Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in enthusiastic support of H.R. 2408, ``The National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Act.'' Since the first refuge was established in my home state in 1912, the Wisconsin refuge system has become an integral part of life for our citizens. Our five wildlife refuges and two wetlands management districts attract nearly 2 million visitors each year. They provide critical habitat for our state's world-renowned wildlife resources, as well as opportunities for recreation and groundbreaking research. Thankfully, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has help in meeting President Teddy Roosevelt's commitment of protecting our country's diverse wildlife heritage for future generations. Volunteers like my constituent John Wetzel, and the ``Friends of the Upper Mississippi River Refuges,'' work constantly to improve our local refuges and serve as advocates at the national level. John Wetzel is only one of over 45,000 individuals across the country who provide support for our refuge system. These ``Friends of the Refuge'' do whatever is needed--whether it is raising funds, guiding tours, battling invasive species or restoring wetlands. As noted anthropologist, Margaret Mead, once said, ``Never doubt that a small thoughtful group of concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.'' I am proud to support the National Fish and Wildlife Service in its vital mission, and I'm pleased this legislation will provide these dedicated activists the tools and information necessary to help them in their efforts on behalf of us all.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month. In 1987, Congress passed a resolution designating the month of March as Women's History Month as a time to honor, ``American women of every race, class and ethnic background [who] have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways.'' For 2004, the theme of Women's History Month is ``Women Inspiring Hope and Possibility.'' To celebrate this month, I would like to honor four of the numerous women from Wisconsin's history who inspired hope and possibility through their selfless efforts in gaining suffrage for women in America. First, I would like to recognize Ada James, who served as president of the Political Equality League from 1911 to 1919. As a dedicated women's suffrage advocate, Ms. James spent these eight years preceding the ratification of the suffrage amendment to the U.S. Constitution on an automobile tour through Southern Wisconsin. She spoke at state and county fairs, and to farmers and workers in factories with her fellow suffragists. Ms. James was a native of Richland Center, a city in Wisconsin's Third Congressional District, and I am honored to be able to share Ms. James' story here. Reverend Olympia Brown resided in Racine, Wisconsin, where she was elected president of the Wisconsin Women's Suffrage Association, holding this post for 30 years. Reverend Brown lived a life of activism, and after being refused at Wisconsin polls, she took her case to the State Supreme Court. Despite a decision rendered in favor of the election inspectors, she never accepted defeat. She continued to fight for women's right to vote, and was one of the few suffrage leaders who lived to be able to cast a vote in the Presidential election of 1920-- the first in which women could vote. As the first Wisconsin-born leader of the state's suffrage movement, Theodora Winton Youmans was able to help the movement gain momentum by writing a regular column for the Waukesha Freeman. She used her column as a platform to educate the public about suffrage and women's rights. After leaving her post as assistant editor in the 1890s, Ms. Youmans worked to create the Wisconsin Federation of Women's Clubs, serving as its president in 1900. In 1924, she lost a bid to Congress, and it was not until nearly 75 years later that Wisconsin would see its first Congresswoman with the election of Tammy Baldwin in 1999, who continues to represent Wisconsin women today. Lastly, but certainly not least, I would like to honor the achievements of Carrie Lane Chapman Catt. As a native of Ripon, Wisconsin, she played the largest role in the final passage of the 19th Amendment. Her campaign was successful because she pushed for reform in the states, instead of focusing solely on a constitutional amendment. In 1900, she succeeded Susan B. Anthony as the president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Following ratification of the amendment, her leadership abilities were not forgotten as she helped establish the League of Women Voters, which is still active today. I think I speak for all people from Wisconsin when I say that we are fortunate to have had such a remarkable woman in our history. These four women, along with so many others, inspired hope and possibility not only in Wisconsin, but across the United States. I have no doubt that their devotion to the cause was the sole reason why Wisconsin was the first state to ratify the 19th Amendment on June 10th, 1919. I am honored to share these women's stories today, as their efforts made Wisconsin a leader in this landmark roll call of democracy. In many ways, their hopes are still with us today. As a reflection of this, I will end my statement with a quotation from Carrie Chapman Catt: ``Everybody counts in applying democracy. And there will never be a true democracy until every responsible and law- abiding adult in it, without regard to race, sex, color or creed has his or her own inalienable and unpurchasable voice in government.