Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of HR 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. The CHAMP Act makes crucial investments in children's health, preventive care, rural providers, and improved services for Medicare beneficiaries. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. Over the past several months, this Congress has debated how best to resolve serious problems facing this country's healthcare system: how do we provide responsible, reasonable healthcare coverage to children of working families? How do we modernize the benefits package provided to seniors under Medicare? How do we ensure that physicians and other providers caring for these seniors are paid fairly under Medicare? And finally, how do we accomplish all of these goals while at the same time adhering to the responsible budgeting rules this Congress has adopted for itself through pay-as-you-go budgeting rules? As a member of the Ways and Means Committee faced with these issues, I can tell you that it has not been easy. I do not believe, however, that our constituents elected us to come to Washington and make the easy decisions. We are here to govern, to balance competing and often equally deserving interests, and to arrive at a solution that we think is best for this country. I believe the CHAMP Act accomplishes all of these goals. This legislation will expand health care coverage to some 5 million new children across the country, allowing them to receive the vital preventive care that we know is essential for a healthy future. The CHAMP Act pays for this new investment through an increase in the federal tobacco tax, a move that itself will improve the health of our children by making cigarettes more expensive to buy. The forty-five cent tobacco tax increase included in this bill will reduce youth smoking rates by almost seven percent and will result in significant future savings in healthcare costs. The CHAMP Act also invests in this country's seniors by eliminating cost-sharing for preventive services under Medicare. This move will allow seniors to get essential services--such as check-ups, cancer and diabetes screenings, and flu and pneumonia vaccines--for no out-of- pocket costs. We know that in order to improve seniors' quality of life and to prevent and detect life-threatening diseases, we must make this investment in prevention and primary care. I am proud of this important advance. Lastly, this legislation ensures that rural healthcare providers are paid fairly for the services they provide to seniors. The Medicare program provides a vital healthcare safety net for seniors living in rural areas. The CHAMP Act ensures that this level of care can continue by providing fair payments to physicians, ambulance providers, home health agencies, and other practitioners who care for the more than 9 million seniors living in rural areas. The CHAMP Act is the right choice for Wisconsin and the right choice for this country.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, during debate tonight on the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the farm bill I offered with my colleagues Mr. Flake, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Ryan, and others, a false claim was made regarding the budgetary impact of the amendment, and I would like to correct the record to reflect the truth. While the error, to the best of my knowledge, was not intentional and the false statement was not made knowingly, I believe it is important that I make the accurate information known. Tonight, Chairman Peterson stated that the savings claimed by the reforms made by the amendment were not realized, and he questioned, therefore, the validity of these reforms. Unfortunately, the statement was based on inaccurate information. After consulting with the Congressional Budget Office, it appears the Chairman was basing his comments on a comparison with current law rather than a comparison to H.R. 2419, which was how our amendment was drafted. The official CBO score shows that our amendment would have, in fact, saved the government billions of dollars during both the five- and 10-year windows in relation to the bill as reported by the Agriculture Committee. It is unfortunate this mistake was made on the House floor tonight and was not corrected at the time. When writing policy that affects every single American, it is important that we base our decisions on timely and accurate information. I appreciate this opportunity to provide the real facts on our amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to an advocate of much- overdue reform of the crop insurance program, the gentleman from Tennessee, my good friend, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. Madam Chairman, change in this place is very difficult. In fact, sometimes the toughest thing to accomplish is changing the status quo. But the fundamental fact is that when you've got two-thirds of the subsidy program in this farm bill going to just 30 congressional districts who are well represented on the committee, I think it's unrealistic to expect that that committee's going to produce a policy statement that embraces reform and new ideas. I should know. I used to serve on the committee. And I'm not being critical. That's just a fact. They have their districts to represent as we have districts to represent as well. My district takes a hit under this reform bill. But sometimes it takes a group of well-intentioned individuals to move the cause of reform forward, and that's what we're trying to do tonight.

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, just to give you an indication of how effective the current safety net is, it was recently discovered there was $1.1 billion in subsidy payments that went out to farmers who had already passed away. Now, I want to recognize for 2 minutes a champion of family farmers and an advocate for reasonable, justifiable reform, my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for purposes of this debate that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) be allowed to control 10 minutes of my 20 minutes.

