectors, and conservationists to do the things they love. The bill does this by creating a pilot program in which 15 States, authorized by the Secretary of the Interior, may issue Federal duck stamps electronically. Since its creation in 1934, the Federal Duck Stamp Program has become one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Because of it, our country is again teeming with migratory waterfowl and other wildlife that rely on wetland habitats. Today, roughly 1.7 million hunting and conservation stamps are sold each year. Recent data show that the sale of Federal duck stamps has generated more than $700,000,000 in revenue used to preserve over 5.2 million acres of migratory waterfowl habitat in the United States. The E-Duck Stamp Act seeks to enhance the strong legacy of this important conservation program. Under this bill, hunters will, for the first time, be able to purchase duck stamps on-line in a safe, easy, and convenient manner. People living in rural areas, like mine in western Wisconsin, will no longer have to gas up the truck to buy a stamp, and instead can double-click their mouse and be ready to go hunt. More importantly, it provides this new alternative while protecting the legacy that the great duck stamp artist ding darling left us by taking explicit measures to ensure the future of the actual stamp--miniature works of art from some of our country's best wildlife artists. I would like to thank both Ducks Unlimited and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in crafting this bill. I appreciate their strong commitment to the Federal Duck Stamp Program and their input into the creation of this legislation. Additionally, I would like to thank everyone on resources staff and the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus for all their hard work on this legislation. I look forward to continuing our work together to implement this program once it becomes law. I urge all my colleagues to support S. 1496.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe ``under God'' should be in the Pledge of the Allegiance. But what I cannot support today is legislation that basically tells the third branch of our government, go home, no thanks, we don't need you anymore. Judicial review has been a part of our democracy in this constitutional government for over 200 years. And now with the fancy language embodied in this legislation and other pieces of legislation that have been pending, they are trying to disrupt that delicate balance of power, the checks and balances that exist that allow the Federal courts from time to time to take a look at the work that we are doing in the Congress to see whether or not we are complying with the highest law of the land, the United States Constitution. That is what judicial review is all about. What is so ironic about today's debate is that the courts have already weighed in and said that the Pledge is okay; ``under God'' is okay. So what are we doing here when we have anemic economic job growth in this country, rising health care costs, and tuition that is placing college out of the reach of students? We can do better by the American people.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that this body has brought the Marriage Protection Act to the Floor at a time when American families are dealing with skyrocketing health costs, rising gas prices, and loved ones who are serving the Nation overseas. Mr. Speaker, is the matter before us today truly the most important subject for Congress to debate? This is not to say that I believe the issue of gay marriage to be unworthy of discussion. I understand that some people firmly regard gay marriage as a civil right while others find it antithetical to their religious or moral beliefs. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, and it is a subject which our country must continue to discuss. In America, however, the authority to grant legal status to a marriage has been a function reserved for the States, and different States have different laws regarding issues ranging from blood-testing to waiting periods before marriage. Some, including the proponents of this bill, will argue that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is necessary to keep one State from forcing another to accept same-sex marriages. In fact, this is not necessary because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Law, which provides that States, U.S. territories, or Indian tribes do not have to recognize same-sex marriages granted by other States. Further, the Act defines marriage, for the purpose of Federal benefits and rules, as the legal union between one man and one woman. Therefore, the Wisconsin law which recognizes marriage as a relationship between a husband and wife is protected. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to amending the United States Constitution, I am very conservative. Like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, conservative columnist George F. Will, and the Republican author of the Defense of Marriage Act, Bob Barr, I am opposed to amending the Constitution for the purpose of outlawing gay marriage. In its 2I5-year history, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times, and we must not add amendments limiting rights rather than expanding them. Dick Cheney has stated ``With respect to my views on the issue, I stated those during the course of the 2000 campaign, that I thought when it came to the question of whether or not some sort of legal status or legal sanction were granted to a same-sex relationship that that was a matter best left to the States. That was my view then. That's my view now.'' (Scripps Howard News Service, January 9, 2004). As recently as August, 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking of gay marriage, affirmed that, ``marriage has historically been a relationship that has been handled by the States.'' Like Vice President Cheney, I do not believe the U.S. Congress needs to intrude on this State issue. Because of my great respect for the Constitution, and for the Federal nature of the government which the document dictates, I oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. Because of illness, I was unable to cast my vote on today's amendment; had I been able to, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 