Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005. I want to acknowledge the work of the Transportation Committee on this complex bill and especially thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, for his leadership on the legislation; the Wisconsin delegation is lucky to have such a strong advocate for our citizens. H.R. 3 is a significant economic development and job creation bill, and now is certainly the time that we need more jobs throughout the country. I consistently hear from constituents who are searching for work; who have sent out dozens of resumes and updated their skills but remain unemployed. Each billion dollars spent on highway funding creates not only safer and better roads, but it also creates an estimated 47,500 news jobs. An investment in highway funding is an investment for steady work for those in Wisconsin and around the nation. In addition, I am pleased that the bill recognizes the importance of funding crucial highways and bridges in Wisconsin's Third Congressional District. Specifically, the inclusion of funding for the Stillwater Bridge, which connects Houlton, Wisconsin, and Stillwater, Minnesota, is great news for those of us who have been working on this project for years. The bridge is only one example of an important project that will provide our citizens with safer roads, shorter commutes, and better jobs. Furthermore, I would like to recognize the important conservation provisions that are included in H.R. 3. As a hunter and fisherman, I am particularly pleased with a provision which recaptures the final 4.8 cents of the 18.3 cents per gallon tax on motorboat fuel and directs it back into the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act's Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (ARTF). This full recovery of the motorboat fuel excise tax will provide about $110 million a year for recreational trails, new funding for signage identifying access for anglers and hunters, and vital safety programs dealing with wildlife-vehicle collisions. These important provisions make H.R. 3 the most comprehensive transportation bill for sportsmen ever created. I am proud to have served on the conference committee to help reconcile this bill so it could reach the House and Senate for a final vote. Moreover, I would like to thank Senators Kohl and Feingold for all the work they have done with this bill to make sure that it benefits the citizens of Wisconsin. The long-awaited passage of this bill is great news for western Wisconsin. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as our nation leads the world into the 21st century, we should not shy away from opportunities to guide and expand global trade. Lowering tariffs and advancing economic engagement among nations not only helps the American economy, it also can provide real opportunity to those in the developing world who are working to eradicate poverty, build their nations and bring prosperity to their people. It is critical that we build a bipartisan consensus around the importance of trade, which, unfortunately, does not currently exist. Such a consensus requires that trade agreements be balanced and fair for American workers and companies as well as for the nations with which we seek to engage. It also requires that domestic priorities be put in place to assist Americans in transitioning to the global economy. While I have supported previous free trade agreements, it is with regret that I oppose H.R. 3045, legislation implementing the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) between the United States, the Dominican Republic and five Central American nations: Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, EI Salvador and Guatemala. DR-CAFTA does not build the bipartisan consensus we must achieve to succeed in the emerging global economy. When increasing opportunities through trade, we must be sure to do more to empower the American workforce through a comprehensive and upgraded education and worker training policy. The single most important factor in determining America's success in the 21st Century will be maintaining our innovation and creativity. Over the last few years, the world has become a smaller and more integrated place with technology, which levels the playing field like never before. Greater competition and collaboration exist now between countries, companies, and individuals. Meeting this challenge requires a new set of big ideas. Instead of this Administration being so eager to dismantle the new deal, it should be working with Congress to offer the American people a new ``New Deal.'' This new ``New Deal'' should provide working families with the skills to compete successfully in the 21st Century economy. We must renew our commitment to worker training programs, an education investment that emphasizes math, science and engineering, research funding in science and medicine, and a comprehensive broad-band strategy for all America. Unfortunately, DR-CAFTA fails on a number of fronts. While the Administration has aggressively negotiated intellectual property and investor rights provisions in the agreement, it has simply not taken the same approach to protect workers' rights abroad or address the needs of working families here at home. DR-CAFTA does not require nations to bring their laws into compliance with the International Labor Organization (ILO) core labor standards, even though the ILO and U.S. State Department have documented numerous areas where the CAFTA countries' laws fail to comply with even the most basic international norms. Further, the agreement lacks critical dispute settlement and enforcement mechanisms for worker rights provisions beyond a normal fine for countries that fail to enforce their own current labor laws. Even this minimal standard is flawed, as DR-CAFTA does not require countries to maintain their current labor laws. In addition to the inadequate labor provisions in the trade agreement, the Administration has done nothing to prepare hard-working American families for the consequences of increased trade. Rather, the Administration and Congressional Leadership have provided irresponsible tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest one percent of Americans at the expense of investing in education, skills training, and research and development. Mr. Speaker, economics and trade need not be a zero-sum game; it can be a win-win for everyone involved as long as people have the tools to succeed. I cannot in good faith support an incomplete trade and economic policy that leaves Americans less able to be creative and innovative.