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, this farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation before this Congress in this session because it truly does affect us all. It affects our family farmers. It affects consumers in America. It affects our wildlife and natural resources. It affects people who are hungry, both in this country and abroad, and it affects economic development opportunities in rural America but also in the developing world, and it affects my home State in Wisconsin, where agriculture is still the number one industry. I know, I have a 200-acre farm in western Wisconsin where we rotate corn and soybeans. I've got beef cattle on it from time to time. But for too long farm policy has resulted in billions of dollars of subsidies going to a few, but very large and very wealthy entities who then gobble up family farms around them, drive up land values and make it virtually impossible for new beginning farmers to enter the business. These subsidies have distorted the marketplace, and they distort our trade policies. Too many farmers have planted for the government paycheck instead of the marketplace. This has got to change. But instead of heeding the call for reasonable, justifiable reform in light of current market prices, the farm bill before us fails to even make token reforms under the Title I commodity programs. In fact, they still allow taxpayer-supported subsidies to go to individuals in this country with an adjusted gross income of $1 million. Over the next 5 years, there will be $26 billion in direct subsidy payments going out to commodity producers who are getting at or near record prices in the marketplace. And under these direct payments, the committee raises the cap from $40,000 to $60,000 and allows multiple entities on the same farm to collect the same type of subsidies. It also eliminates the cap with the loan deficiency program. It's a missed opportunity. In fact, what we have before us today is a bipartisan, fair, reform amendment that takes light of the market conditions and offers reasonable and justifiable reforms under a very simple proposition: Let's give our family farmers help when they need it; let's not when they don't. What we propose in our amendment would be phasing out these direct payments that were meant to be temporary in the 1996 farm bill, and now we're in the third farm bill, and they're increasing these subsidy payments and lifting the caps. We also replace the current countercyclical program with a true safety net, a revenue-based safety net that even the corn growers have been working on as a replacement over the last few years. We also place a tighter income limit at $250,000 adjusted gross, even slightly above the administration's own $200,000 limit that they recommend. Plus, we call for long-overdue reform with the crop insurance program based on the good work that our friends Mr. Cooper and Mr. Waxman have been doing in this, and we all do this under justifiable market conditions, ending up with a farm bill at the end of the day that does not distort our market, nor our trade policies. For too long family farmers have suffered due to the inequities of this farm bill, and with the savings that we use to reform the Title I programs, we make significant new investments in other priority areas. We have a $6 billion increase in funding under the nutrition title to deal with hunger in America. We have a $3 billion increase of voluntary incentive conservation programs, when today three out of every four farmers applying for conservation funding assistance are turned away because of inadequacy of funds. We have a $1.2 billion increase for specialty crops above what the committee did, and a healthy food program to combat the obesity epidemic which is ravishing our Nation. We also have $1.1 billion in guaranteed funding out of the McGovern- Dole bill and $500 million for minority and disadvantaged farmers, $200 million increase for rural development to create economic job opportunities throughout rural America. And at the end of the reform, we even have money for deficit reduction. How refreshing that we may have a bill coming out of this Congress that actually reforms enough to have some left over to reduce the massive budget deficits and prepare for the aging of our Nation. What's really nice about this is it is all paid for. We don't have to go to the Ways and Means Committee or the Financial Services Committee to seek offsets in order to pay for these other priorities and still provide a safety net for our family farmers. This amendment gets us out of the box that my Republican friends find themselves in in not being able to support a tax increase to finance this farm bill. And you guys are exactly right. If you had been pulling this on us while we were in the minority, we would be raising bloody hell as well, because if you lose the process in the place, you lose a sense of fairness, and if you don't have fairness at the end of the day, you can't get things done. We're saying we don't have to go down that road. Let's make some commonsense reforms to find the offsets to deal with the other priorities while still maintaining a proper safety net so when the farmers are in trouble, if market prices plummet, there will be a safety net for them; but let's not do it when they don't need it, so we can go home and look the taxpayers in the eyes and justify exactly what we're doing here. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues of a Fair reform amendment that I and others will offer later in this debate. For too long, our farm programs have given billions of taxpayer subsidies to a few, but very large and wealthy, entities. This has got to change. Our Fair reform amendment will reform these commodity programs so they act like a true safety net. Simply put, let's help farmers when they need it. Let's not when they don't. The committee bill before us, however, will continue to give taxpayer subsidies to individuals with an adjusted gross income of $1 million. It will spend $26 million in subsidies to commodity producers who are receiving at or near record commodity prices. Our reform, however, will establish a real revenue-based safety net in case prices collapse. But the savings we find in phasing out direct subsidy payments we reinvest in rural America: $3 billion more for voluntary conservation programs, $6 billion for nutrition programs to combat hunger in this country, $2.6 billion for specialty crops and healthy foods programs, $200 million for rural development programs, $1.1 billion for McGovern-Dole, all of which is paid for in this current farm bill. The opportunity for reform has never been better, given the strong market prices that exist today. Our reform amendment is fair and completely justifiable. I urge my colleagues to support real reform so we can help family farmers when they need it, and so we can go home and justify it to the American taxpayer.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with the gentleman from Tennessee, my good friend, Mr. Wamp, for the purpose of engaging the chairman in this colloquy about the National Youth Sports Program. While my purpose for rising today is to discuss the merits of NYSP, I would also like to commend the chairman on the work that the committee has done in crafting such a respectable bill before us. The subcommittee was able to restore several programs that otherwise would have been eliminated, while also increasing important investments in much-needed areas such as No Child Left Behind, IDEA, and the Community Services Block Grant. I am disappointed, however, that this year, due to funding constraints, the National Youth Sports Program was not funded in this appropriations bill. The National Youth Sports Program program is an educational partnership that has worked successfully for over 37 years. It provides low-income children ages 10 to 16 a 5-week summer program offering sports and academic programs at colleges and universities nationwide. While touring the NYSP program on the UW-Eau Claire and UW-LaCrosse campuses in my district on several occasions, I have witnessed firsthand how this program reaches beyond academics and sports to provide opportunities for learning about good nutrition, developing leadership skills and developing good character. In previous years, the program served approximately 76,000 children at 201 colleges and universities across the country. The loss in Federal funding, however, has had a dramatic effect on the program's operation. It is expected there will only be 50 programs and 10,000 students participating this summer nationwide. In our home State of Wisconsin, close to 1,600 young people once participated in this program, yet this year, unfortunately, that figure has dramatically declined to approximately 400 children.

Mr. KIND. I thank the chairman.

Mr. KIND. As the chairman is aware, earlier this year we sent a bipartisan letter to the committee requesting an $18 million appropriation for NYSP, and given the importance of this program to many children throughout the country and the fact that NYSP has successfully leveraged Federal funding to secure substantial matching community investments, we would hope that if funding is found on the Senate side, that both the House and the chairman would be supportive of the funding level coming out of the Senate in conference. It is also our hope that in the future NYSP will receive an outreach of support to continue its agenda for organizations that specialize in assisting at-risk youth. This program is too vital for the health and well-being of our young people for it to be left unfunded for another year.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2956, Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act of 2007. For months, I, along with many of my colleagues in this chamber, have been calling on the President to forge a new direction with the war in Iraq. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Despite failing to meet his own benchmarks of progress, despite new reports of the unsustainable cost of this war, despite the tremendous dissatisfaction and disenchantment of the American people and members of his own party--the President recently made public statements to the effect that he is unwilling to change the course and try a new strategy. The American people are dissatisfied with the deteriorating situation in Iraq. They are tired of finger-pointing and political gamesmanship. They want some answers, and they quite rightly expect and deserve one. As their elected representatives and leaders, I believe it is our responsibility in Congress to work together to move this country forward to an honest solution. It is clear that American troops have accomplished their military mission. Yet we have now tasked them with forging political compromise as well, leaving them in the middle of a burgeoning civil war in Iraq. It is widely recognized that the sectarian strife taking place in Iraq right now cannot be solved through military means alone, and the President's refusal to entertain any new strategies has put our troops in an untenable position. I cannot continue in good conscience to ask our brave troops to risk their lives because I don't believe their sacrifice is being met with an equal commitment from the Iraqi people. The tough but necessary political compromises are not being made. While the Iraqis are moving toward a transparent and effective government, what is missing is the necessary political accommodation to move the country towards reconciliation. Unfortunately, Iraqis by themselves appear incapable of