upholds the promise made in 1776 that all citizens are created equal. This historic legislation reaffirms the principles of equal opportunity and treatment for which so many were willing to shed their blood or give their lives during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Last year, I had the honor of joining civil rights leader Congressman John Lewis from Georgia on a congressional pilgrimage to visit the historic sites of the civil rights movement and retrace parts of the 1965 Voting Rights March in Alabama. During the trip, we commemorated the 40-year anniversary of the march at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the site of the violent attack on voting rights demonstrators known as Bloody Sunday. We remember the events of the civil right movement in this country, not only to honor the courage, sacrifice, and accomplishments of those like John Lewis but also to rededicate ourselves to their ongoing work: the pursuit of justice, love, tolerance, and human rights in our country and throughout the world. Their cause must be our cause today. As long as the power of America's diversity is diminished by acts of discrimination and violence because of race, sex, religion, age or sexual orientation, we must still overcome. And deep in my heart, I do believe we shall overcome. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King: ``Human progress never rolls on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God.'' As long as we move forward as one Nation, united in our common goals, we can cross any bridge; we can overcome any challenge. The guarantee that all American citizens have a right to be full participants in our democracy is a fundamental American right. It is important that we live up to our nation's ideals of equality and opportunity for all and reauthorize the 1965 Voting Rights Act today. It is also my belief that we should make the act permanent, rather than reauthorizing it for short periods.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sergeant First cLass Trevor J. Diesing of Plum City, WI. Trevor rose to the call to serve his country in her time of need, and gave the ultimate sacrifice in her defense. He was killed in Iraq when an improvised explosive device detonated near his position. Today, I bear witness that Trevor's efforts and the efforts of all our service men and women will forever be remembered. This Friday at the courthouse in Prescott, Wisconsin a plaque will be dedicated in Trevor's memory. Trevor is a true national hero. Born to Debbie and Lonnie Diesing in Plum City, WI, Trevor felt a call early in life to serve his country and to help make the world a better place. After marrying his wife Lori and raising three beautiful children, Trevor's passion to defend what he loved was only strengthened. Friends and family described him as someone you always wanted on your side-- a hard working and caring person who was always willing to lend a hand. When we step back and realize the incredible service of our men and women in uniform, we must always remember Trevor, for he was one of our finest. The presence of men and women from Wisconsin serving in Iraq is a great blessing to our country as a whole. They all are doing a terrific job under very difficult and dangerous circumstances. We will be forever grateful for the sacrifice made by Sergeant First Class Trevor J. Diesing. Trevor was in essence a true patriot, serving his country selflessly while giving to the Iraqi people the greatest gift of all, their freedom. He also gave the children of America a great hope, the chance to grow up in a world that is a little more safe. As a husband, father, son, and friend, Trevor will live on in our hearts as a hero and his legacy will never be forgotten. I pledge to do all that I can to ensure that Trevor's life was not lost in vain. Perhaps President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said it best: ``He stands in the unbroken line of patriots who have dared to die, that freedom might live, and grow, and increase its blessings. Freedom lives, and through it, he lives--in a way that humbles the undertakings of most men.'' May God bless Trevor, and take him into his care. And may God's special blessing bring comfort to Trevor's family and friends always.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of supporting legislation that my ranking member on the Resources Committee opposes, because I have all the respect and admiration for his knowledge of energy issues in this country. And I am the first to admit, standing here today, that we do need a new energy policy for a new century, one that transitions off our dependence on the imports of foreign oil, on fossil fuel consumption generally, with major investments in alternative and renewable energy sources, biofuels, hybrid technology; the energy source of the future, which is hydrogen power. But I also admit that this is not going to happen overnight. And the reality of the situation as it exists in the upper Midwest today is that we have well over 500 coal-burning electrical power plants today, 58 in Wisconsin, with many more in line of production. And the main reason they are moving to more coal burning in the upper Midwest is because of the spike of natural gas prices in this country. No one can convince me that that is good and healthy for our environment. No one can convince me that that is the best route to take in our battle against global warming in this country. This, I believe, is commonsense legislation that brings the Gulf States into the decision-making as far as production off their coasts. I believe it will lead to a greater enhancement in production of natural gas capability in this country. It will enable us to buy some additional time in order to put together a long-ranging, forward- looking energy policy that makes sense for our consumers, makes sense for our economy, and perhaps more importantly, makes sense for our battle against global warming that we face on this planet. I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4761 to diversify our nation's domestic energy production. In the face of volatile natural gas markets that are forcing our industries and jobs overseas, we must begin drawing on the clean reliable fuel source that lies far off our nations coasts