Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), a true champion of rural health care providers and rural health care patients.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what this motion to instruct basically states is asking for some fairness and some equity in regards to the rural health care providers during the Medicare reform conference discussions that are taking place right now. Mr. Speaker, rural America is often called the backbone of our country, and rightly so. It is rural America where so many of our parents and grandparents grew up, and it is to rural America that many of our veterans, teachers, and farmers retire. There are 9 million Medicare beneficiaries in rural communities, and these seniors tend to be older. They tend to be sicker. They tend to have a little less money than those in urban communities. Rural seniors are in great need, and we must be sure that any Medicare bill does not leave these citizens out in the cold. Yesterday, the House voted on an identical motion offered by my good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). Unfortunately, the motion was defeated, 202 to 213, with 19 Members absent. We are hoping to give those absent Members another chance to come and vote and participate in this discussion, and hopefully then have the votes to prevail on this motion to instruct. There are many Members on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that come from rural areas, from rural districts. I do not for the life of me understand why a Member from a rural area would oppose a motion to instruct on this basis. I think it makes a lot of sense. This is not an ideological or partisan issue, this is a geographic issue, and we are asking for some fundamental fairness and some equity in dealing with rural health care providers. I believe Medicare recipients deserve a prescription drug plan under Medicare, and I believe that all seniors, regardless of their location, should have access to affordable, stable drug benefits. H.R. 1, however, lacks a guarantee that seniors living in rural areas will have access to such a plan. Rather than gaining a drug benefit under Medicare, seniors would have to join a managed care plan or purchase a private drug-only plan. For rural seniors, only 19 percent of whom had access to a Medicare-managed plan in 2003, this could be disastrous. In effect, seniors in rural areas would be subsidizing prescription drugs for others, but would not get a drug benefit plan of their own. I am not prepared to tell seniors in my district in western Wisconsin that some seniors will be getting a drug benefit, when they will not. The Senate Medicare bill, recognizing the instability of private plans in rural areas, provides a fallback, meaning that traditional Medicare would offer its own prescription drug plan to areas with fewer than two private plans available to Medicare recipients. I urge the conferees to recognize the importance of offering prescription drug plans to all Medicare enrollees and to accept the Senate provisions. Yesterday, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued that the instructions in this motion would lead to greater spending and higher deficits. I am committed to being fiscally responsible at all times and reducing the deficit, and this motion does not call for exceeding the budget limit of $400 billion allotted for this Medicare reform bill. Rather, this motion instructs the conferees to carefully assess their priorities in allocating the $400 billion. I hope that this dispels any confusion over the costs advocated by this motion, and I hope that my colleagues across the aisle will be able to join in supporting it. We have seen too many rural hospitals close, over 470 in the last 25 years alone, and rural hospitals all over the country are in danger of being forced to shut their doors forever. Currently hospitals receive full inflation or market basket payments for inpatient and outpatient services. H.R. 1 would reduce hospital payment updates for the next 3 years, which the CBO estimates would lead to a $12 billion loss to hospitals over the next decade. Currently over 57 percent of hospitals in America lose money when serving Medicare patients. We cannot ask hospitals to continue to accept Medicare payments that are below the cost of delivering the care they provide. The Senate bill makes no such cuts to the market basket payments and would keep rural hospitals in business. I urge the conferees to reject the House provision and accept the Senate provisions. Geographic disparities in Medicare reimbursements disproportionately affect rural providers. In my State of Wisconsin, providers are paid 25 percent less on average per Medicare beneficiary. The motion encourages the conferees to adopt the best-world provisions in both bills. These provisions go a long way to reduce geographic disparities. Physicians and specialists are scarce in rural areas. In fact, less than 10 percent of physicians practice in nonmetropolitan counties. It is not surprising, given that rural providers consistently receive lower reimbursement rates than providers in the rest of the country. These providers who do deal with the unique challenges presented by health care in rural areas are the pillars of our communities, and fair payments to rural providers mean quality health care for our Nation's seniors. Physicians in rural communities see a large percent of Medicare patients. This motion instructs conferees to include the best provisions of the Senate and House bill. We must insist that rural providers and beneficiaries are protected and that critical-access hospitals are maintained and improved. I would be disappointed if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not join in voting for this motion and supporting providers in their communities. Yesterday's close vote on a motion identical to this one shows that many of us are concerned about the crisis of health care in rural areas. By again offering this motion, and by dispelling the myth that these instructions would lead to a more expensive Medicare bill, I hope that those Members who were absent yesterday, as well as those Members who truly do care about the state of rural health care in our country, will cast a vote in favor of this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), a true champion of seniors in rural America and in her congressional district.