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), someone who understands the importance of maintaining consumer protections as we have in our substitute bill.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this morning we fortunately witnessed the successful take-off of the latest space shuttle mission into space, and I, and I know all my colleagues, our thoughts and prayers go with that crew and their families. We wish them a successful mission and a safe return here to Earth at the conclusion of that mission. But, Mr. Speaker, ``Houston, we have got a problem'' right here on Earth today, and that problem we all can agree to is the rising cost of health care, the impact that it is having on businesses large and small, family farmers, individual employees. It is a crisis that has been building through a number of years, and there is nothing more heart-wrenching or gut-wrenching than to speak to young parents who have a young child in desperate need of emergency medical attention, having to take that child to the hospital knowing that they do not have adequate health care coverage to provide for their sick child. Today, one of the major factors for individual and personal bankruptcies is health care-related costs. There is also nothing more disheartening than speaking to the multitude of small business owners throughout this country who would love nothing better than to be able to extend affordable health care coverage to their employees; but they cannot because it is too expensive. I think we can all agree to the fact that this is something that we have to have focused attention to alleviate the high costs of health care and the growing ranks of the uninsured, which is roughly 45 million to 48 million today. When we think about who comprises these 45 million to 48 million uninsured, the vast majority of them are working Americans, working in small businesses who cannot afford to provide coverage. Again, it is something we all recognize, because we hear about it daily when we are back home traveling in our congressional districts. So, yes, action is needed; but there is a right way and a wrong way in taking action. A wrong way would be doing more harm than good in passing legislation and, for the previous hour, we have had a discussion in regard to the deficiencies and the shortfalls of the underlying associated health plans bill. That is why over 1,400 organizations around the country have come out in opposition to it. But today, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering the right way, an alternative way, another approach to dealing with the health care crisis that our small businesses are facing, one that we believe would extend health care coverage to millions of Americans, while keeping a lid on the rising premium costs. What it does, in essence, Mr. Speaker, is it builds upon the successful framework that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program has offered to countless Federal employees throughout the country. It is a purchasing pool concept that they can enter into, with the competition of the marketplace and different insurance plans competing for that business that has proven to be extremely cost effective in not only extending coverage to millions of Federal employees, but also by guaranteeing the State protections and consumer protections that have been passed by State legislatures throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, it is one of the more amazing aspects of this debate that the party that claims to be for States' rights and tries to take political advantage of saying, listen, States, we stand for you and what you decide to do on a policy level, is so quick to jettison States' rights when it becomes politically inconvenient for their political allies, and that is exactly what is going on here today with the proposed associated health plans, which will preempt and trump the public policy decisions that have been made throughout this country by State legislatures. Now, our plan also would offer a minimum guarantee of coverage, one that the Federal Employee Health Plan currently does. It does not preempt the consumer protections and the State laws that have been passed. And the reason those State laws have been passed throughout the years is because the free marketplace and the insurance companies competing for the business were not offering this type of coverage, and that is why the State legislatures, in working with the Governors, had to pass legislation requiring certain minimal safeguards of health care coverage. So if a State legislature has felt in the past that it is necessary to require prenatal care, for instance, or to prohibit drive- through deliveries, or to require screening for diabetes, autism, cancer, they have chosen to do so; and it has made sense for those States that have. But, instead, this one-size-fits-all approach comes in and tries to preempt what the States have been doing for many, many years. But what is also different with our substitute is it actually offers premium support payments to make it more affordable to small businesses to offer health care coverage to their employees, something that the underlying AHP plan is silent on. Again, an analysis of our bill would show that it would actually increase the coverage of the uninsured, help premium prices come down by building on this purchasing-pool concept, but also maintaining important and safe consumer protections. There is a reason why the National Governors Association and the States attorneys general have opposed the underlying bill. It is for all of these reasons, and we would respectfully submit the right approach is the substitute that we are offering today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a person who certainly appreciates the role of States and consumer protection in this health care debate.