while preserving states rights to manage their nearshore waters. For years I, along with many of my colleagues, have been calling for a more clean alternative energy supplies for our nation and this bill heeds that call. Our nation is currently generating half its electricity by burning coal. In the midwest alone, we have an astounding five-hundred individual coal burning power plants. According to the department of energy, nearly half of these plants are burning low grade, so called, sub-bituminous coal. This enormous dependence on coal is not environmentally responsible. In 2005, the United States produced more than 7 times more CO2 from coal than from natural gas emits far fewer particulates and climate changing gases compared to coal and is much cleaner to produce domestically, yet our nation continues to rely on coal. This bill will begin to reverse the longstnding habit. Developing a domestic supply of natural gas is also critical to the industries that produce the jobs and products our nation needs. The volatility in the gas market makes it difficult for our companies to compete which drives job losses, a sting we have felt in my district in western Wisconsin. We can bring stability to these markets through domestic gas production and keep those middle-class jobs at home where they belong. Our nation still needs a comprehensive energy policy and this bill is only a small piece of what must eventually be a 21st century strategy for clean domestic energy from a variety of sources. We must replace middle east oil with midwest grain and other `home grown' alternatives and that includes the clean natural gas that would be produced under this bill. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4761.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Dahl family of Viroqua, Wisconsin. With their operation of the Dahl Pharmacy for more than 100 years and four generations, the Dahls wove themselves into the fabric of their community. Their pharmacy has been one of the pillars of Viroqua's downtown buisness district for over a century. From medication to a soda fountain, prescriptions to snacks, all sorts of services have been available to old and young alike since the early 1900s. Chuck and Karen Dahl are good friends of mine who owned and operated the pharmacy for many years. Decent, principled people, the Dahls worked hard to grow a successful small buisness that would be attentive to local concerns. They have been actively involved in their community, displaying their belief in the responsibility to give back to the people who allowed their business to prosper. The Dahls' leadership has made the city of Viroqua and Vernon County better places to live, work, and raise children. In 2001, Chuck and Karen passed the Dahl Pharmacy along to another generation by selling it to Chuck's daughter, Katherine Dahl. The Dahl Pharmacy, like many providers throughout the Nation, is facing a myriad of complications with the new Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. I commend Dahl and all the other pharmacies which have been on the frontlines of this new program. They have tirelessly served seniors uncertain about the new Medicare Part D regulations. The Dahl family business will close its doors for the last time on June, 28 but leave behind a lasting legacy by having been a focal point in Viroqua for generations. The people of Viroqua have countless wonderful memories linked with the Dahl Pharmacy. Generations of residents have grown up with the pharmacy as a fixture in their childhood and a mainstay in their community. Known for their friendly, fast, and precise service, the Dahls established personal connections with their customers that went beyond the normal owner-client relationship. I Want to thank the Dahl family for their many years of service to the Viroqua community. While the Dahl Pharmacy will be missed, I wish the family the best of luck in their future endeavors. [From the Vernon County Broadcaster] Dahl Pharmacy to Close June 28 (By Tim Hundt) Dahl Pharmacy in Viroqua will shut its doors for good on June 28 due to a buyout by national competitor Walgreens. The business has been in Viroqua for more than 100 years and has been owned by four generations of the Dahl family. Dahl Pharmacy owner Katherine Dahl said she informed employees on Sunday that she had reached a deal with Walgreens and would be closing the doors. She said all employees would be first in line for positions at the new Walgreens store that will open in Viroqua the following day, June 29. ``I thought about this for a long, long, long time,'' Dahl said. ``I discussed it a lot with friends. I finally decided this was something I should do.'' Dahl said she was concerned about the business and her employees with two new pharmacies set to open in June that would directly compete with her operation. ``The hospital will be opening its new pharmacy and Walgreens was also opening,'' Dahl said. ``My concern was for the employees and to have continuity for them.'' Dahl said as a part of the deal she reached with Walgreens executives, she will work for the company as a pharmacist for at least a year and all Dahl employees will be given first opportunity for employment at the new store. ``They were very interested in our employees because they know the people and they know the medical community here,'' Dahl said. Dahl said the deal includes the prescription files of the pharmacy as well as the store's inventory of prescription and over-the-counter medication. Dahl said her store will close the evening of the June 28, the inventory and staff will move to the new store and Walgreens will open the morning of June 29. Dahl said Walgreens emphasis on customers also sold her on the deal. ``I researched their company literature and they are really focused on the pharmacy aspect of the business,'' Dahl said. ``All of their store managers are pharmacists.'' As for closing a business that has been one of the pillars of Viroqua's downtown business community, Dahl said it has been difficult. ``Every employee reacts differently, but there have been a few tears,'' Dahl said. Steve Felix of Felix's Men's and Women's Wear, which is the second oldest business in Viroqua, was concerned about the development. ``The big guys will come,'' Felix said. ``People have to make