Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It is a prohibited use of funds amendment to prevent a new rule from being implemented by CMS that would adversely affect and penalize hospitals that have critical access designation throughout the country, of which there is approximately 1,119 serving predominantly rural communities throughout our Nation. What the new rule that is moving forward would do is, in essence, to strip these hospitals from critical access designation, along with the funding that follows, if they decide to modernize and relocate their facilities further than 250 yards away from their present location. Obviously many of us in the Rural Health Coalition in this Congress feel is a very restrictive rule, a draconian attempt to try to accomplish something that is laudable, trying to keep these facilities servicing these high-need areas and the people that they are currently servicing, but a 250-yard rule seems overly restrictive to accomplish that purpose. This would affect the modernization of new facilities that may occur across the street or down the road or a few blocks away or perhaps in a different location in the community in which they are servicing or perhaps even affecting a hospital that was recently impacted by the earthquakes in California and are now forced to have to locate in a different place because of the damage that has been done. There is another rule that is moving forward by CMS that makes a lot more sense. It would require that if a critical access hospital does move, that they still have to serve at least 75 percent of the current population, the patients and staff that they are already serving. That makes more sense. So we are hoping today to be able to raise attention to this very important issue. We still have a little bit of time to work this out with CMS. I have recently had conversations with the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairwoman of the subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means who are interested in working with many of us to try to resolve this issue with CMS. Based on their assurances in those conversations, we feel very confident that we should be able to work this out with CMS so that we do not go forward on this very restrictive and narrow rule. I do want to thank, however, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and also the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for their assistance with this amendment and helping to elevate the education in this House in regards to what is taking place. Hopefully through the conference process, hopefully through the cooperation we expect to receive through CMS, further legislation on this matter will not be necessary. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes on each side.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of the gentleman's time be reserved.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman is aware, earlier this year we did have a bipartisan letter of support from over 50 of our colleagues requesting a $20 million appropriation for NYSP. 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 the funding is found on the Senate side that the House could be supportive, that the chairman could be supportive of the funding level coming out of the Senate in conference.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. I rise today with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for the purpose of engaging the chairman in this colloquy about the National Youth Sports Program. Mr. Chairman, this year due to funding constraints, the National Youth Sports Program was not funded in this appropriation bill. The National Youth Sports Program is an educational partnership that has worked successfully for 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. This proven program also reaches beyond academics and sports to provide opportunities for learning about good nutrition, developing leadership skills, and developing good character. Currently, the program serves about 76,000 kids at 201 colleges and universities across the country. Participants benefit from close contact with caring adults and learn about discipline and self-esteem that organized sports provide. In addition, NYSP gives many participants the first opportunity to experience a college or university campus from the inside. In my home State of Wisconsin, close to 1,600 young people participate in this program.

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

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a historic building in my home district in Wisconsin. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Pierce County Courthouse has served as a grand symbol of law and order to the people of western Wisconsin since 1905. I am pleased to honor the 100th anniversary of this unique building. As early French pioneers made their way westward, they met the pristine beauty and abundant natural resources of the Mississippi River and its surrounding lands. Where the Mississippi meets the St. Croix River, they also encountered one of the most dense concentrations of native American villages in the upper Mississippi River Valley. It was here where many decided to settle, including those who began the first permanent settlement of Pierce County at Prescott in 1827. By 1853, the population had grown and pierce became its own county, separating from St. Croix County. Prescott served as the first county seat, but in 1861 the people of the county voted to change the seat to Ellsworth. A brick courthouse then was constructed on the site of the current building. The present courthouse was erected in 1905 in Ellsworth, and its evolution mirrors that of the city and of the county as a whole. The first courthouse in Ellsworth was made of logs. The next was a wooden frame building. Finally, in 1869, the brick courthouse was constructed, which included a jail. By the turn of the century, however, even this building was deemed inappropriate to the image and need of the growing county, and the current courthouse was erected as a true testament of the supremacy of law and a match to the beauty of the surrounding area. Designed out of the neoclassical and Beaux arts architectural traditions, it is constructed from several types of native stone and accentuated by Tennessee marble. Inside, vaulted ceilings depict the beauty of western Wisconsin, rising to a baroque dome covering the five-story hexagonal rotunda. Mr. Speaker, this building truly brings well-deserved pride to the people of Pierce County. On March 3, 1982, the Pierce County Courthouse was recognized by the National Register of Historic Places, honoring the courthouse as a historic place with great importance to the Pierce County community and the State of Wisconsin, as well as notable architectural significance. The residents of Pierce County also demonstrated their own appreciation for this unique courthouse when they chose to repair the beautiful building rather than allow the decapitation of its dome, a fate that often befalls historic buildings. A centennial celebration will be held at the courthouse on June 26, 2005. I commend the people and the local public officials of Pierce County for having the vision to erect such a monument to justice, law, and beauty, and the foresight to maintain this local treasure. This building truly has been a source of pride to Pierce County for 100 years, and it will continue to do so for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to honor this milestone before you today.