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I would ask passage of this motion.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am sure the gentleman from New Jersey must realize that the conference and negotiations are ongoing and that these very decisions have yet to be made. I am surprised by the rhetoric on the other side that they do not recognize that 39 Republican Senators recently voted for a Medicare prescription drug fallback provision. They had to have known what they were doing on that vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), one of the youngest and brightest minds of the United States Congress.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, a person once told me that only silly people have heroes in their lives. If that is true, then this silly person rises today to congratulate and thank a hero in my life, my high school basketball coach, Tom Manchester, who is being inducted into the Wisconsin Basketball Coaches Association Hall of Fame. Coach Manchester is a native of Racine, Wisconsin, and played basketball and baseball at Wartburg College, Iowa. Fortunately, for many of us northsiders, kids who grew up on the northside of La Crosse, Wisconsin, Coach Manchester accepted a teaching position at Logan High School and became the head basketball coach in 1977. He coached from 1977 to 1997, and finished with a 224-209 record and many city titles and Big Rivers Conference Championships. I had the pleasure of playing for him starting in my sophomore year in high school in 1978 and finishing in 1981. I was a member of his team when we struggled to be competitive my sophomore year, and then saw the remarkable transformation the next 2 years when we won back-to- back city championships, and also won our conference and became one of the top-ranked teams in the State of Wisconsin. He must have seen something in me that I did not at the time because he plucked me off the streets and made me a starting guard my sophomore year even though it was obvious that I was wet behind the ears and qualified as a ``work in progress.'' I will never forget one of my first games with Coach Manchester. I took the in-bounds pass to break a full-court press, asked for my teammates to clear out the second half of the court so I could break the press by myself, and then proceeded to dribble off my heel when I went between my legs on a dribble. The whistle blew when the ball went out of bounds. The buzzer sounded for a substitution. I ran to the bench assuming I was going to be replaced, only to have Coach Manchester ask me what I was doing. The substitute was for someone else, and he told me to get back out there and get used to making some mistakes because we had some learning to do. Basketball for Coach Manchester was more than winning and losing. Everyone likes to win, but I never had the impression playing for him that all that mattered was the score at the end of the game. He was always first and foremost concerned about his players, not only how we were playing, but how school was going and whether things were going well in our lives. For many of us growing up on the north side of La Crosse, which was considered the wrong side of the railroad tracks in town, presented us with some unique challenges and some choices to make. We could, if we wanted to, hang out on the street corners and run with the wrong crowd, getting into trouble and disappointing our parents, or we could find another channel for our energies and focus. That channel for many of us was in sports and in school, and Coach Manchester knew this. The gym became our safe haven and the team our extended family. There was no greater feeling of comfort and security than walking into that dark, cold, smelly gym on a weekend winter night for practice before a big game and having Coach Manchester check on our personal lives and get us prepared for the next contest. His wife, Jan, must have been very understanding to allow him leave from his family to spend as much time as he did with us kids. But we were not always alone. His young son Paul was the classic gym rat, dribbling and shooting off in another corner while the rest of us were practicing. Paul would later grow up to enjoy a spectacular high school career playing for his father at Logan, and then a terrific collegiate career at the University of Platteville and then the University of La Crosse. I cannot imagine the pride Coach Manchester must have felt coaching his son and watching him grow up to be the person he is today. It has been said that great teachers enjoy a form of immortality because their influence never stops radiating. If true, then Coach Manchester is immortal. That influence can be seen today in so many of us kids who had the pleasure to play for and learn from one of the finest coaches in the State of Wisconsin. I am glad the Wisconsin Basketball Coaches Association is recognizing that by inducting him into their Hall of Fame. I just hope Coach Manchester realizes the impact he has made on so many of our lives. Young kids need guidance. They need role models, people in their lives to teach them right and wrong and how to be good citizens. They also need from time to time a hero to look up to. I found one of mine, and whether it is silly or not, I do not mind saying that it is Coach Tom Manchester of Logan High School. I congratulate the coach and thank him for all he has done.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), for the courtesy and consideration that he is showing in allowing this brief discussion. It is my intent that after a brief debate on this amendment I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw and we will go to final passage at this time. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all commend the work that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has done on this important piece of legislation. I think it is a good bill. It is a bill that can be made better. I think there has been important progress in a variety of areas, especially the provisions relating to the Corps of Engineers reform. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the inclusion of these critical Corps reform measures demonstrate a critical recognition that reforms are necessary in how the Corps of Engineers conducts their projects throughout the country and accomplish many of the goals that I set forth nearly 4 years ago when I introduced the Army Corps of Engineer Reform Act of 2000. These efforts are an important first step towards assuring that the Corps properly plans, constructs, and operates projects and provides Congress with accurate information. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, briefly would build on the committee's efforts to improve the Corps record on mitigation of civil works projects. The committee took an important step in requiring the Corps to include critical information in its mitigation plans. Unfortunately, I do not think it goes quite far enough. I am hoping that we can keep an open mind as the Senate begins their work on WRDA and as we enter the conference committee that perhaps some more improvements can be made with the Corps reforms that are recommended in this base bill. The Corps track record on mitigation certainly needs improvement. In May 2002, the General Accounting Office reported that the Corps had proposed no mitigation for almost 70 percent of its projects. In addition, despite the existing requirement that the Corps carry out its mitigation concurrently with project construction, the GAO also reported that the Corps has not done so for over 80 percent of the projects where mitigation is supposed to occur. Mr. Chairman, failure to properly mitigate has real implications for the Nation's health and economic well-being. For example, when wetlands losses are not mitigated, water quality is harmed, water supplies are strained, flood damage increases, and wildlife is harmed. Wetlands filter pollutants from water, absorb and slow the release of storm runoff, recharge aquifers, provide crucial wildlife habitat for millions of migrating waterfowl, shore birds, and other species and provide recreation and enjoyment to millions of Americans who visit wetlands areas throughout the year. We must correct this situation and quickly. My amendment to section 2030 would do so by requiring the Corps to first fully mitigate habitat loss from the construction of Corps projects by replacing at a minimum each acre of damaged habitat with an equivalent or superior acre of habitat. Second, complete at least 50 percent of mitigation before construction begins with the remainder to be completed when the project construction is complete wherever it is physically possible. Third, to prepare detailed mitigation plans that have a high likelihood of successfully replacing loss values and that require monitoring to ensure success. I wish to emphasize that these recommendations are not mine alone but are also those from a panel of experts of the National Academies of Research Council. Speaking to the specific issue of compensating for wetland loss, the NRC's Water Science and Technology Board recommended, ``Restoration and creation of wetlands should occur simultaneously or before the filling of the natural wetland and according to established design criteria that are better monitored and enforced.'' Again, I would reiterate that hopefully we can keep an open mind as we move forward with the work of the Senate and begin work on the conference report whenever that might occur so we can improve upon, I think, significant improvements that have been made in the area of Corps reform and perhaps produce a better bill at the end of the day for the protection of wetlands and habitats throughout our country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and again I want to thank my friend from Tennessee for the courtesy he has shown and my colleagues for their patience. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Kind moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be instructed as follows: (1) The House recede to the Senate on the provisions to guarantee access to prescription drug coverage under section 1860D-13(e) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 101(a) of the Senate amendment. (2) To reject the provisions of section 501 of the House bill. (3) The House recede to the Senate on the following provisions of the Senate amendment to improve rural health care: (A) Section 403 (relating to inpatient hospital adjustment for low volume hospitals). (B) Section 404 (relating to medicare disproportionate share adjustment for rural areas), but with the effective date applicable under section 401(b) of the House bill. (C) Section 404A (relating to MedPAC report on medicare disproportionate share hospital adjustment payments). (D) The following provisions of section 405 (relating to critical access hospital improvements): (i) Subsection (a), but with the effective date applicable under section 405(f)(4) of the House bill. (ii) Subsection (b), but with the effective date applicable under section 405(c)(2) of the House bill. (iii) Subsections (e), (f), and (g). (E) Section 414 (relating to rural community hospital demonstration program). (F) Section 415 (relating to critical access hospital improvement demonstration program). (G) Section 417 (relating to treatment of certain entities for purposes of payment under the medicare program). (H) Section 420 (relating to conforming changes relating to Federally qualified health centers). (I) Section 420A (relating to increase for hospitals with disproportionate indigent care revenues). (J) Section 421 (relating to establishment of floor on geographic adjustments of payments for physicians' services). (K) Section 425 (relating to temporary increase for ground ambulance services), but with the effective date applicable under the amendment made by section 410(2) of the House bill. (L) Section 426 (relating to appropriate coverage of air ambulance services under ambulance fee schedule). (M) Section 427 (relating to treatment of certain clinical diagnostic laboratory tests furnished by a sole community hospital). (N) Section 428 (relating to improvement in rural health clinic reimbursement). (O) Section 444 (relating to GAO study of geographic differences in payments for physicians' services). (P) Section 450C (relating to authorization of reimbursement for all medicare part B services furnished by Indian hospitals and clinics). (Q) Section 452 (relating to limitation on reduction in area wage adjustment factors under the prospective payment system for home health services). (R) Section 455 (relating to MedPAC study on medicare payments and efficiencies in the health care system). (S) Section 459 (relating to increase in medicare payment for certain home health services). (T) Section 