choice about where they want to shop and if they don't support downtown businesses they won't be here. Just because a business is 100 years old doesn't necessarily mean they will be 101.'' Karen Dahl, wife of Chuck Dahl, who was the third generation Dahl to own the pharmacy before it was sold to Katherine in 2001, said her husband was saddened by the news. ``He is sad because it is an end of era,'' Karen Dahl said. ``The timing is good for employees and clients that will have a smooth transition to the new store, but it is sad for the community.'' Karen Dahl said she is concerned about other small businesses in the community. ``We pay an enormous amount of property tax, as does any small business, but I think granting TIF district tax deferment to a major corporation heavily weighs things against local business owners,'' Dahl said. Last year the city of Viroqua granted about $600,000 to the developer of the Walgreens site. A group of citizens protested the use of TIF district funding for the Walgreens project, but city officials said that without the incentives, the project would not have gone forward.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time, but also for the substitute that he was hoping to offer here today so we could have a legitimate and honest debate about the direction we need to go for fiscal responsibility in the House. Unfortunately, because of the way the rules are structured, we are prohibited from offering any amendments or this gentleman's substitute, which I think has a lot of merit. I can understand that people with good intent, and there are many in this Chamber, can support a piece of legislation. Philosophically I agree that we need to get at the heart of earmark reform. We need to move forward on earmark reform as this session progresses because this legislation alone will not deal with the issue. And I could support a piece of legislation like that if I thought there was the institutional will here in Congress and also down on Pennsylvania Avenue to finally get serious about fiscal responsibility. But the facts are what they are, that under the Republican leadership over the last 6 years, we have had the largest and quickest increase in national debt in our Nation's history, that this President is the first President since Thomas Jefferson who has refused to veto one spending bill during his entire administration. He is not even using the rescission powers that are already granted to him that this legislation now is meant to expedite, and that is unfortunate. But the real issue, if we are going to get serious about getting back on fiscal track as a Nation, is we have got to go to what has proven to work. And what worked in the 1990s was something very simple called pay-as-you-go. It required tough budgeting decisions on both the spending and the revenue sides that led to 4 years of budget surpluses where we were paying down the national debt rather than increasing the debt burden for our children and grandchildren and, even more importantly, becoming more dependent on foreign countries such as China to be financing our deficits today. I am one of the institutionalists around here who feel that we have ceded too much power, too much control, too much authority to this administration or future administrations. And if anyone in this Chamber wants to stand up and claim that we are a coequal branch of government today, they are fooling themselves. This legislation will make it even worse.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, first of all, this rule is outrageous. We have a closed rule, no amendments, no substitute allowed in order. We had a serious discussion in the Budget Committee just last week over this legislation raising serious issues of concern about the body of this legislation. Now we come to the floor today, and we are completely foreclosed from having an honest debate about some of the fixes that I feel and many of my colleagues feel are necessary to improve this legislation. Now, I appreciate what the authors of the legislation are trying to accomplish, but let's not forget one fundamental fact: If there is a concern about overspending in this Congress, we already have a tool to address it. It is called stop spending. I guess I would have a little more confidence if the track record of this administration and this Congress was more serious about fiscal responsibility. This is the first President since Thomas Jefferson who has refused to veto one spending bill. He is not even using the rescission process that he already has authority to do. The last reconciliation measure before this Congress actually increased the national debt, rather than reducing the national debt, for the first time in our Nation's history. I am afraid this legislation today is nothing but a political fig leaf to try to cover up the complete breakdown in fiscal responsibility under this administration and this Congress. And that is unfortunate, because we owe a better work product to future generations, rather than leaving them a legacy of debt. Five debt ceiling increases in the last 6 years. They have presided over the quickest and largest expansion of national debt in our Nation's history, and the fastest-growing area in the Federal budget today is interest on the national debt. What is really unfortunate is we no longer owe this debt to ourselves. We are completely dependent on foreign countries such as China to be financing these deficits today, putting us in a security and an economically perilous situation dependent on other countries to be financing our books because we don't have the institutional will to do it ourselves. We had a viable and credible substitute that actually gets serious about fiscal responsibility. It reinstitutes pay-as-you-go rules, a tool that worked very effectively in the 1990s that led to 4 years of budget surpluses when we were actually paying down the national debt rather than increasing that debt burden to our children and grandchildren. We also called for a greater time to review spending measures before they are brought to the floor so we have a chance to dig into it and find out where the spending is going. We also had in our substitute an important provision that would prohibit any administration from using this line item power to blackmail Members of Congress in order to cajole votes from them to support other measures that are completely unrelated to the spending bill before us. These are serious deficiencies that many of us have in the bill, but we are foreclosed from discussing them with amendments or by offering a substitute today. I think that is an outrage. I would encourage my colleagues to reject this rule. Let's open it up. What are we afraid of? Let's have an honest debate. Let's have a debate of ideas, and let the votes fall where they may.