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 557, ``relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces.'' First and foremost, I believe that it is important to take this time to honor the men and women of our armed forces who have sacrificed under difficult and dangerous conditions to make our military efforts successful in Iraq. It is also important to recognize the sacrifices of the families of our troops, friends, and those who employ the members of our Guard and Reserve forces deployed overseas. Our appreciation goes out to these individuals for their support during these challenging times. Last October I had the opportunity to visit with our military men and women in Iraq and survey the operations of the U.S. reconstruction mission to Iraq. I have never been more proud to be an American than when I witnessed our troops fulfilling their mission in difficult and dangerous circumstances. While we still have a long way to go in Iraq, I saw many signs of progress in helping meet the basic needs of the Iraqi people. From Wisconsin alone there are over 1,460 members of the Air and Army National Guard who are serving on active duty. This includes military units activated from the Third Congressional District, which I represent. Wisconsin's 229th Army National Guard Engineer Company from Prairie Du Chien and Platteville, and 652nd Army Reserves Engineer Company from Ellsworth are currently serving in Iraq. We welcomed the members of Wisconsin's 829th Army National Guard Engineer Detachment from Richland Center back home recently. We also welcomed back members of Wisconsin's 1158th Army National Guard Transportation Detachment from Black River Falls and Tomah, serving in Fort Irwin, CA. In addition, the 128th Infantry Battalion headquartered in Eau Claire was recently alerted for possible mobilization. The people of western Wisconsin are proud of their service and the service of all men and women of our armed forces during this important time in our Nation's history. I also want to recognize the incredible work of the people at Fort McCoy and Volk Field in western Wisconsin. They are working countless hours to get our troops ready. As the day pass, we must not forget those who have died in the mission to liberate the people of Iraq. Over 540 American soldiers have died while serving in Iraq. 2LT Jeremy Wolfe, MAJ Christopher Splinter, and PFC Bert Hoyer from the Third District in Wisconsin, each paid the ultimate sacrifice to give the people of Iraq the greatest gift of all--their freedom. These young men exemplify all that is good and decent about America. Their loss is tragic; their sacrifices should not be forgotten. I do, however, have reservations about certain language in this resolution, in particular, the references to the world being safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein. That subject is highly debatable. While I agree that the Iraqi people are better off free from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein, the most critical threat to international security is still at large and still very active. To this day, it is al Qaeda, who remains the number one security threat and we must combat that international threat with an international coalition. It is al Qaeda that was directly responsible for the attacks on September 11 and it is al Qaeda that is reconstituting itself as a truly global terrorist threat. As we know now, Saddam Hussein's regime, as ruthless as it was, did not possess an imminent threat against its own neighbors, let alone against the United States. We still need a thorough investigation of our intelligence failures so future miscalculations, that change world opinion against us, are not repeated. As our military effort continues, I, and other Members of Congress will work to ensure that our service men and women have all the resources necessary to fulfill this continuing mission. My thoughts and prayers are with those serving our country, as well as their families. America is firmly behind our troops and we are all hoping to see them home safe, secure and soon. May God continue to bless these United States of America.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month. In 1987, Congress passed a resolution designating the month of March as Women's History Month as a time to honor, ``American women of every race, class and ethnic background [who] have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways.'' For 2004, the theme of Women's History Month is ``Women Inspiring Hope and Possibility.'' To celebrate this month, I would like to honor four of the numerous women from Wisconsin's history who inspired hope and possibility through their selfless efforts in gaining suffrage for women in America. First, I would like to recognize Ada James, who served as president of the Political Equality League from 1911 to 1919. As a dedicated women's suffrage advocate, Ms. James spent these eight years preceding the Ratification of the suffrage amendment to the U.S. Constitution on an automobile tour through Southern Wisconsin. She spoke at state and county fairs, and to farmers and workers in factories with her fellow suffragists. Ms. James was a native of Richland Center, a city in Wisconsin's Third Congressional District, and I am honored to be able to share Ms. James' story here. Reverend Olympia Brown resided in Racine, Wisconsin, where she was elected president of the Wisconsin Women's Suffrage Association, holding this post for thirty years. Reverend Brown lived a life of activism, and after being refused at Wisconsin polls, she took here case to the State Supreme Court. Despite a decision rendered in favor of the election inspectors, she never accepted defeat. She continued to fight for women's right to vote, and was one of the few suffrage leaders who lived to be able to cast a vote in the presidential election of 1920--the first in which women could vote. As the first Wisconsin-born leader of the state's suffrage movement, Theodora Winton Youmans was able to help the movement gain momentum by writing a regular column for the Waukesha Freeman. She used her column as a platform to educate the public about suffrage and women's rights. After leaving her post as assistant editor in the 1890's, Ms. Youmans worked to create the Wisconsin Federation of Women's Clubs, serving as its president in 1900. In 1924, she lost a bid to Congress, and it was not until nearly 75 years later that Wisconsin would see its first Congresswoman with the election of Tammy Baldwin in 1999, who continues to represent Wisconsin women today. Lastly, but certainly not least, I would like to honor the achievements of Carrie Lane Chapman Catt. As a native of Ripon, Wisconsin, she played the largest role in the final passage of the 19th Amendment. Her campaign was successful because she pushed for reform in the states, instead of focusing solely on a constitutional amendment. In 1990, she succeeded Susan B. Anthony as the president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Following ratification of the amendment, her leadership abilities were not forgotten as she helped establish the League of Women Voters, which is still active today. I think I speak for all people from Wisconsin when I say that we are fortunate to have had such a remarkable woman in our history. These four women, along with so many others, inspired hope and possibility not only in Wisconsin, but across the United States. I have no doubt that their devotion to the cause was the sole reason why Wisconsin was the first state to ratify the 19th Amendment on June 10th 1919. I am honored to share these women's stories today, as their efforts made Wisconsin a leader in this landmark roll call of democracy. In many ways, their hopes are still with us today. As a reflection of this, I will end my statement with a quotation from Carrie Chapman Catt: ``Everybody counts in applying democracy. And there will never be a true democracy until every responsible and law-abiding adult in it, without regard to race, sex, color or creed has his or her own inalienable and unpurchasable voice in government.