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this serious debate over the First Amendment and our Nation's flag, two of the most sacred institutions to this country. America is somewhat unique in its devotion to the Nation's flag. Perhaps because we come from so many different backgrounds, cultural traditions, and ethnicities, we see the flag as a source of national unity. Like the majority of Americans, I have the utmost respect and reverence for our flag. For all of us, this reverence begins early on, when as school children we are taught the Pledge of Allegiance and recite it each day with our classmates. Or it begins when we attend a Memorial Day Parade with our parents and look in awe at the veterans, young and old, who still carry the flag with such pride. Seeing the flag treated with this reverence is a powerful lesson for our young people and makes them incredibly proud to be Americans. The times I have been most proud of my country have been during my two trips to Iraq. Seeing our young men and women in uniform carrying out their mission under dangerous and difficult conditions is an inspiring thing. Seeing their devotion to our flag and all that it represents makes me so grateful to have grown up in this country and to have some small part in helping our troops. I was struck, during my visits to the country, with how dedicated our servicemen and women are to helping everyday Iraqis. Our men and women in uniform appreciate the freedoms afforded to them, and are eager to see Iraqi citizens enjoy these same freedoms. Mr. Speaker, I believe one of our greatest freedoms is freedom of speech. Our forefathers, in their wisdom, made this the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. After fighting a war against Great Britain for their freedom, they made sure that future Americans would have the right to free speech and free expression. In deference to our forefathers and out of respect for the brave patriots today who are serving overseas, I cannot in good conscience support this amendment. Burning or desecrating the American flag is an abhorrent action for which I have nothing but contempt. Much as I hate the act, it is not right to deny an American the freedom to express himself in this shameful way. I would like to close by quoting a man who knows much of patriotism and freedom. Former soldier and Secretary of State Colin Powell, when asked for his views on this issue, said, ``The First Amendment exists to ensure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. This flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. And just to be clear once again during this debate, this bill limits the use of only those embryos that will be discarded or destroyed from in vitro fertilization clinics with the consent of the donors. I rise in support of this legislation not because it promises cures for diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's, but because it gives us yet another opportunity to discover cures for these ailments. Adult stem cell research, yes, let us do it. Cord blood research, absolutely. But let us also allow the Federal Government to get more involved in embryonic stem cell research. The University of Wisconsin has been at the forefront of this research; yet our researchers are being held back because of current Federal policy. We are already falling behind the rest of the world in this research in light of South Korea's recent announcement last week. But it is precisely because the other countries are moving forward that makes our involvement all the more necessary. I believe that we as the leader of the Free World must provide important leadership on the ethical parameters, the ethical constraints that this research requires. Support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill would expand the current Federal policy on embryonic stem cell research by allowing federally funded research on stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001, while implementing strong ethical guidelines to ensure Federal oversight of the research. Most of the scientific community believes that for the full potential of embryonic stem cell research to be reached, the number of cell lines readily available to scientists must increase. Just last month, a number of NIH directors testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee that the current policy is restrictive and hinders scientific progress. We are already at risk of losing our scientific and technological edge because of increasing competition around the world. Other countries--such as China, India, and the United Kingdom--are forging ahead with embryonic stem cell research because of less restrictive policies. India, for example, has an extensive stem cell regulatory system, yet allows the derivation of new stem cells from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. Our restrictive policy not only puts us at risk of losing our scientific edge, we are also at risk of losing some of the best American scientists to other countries where policies are less restrictive. Important advances in the science of embryonic stem cell research have been made since the August 2001 policy was set. Earlier this year, researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison figured out how to grow human embryonic stem cells without using mouse feeder cells. This is exciting news since mouse feeder cells are thought to be a source of contamination if the cells are ever to be used therapeutically in humans. From its earliest days, stem cell research has been important to the people of Wisconsin. In fact, Dr. James Thomson, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin, was the first to isolate and culture embryonic stem cells. In 2003, this esteemed researcher received the Frank Annunzio award, given to recognize the innovative research of American scientists who devote their careers to improving the lives of people through their work in science. Wisconsin has been at the forefront of embryonic stem cell research from the beginning. This legislation is essential to make sure the important work of our scientists is not unnecessarily sidetracked by politics. But this legislation is not only important because of the potential for advances in science and technology. More important is the fact that embryonic stem cell research could lead to new treatments and cures for the many Americans afflicted with life-threatening and debilitating diseases. Scientists believe these cells could be used to treat many diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. However, the promise of this research may not be reached if the Federal policy is not expanded. Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly clear that the American public supports expanding the Federal stem cell policy. Just yesterday, results from a survey of Wisconsin voters were released showing overwhelming support for embryonic stem cell research. Nearly two- thirds of those polled support expanding Federal policies to support more research--regardless of party affiliation. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation that will allow science to move forward unimpeded, has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine, and can offer hope to the millions of Americans suffering from debilitating diseases.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I commend him and the chairman of the subcommittee for producing a very good appropriation bill. I echo the sentiments that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just gave on the floor and appreciate the hard work that has gone into it. I think the rule, however, could have been a little stronger if the Schwartz amendment would have been made in order so we could have had further discussion about the need for increased investment in alternative and renewable energy technologies. I do not think that the energy bill that is working its way through Congress goes far enough, and this was another appropriation measure that could have been a vehicle for that increased investment. I do appreciate the work that is being done on the Yucca Mountain funding, however. We have two nuclear facilities that are storing a lot of nuclear waste in the upper Mississippi River region right now. Many of us feel it makes sense to have a single, isolated nuclear waste repository in this country, and the studies that have gone into Yucca Mountain and the funding that this committee is providing, it seems to me to be a reasonable and practical approach dealing with the nuclear waste issue. I especially want to commend the committee for the full support they have given to a very important program for the upper Mississippi River basin, the Environmental Management Program. This was a program that was created in the mid-1980s to strike balance on the multiple uses of the Mississippi region in the upper States. It is a multiple-use resource. It is incredibly valuable economically, quality of life, recreation and tourism. We have commercial navigation that uses the upper Mississippi along with the important recreation and tourism aspect, and the Environmental Management Program really has a twofold mission. One is habitat restoration for the upper Mississippi basin and the other is long term resource monitoring, to monitor the effects that sediment and nutrients are having in the basin. One of the first things I did as a new Member of Congress was help form a bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus so we could work together from both the North and the South in order to draw attention to the resources that are needed along the Mississippi River. We have made substantial progress, and I commend the committee's recognition that full funding of the EMP is appropriate at $33 million. This is a program that has received wide bipartisan support, multi- state support. The five upper States of the Mississippi River basin have been fully supportive of this program, as have the Governors and the respective legislatures, and I commend the administration who has consistently submitted their budget requests calling for full funding of the Environmental Management Program. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would commend to my colleagues and include for the Record an article that just appeared in the Washington Post Sunday edition under the Travel section called ``Lolling on the River.'' It describes the quality of life and unique beauty that the upper Mississippi River basin has for all of us in that region. In it the author of the article, Bill O'Brian writes: ``The Mississippi, the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote, `It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable.' The river of LaSalle, Marquette and Joliet, of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen Ambrose who not long ago wrote, `The river is in my blood. Wherever, whenever, it is a source of delight. More, it is the river that draws us together as a Nation.' '' EMP is a small part of the importance of this great natural resource which is of vital importance to our Nation. I commend the subcommittee and work they have done in recognizing by fully funding EMP the importance of this vital natural resource. [From the Washington Post, May 22, 2005] Lolling on the River: Following the Upper Mississippi by Land (By Bill O'Brian) If you think the prairie of Wisconsin and Minnesota is nothing but nondescript flatlands and farms, Buena Vista Park in Alma, Wis., is the place for you. Specifically, the bluff in the park more than 500 feet above the Mississippi River, which forms the border of the two states. From that bluff on a clear day, you can see one of the most awe-inspiring panoramas in all of North America. I've been to the Grand Canyon. To Yellowstone. To Jackson Hole. To Lake Louise. To Niagara Falls. To the Oregon, Maine, Carolina and California coasts. To the interior of Alaska. To the top of numerous skyscrapers. The vista from the bluff in Alma on a clear day can compete with any of those places. From that precipice, you can see for miles into the Minnesota countryside below. You can gaze upon the lush greenery of the Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest and the dark, rich soil of the northern portion of what schoolbooks call the breadbasket of America. As the Mississippi zigzags through that bottomland, you can see that the waterway is as unruly as it is majestic, as undisciplined as it is immense. It is clear that, left to its own devices, the river would follow no laws other than those of physics, which state that water flows from higher elevation to lower via the path of least resistance. From that bluff in Alma, you can immediately understand what Wisconsin outdoors journalist Mel Ellis meant half a century ago when he wrote, ``If you haven't fished Ol' Man Mississipp, forget about any preconceived notions you may have as far as rivers are concerned. Because Ol' Man River isn't a river at all. In fact, he's a hundred rivers and a thousand lakes and more sloughs than you could explore in a lifetime.'' Northeasterners by birth and temperament, my wife, Sue, and I knew almost nothing firsthand about life along the upper Mississippi. The Mississippi--the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote, ``It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable,'' The river of La Salle, Marquette and Joliet. Of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen Ambrose, who not long ago wrote, ``The river is in my blood. Wherever, whenever, it is a source of delight. More, it is the river that draws us together as a nation.'' So, from the point just outside East Dubuque, Ill., where the Illinois-Wisconsin border meets the Mississippi about 175 miles west of Chicago, Sue and I had set out northward on the Great River Road to see what--and whom--we might find. The river road is a federally designated scenic byway that stretches from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. We covered a minuscule portion of it, a couple of hundred miles mostly in southwestern Wisconsin, primarily along State Route 35. We had no itinerary per se. We pulled off the road when the spirit, or hunger or curiosity, moved us. It was a drive- by--a lazy, three-day upper Mississippi River drive-by. On the first day, at a boat landing near the town of Cassville, Wis., we stopped to chat with Dwayne Durant, a fortysomething Iowan. Dressed in camouflage hunting gear, he was standing on the riverbank in the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge with his dog, Sidney. Durant had the satisfied countenance of a man who'd just bagged his limit for the day. He welcomed us to the river, patiently explained the intricacies and the appeal of duck hunting, proudly showed us his fresh kill (two wood ducks, two teal ducks and two mallards), then humbly thanked us for visiting his corner of the world. The next morning, at Withey's Bar in Lynxville, Wis. (pop. 176), we introduced ourselves to a soft-spoken gentleman in a flannel shirt sitting on a stool at the end of the bar. Les Neefe told us that he was born 77 years ago in a Wisconsin cheese factory (``not in a hospital, not in the hallway of the cheese factory, in the cheese factory . . . in a room above the boiler''). Over coffee, Neefe rhapsodized about the pleasures of living in a houseboat docked on the Mississippi six months a year, and he made two recommendations. First, he suggested that, to get a real taste of Wisconsin, we should go to the cheese shop up the road in Ferryville and buy some ``sharp cheddar, old sharp cheddar.'' Then, to get a real taste of river life, we should stop by P&M Concessions next to Blackhawk Park in De Soto. We did both. The cheese, a nine-year cheddar, was rich, creamy and sharper than sharp. Along with apples and crackers, a block of the cheddar made a memorable watchin'- the-river-flow picnic lunch. Outside the P&M Concessions stand was a sign that read, ``Welcome to the River--Sit Long, Talk Much, Fish A Lot.'' Behind the counter was 34-year-old Amy Kroning, whose father is the proprietor of the bait/tackle/refreshment/boat rental shop. ``I can't think of anywhere I'd rather be than right here,'' said Kroning, a mother of five who was born and raised in De Soto. ``If I get more than an hour from the river, I get depressed. Really. I'm not kidding. We go to a Cubs game once a year [in Chicago], and I'm a nervous wreck the whole time.'' So, what is the allure of the Mississippi? ``It has a calming affect. It's relaxing,'' Verdetta Tusa said later that day as we stood watching for more than an hour while an enormous tow barge squeezed, wheezed and creaked its way through the lock at the town of Genoa, Wis. ``It's the history, too,'' said the 56-year-old lifelong Minnesotan. ``They've been doing it this way, basically, from the beginning.'' The lock at Genoa is one of 29 on the upper Mississippi. Watching tow barges come out of the sharp curves of the river and negotiate the locks with pinpoint precision is a pastime unto itself. Typically 15 barges are connected together in front of one pilot boat. They transport grain, steel, road salt, fertilizer, coal, petroleum products and other nonperishable goods up and down the Mississippi most of the year. It takes a barge about 10 days to get from Minneapolis to St. Louis, but one 15-unit