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think there is wide agreement, bipartisan agreement that we have got a serious issue on our hands, a huge challenge that is facing our Nation, that is, rising health care costs and the impact it is having on economic growth, the opportunities for businesses large and small to grow and hire additional workers. I think it is one of the main reasons why we have experienced such anemic job growth in this country in recent years, because of the hesitancy of so many businesses, especially small businesses to hire additional workers because of the associated rising health care costs. It is something that we must address in order to deal with an expanding economy at a rate that we would all like to see, but also to get a grip on the stagnant wages right now that are holding so many of our workers back. I think there is a direct cause and effect whereas the typical worker's wages have been frozen in effect in recent years because of the additional costs coming out of their pockets to afford health care. That is why, again, we have had an important debate today, but it is one we should be working on in a bipartisan fashion to address the underlying causes. Volumes have been written about the underlying associated health plan that is before us today. And, unfortunately, the verdict is in and that verdict is this is just bad public policy. That is why so many of the Governors and so many of the attorneys general, and the commissioners of insurance, the Association of State Legislatures in a bipartisan fashion have roundly criticized and condemned the underlying associated health plan, because they feel as we do on this side that it will do more harm than good. I understand and appreciate the motivation on the other side to try to move forward on this issue. But we are stuck. The wheels are stuck in the mud, and it is just spinning because it is not getting any traction. And that is because the Senate in their analysis of the underlying bill has found that it, too, is bad public policy. And I am afraid we are going to have this debate today, it is going to expire and it is going to get stuck with no progress being made. Perhaps there may be some deficiencies in what we are offering in our substitute, just as we believe there are deficiencies in theirs. But now is the time for us to come together to try to find some common ground so we can make progress and deal with this issue that is affecting more and more Americans every year. One of the issues that really has not received that much attention, and I would just like to close on and highlight it, is again the fact of the Federal preemption and taking away from States the ability to conduct proper oversight and accountability with these insurance plans. Both the GAO in a study and a recent Georgetown University study that came out this summer indicated that the underlying AHP bill, as it is written with the weak provisions that would go to the Department of Labor, would lead to an explosion of fraud and abuse with these types of plans throughout the country. And there is a history of fraud and abuse. Currently, there are over 144 plans that are set up fraudulently that are not paying the claims that are affecting well over 200,000 workers. But for the effective oversight and the policing that is taking place at the State level, even these would probably go unnoticed. It would impact more and more Americans. It is another reason why the underlying bill does not make sense, why the Federal preemption over State jurisdiction, which has been the history of health care regulation in this country, is another bad idea. Our substitute addresses that by not preempting State law by allowing the State jurisdiction and oversight to continue. It does build upon the concept of a purchasing pool modeled after the Federal employee health plan which, as was stated earlier, has worked marvelously over the years. No one is recommending dismantling that. I would encourage a ``yes'' on the substitute and a ``no'' on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I just recommend to the previous speaker that he should talk to any Federal employee with regard to the choices that they are offered under the Federal Employee Health Plan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a person who would rather take millions of people off the ranks of the uninsured rather than add a million people into the uninsured.

Mr. KIND. We are waiting to get a cost estimate back, but based on two previous debates on this issue, it was comparable to the amount of money set aside for the health savings account that has been a part of this bill in the past, but is not this year.

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a person who has built up considerable health care expertise from his position on the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond quickly, just to clarify a couple of facts. Mr. Speaker, I have all of the respect and admiration for the chair of our committee, but a closer reading of the substitute bill would not, in fact, require a Federal-run program; rather the Department of Labor would contract out the State-licensed health insurance plans in order to administer these programs. But we do feel that there is a requirement or a necessity to offer greater incentives and inducements for small businesses to offer this coverage. That is why we are offering a premium support program with it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the coauthor and codrafter of this substitute amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), for the leadership he has shown on this issue. Here we are again, Mr. Speaker. Year after year after year it seems we continue to rise in this Chamber to debate the same issue. One of the reasons we have to do this year after year is because bad policy is tough to sell, and especially tough to sell in the Senate right now, which