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3030, Reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG). I am a strong supporter of this block grant, as noted in my previous remarks on February 4, 2004. I am disappointed, however, that H.R. 3030, as passed, failed to correct provisions in current law that permit religious organizations receiving funds under this Act to discriminate in employment based on religion. While these provisions have existed in current law for five years, I cannot condone the continuation of discriminatory policies. I supported the Democratic substitute offered by my colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee, Representatives Lynn Woolsey and George Miller, that restore basic civil rights for workers while ensuring the ongoing participation of faith-based groups in CSBG programs. I also supported the Miller amendment to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation program for an additional six months. This extension is long overdue given that 8.4 million Americans are now unemployed--159,344 in Wisconsin alone--and it is taking longer and longer for them to find work. I hear daily from job seekers in my district about how difficult it has been to find employment in this economy. It is unconscionable that previous attempts to extend aid to those who have lost their jobs as a result of this Administration's misguided economic policies have been blocked by the majority leadership. Passing an extension of this important program has given hope to those who have, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs in these tough economic times. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Woolsey amendment did not pass and that congressional leadership insists on retaining language discriminating against employees at faith-based organizations based on religion. Despite these reservations, I supported final passage of H.R. 3030, as amended by Mr. Miller's unemployment extension amendment, and I hope the Senate will pass this important bill quickly to help millions of job seekers currently unemployed and looking for work.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, our current bankruptcy system is in need of reform. Bankruptcy filings have risen steadily in recent years--growing by nearly 140% during the past four years alone. In Wisconsin, bankruptcy filings are up two-and-a-half times what they were just 10 years ago. The costs associated with discharging bankruptcy related debt, calculated at over $40 billion in 2001, hurt all consumers through increased prices on goods and services. In fact, losses associated with bankruptcies alone cost the average American family around $400 per year. We need to reform our bankruptcy laws to protect those people truly in need of debt relief while holding accountable those who can repay their debt. The reforms contained in this amended legislation before us today accomplish this, and provide new disclosure requirements for lending institutions to offer 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. Further, the legislation will move child support and alimony payments up to the top of debt repayment priority lists. This will help prevent children from being unnecessarily hurt by the debt of their parents. The National Child Support Enforcement Association, the National District Attorneys Association and the Child Support Council all support this provision and this legislation. In addition, this legislation will make permanent Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions that provide relief to our family farmers. I have consistently supported temporary extensions of Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection because our nation's family farmers face unique circumstances that often pose unique financial risks outside their control. In Wisconsin, this situation has had the unfortunate affect of driving family farmers out of business at a rate of nearly five per day. The crisis in our agricultural economy is not contained to Wisconsin alone. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a 13% decline in farmers between 1998 and 2008. This is the largest projected decline of any occupational category in the U.S. economy. The permanent extension of Chapter 12 protections contained in this bill will allow family farmers facing bankruptcy to reorganize their debt so they do not lose their farms to creditors. Chapter 12 gives hope to financially-strapped farmers who feel that they have no where else to turn. It gives them room to recover from an economic crunch and still hold on to their livelihood--and it has proven to work. According to one study, 74 percent of family farmers who filed Chapter 12 bankruptcy are still farming, and 61 percent of farmers who went through Chapter 12 believe it was helpful in getting them back on their feet. This protection is critical right now, during this depressed economy, because many cash-strapped producers are under pressure to meet operating expenses and pay off bank notes. I am pleased the House is taking bipartisan action today to make permanent Chapter 12 protection for farmers, giving them the opportunity to reorganize their debts and preserve their farms for future generations. While I have objections to the majority using legislation that would simply extend the farm bankruptcy provisions of Chapter 12 for six months, as a vehicle for any other legislation, I support final passage of this legislation. The overall benefits of the comprehensive bankruptcy reform and the permanent extension of Chapter 12 now included will provide needed protection to consumers and relief to those in need. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the bill before us today. It was my hope that the conference committee would work in a bicameral, bipartisan manner and produce a bill focused on providing prescription drug coverage to seniors and improving Medicare. Instead, House Democrats were shut out of the discussion completely, and special interest groups were given more information than members of Congress. Even more troubling than the process, however, was the legislation that came out of this conference. This bill is a bad deal for American seniors and an even worse deal for our children and grandchildren. Estimated at $400 billion, this bill is not paid for and, without basic cost containment measures, like price negotiation or drug reimportation from Canada, will leave a legacy of debt for our children and grandchildren to inherit. The easiest thing to do in politics is pass a bill and don't pay for it. Certainly, there are portions of this bill which I support--portions which generously and correctly bring aid and equity to hospitals, especially those in rural areas like western Wisconsin. For far too long, rural hospitals and critical access hospitals have been treated as second-best, and I have long been a champion of bringing equity to these hospitals which do such important work throughout our country. This bill will at last begin to equalize the base inpatient payment rate, increase the cap for Medicare disproportionate share hospitals, and bring the hospital update to full market basket. Providers also benefit a great deal from this bill, and I am pleased that instead of receiving a cut, Medicare providers would receive a 1.5% update for the next two years. Furthermore, the assistance to our providers is paid for with offsets in the budget, so it does not add to the historically large federal deficit. If these provisions were separate from the bill, I could support them in a heartbeat, and I am confident that such a bill would pass overwhelmingly in Congress. In fact, just today my colleagues and I have introduced a bill that is identical to the rural health care package included in the Medicare Conference Report. We could still pass such a bill if the Republican leadership wanted to, but they do not. Instead, they are holding the rural provisions hostage to all ill-advised and costly prescription drug program to be delivered to private insurance companies after we bribe them with billions to do it, even after they have told us they do not want to do this. As important as it is to sustain our hospitals and our doctors, aspects of the bill which will hurt our seniors, our pharmacists, and our states make it impossible to support this bill. Too many seniors in my district in western Wisconsin have told me stories of skipping meals in order to afford prescription drugs or cutting their pills in half to make their expensive prescriptions last longer. I came to Washington to work towards a real solution to this problem, and I have championed the New Democratic Coalition's plan, which is simple, progressive, and affordable. I would be proud to stand on this floor today and support the Dooley prescription drug plan. I would have been able to compromise and support a bill that was close to the Senate's bipartisan bill. But I am unable to support a bill that will do relatively little to provide seniors with drug coverage, that bribes insurance companies, that threatens to destabilize existing coverage for retirees, that undermines Medicaid, and that has no reasonable measures to contain costs. Sadly, for all the excitement over a prescription drug benefit, this bill would bring little relief to struggling seniors. The drug benefit does no start until 2006, leaving struggling seniors a few more years before they receive any help in paying for their prescription drugs. Once 2006 rolls around, many seniors will find a drug benefit far less generous than the one they expected. In fact, a senior who spends slightly over $5,000 per year on prescription drugs will have to spend over $4,000 of his or her own money, meaning the consumer still pays 80 percent of drug costs. This is hardly the relief from expensive prescription drugs that seniors have been promised and that they deserve. Also of concern is the effect this bill will have on seniors who currently have drug coverage. Astoundingly, an estimated 58,170 Medicare beneficiaries in Wisconsin will lost their retiree health benefits because of this bill. And they are not the only seniors who will suffer. Wisconsin's Seniorcare program is a shining example of the great work that can be done to aid our nation's seniors when federal and state governments cooperate. The bill before us would punish Wisconsin's leadership on this issue; Wisconsin would most likely lose the matching funds it receives for Seniorcare and be forced to drastically scale back the program. Wisconsin's Seniorcare participants currently pay a nominal enrollment fee, low drug co-payments, and a modest deductible, with those seniors below 160 percent of the poverty level paying no deductible whatsoever. The Wisconsin Medicaid program, as well as the 110,200 seniors who are dual eligibles, will see a significant risk in their drug costs as a result of this legislation. The bill purports to do good things for low-income seniors, but in my state, it will have exactly the opposite effect. For the 99 percent of seniors in my state who already have health insurance, the introduction of a new prescription drug plan means a confusing new benefit with higher costs to the state and beneficiaries and less coverage than many Wisconsin seniors already enjoy. All of this speculation over a prescription drug plan assumes, of course, that drug-only plans will be around to offer this less than substantial coverage. Currently, there are no drug-only insurance plans, and representatives of the industry have maintained they do not want to start such plans. Because of this reluctance, the bill bribes private insurance companies, pouring billions into the industry in an attempt to entice the companies to create drug-only plans. Clearly, $400 billion is just a floor, costs will explode, and the insurance companies will return to Congress in the future to ask for more money or they will drop coverage