tow can carry as much grain as 225 rail cars or 870 semi-trucks at a fraction of the cost. As a barge passes through a lock, you can get close enough to chat with the stevedores on board. One deckhand told us that sometimes he stays out on the river for 60 to 80 days at a time. And that he'd rather toil on the upper Mississippi than on the lower, especially in the dead of summer, because down near New Orleans and Memphis, ``it's too hot, and the skeeters are bigger than I am.'' An hour north of Genoa on State Route 35, not far past La Crosse, Wis., we came to Perrot State Park, a verdant 1,400- acre refuge. There, an information marker on a small bluff overlooking braided channels of the river reminded us just how remarkable the Mississippi is. It's 2,350 miles long; it's home to 100 species of fish (most notably walleye, sturgeon and catfish in these parts); it drains all or part of 31 states and two Canadian provinces. ``From Red Wing down to Iowa is the most beautiful part of the river, with all the bluffs and trees. It's almost a fantasyland,'' said Bob Schleicher. ``It's a place of mystery. It's got so much folklore. Some of it's true; some of it's not.'' We met Schleicher, a 65-year-old retired car salesman, at the municipal marina in Red Wing, Minn., the final town on our river drive, directly across the bridge from Hager City, Wis. Captain Bob, as he likes to call himself, told us that he has navigated the Mississippi from St. Paul, Minn., to its mouth in Louisiana. He explained that part of the appeal is that ``you can be whoever you want to be on the river.'' He told tales of river-running bootleggers, past and present. He explained how the upper Mississippi differs from the lower-- it is less crowded; it has more islands, beaches and marinas; its currents are less dangerous; its water is less sandy. But, he said with a smile, river people have a ``mutual bond, whether you're a Confederate or a Yankee.'' Schleicher talked for a while about the river's importance to birds. Forty percent of all North American waterfowl and 326 bird species--including hawks, eagles, falcons, herons and swans--use the river as a flyway, according to the Audubon Society. We had seen a handful of bald eagles soaring over or perched along the river, and Schleicher beamed as he spoke of the resurgence of that ornithological American icon on the bluffs near Red Wing. Then he suggested that, after spending a couple days driving along the river, Sue and I might want to spend some time on the river. For $10 apiece, he offered to take us on a leisurely two-hour cruise in his old military flatboat- turned-riverboat. Once we cleared the dock, Schleicher allowed each of us in the small group on board to take a turn piloting the boat for a few minutes. As I stood at the helm, guiding the boat around the river's trademark sweeping bends, minding the red and green buoys that mark the shipping channel, passing huge tow barges, I suddenly understood what Schleicher meant when he said you can be who you want to be on the river. At that moment, as we glided past the tree-lined banks, pushed along by the gentle current, the serenity was overwhelming. And the history palpable. At that moment, I was every riverman who's ever skippered a slow boat on Ol' Man Mississipp.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1760, to designate the post office located at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, as the ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building.'' ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette was one of our great American leaders. He spearheaded political reform in both Wisconsin and the Nation, laying the framework for the progressive movement. As governor of Wisconsin, he gained the respect of local farmers, small business owners, and intellectuals with his pledge to break the power of the private monopoly system over the economic life of the American people. La Follette consistently championed the rights of women, minorities, the working class, and the poor. He called for reform of a tax system that disproportionately burdened middle and lower income Americans, and he campaigned for agricultural reform to relieve the distress of farmers. La Follette's progressive party also called for government control of railroads, the outlawing of child labor, the right of workers to organize unions, and increased protection of civil liberties. ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette was a man fierce in his convictions and steeped in the ideals of Lincoln and Jefferson. In 1957, the Senate voted him one of the five most outstanding Senators of all time. Mr. Speaker, I fully support H.R. 1760 to rename a post office in Madison, Wisconsin in honor of this extraordinary American, Robert La Follette.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments, but just to correct the historical record, you may recall in the 1960s, President Johnson did decide to pay for the war. There were some tax increases in order to support the ongoing military operation. It can be done. It should be done in this instance as well. We have been there for a couple years now. We are going to be there in future years. We need to start paying for this.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the supplemental. I do believe that we need to provide our troops with the tools and the resources that they need to do their job safely and effectively. I have had an opportunity on two separate occasions now, Mr. Speaker, to travel to Iraq to visit our troops in the field, and nothing has made me feel prouder to be an American than seeing our troops in action. They are well trained. They are well motivated. They are the best that we have to offer. I know we all hope and pray for the safety of their mission and their safe return home to be reunited with their families. I also want to commend the troops and the families of the 1158 Transportation Unit and the 128 Infantry Guard Unit in western Wisconsin that are currently serving in the Iraq theater right now. But I do have some concerns in regard to the supplemental. I do believe that we owe a higher responsibility to our troops and their families and our taxpayers by supporting more oversight and accountability in this bill, such as the creation of a Truman Commission that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) has been advocating for some time. We need more accountability on how the money is being used or misused in Iraq right now. We need to fix that. I also have a concern that we are not paying for anything. It is awfully easy to come to the House floor and puff ourselves up and claim that we are supportive of the troops, we are doing all of these nice things for them and the families when we do not have the responsibility to pay for it. $82 billion today, well over $300 billion and counting, all deficit financing and we are mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future. This is exactly why the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and I offered an amendment to strip funding for the creation of an embassy in Iraq, not because we do not agree that one is necessary, but because we wanted to make the point that that is not an emergency item. None of this is unexpected emergency circumstances, and, therefore, we need to start budgeting and practice fiscal responsibility again. Miraculously, the embassy is back in this bill, another $600 million, none of it paid for. Finally, I am concerned that there is no objective criteria to measure progress in Iraq. During the Second World War, you could pretty much put pins on maps and see the progress of the front lines. You could do that in Korea. In Vietnam, we had body counts that did not work very well, nor was it an appropriate measure to use. Today we have no objective criteria for us to understand whether we are succeeding and making progress there. I think that's one of the reasons why public support is dropping. I think we need to get some type of criteria for ourselves, for the troops, for their families and for the American people.