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Boys and Girls Club of La Crosse, Wisconsin on its 40th anniversary of serving the people of western Wisconsin. For many years, it has provided a safe, positive environment that helps to foster values in children and young adults, establish strong relationships, and build good character. As a young man, I benefited from the La Crosse Boys and Girls Club through my participation in their programs and, therefore, know firsthand the value of their work. Today, my two young boys, Matthew and Johnny, are involved in the club's activities, allowing me to see the benefits young men and women receive from the perspective of a grateful parent. Having served on the board of directors for the La Crosse Boys and Girls Club, I know the amount of time and hard work that goes into operating this organization. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank Terry Erickson, the current director of the La Crosse Boys and Girls Club, who has served since I was a participant. Terry has taken the club beyond its expectations. He has become synonymous with the club and a role model to everyone involved. I commend all the individuals whose leadership and dedication over the past 40 years have created an environment that has enhanced the lives of innumerable youths and their families. Thank you to the Boys and Girls Club of La Crosse for 40 wonderful years; I know you will continue to remain at the forefront of local youth development for many years to come.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the outstanding service provided by our men and women in the armed forces for the terrific job they do for us across the globe each and every day, often in very difficult and dangerous circumstances. This is especially true today in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Active military, guard, and reserves forces from western Wisconsin have answered the call to service in the most recent conflict with global terrorism. I have been to numerous deployment ceremonies and witnessed the anguish in the hearts and faces of family and friends as they say goodbye to their loved ones being deployed abroad for lengthy stays. I have also been to numerous welcome home ceremonies to honor their service and to thank them for their sacrifice. During my three visits to Iraq, I met with our military command and troops in the field, as well as numerous Iraqi leaders and civilians. I can honestly say that nothing made me prouder to be an American than seeing the performance of our troops in the field. They are well- trained, well-motivated and an inspiration to us all. They are, in short, the best America has to offer. I am sure everyone here today wishes them godspeed and safe travels as they carry out their missions. Specifically, I would like to take a moment to recognize the soldiers from the Third Congressional District of Wisconsin who have lost their lives in the Iraq war: First Lieutenant Jeremy Wolfe of Menomonie, Major Christopher Splinter of Platteville, Private First Class Bert Hoyer of Ellsworth, Private First Class Andrew Halverson of Muscoda, Staff Sergeant Todd Olson of Loyal, Staff Sergeant Andrew Bossert of Fountain City, Specialist Charles Kaufman of Fairchild, Sergeant First Class Trevor Diesing of Plum City, Benjamin Smith of Hudson, Private First Class Anthony Gaunky of Sparta, Sergeant Andy Allen Stevens of Tomah, and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jaime S. Jaenke of Bay City. I would also like to recognize Christopher Lem of Lyndon Station who lost his life while working in Iraq as an independent contractor. Furthermore, I would like to highlight the good work of the 128th infantry division out of western Wisconsin; the 1158th transportation company out of Tomah, Black River Falls, and Beliot; the Wisconsin Army National Guards' 229th Engineer Company out of Prairie du Chien and Platteville; the 829th Engineer Detachment out of Richland Center; the Army Reserve's 652nd Engineer Company out of Ellsworth; and the 32nd Engineer Company out of Onalaska. These units have served or are serving in Iraq, and I am extraordinarily proud of their service to our country. But as good and capable as our troops are, it is incumbent upon us policy-makers to do everything in our power to get the policies right. We must ensure that they are fighting on our behalf for the right reasons and with the support and resources they need to do their job as safely and effectively as possible. That's why this discussion we're having today is a disappointment. This resolution is a political document timed just before the fall elections rather than a serious substantive debate about our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe. Why else would the majority republican party prevent amendments from being offered or even the right of the others to offer an alternative resolution. Such an alternative resolution would more honestly focus on the shortcomings of this administration's policies, which has been highlighted by numerous retired military officers in recent months. Only through an honest assessment of those shortcomings will we have the ability to find the solutions and make adjustments to the goals being pursued. As someone who supported the Iraq resolution in the fall of 2002, I believed it was important that we get weapons inspection teams back in Iraq to check on the status of Saddam Hussein's WMD capability. I also believed at the time that Hussein would not allow inspection teams back in unless there was a credible threat of force hanging over his head. To this day, those who opposed the resolution have not been able to explain how they would have accomplished getting inspection teams back in Iraq or whether they viewed that as an important objective. After