of our seniors, just as many Medicare plus Choice plans are doing today. The $400 billion price-tag is only the beginning of spiraling costs to the federal government; we have no idea what costs might be in the future for this benefit. Incredibly, even the original $400 billion is not paid for, and there are no attempts at cost control in this measure. The government, for both Medicaid and the Veterans Administration, negotiates drug prices. The 40 million Americans covered by Medicare constitute an immense and potentially powerful purchasing pool. Great savings could be realized by negotiation, yet this bill specifically prohibits the government from negotiating with drug companies. Another potential for savings is reimportation from Canada; once again, this cost-cutting measure is prohibited, as the Secretary of Health and Human Services would have to approve reimportation, and the agency has already indicated no such approval will be granted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak of a group that has received little attention in a debate focused on seniors--our children and grandchildren. While I fully support providing seniors with a prescription drug benefit, I do not believe it is right to shift the costs of this benefit to future generations. We must devise a way to pay for these benefits now; we cannot and must not rely on future Congresses and future taxpayers to fix a problem of our creation. The party in power in Washington today wants tax cuts for the wealthy and pays no attention to fiscal responsibility. It is wrong to create a larger deficit than the one we already face. To protect seniors, to protect our children and grandchildren, I am opposing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to reject the flawed proposals contained in this bill. We can and must do better.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for yielding me time on this important motion. I commend the gentleman for this motion and for his efforts on the prescription drug bill that we have before us tomorrow. This motion speaks to a fundamental problem that has existed in rural America in particular for many, many years; and coming from western Wisconsin, the Third Congressional District that I represent, I have devoted a lot of my time to try to deal with the inadequacies of Medicare reimbursement that have adversely affected my rural hospitals. This motion would ask for raising the average standardized amount for hospitals in rural areas, as well as raise the physicians' work geographic index. Why is this important? Well, rural hospitals have been suffering for a long time. Sixty percent of the rural hospitals in my district and throughout the country are not receiving adequate Medicare reimbursement to cover the costs of treating Medicare recipients. Over the last 25 years, we have lost 475 rural hospitals which have gone out of business, partly due to the fact of the inadequacy of the Medicare reimbursement formula. On average, my rural hospitals receive about 25 percent less than the average Medicare reimbursement throughout the country. This is a serious issue that needs serious attention. The bill before us tomorrow I feel has a very good provider aspect with it, but the provider aspect is paid for. There are offsets found in the budget in order to pay for that. One of the chief concerns I have with the Medicare bill that is going to come before us tomorrow is there is no cost containment, and these costs are going to explode in future years. As a way of dealing with the rising prices of prescription drugs, one is allowing generics to enter the market on a competitive basis when the patents on brand-names expire. Another is to allow the Federal Government to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical companies, even though there is specific language in this bill that specifically prohibits any price negotiation. Finally, is to allow the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs in a country like Canada back into the United States, something that many of my seniors in Wisconsin are already doing. Mr. Speaker, if we are concerned about the costs of this bill, we would implement these practical measures. The easiest thing to do in the world of politics is to pass a bill we do not pay for and stick it to our kids and our grandchildren in future years, and that is exactly going to be the outcome of this bill tomorrow if we do not come to grips with the cost factor of rising medications.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield so that I can clarify myself, it is in the context of all the regulatory changes as well that the administration is proposing in the formula and the effect that that would have on the 86,000 students in this country that this side is very concerned about and we are hoping to engage our colleagues' support on the issue as well.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to clarify my statement. By freezing the Pell Grant award in regard to the funding level that is established, there has been a score indicating that 86,000 more students who would otherwise qualify for Pell Grant funding will not qualify as a consequence. This is nationwide, not just in the State of Wisconsin.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and leader from Michigan for yielding me this time, and I appreciate and commend to him bringing this motion tonight. This is a very important program in regards to higher education funding, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) is someone who probably has more institutional knowledge in regard to the education programs and the funding of education programs than anyone else in the House of Representatives. I think this is an important motion. It is a timely motion because of the trend that will be set here with the precedent being created in the next fiscal year as far as freezing the average Pell grant award given in this country. But just to be clear, the motion calls for not less than the House number that we should strive for in conference, and I appreciate the work the chairman has done in regard to the defense of education funding programs. He has been a champion in this issue. But what is being called for now is for the first time in over a decade freezing Pell grant awards at $4,050. If this goes through, this will affect adversely 86,000 more students who would normally qualify for Pell