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I too want to commend everyone on the committee and the staff in regards to the bipartisan process of bringing the vocational education bill to the floor for reauthorization. I think it is pretty self- evident that those of us who do have career and tech colleges in our district understand the true value that they bring in preparing the workforce for the future, and the incredible involvement that they have in our community, the leadership that they provide, the economic development and spin-off opportunities that arise from them. Just one example: we had before the Committee on Education and the Workforce a little bit earlier this year President Bill Ihlenfeldt, who is president of the Chippewa Valley Tech College in my congressional district in western Wisconsin. They have just launched and broken ground on a new nanotechnology center that they are moving forward on, clearly trying to advance the skills of our workers in the region on what could be the next ``new'' thing in regards to economic opportunities, job creation, cutting-edge science and engineering, and technological discoveries in this new nanotechnology center. Every bill, as the chairman of the committee expressed, may not be a perfect bill; but this one is good. It could be better. This amendment makes it a little bit better, and I commend my colleague and friend from Delaware for offering the amendment to clarify the language that at least for the next fiscal year we will be looking at level funding for the Tech-Prep program. During markup of the legislation in committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I offered an amendment that would have restored and kept in tact the separate identity as well as the separate funding stream for the Tech-Prep program. We were not doing this just willy-nilly in support of the status quo, but we were doing it in response to those who have worked with the Tech-Prep program, the feedback that we were getting from outside organizations, and the leadership of the tech education system in the country, about the importance of maintaining Tech-Prep as a separate, distinct identity with a separate funding stream, which the Senate bill recognizes and is moving forward on. They fear, as I do and others who supported the amendment in committee, that by removing it as a separate entity, by merging it into the general grant program, we are going to lose focus, lose attention, lose incentives for these programs to continue to function in the highly successful manner in which they have. I think, hopefully, we will have a chance to come back and address that issue in conference once the Senate completes their work. But I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I would encourage them to support the underlying bill. I think it is an important investment in regards to maintaining our ability to be creative and innovative as a society. Right now, we are just leaving too many students behind. There was a recent report submitted to Congress that showed that because of tuition increases and fees, with the cutbacks in financial aid programs at the Federal and State level, with the eroding value of the Pell grant, that 48 percent of low-income students are not going on to postsecondary education opportunities, whether it is a career or technical college, whether it is a 4-year college or university. In short, we are leaving too many students behind at the exact time when we cannot afford to leave anyone behind. Just a few weeks ago, under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon), some of us on the Education Committee had a chance to do an education tour of China. China is getting it. China is trying to propel themselves into the modern economy of the 21st century. This whole globalization that is going on and the trade debates that we have is not so much a race to the bottom with weak labor and environmental standards as it is a race to the top. And China is a country, having just come from there, that is not content at just being good at copying what we make and mass producing it. They want to be good at the cutting-edge research of technology and science and medicine, and they are making major investments in their education infrastructure today that we have never seen before. They are graduating eight times the number of engineers that we are in our own country. Unless we are willing to accept a fate which may lead us to a less competitive position with countries like China and India that are making this conversion in regards to their education system, we need to recognize the value of a vocational and technical education system, the reauthorization of this bill, the higher education bill, which we will hopefully have an opportunity to bring up later in the year; and offer a new New Deal for the American people, for the workers and the students and our children by holding out hope and a promise that they will be able to develop the skills and the qualities that they need to survive and to succeed in what is a very integrated, competitive playing field throughout the world today. This, I think, is an important and significant step to making that investment. Hopefully, through the work the Senate and the conference committee later this year will do, we will be able to improve some of the provisions in this bill to make it even better. But this amendment is worthy of support, the bill is worthy of bipartisan support, so that we can at least be moving in the right direction in regards to the global competition that we are all facing, but especially the students who are in the audience here today and the rest of our children, so that they know that they are going to have the ability to compete in a global marketplace. Again, I commend the leadership on the committee for the work done on this bill, and I encourage support of the amendment and the underlying legislation.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I commend her for her hard work in the reauthorization of this very important bill. Mr. Chairman, Wisconsin is very proud of the career and technical college system that we have back home. In fact, I have four of the technical schools in the Third Congressional District in western Wisconsin as well as many of their campus satellites. They have been vital components for economic growth and economic development in our region under the fine leadership of Karen Knox; Lee Rasch; Bill Ihlenfeldt, who actually testified before the Education Committee on this bill; as well as Tim Schreiner, David Hilderbrand, Dr. Mark Hurley. Even though the President did not support reauthorization of this legislation, we believe it is an important investment to make, Mr. Chairman. The single most important factor in determining America's success in the 21st century will be maintaining our ability to be an innovative and creative society. Over the last few years, the world has become a smaller and more integrated place with technology that is leveling the playing field like never before. Competition and collaboration exist now not just between countries and companies but also between individuals. Meeting this challenge requires a new set of big ideas. Instead of the administration being so eager to dismantle the New Deal, we should be working together to offer the American people a New New Deal. A New Deal that will enable our people to compete successfully in the 21st century economy with a renewed commitment to worker training programs; an education investment that emphasizes math, science and engineering; research funding in science and medicine; and a comprehensive broadband strategy so every American has access to high- speed Internet hookup. We believe that economics does not necessarily have to be a zero-sum game; it can be a win-win proposition for everyone involved so long as they have the tools in which to succeed. One of the unfortunate aspects of this reauthorization bill is the attempt to remove as a separate funded program the Technical Preparation program. I commend my friend from Delaware who is about to offer an amendment later today at least calling for level funding of the Tech-prep program for the next fiscal year. But once you eliminate the separate status of the Technical Preparation program, the fear is that we are going to lose focus and that the institutions will lose focus or, even worse, that the funding stream will become weakened in future years. I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment that the gentleman from Delaware will be offering to at least provide level funding of this important program. Technology is driving the innovation. Technology is driving the creativity. Technology and the use of that is going to determine our workers' ability to compete in the 21st century global marketplace. I would hope that the Senate version which keeps the Tech-prep program as a separate funded entity will remain; but at the very least let us support the Castle amendment when it comes up today.