has refused to take this up and move it forward because it has been bad policy. The chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), had a chart showing us a 93 percent approval of AHPs. That is not surprising, Mr. Speaker. There is such a craving throughout America for any type of legislative proposal that would bring price relief to the rising cost of health care, that I am afraid people will chase any proposal and even jump off a cliff without looking where they are going to land. That is why, Mr. Speaker, especially under these conditions, it is more incumbent upon us here in this Chamber to be extra careful in regard to the policy proposals that we are proposing so we do not violate the Hippocratic oath, and that is: first do no harm to the current health care system. There is plenty of places where this legislation that is being offered today would do substantial harm. We have had studies outside and inside this body that have come back explaining the true deficiencies of this legislation, but none probably summarize it better than the National Small Business Association that recently sent us a letter expressing their concerns. Now, this is an organization of some of the largest Chambers of Commerce and some of the biggest local and national organizations throughout the country, all of which see this AHP proposal for what it really is: an empty promise. Mr. Speaker, I quote from this letter from the National Small Business Association in which they state, ``The biggest loser from the passage of AHPs would be small businesses. AHPs are not an answer to rising health care costs and would significantly worsen the state of health care for all businesses. More and more small businesses are realizing that despite the bumper sticker pitch in its favor, AHPs are, simply put, bad public policy.'' They go on to cite the Mercer study, saying that ``premiums for those outside the AHP market would increase an additional 23 percent, and an additional 1 million people would become uninsured as this policy plays out.'' They go on to state that ``the minimal price savings realized by some businesses through AHPs would come from attracting healthier participants and depleting benefits that are currently required by States. AHPs could create plans that manipulate benefits and are extremely unattractive to sicker, less healthy participants. ``Furthermore, the CBO found most of the enrollment in AHPs would come from businesses switching coverage. Only 1 in 14 would be newly insured. AHPs do nothing to solve the problem in rising health care costs to small businesses and their employees.'' And they conclude by saying, ``They simply shift the cost from the overall market to a more concentrated group of people. This is hardly a long-term solution.'' There is a better proposal, one that we will talk about in more detail when our substitute is offered. There is a way for us, I believe, to come together in a bipartisan fashion to address one of the most pressing issues of the day, and that is affordability and access to quality health care. Businesses large and small, family farmers, individual employees are all suffering alike, and that is why it is important for us to come together and do something meaningful to relieve the health care pressures in this economy.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule even though it has made in order a substitute that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I will be offering. The reason I rise in opposition is because this is such an important issue that we really should have an open and fair and reasonable debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. Eight of the Democratic amendments offered last night were effectively blocked. Instead, we have a closed rule that will allow some time for general debate on the AHP underlying bill, an hour on the substitute, and that is it. I think we can all stipulate that when we go home, this is clearly the overriding issue we hear from our constituents: the rising cost of health care and the inability, especially in small businesses, to be able to afford and access quality health care which is crucial to a growing and vibrant economy. There is a reason why we are here year after year debating the same issue, and that is because the underlying bill is bad policy. It is recognized as bad policy by over 1,400 organizations nationwide that have come out and publicly opposed it, including the National Governors Association, both the Democratic and the Republican Governors associations; including 41 of the States attorneys general; the National Association of Insurance Commissioners; the National Conference of State Legislatures, all of whom recognize this does not make sense, it is bad policy and we should offer something more than just a broken promise or false hope to small businesses and their employees hoping to obtain coverage. There should be an unwritten rule when we are debating any type of health care policy changes, and that is following the Hippocratic Oath that our doctors and health care providers follow: first, do no harm. Unfortunately, the AHP bill before us today does plenty of harm. And, again, it has been recognized by independent studies both within the congressional body and outside. In fact, a recent Mercer Study indicates that adoption of this AHP legislation could raise the ranks of the uninsured by over 1 million people. You would think that alone would be enough for a ``no'' vote on this underlying bill. Any policy that is going to increase the number of uninsured, which is roughly between 45 and 48 million today, is something that we should resist. It also shows that those who do not join AHPs and are not part of an association, who have health coverage for their employees, the premiums are going to increase for those people by 23 percent. This is consistent with what the Congressional Budget Office has shown in their study that shows that adoption of this bill would leave 20 million of the workers with higher premium payments overall. Also, recently there was a study out of Georgetown University that shows that adoption