601 (Increase in medicaid DSH allotments for fiscal years 2004 and 2005). (4) The House insist upon the following provisions of the House bill: (A) Section 402 (relating to immediate establishment of uniform standardized amount in rural and small urban areas). (B) Section 403 (relating to establishment of essential rural hospital classification). (C) Subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e) of section 405 (relating to improvements to critical access hospital program). (D) Section 416 (relating to revision of labor-related share of hospital inpatient pps wage index). (E) Section 417 (relating to medicare incentive payment program improvements). (F) Section 504 (relating to wage index classification reform). (G) Section 601 (relating to revision of updates for physician services). (H) Section 1001 (relating to medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 49, the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act. This bill would make permanent the national moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on e-commerce. The United States has made great strides in the goal of achieving Internet access for all Americans. As I travel throughout my district in western Wisconsin, I am constantly amazed to see the continued use of the Internet in public libraries, schools and hospitals, as well as individual homes and businesses. As the telephone did 100 years ago, the Internet is improving our lives and bringing us closer together as a world community. Mr. Speaker, the previous legislation dealing with Internet taxation grandfathered existing laws in 10 states, including Wisconsin that imposed taxes on Internet access. The revenue from the taxes was used to pay for police officers, firefighters, hospital personnel, and elementary and secondary school teachers. In these times of tight state budgets and fiscal uncertainty, every tax dollar is crucial to deliver needed services to citizens throughout the country. However, when the Federal Government unilaterally removes tax revenue by superceding state laws, state budgets take the hit. Congress must take state government needs and budget schedules when passing laws that supercede state taxation laws. Mr. Speaker, the language in the Senate version of this bill includes a provision providing for a 3-year delay in the implementation of the law in those states with previous Internet access tax laws. This provision will afford those states the opportunity to plan for the loss of revenue from H.R. 49. I am voting for H.R. 49 because I believe it is important to keep Internet access affordable so all Americans across the economic spectrum. However, I think it is only fair to state governments that they have proper notice about the lost of tax revenue dollars. Thus, I will be urging conferees to adopt the Senate language allowing for a 3- year delay of this law in those 10 states with Internet access tax laws.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to honor my good friend Oscar Peterslie who received the Outstanding Older Worker award in the State of Wisconsin for 2003 by the Experience Works Prime Time Awards Program. Experience Works, a nonprofit focused on employment, training and community services for older workers, began the Prime Time Awards Program 6 years ago, and Oscar is the first winner from La Crosse, Wisconsin. I applaud Oscar who, at the age of 81, currently works more than 40 hours per week as an assistant manager for the Pearl Ice Cream Parlor at 207 Pearl Street in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The La Crosse community is fortunate to have an old-fashioned ice cream parlor such as Pearl's. I cannot think of a better place to bring my two sons, Johnny and Matthew, on a warm summer evening to enjoy their special homemade ice cream and candy. Oscar, his son TJ, daughter-in-law Michelle and their daughters always offer a warm greeting to customers that walk through their door. Moreover, for several years I have had the pleasure of living down the block from the ice cream parlor on historic Pearl Street, allowing me to frequently stop over for my favorite homemade chocolate ice cream, a convenience that has put considerable pressure on my belt line. The work that Oscar, TJ, and Michelle do in the La Crosse community helps make western Wisconsin a special place to live and to raise a family. In addition to Oscar's work at the ice cream parlor, he has contributed significantly to our country and local businesses in Wisconsin. During World War II, he was a Marine sergeant in the Pacific Theater. After the war, he managed the A & P grocery store in La Crosse for 21 years and then became a real estate agent until 1993. It is apparent that service to our community has always been important to Oscar Peterslie. He remains active in numerous community activities and services as a member of the La Crosse Masonic Temple, Badger Lodge number 345. He is also widely known as a Shriner's clown, brightening the faces of both young and old as he works the parades with his infamous 3-foot harmonica. Mr. Speaker, may everyone learn from the service and dedication shown by this noble and honorable man, Oscar Peterslie, Wisconsin's Outstanding Older Worker for 2003. Oscar has made a difference in the La Crosse community and created a chocolate ice cream addiction I do not think I will ever be able to break.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Flake/McGovern amendment to lift the United States travel ban to Cuba. Over the past 40 years, our policy of isolation toward Cuba has been an arguable failure. The removal of the totalitarian regime in Cuba has not occurred--even a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba's primary financial sponsor. Positive movements toward political change have not occurred in Cuba over the past 40 years--even as an overwhelming number of former communist regimes have collapsed and embraced democratic principles. These factors beg the question of whether our current policy toward Cuba is the best course of action for the people of the United States and the people of Cuba. At the very least, these factors demand that we reexamine our current policy. With the free exchange of ideas and words profoundly important in American culture, it seems contradictory that our government would deny its people the opportunity to peaceably spread this concept without unnecessary