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to this martial law rule, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote against it because this budget resolution is a travesty; but what is even worse is the process in which this budget resolution is going to come before this body within the next day or so. This is a $2.6 trillion document. This is going to establish the priorities and the important investments that we need to make as a Nation for the next fiscal year, and yet it is being written by a handful of people, mainly in the Speaker's office, at 2, 3, 4 o'clock in the morning, drafted by a bunch of staff people, and not one of us in this body will have the chance to thoroughly review it before we are asked to cast a vote on it. And that is a joke. And what is even worse is that it basically adopts wholesale the budget parameters that the President had submitted earlier this year, which, by the way, was written by a bunch of unknown people in the President's Office of Management and Budget, which in essence now is drafting and writing these budget documents that the Congress is considering. And I would defy any Member of this body to stand here today and claim with a straight face that they think this House and this Congress is a co-equal branch of government today. We have ceded everything to the executive branch. Not only that, but just to a few enlightened individuals, it seems, to make these important decisions for the rest of the Nation. And we do not even have the common decency or courtesy to take the time to allow an important deliberative discussion about these priorities and allow a little bit more input from the various Members who want to be involved in this process for the sake of the people whom they are representing. The resolution itself, I feel, lacks the vision that we need to deal with the challenges facing our Nation. Instead of the majority party and the President being so eager to dismantle the New Deal, we should be talking about offering the American people a new New Deal to prepare them for the challenges of a global marketplace, because it is here now. And yet the effort that we are making in regards to support for education and job-training programs is a joke, and it is not going to get us there to maintain our technological and scientific edge in the world when it comes to the competition of the jobs that are coming up. This budget resolution that is coming before us allows the continuation of the exploding budget deficits. It automatically increases the debt ceiling for the fourth time in 4 years, and every Member should understand that, by voting for it, they are increasing the debt ceiling by another half a trillion dollars in this budget resolution. It fails to adopt budget disciplinary rules such as pay-as-you-go for both the spending and the revenue side, rules that worked effectively in the 1990s that led us on a glidepath to 4 years of budget surpluses. It continues the raid on the Social Security, Medicare trust funds, being used for other purposes, either tax cuts that are primarily benefiting the most wealthy in this country or other spending priorities at a time when they are claiming that Social Security is in dire financial crisis; and there is no effort to try to repay those trust fund moneys. I think we can offer the American people a more realistic vision of the challenges that I think we all appreciate on both sides of the aisle; and yet this budget that is going to be coming up before us, again mainly drafted in the dark wee hours of the early morning, lacks that vision. And it is not offering enough people in this country the hope or the optimism that we are going to be able to compete in the global marketplace in light of what other countries are doing. Let us start over. There is no need to rush to get this done within the next day or even the next week. I would rather do it the right way than the wrong way, and there are too many missed opportunities in this budget resolution that is going to be coming up to be able to support it. So, again, I oppose the process, the martial law rule that we are debating here this morning, and I oppose the substance of this budget resolution and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in rejection of this budget resolution because it continues to mortgage our children's future. A vote for this budget resolution tonight is a vote to continue the record budget deficits that we have seen over the last 4 years. A vote for this budget tonight is a vote that continuously raises the national debt automatically by a half a trillion dollars in this budget resolution for the fourth year in a row. A vote for this budget continues the raid on the Social Security trust funds. And a vote for this budget continues our reliance on Japan and China being the largest purchaser of our government deficits today. It also fails to invest in our students and our work force who need to compete in a 21st century global economy by cutting the education workforce by $12.7 billion. Mr. Speaker, I believe we can do better for our children, for our students, for the workers of this country. Reject this budget resolution.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Energy Policy Act. The bill before us today, full of the same objectionable policies, such as providing liability protections for MTBE makers and taxpayer- funded largesse for the big fossil fuels industries, reminds me of the proverb provided by Saint Bonaventure who said, ``the higher the monkey climbs, the more you see of it's behind.'' Mr. Speaker, this ugly bill has repeatedly scaled the tree and the view hasn't improved any. I believe the American people expect more from their elected representatives than to simply rehash an energy bill whose flaws have been exposed and it's economic and environmental price tags too high to pay. Yet, once again, the majority refused to work in a bipartisan fashion to craft a balanced and sensible energy bill that meets America's needs. Every day, millions of American families struggle to keep up with soaring energy costs. Motorists see soaring prices at the pump. Farmers working to provide a secure future for their children watch as their operating margins are squeezed even further. And all too many low- income and elderly Americans are being forced to decide between adequately heating and cooling their homes or purchasing the food and medicines they need. The American people understand that we face both a short and a long- term energy crisis and that we must develop a comprehensive and balanced plan for our Nation--a plan that finds 21st century solutions to deal with our 21st century energy needs. A bill that directs needed resources to renewable energy sources and efficiency programs. It is unfortunate that the best the majority believes we can do is pass a bill better suited to the start of the industrialization era. The bill, inexplicably, provides little to promote renewable energy sources or reduce energy use. Instead, it funnels ever more tax benefits to energy companies already making huge profits from high energy prices. In fact, an April 19, 2005 wall street journal article relates the news that Exxon Mobile recently reported a fourth-quarter profit that amounted to the fattest quarterly take for publicly traded U.S. company ever: $8.4 billion. Of the $8 billion in tax incentives, less than $500 million would go to promote renewable energy sources or foster efficiency and conservation programs. After sticking it to the consumers at the pump, do big oil companies like Exxon really need taxpayer-provided ``incentives''? President Bush doesn't think so. In a recent interview, President Bush said, ``I will tell you; with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies. There