achieving political progress. Instead, years later, they continue to lean on the United States and our military for stability, teetering on the brink of full-blown civil war without the will to make the political compromises necessary to peace. Be assured that I am the last person in this chamber that wants to take irresponsible actions that would take the country into complete chaos. But American military power is not the solution to the war. More troops, more time, more money--these are not the answers. Congress needs to understand, as the American people do, that we must begin planning for a responsible withdrawal and redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. H.R. 2956 provides for a safe and orderly reduction of troops in Iraq and a transition to a limited presence of American troops in country for force protection, training of Iraqi Security Forces, and counterterrorism missions. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. We must send a clear message to the Iraqi government that the patience of the American people is not endless, and that they must take control of their future. Passage of H.R. 2956 will help send that message. I believe strongly that we must not wait any longer to send this message. The time to act is now, to force the hand of this Administration and the Iraqi government. Waiting any longer will simply lead to more fatalities for U.S. soldiers, Iraqi military, and civilians. Finally, I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks and undying admiration for our men and women in uniform for their service to our country. May God bless them 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 today in support of a bill I have authored that will help scientists and local officials make informed, scientifically based decisions about one of the most important natural resources in this country, the Upper Mississippi River. The Mississippi River is one of America's great national treasures, running right through the heart of this country. It is North America's largest migratory bird flyway, with 40 percent of the continent's waterfowl species using this corridor during their annual migrations. It also waters the Nation's breadbasket, providing the nutrient-rich soils we enjoy in the midwest and water for irrigation. It also provides drinking water for nearly 30 million Americans and a passageway for billions of dollars in commerce. But, the Mississippi is threatened by increasing sediment and nutrient flows that gum up the river and poison its ecosystems. H.R. 2381, The Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act, is a commonsense piece of legislation that would establish a coordinated public-private approach to reducing these threats, which affect all parts of the river and even the Gulf of Mexico where nutrients have created and continue to enlarge the gulf dead zone. We can address these issues, but we need hard scientific data to do it. That is where this bill comes in. H.R. 2381 establishes a sub-basin monitoring program whereby the United States Geological Service will monitor where nutrients enter the river and use computer modeling to follow the nutrient flows downstream. This will allow local conservationists and land managers to pinpoint exactly where conservation and education are most needed. This scientific approach has received widespread approval and been endorsed by the five Upper Mississippi State Governors. I thank the Natural Resources Committee staff for helping put this innovative piece of legislation together, and I thank the chairman for his support of the bill. This bill has passed the House in each of the last three Congresses, and I urge my colleagues to support it again today.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2740.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 25, 2007, I was detained in my district due to a canceled airline flight and was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor for H. Res. 189 (Roll no. 549) and H.R. 2546 (Roll no. 550). Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both measures.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Just to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, numerous agencies that have looked at the science of polar bear management in Canada and other places feel that the limited permits that are issued for this hunting purpose is conducive to conservation efforts and habitat protection up in Canada, especially through the indigenous tribes there that are issued these permits every year. The Canadian letter that I just referenced earlier stated, ``Removal of the sports hunting exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act would have no impact,'' no impact, ``on the numbers harvested, but would cause economic hardship to the Canadian northern indigenous communities.'' Again quoting from the letter from Canada, ``Any action such as that proposed in the amendment is premature and should at least await the outcome of the two reviews.'' The two reviews they are referring to is our own Fish and Wildlife review and also a Canadian review in regards to the status of polar bear populations, those reports are going to be coming due some time early next year. Also, the National Wildlife Federation, I want to clarify, the National Wildlife Federation has not endorsed nor opposed Mr. Inslee's amendment, but they stated in a letter submitted to Members of Congress yesterday, ``We understand that there may be a debate about managing polar bear populations, which we believe is a distraction from the real issue of global warming.'' They go on to state that the only thing that could adequately protect the polar bear population is prompt action taken on global warming. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) on the importance of that issue.