of this bill, and again it is consistent with past GAO studies, would increase the likelihood of greater fraud and abuse within the associated health plan system. The GAO in a study showed that there are 144 illegal AHPs operating affecting every State in the Union with unpaid claims affecting over 200,000 workers today. The underlying bill is going to take oversight and accountability away from the States where it has traditionally resided with oversight powers and audit responsibilities, put it in the Department of Labor with insufficient resources and no accountability and no oversight at all. Because of that, the State attorneys general in a letter stated: ``The elimination of the State role and replacement with weak Federal oversight is a bad deal for small businesses and consumers.'' Finally, as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) has indicated, it does preempt consumer protection which has been traditionally guaranteed by the States if they found that necessary. So there are a lot of reasons why the underlying bill before us today is bad policy. That is one of the reasons it has had a difficult time moving through the Senate. We are going to have a substitute offered that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I and others who support think is a viable and reasonable approach to deal with the growing health care crisis that so many of our small businesses and their employees are facing. It is a bill that does allow the purchasing pool concept to go forward, but it is modeled after what Federal employees currently have under their health care plan. And it also does not preempt State law. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the rule so we have an honest debate and support the substitute and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill which, among other things, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' sustainability plan for the upper Mississippi River. The navigation and ecosystem sustainability in title VIII of the bill is the product of the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation feasibility study, which has had, unfortunately, a long and controversial history. As many will remember, a respected Army Corps economist filed a whistleblower complaint about the Corps' use of faulty data to justify lock and dam expansion. Partly in response to that incident, I introduced legislation to revamp the project review and authorization procedures at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The goals of my bill were to increase transparency and accountability; ensure fiscal responsibility; balance economic and environmental interests; and allow greater stakeholder involvement in proposed projects. Many elements of my reform measures are in this bill, though not to the degree I believe is still needed. For example, I believe the Corps' outdated principles and guidelines should be updated to reflect current laws and public values, and much more should be done to strengthen the peer review provisions--section 2030--to create a truly independent and effective review process. It is my hope the other body will include the full scope of these sensible reform measures in their version of this important bill. In addition, in the wake of the whistleblower scandal, my colleagues and I in the Army Corps reform caucus called for the scientific, nonpartisan, national research council to review the Corps' final recommended plan. Regrettably the NRC's report concluded there remained some questions about the Corps' commercial traffic predictions on the Mississippi--but expressed support for the Corps' inclusion of adaptive management ecosystem restoration components in their plan. While I remain troubled by the Corps' inability to fully justify the Model they used for their commercial traffic predictions, America clearly has an aging lock and dam infrastructure on the Mississippi. Most of the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River system are over 60 years old and many are in serious need of repair and rehabilitation. For the past 19 years, the Corps has been undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout the navigation system in an effort to extend their useful life. This work is critical to ensuring navigation reliability and safety. Furthermore, I represent a rural district where agriculture plays an important role in the economy and the life of many of its citizens. Updating this vital water transportation system by modernizing these aging locks will mean greater export opportunities for our farmers, and will create and sustain jobs throughout rural america which has been hit hard by the sluggish economy. Finally, the ecological health of the Mississippi River and its economic importance to the many people that make their living or seek their recreation is based on a healthy river system. Scientists studying the river agree that without significant efforts to restore habitat, this vital national resource will continue to decline. A strong and consistent Federal role for ecosystem restoration is necessary for the entire basin, both because of the large acreage of Federal lands, including the upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (the longest river refuge in the continental U.S.), as well as its major importance as a continental and international flyway for migratory birds, and as a habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered species. We must ensure Federal resources are balanced between lock construction and ecosystem needs. That is why I offered an amendment to this bill that seeks to do two things: First, it adds a new provision requiring the secretary to make an annual report to congress specifically on whether the lock and dam construction and ecosystem restoration projects are being carried out at comparable rates. In addition, the amendment makes it clear that congress intends to share the authority with the secretary in determining if the projects are moving forward at a comparable rate and adjust the annual funding accordingly. Mississippi lock and dam modernization and ecosystem restoration are an expensive provision of this bill and the American taxpayer deserves to know it is being done right. Mr. Chairman, the Mississippi River is one of America's national treasures. People come from all over the U.S., and all over the world come to its banks to see the natural splendor captured so well by authors like Mark Twain. As founder and co-chair of the upper Mississippi River Congressional task force, I have long sought to preserve the river's health and historical multiple uses, including as a natural waterway and a home to wildlife, for the benefit of future generations of Americans. While this is not a perfect bill, if implemented appropriately, I believe it will benefit both rural economies and the wildlife that depend on a healthy Mississippi River.