are plenty of incentives.'' I agree. The few bright-spots of the bill: like tripling the amount of gasoline sold that contains enthanol by 2012; promoting safe and clean nuclear energy; developing the liquified natural gas infrastructure needed in our country; ensuring electric reliability and easing transmission--all have been overshadowed by the bloated excess and taxpayer-funded subsidies for some of our nation's largest oil and gas companies. Mr. Chairman, there are unfortunately many more very bad provisions for American taxpayers in H.R. 6, and title 20 in particular--much of which is premised on a `drill at taxpayers' expense approach to the management of energy resources on public lands. Perhaps the best example is the issue of drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge. As my colleagues know, the arctic national wildlife refuge was set aside over 40 years ago by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower for the clear and express purpose of protecting its remarkable wilderness and wildlife values. I, like a majority of Americans, oppose developing one of our nation's last remaining pristine areas for a short term energy fix. And there are other provisions that, standing alone, make this a bad bill: such as the ``royalties in kind'' provision; granting broad authority to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior for permitting alternative energy-related uses on the Outer Continental Shelf; and reimbursing oil and gas companies for doing the environmental impact studies that are required under law. I know there are a number of my colleagues who are anxious to speak on some of these provisions, so I welcome their comments and lend my support to their wise concerns. One of the most egregious provisions of this bill is what is being called ``royalty relief'' for some of our Nation's largest oil companies. This provision waives federal royalty collections on huge amounts of publicly owned lands. Simply put, Title 20 will put billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the already deep pockets of big oil. The amendment offered by my friend from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, would strike section 2005 and restore the collection of royalty payments to the Treasury for offshore oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf--a measure I helped lead last year and one that I strongly urge my colleagues' support. And buried deep in this bill, under the title named ``miscellaneous'' there is another provision that could have major consequences for communities struggling to clean up their dirty air. This provision allows cities and towns whose air pollution comes from hundreds of miles away to delay meeting national air quality standards until their offending neighbors clean up their own air. In considering the most significant change in the Clean Air Act in 15 years, I must note the irony that we are just days away from celebrating the 35th anniversary of Earth Day. Earth Day, begun by Wisconsin's own Senator Gaylord Nelson, provided the impetus to President Nixon signing the Clean Air Act. In addition, the majority party has stuck in the bill a provision that would limit the ability of coastal states to challenge offshore oil and natural gas production. Apparently, the majority party in Congress no longer has much regard for the 10th amendment. So that is the back-side of our monkey. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this energy bill that does little to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels--or the fossil fuels' industry dependence on taxpayer dollars.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to make this junk food energy bill just a little bit healthier. Members, help me with this quote: ``I tell you, with $50 oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies. There are plenty of incentives.'' No, this was not some liberal, left-wing environmental activist. You are right, it was the President of the United States, who comes from the oil industry, that recognizes that the oil companies are awash with profits. During President Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign, he railed against the so-called royalty holiday saying that it was, and I quote, ``Giving major oil companies a huge tax break.'' Agree with the President of the United States, agree with us, accept this amendment. Section 2005 waives Federal royalty collections from offshore oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf. Added to the rest of Title 20, this will put $483 million of taxpayer money into the already deep pockets of big oil during a time in which they are reaping record profits. In fact, an April 8, 2005 Wall Street Journal article relates the news that Exxon Mobile recently reported a fourth-quarter profit that amounted to the fattest quarterly take for a publicly traded U.S. company ever: $8.4 billion. Do big oil companies like Exxon really need taxpayer-provided ``incentives'' to explore and drill? President Bush doesn't think so. In addition, the oil royalties the Federal Government does not collect from big oil will starve the Land and Water Conservation Fund of critical financial resources. The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides special protection for some of our most precious wildlands and has been a valuable tool for nearly 40 years. A portion of revenues from oil royalties is dedicated to this special fund for acquisition and conservation of natural places and habitat. Without these oil royalty revenues, State environmental protection efforts will suffer. In a time of serious budget deficits, immense war costs and a sluggish economy, we cannot afford to grant such outlandish subsidies to some of our Nation's largest corporations. I urge my colleagues support the Grijalva amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York for not only offering the amendment, but providing a very important point in this debate, and that is, unfortunately, the underlying bill is not going to work because it lacks one crucial element, and that is vision, the vision to see that we need to pivot off the status quo of the current energy policy and move to a new energy plan that makes sense for a new century. The fact of the matter is, and the dirty little secret in this place, those involved in energy policy have to admit it, is that no matter how many incentives we give to the oil companies, how many royalty relief provisions are loaded in this bill, even though the President who comes from the oil industry says that it is not necessary, given the high price of oil, is that we cannot produce our way out of the energy challenge that we are facing in this century. We are already in a race against China and India for the limited oil supplies that exist throughout the world. This amendment provides the vision for us to start pivoting off from our dependence on fossil fuels generally, but the importation of oil more specifically, by providing incentives for alternative and renewable energy sources, incentives for increased energy efficiency and conservation practices and, hopefully, the incentive to move to a new energy source for a new century, and that is fuel cell development. I would encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation because the current system needs reform to protect those people truly in need of debt relief, while holding accountable those who can repay their debt. Bankruptcy filings have risen steadily in recent years, an indication that our current system is an ineffective one that discourages consumers from saving and planning responsibly and ultimately isn't good for consumers, families, or a society that values individual responsibility. I believe bankruptcy should be a last resort--one that allows people who need protection to receive it and people who can repay all or some of their debts to do so. The system in place now gives incentives to people in trouble and encourages them to steamroll headfirst into Chapter 7 liquidation of all their debts, even when they could get back on their feet through a reasonable repayment plan or basic credit counseling. While S. 256 is not a perfect bill, I do believe it goes great lengths in addressing the growing problem of bankruptcy in this country. I