grants, but will be shut out of the system. In Wisconsin, the State that I represent, we have 58,000 students who rely on Pell grants in order to go on to post-secondary education opportunities. There are five State universities in my congressional district alone. Thousands of students in Western Wisconsin rely on Pell grants in order to open up the doors to higher education. Not only by underinvesting in this area will we have an adverse impact on future economic growth. I submit that it is going to have national security implications as well. I think this body would be well served to spend a little time studying the trends of places like China and India and the education infrastructure going on in those countries and the numbers of undergraduates that they are producing every year, which are going up year by year, including more engineering students being graduated in China and in India; and if we do not invest in the future of our country, our youth, we are going to leave them in a tough position to be able to compete in the global marketplace, not to mention perhaps slipping in regard to the technological edge and superiority that we now hold as a Nation compared to other nations that are investing in this area. Just as an example, China yesterday announced that they are going to increase the fuel efficiency standards for the cars sold in China at higher standards than what exists here in the United States of America. Part of that is going to involve advances in technology to enable them to do it. It is an embarrassment that China is taking this unprecedented step, and we know in our gut that we should be doing it here as well. When the original Pell grant program was passed many years back, it accounted for roughly 86 percent of the cost of a student with tuition and fees and room and board. Today, that slips below 50 percent. Now there is greater reliance on loans for students to finance their education. Again, in my congressional district, the average student, when they do graduate from a 4-year university, is facing on average about $17,000 of debt coming out of school because of the greater reliance on loans as opposed to these grant programs. We are forcing them to dig a fiscal hole at a crucial time in their life when they are trying to start a career, have a family, have children, and this trend has been going on for some time. My colleagues on the other side are finally pointing to the graph and that, but they often neglect it was President Clinton that was forcing this investment in college education programs, why we saw the consistent trend line in the 1990s; but let us also remind ourselves that he was doing that in the context of balanced budgets and budget surpluses, because there is nothing easier to do in this place than to pass a bill that is not paid for, and this has been a consistent trend for the last few years: a $30 billion energy bill yesterday, perhaps a $400 billion prescription medication bill later on this week, not paid for, all deficit financing. That is easy politics to support, but when the Clinton administration was increasing Pell grant awards during the 1990s, we were doing it in an era of budget surpluses, with fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility. Hopefully, they are not crowing too loudly in regard to what was occurring in the 1990s versus the freeze now that we are seeing under one-party control here in Washington. This is an important program. It does affect so many students. Again, by freezing not only the Pell Grant program but by freezing all campus- based student aid programs, college work study programs, SEOGs, Perkins' loans, the LEAP program, we are going to be forcing more and more students to have to build a debt route to finance their schooling, but more importantly closing the door of opportunity for many students who would otherwise qualify for higher education, but will not be able to afford it because of the lack of resources that are available. So I hope that my colleagues support this motion. I commend the gentleman from Michigan for raising this issue in a timely basis. Again, I commend the work that has been done even on the other side, of the chairman in his defense of a lot of education funding in this fiscal year and also in past years. But this is important and we should not lose sight in regard to the crucial investments that have to be made for the future of our country, the youth of our Nation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 17, 2003, I was unable to record my vote on three resolutions under suspension of the rules, and one motion changing the hour of meeting. My unavoidable absence was due to the fact that I was hosting an important forum on Chronic Wasting Disease in Wisconsin with federal and state leaders. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted the following: Roll call #620: Yes, Roll call #621: Yes, Roll call #622: Yes, Roll call #623: Yes.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources of the Committee on Resources, I rise in disappointed opposition to H.R. 6. Like my friend and colleague, Mr. Dingell, I too was a conferee ``in name only'' on a bill that should have been--and could have been--a comprehensive and balanced plan for our Nation to meet its short and long term energy needs. The centerpiece of this atrocious energy bill is a multi-billion dollar package of tax breaks and incentives designed to slant the market in favor of fossil fuel industries, and away from meaningful reform through the development of safe, clean and renewable alternatives. Should this bill pass, the Republican leadership will have locked the American economy into the old energy regime for most of the 21st century, with dire environmental and global security consequences. Current provisions of the bill offer an inexcusably watered down version of the renewable energy production incentives program for solar, wind and geothermal energy, with meager and uncertain monetary incentives, barely reaching $5 million per year, providing little impetus for installing new capacity and unlikely to affect investments in renewable energy in any meaningful way. In addition, conservation efforts, such as mandating the reduction of one million barrels of oil per day by the year 2013, as the other body had approved on a vote of 99-1, was simply left out of the Republican planning. The few good provisions of the bill, like