Mr. KIND. I want to thank my friend from Washington for yielding me this time. And, unfortunately, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have had numerous conversations with Mr. Inslee, who I consider one of my closest friends and colleagues in the House, and I certainly understand the appreciation that he has in light of the challenges we face with global warming and the potential impact it's going to have on polar bears. But as one of the cochairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus in the House, we think this amendment is unnecessary and, in fact, counterproductive. I contacted the Canadian embassy and the Canadian Government, who opposes the amendment. They say it would risk crucial conservation funding streams and habitat protections for the very polar bears that we're all interested in protecting. Also, our own U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opposes this, again because of the cooperative alliance that we've established not only with Canadian officials in the proper wildlife management of this special species, but the fees collected from hunting that go right back into a conservation program that the U.S. and Russia have partnered with in order to enhance the protection and the growth of this population. Now, I've got a letter from the Canadian Government, as well as from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, that I will submit for the Record that states forth more fully the science behind their calculation and the limited number of permits that they're allowing in Canada. Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC, June 22, 2007. Dear Member of Congress: The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies strongly opposes H.R. 2327, the so-called ``Polar Bear Protection Act'', both as a stand-alone bill and as an amendment to any other legislation. This bill, which would ban the importation of trophies of polar bears legally taken from polar bear populations in Canada, will further complicate polar bear management and not contribute to polar bear sustainability. The Association was founded in 1902 as an inter- governmental organization of public agencies charged with the protection and management of North America's fish and wildlife resources. The Association's members include the fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, as well as federal government agencies in the United States and Canada. The Association provides a forum for hundreds of senior level fish and wildlife public agency biologists across North America to develop positions on public policy issues involving wildlife conservation. The Association has been instrumental in promoting sound resource management and strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest. This legislation would diminish the bear's value to the local communities which depend on hunts by United States hunters for income. We know from long experience that most successful wildlife conservation programs have, at their core, value to local people and communities. We are advised by our Canadian colleagues that many native communities earnestly engage Canada's polar bear management programs because these animals have value--funding schools, community centers, etc. in those northern communities. This legislation, if passed and enacted, would just add to the list of other factors already complicating polar bear management--melting ice pack, warming seas and loss of snow cover. The Marine Mammal Protection Act prerequisite that imports come from certified stocks is an important tool for those biologists working with these local communities to regulate the harvest of the various polar bear populations. These carefully set and intensely monitored harvests are critical for the local community and are an important negotiating tool for the biologists. Science-informed regulated hunting ensures sustainability of polar bear populations. Passage of this bill would not result in the taking of fewer polar bears; it will just complicate the work of those trying to conserve them. We urge that you not favorably consider H.R. 2327 either as a stand-alone bill or as an amendment to other legislation. Thank you for your sincere consideration of our perspectives. Sincerely, Matt Hogan, Executive Director.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me this time. I rise, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, in strong support of this 8-month extension of the Andean Trade Preference Act. It is the right thing to do at the right time, Mr. Speaker. There is no question, as my friend from New York just referenced previously, that our image has been tattered and beaten abroad. That is no less true here in the Western Hemisphere, especially with our neighbors to the south, through Central and South America. And I have always believed that our trade policies are more than just the exchange of products and goods between our Nation and others but also an important tool in our diplomatic arsenal. An arsenal that needs to be rebuilt now even in our own Western Hemisphere. But I also want to remind my colleagues that this is not a free pass for these four Andean nations to get this trade preference. They have certain strict criteria that they have to meet first to gain eligibility for these preferences. Criteria such as respecting internationally recognized worker rights, treating the United States investors fairly, providing market access to U.S. goods, demonstrating a commitment to implement its WTO obligations, and, finally, to meet the U.S. counter-narcotics criteria. And on that last point, it is not insignificant that there has been substantial progress, according to our own