restrictions. lf the central mission of American Foreign policy is to protect Americans and our interests abroad, how does restricting the ability of Americans to travel to Cuba, a nation deemed by the U.S. Department of Defense as not posing a ``military threat to the U.S. or to any other countries in the region,'' justifiable? I am concerned that Cuban civilians suffer under government oppression, and it is time to confront the fact that denying direct American tourism to Cuba has resulted in no beneficial change. The island of Cuba is only 90 miles away from the United States and is surrounded by nations that embrace democracy. Positive steps to bring American ideas and words to Cuba are the right course of action, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday July 23, 2003 I was unable to record my vote on final passage of H.R. 2800, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY04, and the four recorded votes on amendments immediately preceding. My unfortunate and unavoidable absence was due to the fact that I fell very ill earlier in the evening. Had I been able to vote I would have voted the following: Rollcall No. 425: ``yes,'' Rollcall No. 426: ``yes,'' Rollcall No. 427: ``no,'' Rollcall No. 428: ``yes,'' and Rollcall No. 429: ``yes.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the Committee for including in the report on the Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill language reiterating its support for the East Central European Scholarship Program (ECESP). This program has operated successfully for a number of years at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and has had positive impacts not only in the various Balkan nations on which it is focused, but also on the La Crosse campus of the University of Wisconsin. As we look at the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan today, it is clear how critically important it is that we work to ensure that nations taking shape in the aftermath of conflict have the human resources to sustain democratic institutions and free market economies. Over the past 14 years, ECESP has conducted technical training for democratic institution building, health care administration, and financial sector management, among other fields. The program's efforts have resulted in strengthened skills and understanding for over 1200 administrators, managers and government leaders. ECESP alumni include members of national parliaments and the European Council, bank examiners of central banks, hospital administrators as well as administrators of nongovernmental and non-profit organizations. From 1989 until 1998, ECESP focused its work in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, assisting in the systemic reforms required for integration into the European community. Since 1998, ECESP has been engaged in similar efforts focusing on Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Romania. I look forward to working with USAID, institutions of higher learning, and my colleagues in Congress to help expand this program model in the former Soviet Republics and Central Asia, as recommended by a recent USAID funded evaluation, and explore similar possibilities in the Middle East. Over the last decade, the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, through ECESP, has been able to provide training to some 300 financial managers from all of the participating ECESP countries. That training has provided these managers with expertise in bank risk management, financial management, and supervision of financial institutions, all of which are critically important to stable market economies. At the same time, the program has enabled U.S. students on the UW-La Crosse campus to benefit from interaction with the international students and a greater awareness of international perspectives in these areas. USAID is currently considering a new multiyear agreement with the Center for Intercultural Education and Development based at Georgetown University, which manages ECESP. As that agreement is finalized, I strongly encourage USAID and the Department of State to maintain the current level of support for this important and successful program. ECESP is an important component in our efforts to stabilize the Balkan region, and it is a commitment that we need to see through.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Chile-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA). While I maintain reservations about certain sections of this agreement, overall I believe that this FTA succeeds in lowering tariffs on American goods entering Chile and will benefit Wisconsin and the United States. As our Nation leads the world into the 21st century, we should not shy from opportunities to guide and expand global trade. Chile has persevered as a model of successful, pro-trade economic growth in a region scarred by economic turmoil. Our enhanced engagement with Chile, symbolized in the free trade agreement, is a necessary commitment to stability and economic prosperity in Latin America, while at the same time serving to expand American export opportunities. The U.S.-Chile Agreement will essentially level the playing field for U.S. companies and workers. Currently, Chile imposes a uniform tariff of six percent on American exports. Under this agreement, the tariff will be eliminated immediately on approximately 85 percent of U.S. exports. Tariffs on the remaining exports will phase out over the next 4 to 12 years. In comparison, 65 percent of Chile's exports enter the United States duty-free under the Generalized System of Preferences program, with the remaining goods facing an average duty of 0.5 percent. With the United States economy still in a slump, the consequences of not pursuing an FTA with Chile are extreme for American workers. In 2001, exports from the United States to Chile totaled over $3 billion. This was 17 percent of all imports into Chile and made the U.S. Chile's largest single country trade partner. Over the past 2 years, however, the percentage of American imports into Chile has decreased as other international competitors have completed FTA's with Chile, including Mexico, Canada, Central America, European Union, and South Korea, and have taken over as major suppliers to the Chilean market. As a result, the U.S. has seen its share of the Chilean market drop by one third, and its bilateral trade position reverse from