the renewable fuel standards provision and its potential to aid our Nation's struggling family farmers, have been suffocated by the bloated excess and taxpayer-funded subsidies for some of our Nation's largest oil and gas companies. Mr. Speaker, when the House considered the energy bill this past spring, I led an effort to stop the Federal Government from providing ``royalty relief'' for multi-billion dollar oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco operating on public lands and in coastal waters. This ``royalty holiday'' was once characterized as ``giving major oil companies a huge tax break'' by a candidate for the 2000 presidential election . . . No, not Al Gore but George W. Bush. So what happened to that assessment? How can President Bush now support a bill that not only contains this very same taxpayer funded giveaway to some of the biggest oil companies in the world--already swimming in huge profits--but a bill that actually expands them? Unfortunately, the House-passed oil and gas incentive provisions were scored by CBO and projected to reduce the Federal revenues by $20 billion over ten years. The total cost of this bill is $141 billion and it is not paid for. It will be added to historically larger budget deficits for many years. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is facing huge structural budget deficits, escalating war costs and a sluggish economy. We simply cannot afford to open our checkbook and spend the American taxpayers' money to subsidize industries to do what their business plan would have them do anyway-- explore and produce domestic energy sources if it is cost effective to do so.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work of Sister Leclare Beres from La Crosse, Wisconsin, in recognition of her retirement. Sister Leclare has worked tirelessly for many years as a nurse and a nun, aiming to provide all people with access to healthcare. Sister Leclare grew up in Elroy, Wisconsin. Living on a farm, surrounded by her large family, she learned early the importance of hard work and compassion to others. In the early 90s, Sister Leclare saw the medical needs of refugee immigrants and called upon the four area hospitals to sponsor a free clinic. The Indochinese Screening Clinic later became the St. Clare Health Mission. As the director of the St. Clare Health Mission, Sister Leclare has been a leader in providing health services to the poor in the La Crosse, Wisconsin area. In addition, she has worked in Guam and Jamaica as well as with organizations such as Place of Grace and the Salvation Army. Moreover, after she retires this fall, her dedication to the poor will live on as she plans to volunteer at the St. Clare Health Mission where she has served as its only director for ten years. I am pleased that her efforts and giving spirit have earned her multiple honors, including the Pope John XXIII Award from Viterbo College, the YWCA Tribute to Outstanding Women in the Medical Field, and the 2002 La Crosse Tribune Person of the Year. Aside from her amazing gifts in working with persons who are poor and sick, Sister Leclare has impressive organizational talents. She would regularly coordinate the 200 plus medical professionals and community volunteers who came each Tuesday and Thursday evening to serve at the St. Clare Health Mission. In this feat, Sister Leclare was able to bring together a community to address the needs of its neighbors and sought a solution to the limited access to healthcare that many Americans face. Mr. Speaker and my fellow Members of Congress, I ask that you join me in honoring the dedication and service of Sister Leclare Beres as she retires. She is a role model of service, compassion, and generosity, and we could all learn from her dedication. Thus, I would like to leave you with the words of Sister Leclare's successor, Sister Dawn Kutt. ``Sister Leclare's compassion for the poor and underserved dwells deep within her heart's desire. Her service to the poor is undertaken with joy and tender love as her gentle presence reflects God's love for each of them. She certainly brings the richness out of the poorest of God's poor.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this martial rule. I do not understand why we cannot follow regular process around here to give this body a chance to actually look at the supplemental, $87 billion, the largest in our Nation's history, so we know the details that are contained in it. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Iraq and visit our troops in the field. They are doing an incredible job under very difficult and dangerous circumstances. And, of course, this body is going to do everything we can to make sure they have the tools and the resources they need so they can do their mission safely and return home soon. But this process is out of order, and we are derelict in our duty in regard to the accountability to the American taxpayer. We do need accountability, and that is why earlier the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I offered an amendment with this bill that would have slashed the reconstruction funds in half, requiring the administration to come back to account for how the money is being used and to justify the need for more. Instead, we are giving them $20 billion when the World Bank just released a report indicating that Iraq cannot absorb more than $6 billion in the next year anyway for reconstruction. But I am also concerned that these conference committees are becoming the black hole of the democratic process. The will of the House and the will of the Senate go in, but it never comes out. Specifically, in both the House and the Senate with wide bipartisan majorities, it was determined that we wanted to provide half the reconstruction funds in grants and the other half in loans, recognizing Iraq is sitting on the second largest oil reserve in the world, but also it would give us some bargaining position with the rest of the nations holding debt over Iraq to hopefully get them to forgive the debt. But any loan in this has been vanished in the conference committee; and, instead, the administration wants to just gift outright the $20 billion, requiring our children and grandchildren to pick up the tab for many years to come. We want to do right in Iraq. We do not have the luxury of cutting and running. We must succeed, but this process is not the way to do it.