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation. I think it is a very positive step forward and a very balanced approach. The amendment I am offering is a friendly amendment. It is not an amendment that is calling for a retraction or cutback of any programs. It is not an amendment asking for more money or less money for any project. It is not an amendment that changes the definition of anything in the bill. It is an amendment that appreciates the approach in regards to the management of the Upper Mississippi River basin, especially under title VIII. Title VIII contains two major features: One, as the previous amendment spoke to, is the modernization of the lock and dam system for a certain number of locks in the middle part of the Mississippi and along the Illinois River. But the other component of all that, that really has not received that much attention, is the ecosystem restoration plan that was also a part of the navigation study and one that has been put forward with us today. In the underlying bill, I think the authors of the legislation, those in support of it, understand the use of the Mississippi River. Yes, there is commercial navigation on it, and there will be tomorrow. It is an important feature of economic development and for our regional economy in the Midwest area. But it is also a river that is used for recreational purposes and tourism purposes. And what is being proposed in the ecosystem restoration portion of the bill is one of the most major investments in the ecosystem of the Mississippi River Basin. And the language actually asks for a comparable rate of progress being made in both the modernization of the lock and dam system along with the investment in the ecosystem restoration, an adaptive management approach that the Corps of Engineers along with other outside experts have recommended in regards to the management of the river system. My amendment does two very simple things. One is, the Secretary of Army, under the current bill, is required every 4 years to submit a report to Congress showing the progress being made in both the ecosystem restoration and lock and dam modernization. My amendment asks for an annual report by the Secretary to do that so that the taxpayers can determine whether or not the investment is being well spent, so we can determine here in Congress whether the comparable rate of progress is being met, and so that there is that continuing underlying justification that the authors of the previous amendment were alluding to previously. But my amendment also just clarifies that Congress also has a role in regards to making sure that we do have a comparable rate of progress being made in both the ecosystem portion of the underlying bill and the lock and dam modernization. Those who grew up on the Mississippi, as I did, and I would probably call myself a river rat, having grown up in western Wisconsin and spent my youth on the river and now enjoy it immensely with my own family and two little boys, understand the importance of maintaining the balance of this vitally important national treasure that we have called the Mississippi River Basin. That area has been the key to the fertile lands that we now call the bread basket of America. It is now a multi- billion dollar industry, the agricultural production that occurs in the upper Midwest. But it is also a multi-billion dollar industry in regards to the recreational and tourism use of the upper Mississippi area. In fact, the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge, the largest refuge in the Nation, has more visitors to it than Yellowstone National Park every year. This river basin is the primary drinking source of over 33 million Americans. It is North America's largest migratory route. Forty percent of water foul species, and any person who loves to duck hunt, as I do, will tell Members how vitally important that Mississippi River corridor is to the duck populations in the North American continent. And it is a tremendous economic value to our regional economies, not just the commercial navigation that is vital but also the recreational and the tourism value that it brings to the region. So all we are asking in this amendment is having an annual report by the Secretary of the Army so we can track the progress being made on both fronts and also this clarification that Congress is going to play a role in making sure that we do maintain balance in regards to lock and dam modernization but also the important investment that has to go into ecosystem restoration. Both components are expensive, and that is why we need to come back, I think, on a much more frequent basis to review the progress that is being made and be able to justify this to the American taxpayer. My friend from Arizona is exactly right. We are running budget deficits. These are expensive projects. We should be held accountable. And I think having an annual report to do that is a step forward in that direction. I just want to conclude by commending and thanking the work that the committee has done in putting together, I think, a very fair and balanced bill; the work that the staff has put in to try to reach consensus. Obviously, it is not without controversy. The NAFF study is something that has been around for over 10 years. It has cost us close to $100 million to conclude before the Corps of Engineers submitted