surplus to deficit. This define in market share is evident in my home state of Wisconsin. For example, in 2000, Wisconsin exports to Chile totaled over $120 million--in the top quarter of all U.S. states. Of this amount, over $90 million was in industrial machinery. However, in 2002, Wisconsin exports to Chile declined to $72 million total and $47 million in industrial machinery. The FTA with Chile will benefit Wisconsin in additional ways, including opening up the Chilean market to U.S. agriculture imports. Chile's tariffs on dairy imports from the U.S. will drop from as high as ten percent to zero in four years. The National Milk Producers Federation expects that exports will increase by several million dollars during the first few years of the agreement, and continue to grown down the road. As I mentioned earlier, I do have concerns with this agreement, but on its merits, I believe the FTA with Chile addresses a number of important issues and will benefit the American economy. Today's trade environment is constantly changing, with non-tariff trade issues impacting all aspects of our economy and law. Through 14 rounds of negations over 2 years, negotiators were able to hammer out agreements on very complicated and important issues including intellectual property, e-commerce, agriculture, market access, and government procurement. In these respects, this FTA addresses growing challenges facing international trade in the 21st century. Controversy remains on a few very important aspects of any trade agreement--those dealing with labor and environment. While these provisions are some of the most difficult to find agreement on with potential trade partners, I along with many in Congress, believe trade agreements can serve to raise labor and environmental standards in developing nations and that such provisions must be included in bilateral trade agreements. While differing from the labor provisions in the Jordan agreement, the labor language in this bill, requiring Chile to enforce its labor laws or be subject to penalty, is acceptable because there is wide agreement that Chile's labor laws are consistent with high International Labor Organization standards and are systematically enforced. In addition, there is wide agreement that, while possible, it is very unlikely that Chile would ever lower labor standards to entice trade. I, along with many members, also remain concerned with the inclusion of immigration policy in a fast tracked trade bill. While the USTR argues that the temporary workers provisions can be an aspect of services trade, I believe that Congress must thoroughly debate any changes to immigration policy. These objections were strongly conveyed by my colleagues and I to the USTR, and as a result the implementing language before us includes language placing certain H1-B visa restrictions and caps on the temporary worker provisions in this agreement that were previously excluded. Trade agreements cannot be one-size-fits-all, and this comprehensive bilateral agreement conforms to the characteristics of Chile and the United States. With an open and developed economy grounded in market- based principles, a strong and growing middle class, a credible labor movement, and laws respecting human rights, Chile is a model trading partner. It is in the strategic interest, and economic interest of the United States to engage Chile and complete our nation's 5th bilateral free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act (H.R. 2427). Every day, seniors in western Wisconsin face the escalating cost of prescription drugs. A recent Families USA study found that the prices of the 50 drugs most commonly used by seniors increased by an average of three and a half times the rate of inflation over the past year. And between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased by 44 percent. One solution for many Wisconsin residents is to drive to Canada where they can purchase prescription medication at a substantial savings compared to a drug store in the United States. On average, American consumes in 2002 were charged 38 percent more than consumers in Canada. A 38 percent savings is sizable amount of money to an individual on a fix income. H.R. 2427 would help all seniors realize this savings. The legislation we are debating today is about inserting competition into drug pricing, to ensure that Americans no longer have to pay a 25- to 40-percent premium over the prices paid in other countries. As we embark on the largest entitlement expansion in recent history, $400 billion, we must ensure that we get the best price for prescription medicines. We owe it to our taxpayers to ensure that they are getting the best bang for their buck. The legislation before us would lower prescription drug costs for all American consumers by allowing the importation of drugs with appropriate safeguards. This legislation mandates that the Food and Drug Administration approve drugs and manufacturing facilities before reimportation. In addition, imported drugs must be packaged and shipped using approved counterfeit-resistant technologies. The truth is, more people in Wisconsin have become sick from imported strawberries than from imported prescription drugs. Today, the FDA only imports roughly 1 percent of imported food. Surely we can do a better job of ensuring the safety of imported drugs. As I travel around my district in western Wisconsin I consistently hear about the high cost of prescription medicines, not only from my seniors but also from businesses and average citizens. The Pharmaceutical Market Access Act is a significant step in the right direction to bring prescription drug costs down and ensure that all Americans have better access to affordable medicines. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2327.