Mr. KIND

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

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, last week I had the opportunity to travel to Iraq visiting our troops in the field, and they are doing an incredible job under difficult and dangerous circumstances. Clearly, our Nation is paying a very high price in both lives and money due to the unilateral action that was taken in Iraq. Their high level of sacrifice, quite frankly, has not been met by the high level of planning that is required for this mission. I believe we have been derelict in our duty in Congress in demanding more accountability and more justification in regards to the expenditure and the use of the funds that are before us today and have been appropriated earlier this year. That is why the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I are offering this amendment which could be titled The Enhanced Accountability and Detailed Accounting Amendment, which would slash the reconstruction funds by one-half, not because we do not believe in the mission, but because we believe the administration should come before Congress to justify in a detailed fashion what current funds are being used for and what future funds are being requested and for what purpose. The World Bank and IMF released a report last week that indicated that for the next year in Iraq, we cannot spend, more than $5 billion without running into difficulty, and yet we have a $20 billion reconstruction request before us today. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, it has been very frustrating trying to get detailed listings of the amount of money being spent and for what purpose. Mr. Zakheim, Comptroller for Defense, indicated yesterday before us that it was the administration's intent to keep coming to Congress for future supplemental requests which do not have to be offset, which will result in more deficit financing, instead of budgeting it in the normal budget process. We think it should be budgeted with future requests. I also believe by slashing funds by one-half, we would encourage greater savings and cost efficiencies. I met with Kuwaiti officials last week who indicated that they did not understand what the administration was doing in Iraq. They were sitting on multiple 3,000 megawatt generators not being used and not being requested by the United States for use in Iraq. They are also sitting on multiple desalinization machines that could be used in Iraq to help with clean water difficulties; but again, they were not being asked to contribute. General Petraeus of the 101st Airborne, when he discovered from U.S. engineers that it was going to cost somewhere between $15-$20 million to restore a cement factory in northern Iraq went out and talked to local Iraqi officials and was able to get the job done for $80,000. I believe this Congress has an obligation to the American taxpayer, an obligation to our children and to our grandchildren to ask questions and to demand accountability in regards to the use of these reconstruction funds, and I would encourage support for my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), one of the most fiscally responsible Members of this Congress.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Indiana for bringing this amendment and discussing a very important issue in tonight's debate. This was an amendment that I intended to offer myself because it made sense, one-half grant, one-half loan. Grant money can go out the door right away to keep continuity of the reconstruction effort which is important, but the loan aspect is a fundamental recognition that the Iraqis are sitting on a $7 trillion oil reserve, the second largest in the world, but also, it may leverage our negotiator's position going into Madrid next week that they have $10 billion to put on the table to get other countries to give up the loans that they currently have. It also addresses an issue in regard to whether fiscal responsibility is going to seep into this debate. We can continue the gifts and the grants to the Iraqi people but continue leaving this tremendous legacy of debt for our children and grandchildren to inherit, or we can try making a statement that it is this generation's obligation to pay the ongoing obligations that we have incurred, not our children and not our grandchildren. That is why this amendment makes sense, and I commend my friend from Indiana for raising this issue this evening.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time. Last week I had the opportunity and the privilege to travel to Iraq. We met with troops on the ground, military command, the civilian administration with CPA. And nothing has made me more proud to be an American than the opportunity to visit our troops in the field, whether it has been in Bosnia, Kosovo or now in Iraq. They are doing a tremendously good job under very difficult and dangerous circumstances. And I believe General Zinni was right when he said that the high level of sacrifice that our troops and their families have made for this mission has not been met by the high level of planning that was required for this mission. But whether one agrees with the merits on the methodology of going into Iraq, now that we are there, I believe that we must succeed. Failure is not an option. We do not have the luxury of cutting and running right now. But what we do from this point on can make all the difference. That is why I stand in support of the Obey substitute, which I think is a commonsense, practical approach of leveraging the limited funds that we have available to put in Iraq through the World Bank, but also diversifying the many resources for our troops and enhancing the quality of life issues that are so important to them in their performance, and also by asking another segment of our country to contribute something as well, the upper 1 percent of the wealthy in this Nation, who if they were to postpone or freeze their tax cut would pay for this entire supplemental along with additional funds in the future which will be needed. It's the right thing to do for the sake of our children. I believe we need to internationalize this. And, hopefully, the U.N. unanimous vote today will help bring us closer to sharing the burden and bringing legitimacy to the process with other lay nations who can contribute troops and resources in a meaningful way. Thus far, we are paying a very high price in both lives and money due to the unilateral action in Iraq. But I also believe we must work simultaneously on empowering the Iraqi people themselves to take control of their own destiny and have control of their own fate. Because, at the end of the day, it is going to be the attitude of the Iraqi people themselves that will determine the future of their country. So I beseech my colleagues to give it due consideration and to support the Obey substitute which addresses so many of these issues in a practical and commonsense fashion. We can support our troops and the goals in Iraq, but we can do it in a fiscally responsible manner or we will build upon the legacy of debt that our children and grandchildren will inherent.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday October 7, and Wednesday October 8, 2003, I was overseas on an official congressional delegation trip to Iraq and unable to have my vote recorded on the House floor. Had I been able to vote I would have voted the following: Rollcall No. 532: ``yes''; Rollcall No. 533: ``yes''; Rollcall No. 534: ``no''; Rollcall No. 535: ``yes''; Rollcall No. 536: ``yes''; Rollcall No. 537: ``yes''; Rollcall No. 538: ``yes''; Rollcall No. 539: ``yes.''

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just quickly in response to the previous speaker, no one is trying to politicize this. We are just trying to work to produce the best product at the end of the day, especially for many of our rural seniors whom we represent in this body. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), the foremost expert on the impact medical malpractice has on health care costs in this Chamber.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, that large government-run program is called Medicare, a very successful and highly popular program for seniors throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).