their final report to Congress for our consideration. And my guess is, we are probably going to have to continue working on lock and modernization and the ecosystem portion of the river in years to come. But I think it is an important first step. I think my amendment does add some value to the underlying bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to say goodbye to our former Governor and former Senator, Gaylord Nelson, who passed away at the age of 89 last week. Wisconsin will miss the man from Clear Lake, who embodied the best of our great State and its proud, progressive tradition, as well as the best our country can offer. Throughout his many years of public service, Senator Nelson worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of Wisconsin, this country, and the environment. He was one of the first to recognize that economic development and the protection of our natural resources are not mutually exclusive. He was also keenly aware that public opinion was far ahead of public policy in this area and that policymakers needed to catch up to where the American people were. Most importantly, he recognized the value in doing a better job of protecting the land, the water, the air we breath, and the environment of which we are mere stewards for our children and grandchildren. In addition, Senator Nelson rightly believed that we have an obligation to work together, all of us as citizens of this planet, to better preserve and protect our natural resources so that we leave the world for our children better off than we found it. It was his vision that led to the creation of Earth Day in 1970 and a new compact between government and its citizens to enhance the protection and quality of our precious natural resources. Earth Day was then followed by the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and then the passage of the Clean Air and the Clean Water acts. Thirty-five years later we have taken great strides to improve the environmental stewardship across the entire globe. Earth Day today is celebrated annually by hundreds of millions of people in more than 180 countries. How many other individuals can claim they created a global movement of such magnitude? Senator Nelson was also someone who recognized that even with all of the progress we had made, our work is far from finished. Until recently, he remained active in the environmental field and provided guidance to others, including myself, on some of the unfinished work still left to do. There is no other individual that has had a greater impact on shaping the respect and appreciation we have for our environment today. His contributions are invaluable. We owe him a debt of gratitude that we can repay by continuing his work. Senator, Governor, Father of Earth Day, a veteran of World War II, friend, these are among the many ways Gaylord Nelson will be remembered. He leaves behind a legacy and a lesson that one person with a vision of change and a mountain of determination can have a profound effect on the direction of our country and of the world. Our thoughts and prayers are with Carrie Lee and the entire Nelson family. I will never forget during our first campaign, when my wife, Tawni, and I were with Senator Nelson and Carrie Lee up in Clear Lake, Wisconsin. They wowed us with their elegance, their grace, their dignity, and they became our role models of what public service should be all about. Services this week will be held in Madison and in Clear Lake, Wisconsin. We loved him. We will miss him. And we all can honor him by continuing his unfinished work. May the Good Lord bless and keep the great American patriot Gaylord Nelson.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the first day of sale ceremony for the 2005-2006 duck stamp. It is a great honor to be present today at the first day of sale ceremony. As you may know, Kerissa Nelson, a fellow Wisconsinite, is the artist behind this new stamp, and I would like to take a moment to commend Kerissa on her magnificent work. With the encouragement of her art teacher, Kerissa undertook the great challenge of competing in this years duck stamp contest, and it is clear that her months of hard work paid off. Kerissa, the stamp is beautiful. However, it is not just the beauty of the stamp that strikes me, but also the message that it conveys. Growing up in Wisconsin, I have a deep-seated love for the outdoors and enjoy hunting and fishing with my two little boys, whose company in the duck blind is the ultimate experience for me. I not only hope to pass on the traditions on hunting to them, but I also hope to pass on the importance of preserving the outdoors and our nation's wildlife. I am aware that Kerissa is also an avid lover of the outdoors, shooting trap on a weekly league and hunting with her dad, and I commend Kerissa on her ability to convey both the love of hunting and the importance of conservation in the stamp she has designed. Since the federal duck stamp's inception in 1934, these works of art have raised nearly $700 million to help acquire more than 5.2 million acres of wetlands. Nearly 98 cents out of every duck stamp dollar goes directly for land acquisition on national wildlife refuges--benefiting hundreds of refuges found in every state. This stamp is more than art work; it is a guarantee that our nation's wildlife population will not be threatened by human interference. Again, thank you, Kerissa, for your great contribution to this cause. Thank you also to everyone who is helping to celebrate Kerissa's achievement and the first day of sale for the new duck stamp.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. And let me just conclude, that based on assurances that we received from the appropriate people on the Committee on Ways and Means, the chair, the subcommittee chairwoman, and also the fact that we still have time in which to cut this rule off before it is fully implemented, it is my intent today to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and hope that we can get this resolved without further legislative action being taken.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.