we were successful in getting inspection teams back in, however, I led the effort in congress, with representative Sherrod Brown, to send the president a letter signed by 150 of our colleagues to give the inspection teams more time to do their job. At that time, we were informed in intelligence briefings that we were cooperating with those inspection teams by directing them to suspected sites of WMD. They, however, were not finding what the president suspected Hussein was hiding. I felt increasingly uncomfortable with what I perceived to be faulty intelligence information given to us members of congress and the manipulation of intelligence to fit a preconceived ideological outcome. Rather than have the intelligence facts shape our policy, I believe today that it was preconceived notions or ideology that distorted the intelligence to make the case for war. Even former Secretary of State Colin Powell has acknowledged his disappointment with the intelligence information he used to make the case before the United Nations. Numerous intelligence officers and State Department Officials have expressed similar reservations. I also felt increasingly concerned about the President's haste to go to war, the lack of real effort to build international support, the lack of a plan for the day after or even a clear exit strategy once we got there. We now know by many retired generals, the president ignored the advice of our military leaders. My big regret is in believing the president when he said that the decision to go to war would be a matter of last resort. That is what the resolution required but instead the president ordered the inspection teams out of Iraq, even though they wanted to stay and finish their work, and then he ordered our military in. Today, our troops and our country are paying a very high price in loss of lives and resources due to this rush to war. I was concerned that the main threat against the United States, Al Qaeda, was still a global threat with global reach, and that the person who was directly responsible for 9-11, Osama Bin Laden, was still at large and safe. I believed the President was taking his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and not doing everything in our power to bring those responsible for 9-11 to justice. It sends a terrible message to would-be terrorists who may be interested in striking us that all they have to do is go in hiding and lie low until we get distracted on another adventure. Instead, the President should have, with the support of the American people and international community which we enjoyed at the time, made it our mission to never rest, never sleep until those responsible for 9-11 were brought to justice. Instead he diverted precious resources and personnel from Afghanistan and redirected them into Iraq. As a consequence, Osama Bin Laden is still at large, the Taliban are reconstituting themselves and Al Qaeda remains a global threat. But we are where we are today. The question now is how do we move forward and what is at stake. Now that we have gone into Iraq, I believe the outcome in Iraq is important, not only for the Iraqi people, to whom we owe a duty to be responsible, but also for the region and for our Nation's long-term security interest. If the Iraqi people are successful in establishing a representative government, a government that respects human rights, religious tolerance, minority rights and the empowerment of women in their society, then Iraq could become a powerful model for change and reform in a region of the world that's in desperate need of reform. I believe that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq today will leave chaos, bloodshed and civil war in our wake. I believe that setting an artificial time for withdrawal will force our policy to merely revolve around that date rather than on the mission to be accomplished. And I've been informed by our military command in Iraq as well as our troops, that they do not desire a date certain because we could be setting them up for failure. They fear that conditions could change on the ground that they have no control over which might make adhering to that date difficult or ill-advised. They do not want artificial dates for the sake of political expediency. I also believe, however, that this must be a crucial year of transition for us. Now that the Iraqis have established a coalition government and now that we have helped train over 250,000 Iraqi security forces, now is the time to put pressure on the Iraqi people to take control of their own future, through self-government and security responsibilities. We cannot do this for them; we cannot stay there indefinitely as the President proposes; we cannot want a free, stable and secure Iraq more than the Iraqi people want it. Such a change in tactics will enable us to begin the redeployment of our troops first within Iraq, off the front lines, then within the region and eventually back home to their families. It's time for a responsible and successful exit strategy to be implemented. In short, it's time to take the training wheels off. There have been recent successes in Iraq that we all can applaud. Thanks should be given to our troops in their successful campaign against Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the notorious and ruthless terrorist whose goal was to create chaos and destruction and fan the flames of civil war. The Iraqis should be commended for finally, 5 months after national elections, forming a coalition government in which to govern, as well as making the important appointments to the interior and defense ministries. Yet, even though our forces have proven they can kill the likes of Zarqawi, the question remains whether we can defeat Zarqawism? That is a question that should be discussed and debated. Purple fingers alone do not make a democracy. Democratic institution building is vital, yet this administration is slashing funding for these programs dedicated to creating viable, long-lasting democratic institutions in Iraq. Getting support for the new Iraqi government from the United Arab League and the international community is also crucial to Iraq's ultimate success or failure. But again, it is difficult to work together and leave together when you didn't go in together. Clearly, current conditions do not lend