State Department and USTR office, of the drug eradication efforts and partnership that we have established with these four Andean nations. They have also met the criteria, again, through reference of our own State Department, but ATPA is perhaps the single most effective alternative development program we have going in the region. By providing these local citizens with long-term alternatives to narcotics trafficking and illegal immigration, ATPA has helped the governments, especially in Colombia and Peru, to isolate violent extremist groups; to revise their economies; and increase their investments in their education, health care, and infrastructure system. And I submit that if we are not trying to actively engage these nations to help them build their economy and expand economic opportunities, they are going to come to the United States to realize those opportunities that they are not receiving in their own countries. That is why I encourage my colleagues to support this extension.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Again, I appreciate this gentleman's leadership and the committee's work in regards to refocusing our attention on a great need in our Nation. I wanted to also mention to my colleagues that I, along with the other cochairs of the Wildlife Refuge Caucus, recently introduced legislation called the Repair Act. We had a nice hearing before the Natural Resources Committee last week that would hopefully provide singular focus on one of the great threats facing our refuge system, and that's invasive species, plants, animals. What we are trying to do is establish an important public and private partnership by working with friends groups, with Federal, State, local agencies, but other nonprivate organizations, so we can develop a battle plan to deal with these invasive species, try to get out ahead of the curve, which is one of the great threats facing the entire refuge system today. So I would hope my colleagues would take a look at the legislation that we have recently introduced. Hopefully we will have the cooperation of the committee, be able to move it to the floor for consideration, so we can start providing a singular focus and a good plan in place to deal with the invasive species threat that we are facing in this Nation. Again, I thank the committee for the work that they have done, they have produced a good product here, and I would encourage its passage.

Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word. I just want to take a moment to congratulate the Chair and the ranking member and the entire committee for the wonderful job they did in regards to the stewardship of our public lands. If you take a look at the budget, and this was eloquently stated by my friend from New Mexico, whether it was the National Park Service, whether it was the National Wildlife Refuge, if you take a look at funding for our public lands in recent years, it has been static at best and having severe consequences in regards to the management of our national park system but also the national wildlife refuges. As one of the cochairs of the Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus, along with my colleagues, Jim Saxton, Mike Castle, Mike Thompson, we have taken it upon us to try to educate our fellow colleagues in both the House and the Senate with regard to the real challenges that we are facing throughout the refuge system. While there are over 500 refuges nationwide right now, over 20 percent of them are not staffed and not offering any educational value to visitors, more refuges being prepared to be mothballed in the future, serious staff cuts with the agency budget, given the limitation of funds that they have seen. Now with this $56 million increase, the first increase since 2003 when we celebrated the centennial anniversary of the creation of the refuge system, this will go a long ways as far as stemming the cuts in personnel, staff, educational opportunities, but also the importance of maintaining and operating these refuges which are currently facing about a $3 billion backlog in routine maintenance and operation. I commend the committee, again, for their devotion and their attention to this very serious issue. But they are also recognizing we have another centennial anniversary coming up, and that's for the park service in just a few years, and a lot of work that needs to be done to bring that up to par so that they are worthy of the public attention and hopefully the increased visits that will lead up to this centennial anniversary of the national park system as well. I just want to take a moment to commend one park service person in particular, who my family and I had the privilege of spending Father's Day Sunday with, and that was at the Antietam National Battlefield, just outside of Washington here. The gentleman's name is Mike Gamble, and he works for the Park Service at the Antietam Battlefield. He was a 30-year history teacher for a local high school. He has been with Antietam Battlefield now for the last 9 years conducting tours and offering services to the visitors. If there is anyone with greater depth of knowledge of what took place, that crucial battle, the Battlefield of Antietam, the bloodiest day in American history, I don't know who that could be. He was incredibly well versed, extremely interesting, very educational, and even for my 9 and 10 year-old little boys, he brought that battlefield to life with great personal relevance in their lives. It's people like Mike and those who serve in our park service, whether it's Civil War battlefields or national parks or in our refuges, that really make this the great monuments to civilization that we have in this country.