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, change for any program can be a good thing, if it is change the right way. That is why I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Head Start bill this evening. The recommended changes are wrong for the children of the Head Start program. The story of Head Start is that it works. It is a highly successful program. Studies have shown for every $1 we invest in children at this age in Head Start programs, we realize $4 to $7 worth of savings down the line. There is not a business person in the country that would not take that deal. According to surveys, 96 percent of the Head Start families express a high level of satisfaction with their Head Start programs because of the quality and the accountability that exists there already. That is probably why there has been such overwhelming opposition to the radical Republican transformation of the Head Start program before us tonight. We have heard the concerns of the block grant proposal that they are recommending without accountability or quality assurances. We have also heard the concerns that the bill would legalize religious discrimination in the Head Start program. What we have not heard this evening is that under their bill they call for a reduction in funding for professional development programs, again affecting the quality of these programs. What we also have not heard, perhaps a very important issue, is that they are planning on moving forward with an entirely new testing regime by this fall for these 3- and 4-year-olds, when experts in early childhood development tell us, unless we do it right, unless we have the right measurements, it could do more harm than good for these children. That is why I got included in the legislation a National Academy of Sciences study to recommend what measurements are appropriate for children. But instead of waiting for the results of that study, they are moving forward on an untested, unscientific, new testing system this fall, which could do our children more harm. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I join educators, parents, and Head Start staff around Wisconsin as well as many of my colleagues here today in opposing drastic changes to the highly successful, early education Head Start program. Changes offered by the Bush Administration and backed by the Republican Congressional majority threaten the program, which has helped millions of high-risk children from impoverished families achieve academic success. In the 38 years of Head Start, there has always been bipartisan consensus to continue this program that currently helps more than 13,000 children in Wisconsin and 2,000 in the 3rd Congressional district alone. As a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, it is my believe that the majority leaders have put our 3- and 4-year-old children in the middle of a partisan tug-of-war. Under the bill, which I voted against during the committee consideration, the burden of Head Start would be on the shoulders of cash-strapped States through a series of block grants. Under current law, the Department of Health and Human Services gives money directly to local Head Start programs. Under the proposed changes, however, block grants would be administered by new State bureaucracies, which would cost additional money and provide no guarantee the money would go towards Head Start. Nearly every State in the nation is facing a budget deficit. We cannot take the chance that one dime of this critical funding would fail to go towards Head Start and the kids it serves. Educators and parents are particularly upset with the changes because of the success rate of Head Start. Further, numerous studies indicate that every dollar spent on Head Start saves taxpayers $4 to $7 in the future due to savings and lower education and welfare expenses. I offered a series of amendments to H.R. 2210 during Committee markup and again to the Rules committee last week. The first amendment would restore to current law the 2 percent set aside for training and technical assistance for improving program quality in Head Start. We know the key to quality Head Start programming is having quality teachers dealing with the students. And, yet, the base bill before us would actually go backwards. It would decrease the training and technical assistance fund to an undetermined amount between 1 and 2 percent. That is especially disconcerting since we know that approximately 2.5 percent of Head Start funds are currently being spent on such programs. This money is critical for quality staff. Funds are being used to supplement teacher salaries and train staff in a variety of areas. For example, this funding is used to improve staff qualifications, to implement early childhood curriculum, to assess child development, to monitor child health and safety, provide human resources training, support parenting and family services, and to better integrate the use of technology in Head Start centers in working with these kids. Now is not the time we should be going back on the maximum amount that is allowed for ongoing training and technical assistance. Furthermore, I offered an amendment that would have halted the National Reporting System until the National Academy of Science (NAS) reports to Congress on the appropriate standards and benchmarks for school readiness and valid measures of assessment. I am concerned with the Administration's implementation of a country- wide testing system for Head Start children despite protests by early child education experts who question the validity and reliability of the assessments developed. The National Research Council's ``Eager To Learn'' report warns, ``assessments must be used carefully and appropriately if they are to resolve and not create educational problems.'' Thus, while we support ongoing assessments of Head Start children to help ensure their school readiness, these specific assessments were developed behind closed doors and with very little input from Congress, Head Start Centers, or other experts. Reauthorization provides Congress with an opportunity to evaluate appropriate standards and benchmarks for school readiness, as well as valid measures of assessments for Head Start students. Unfortunately, efforts to slow down and properly evaluate the National Reporting System during Committee consideration were defeated. For the sake of our children, it is important that these assessments are not rushed and are given ample review before implementation. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 2210. I will not support any legislation that reduces the opportunities for children. All children deserve a high-quality prekindergarten program and according to numerous studies that is exactly what Head Start children currently receive.