for much optimism. Over three years into this conflict, electricity generation is still below prewar conditions. Oil production is still below prewar conditions. Access to safe, clean drinking water is still below prewar conditions. The level of violence against coalition forces and the Iraqi people are at an all time high. Sectarian militias within the country and police forces and growing in numbers and strength. Unemployment, at 45 percent, is at an all time high which creates abject poverty and provides fertile ground for militia recruitment and more sectarian violence throughout the country. Crime and corruption is rampant and increasing. Iraqi reconstruction is way behind schedule and infected with corruption and fraud. In my last visit to Iraq in October of 2005, I specifically sought explanations for the administration's failure to account for 9 billion dollars of missing reconstruction funds. No explanation could be given. We're losing approximately 600 military personnel every month due to death or injuries. The administration is literally breaking our military with no plan to save it. We are spending 9 billion a month in Iraq with no plan on how to pay for it other than more borrowing and spending and legacy of debt for our children to inherit. If there is a big winner in Iraq, it is Iran. The record high oil prices that Iraq helped bring is directly benefiting Iran. Iran continues down the path of developing nuclear cap ability because we have no leverage over them. Iran's influence grows in the region with the majority Shiite population in southern Iraq and their support of Hamas who recently won Palestinian elections. What our involvement in the Middle East clearly demonstrates is the need for a new energy policy for a new century so we can break our dependence on foreign oil. Today we are financing both sides of global terror, the huge costs of our military excursions but also, through the petro-dollars flowing to many regimes in the Middle East, to charities and schools that support the teaching of radical Islam and helps turn a new generation of young people against us in the region. And again, there is no plan by the administration for a new direction. Equally disturbing is a recent study that shows that anti-Americanism is rampant and growing throughout the world, not just throughout the Arab and Muslim world but also in those countries that have been traditional friends and allies of the United States. No matter how good and capable our military is, we cannot fight this battle against global terror without help and assistance in the international community. And still, here today, there is no plan by this administration to turn these conditions around. Iraq and these other challenging issues deserve an honest and open debate. Unfortunately, that opportunity was taken from us today by the majority who would rather whitewash conditions and pretend we're heading in the right direction. The American people deserve better than this, our troops and their families deserve better than this and this Congress deserves better than this. We must reassert our role as a co-equal branch of government, capable of conducting proper oversight, demanding accountability of this and future administrations, and willing to make policy changes to address and overcome the challenges we face today. I end as I began, by offering heartfelt thanks and undying admiration for our men and women in uniform for their service to our country. May God provide his special blessings and care for those who fell in the line of duty. And may God continue to bless these United States of America.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately rise in opposition to this rule because I believe it is a missed opportunity for this Congress to substantively have a say in the most important issue facing our country today and that is the course of the war in Iraq, but also our strategy in combating global terrorism. But instead of offering a real policy discussion, the Republican majority today offers a political document just before the fall elections. My question to my friends across the aisle is very simple. What are you afraid of? Why are you not allowing any other amendment to be offered during this 10-hour debate? Why are you not allowing our side to have an alternative resolution so we can get into the very troubling aspects of this administration's conduct of war in Iraq and our strategy on global terrorism. Many of us have grave concerns about how this administration has based its decisions in Iraq. These concerns are shared by many Americans and our constituents throughout the country today. Yes, we can kill Zarqawi, but are we defeating Zarqawiism? Many of us today have grave doubts. Yet, instead of having an open and honest debate, we get this charade. We deserve better. The American people deserve better. I encourage my colleagues to defeat this rule.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman. I rise to express appreciation for the very clear direction provided in the committee's report to the Agency for International Development with regard to the continuation of the East Central European Scholarship program in Albania and Macedonia. Over the last several years, I have become very familiar with this highly effective program because for more than a decade, the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, through this program, has been able to provide training to some 300 financial managers from all the participating program countries. The program has provided the managers training with bank risk management, financial management, and supervision of financial institutions, all of which are critically important to stable market economies. This training has helped create financial sectors with improved protections against corrupt and fraudulent activities and has facilitated integration by these economies with the broader European economy. As the chairman may be aware, however, USAID has not been responsive to the committee's views with regard to the program, as laid out in recent earlier reports. With that in mind, I would appreciate getting the chairman's assurance that the subcommittee will follow up on this excellent report language to impress upon the agency the seriousness of our congressional intent here.