believe there is great misunderstanding about what this bill does and who will be affected. Only those earning above the median income and who have the ability to pay will be required to pay back their debt. However, millionaires who use bankruptcy law as a method of financial planning will no longer be able to buy extravagantly and subsequently have all of their debt written off. It is also important to note that many families and small businesses will benefit because of changes to this law. Bankruptcy costs are passed on to other consumers, and the average family pays hundreds of dollars each year in higher prices. Additionally, small businesses that might otherwise not be paid for their goods or services will have a better chance of gaining compensation as a result of this bill. A very positive aspect of S. 256 is that it makes permanent Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code. I, along with other members of Congress, have been working for years to make permanent this much-needed source of relief for our family farmers. There have been accusations that this bill will be detrimental to the most needy; in fact, there are a great deal of safeguards. S. 256 includes protections ensuring that alimony and child support payments are made. I believe single parents and dependent children need our help far more than millionaires who benefit from current bankruptcy laws. Additionally, families who have exorbitant medical bills they cannot afford can still file for Chapter 7, and judges will still have a great deal of discretion when it comes to the issue of means-testing. In addition, this legislation will create new disclosure requirements for lending institutions to provide better information to consumers about credit cards and debt. This is particularly important for young adults who are bombarded by credit applications and have limited knowledge about the risks that accompany credit card ownership. It is important to note that this legislation is only the first step in addressing the bigger problems underlying savings in this country. With an over-reliance on credit cards and a lack of saving for retirement, too many Americans find themselves on shaky financial ground. Addressing this problem must be our next goal, and we must encourage more personal responsibility in consumers. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act will benefit consumers and provide all Americans with better access to credit. It helps prevent abuse of the system while providing debt protection to those who truly need it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of making estate tax relief permanent so that family-owned farms and businesses can be passed down from generation to generation. The estate tax should be updated and modernized to reflect both the economic growth many Americans have experienced in recent years, and the hard work of millions of entrepreneurs and those just trying to make a living. These businesses should not be punished for being successful or for simply having their owners pass away. The United States is the land of opportunity, encouraging free enterprise and rewarding entrepreneurs. The estate tax should be modified to protect family-owned small businesses and family farms from the threat of having to be sold just to pay the tax. But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 would fully repeal the estate tax for all Americans at a time when the administration is running record deficits that threaten the futures of our children's children. As we all know, the estate tax applies to fewer than 2 percent of all estates, about 50,000 a year. This bill would initially cost the Nation's treasury $290 billion over 10 years. This year alone, our budget deficit will exceed $400 billion. This administration has turned a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over ten years into deficits totalling $2.6 trillion. However, even with these record deficits, we are debating yet another tax cut. With the majority's policies leading our Nation toward a fiscal train wreck, we should not be talking about totally repealing the death tax and instead talk about doing something about the debt tax, which falls upon all Americans. Therefore, I am supporting the substitute being offered by my good friend Mr. Pomeroy. His legislation will immediately help the small businesses and family farms by increasing the estate tax exemption to $3 million for individuals and $6 million for couples. This meaningful, common-sense bill will exempt 99.7 percent of all estates from the estate tax. Under current law, the tax basis for inherited property is ``stepped up'' to its value at transfer through 2009, which helps farmers and small business owners who inherit property by reducing the amount of capital gains taxes to which the property is subject. Under current law, in 2010, ``carry-over'' basis rules (with a $1.3 million exemption) replace the ``stepped-up'' basis rules, creating burdensome new requirements and increasing the tax liability for many of these property-owners. H.R. 8 makes this switch permanent and creates more losers than winners. The Pomeroy substitute, however, will retain the ``step-up'' rules rather than the ``carry-over'' rules. Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to avoid towering deficits and reduce the debt future generations will inherit. We must give them the capability and flexibility to meet whatever problems or needs they face. I cannot, in good faith, support legislation that will put our country further into deficit spending with a tax cut that will hurt future generations for the unforeseeable future.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to John Medinger upon his retirement as mayor of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Involved in local politics since 1976, John is a dedicated public servant and a good friend. I will miss his leadership as mayor, but I am confident he will remain active in our community and influential in improving the quality of life in western Wisconsin. Born and raised in La Crosse, Mayor Medinger and his family have always been active in local politics and have contributed immensely to the growth and development of our community. His father, Don, a good union member, served on the La Crosse City Council and was well- respected throughout the area. Following his father's example of civic duty, John ran for and was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly in 1986, where he served for the next 16 years. From 1993 to 1996, he worked for U.S. Senator Russ Feingold as his western Wisconsin regional coordinator, and in 1996 he ran for and was elected mayor of La Crosse. During his tenure as mayor, he continually advocated for social justice on behalf of the hard-working families in western Wisconsin. His contributions and dedication to the community made him an excellent mentor, and our area has been well served by his leadership. I have known John for many years and have admired his thoughtfulness, idealism, unwavering principles, and ability to reach across party lines to create good public policy. As mayor, he was always honest and never hesitated to tell you when he thought you were wrong. Likewise, he was the first to embrace a good idea and work to put a plan into action. Lastly, I commend John for his tireless work to encourage and welcome greater racial diversity, which has made the La Crosse area a special place to live and raise a family. John exemplifies all that is good, noble, and decent in public service. He believes in our representative democracy, and he made himself approachable and accessible to anyone who wanted to share their thoughts with him, whether it was when he showed up on their doorstep during the course of his many campaigns or during his time in office. Both John and his wife, Dee, have sacrificed greatly to live a life of public service. If anyone deserves a break from the public spotlight, they do. Although John Medinger is retiring from the mayoral position, his advocacy and community work will leave a lasting legacy on the La Crosse community, and the area will continue to benefit from all that he has done. I want to thank him for his hard work and dedication, and I wish Dee and John the best of luck in their future endeavors.