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that; and I, too, want to echo the sentiments and the appreciation for the gentleman's many years of fine service to this body, this institution.

Mr. KIND. Will the chairman be kind enough to yield me his 30 seconds?

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the important and essential role oncology nurses play in providing quality cancer care. These nurses are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side- effects patients experience. As anyone ever treated for cancer will tell you, oncology nurses are intelligent, well-trained, highly skilled and kind-hearted providers of quality clinical, psychosocial and supportive care to patients and their families. In short, they are integral to our nation's cancer care delivery system. On behalf of the people with cancer and their families in Wisconsin's 3rd Congressional District, I would like to specifically acknowledge Diane Otte from Onalaska, Wisconsin for her service on the Oncology Nursing Society Board of Directors and her role as Director of the Cancer Center at Franciscan Skemp Healthcare. The Oncology Nursing Society has five chapters in my home state of Wisconsin. Located in Edgar, Green Bay, Oak Creek, Pewaukee, and Madison these chapters serve the oncology nurses in the state and support them in their efforts to provide high quality cancer care to patients and their families throughout Wisconsin. Since 1975, the Oncology Nursing Society has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration, and education in the field of oncology. The Oncology Nursing Society is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, with more than 33,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. I commend Diane and her organization for all that they do in the field of oncology. Cancer is a complex, multifaceted and chronic disease, and people with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specializing in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. According to the American Cancer Society, one in three women and one in two men will receive a diagnosis of cancer at some point in their lives, and one out of every four deaths in the United States results from cancer. This year approximately 26,390 people in Wisconsin will be diagnosed with cancer, and another 10,650 will lose their battles with this terrible disease. Every day, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment. I would like to once again acknowledge and thank Diane Otte for her hard work and leadership on the Oncology Nursing Society Board of Directors. As a nurse and leader in the field, Diane has made it her life's mission to help others and she should be applauded for all she has done.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were convicted on all counts for cooking the books at Enron, yet that is exactly what is going on with this legislation today by perpetrating this fraud on the American taxpayer that they can expect a 50-50 split on the royalties received up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, when we know today that is not true and it is not going to happen. In fact, the State of Alaska, the legislature, last year, passed a resolution saying 50-50 is not acceptable, and under the Alaska Statehood Act, they demand a 90-10 share. Our own friend and colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young, was recently quoted in the Anchorage Daily News, and I quote, ``I have to say 50-50 is something I don't relish. I think it's totally illegal. I believe we can win it in court.'' This will cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars if we don't get something in writing now before this legislation advances. I guess it is a good thing there is a Speech and Debate Clause in this Congress, because there is a whole lot of cooking the books in regards to the royalty that the American taxpayer can receive from private oil companies drilling in this pristine national wildlife refuge.

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, we will hear a lot of discussion today about how drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for our oil needs is nothing but an illusion, a fraud being perpetrated on the American people, because it is not going to be an answer either in the short term or the long term in regards to the energy challenge that we face. I believe that. Why drilling in one of the most pristine, untouched areas of the world is something up for consideration in the House for the 12th time is beyond me. But I also want to raise a very important issue, because there are a lot of gimmicks being played with the budget on this issue. At the very least, you think we would be honest and truthful and decent with the American taxpayer in regard to the hopeful revenues that this will generate. In this legislation, it calls for a 50/50 split with the State of Alaska on royalties, but we all know this is not going to happen. The State legislature in Alaska last year passed a resolution saying, no, it will only agree to a 90/10 split. If we don't get it, we are suing you. Given the States' rights make-up in the court, they will in all likelihood prevail. Tens of billions of dollars are on the table over this important difference. Even our friend and colleague in Alaska has publicly made it known his intent to fight this 50/50 split that is contained in this legislation. Yet they will roll out the statistics on the budget revenue enhancers with royalties that we are going to be collecting by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when they know it is false. So at the very least, we should at least pin down the State of Alaska and our colleague from Alaska into whether they are going to accept the 50/50 split or whether they will tie this up in courts and probably have the courts rule against us under the Alaska Statehood Act. That is something that should be clarified before the ink is dry on this legislation.