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA). While I maintain reservations about certain sections of this agreement, overall I believe that this FTA will benefit Wisconsin and the United States. As our nation leads the world into the 21st century, we should not shy from opportunities to guide and expand global trade. Singapore is a model of successful, pro-trade economic growth in a region still seeking to establish stable economies. Our enhanced engagement with Singapore, symbolized in the free trade agreement, is a necessary commitment to stability and economic prosperity in Asia, while at the same time serving to expand American export opportunities. The U.S.-Singapore FTA builds upon an already strong trade relationship with mutually low tariffs. While over $16 billion in American imports in 2002, Singapore is the 11th largest export market for the U.S. This includes over 120,000 manufactured goods exported to Singapore from Wisconsin with a total value of $102 million, including $42.6 million in industry machinery. Some of the most important benefits to U.S. workers in this agreement will be realized by addressing issues of growing concern for international trade in the 21st century. Today's trade environment is constantly changing, with non-tariff trade issues impacting all aspects of our economy and law. Through numerous rounds of negotiation over 3 years, negotiators were able to reach agreements on very complicated and important issues including state-of-the-art intellectual property protections, e-commerce, market access, and government procurement. Further, this agreement increases government transparency and regulatory reform necessary to protect American businesses and women. As I mentioned earlier, I do have concerns with this agreement, but on its merits, I believe the FTA with Singapore addresses a number of important issues and will benefit the American economy. It also serves to demonstrate to other Asian nations the high standards demanded by the U.S. when engaging in trade relationship. As with the Chile Agreement, controversy remains on a few very important aspects of any trade agreement--those dealing with labor and environment. While these provisions are some of the most difficult to find agreement on with potential trade partners, I, along with many in Congress, believe bilateral trade agreements can serve to raise labor and environmental standards in developing nations an must be included in FTA's. While the labor provisions in this agreement differ from those in the Jordan agreement, the labor language of this bill, requiring Singapore to enforce its labor laws or be subject to penalty, is acceptable because there is wide agreement that Singapore's labor laws are consistent with high International Labor Organization standards and are systematically enforced. In addition, there is wide agreement that, while possible, it is very unlikely that Singapore would regress and lower labor standards to entice trade. I, along with many members, also remain concerned with the inclusion of immigration policy in a fast tracked trade bill. While the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) argues that the temporary worker provisions can be an aspect of services trade, I believe that Congress must thoroughly debate any changes to immigration policy. These objections were strongly conveyed by my colleagues and me to the USTR, and as a result, the implementing language before us includes language placing certain H1-B visa restrictions and caps on the temporary worker provisions in this agreement that were previously excluded. One of the most confusing aspects of this agreement relates to the Integrated Sourcing Initiative (IS). I, along with many members, had serious reservations about this ambiguous provision as originally drafted and raised these concerns with the USTR. The implementing bill before us, however, includes language virtually nullifying the transshipment concerns with the original draft. Under this bill, the ISI only applies to the limited number of information and medical technology products already allowed to enter the United States duty free under the WTO's Information Technology Agreement. And, contrary to the original draft, this list of eligible products cannot be expanded without congressional approval. In order for a third party to take advantage of the ISI, the eligible product would have to first be shipped to the U.S. from the country of origin, then to Singapore, and then back to the United States. Given these restrictions, there is wide agreement that the ISI will not pose a threat to American workers. Trade agreements cannot be one-size-fits-all, and this comprehensive bilateral agreement conforms to the characteristics of Singapore and the United States. With an open and developed economy grounded in market-based principles, a strong and growing middle class, and laws respecting human rights, Singapore, like Chile, is a model trading partner. It is in the strategic interest, and economic interest to engage Singapore and complete this bilateral free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise before you today to honor Dorothy Konichek for her commendable service to the community of Prairie du Chien. Mrs. Konichek is celebrating her 80th birthday and has been a citizen of Prairie du Chien for 64 of those years. As we celebrate this special day, we must also honor Mrs. Konichek for her distinguished citizenship and service. She has an unbelievable dedication to serving her community and has extended her goodwill to many organizations. Mrs. Konichek has given countless hours to the seniors in her community by volunteering at the Care Center. She eagerly offers her generosity and kindness of heart to ensure that the well-being of the senior members of Prairie du Chien is met. She has tirelessly given her time at the Meadow Lane Group Home for the developmentally disabled and has eagerly taken on leadership positions in her church and community that have contributed to the welfare of Prairie du Chien's youth. I am proud to congratulate Dorothy Konichek on the celebration of her 80th birthday. It is important that we all recognize and commend her for her remarkable character and distinguished citizenship. Her commitment to service has supported the community of Prairie du Chien for 64 years. Mrs. Konichek embodies a standard of service that can be appreciated by all who live in the State of Wisconsin. Alma Center, WI, June 22, 2003. Representative Ron Kind, House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Representative Kind: My mother, Dorothy Konichek, long time resident of Prairie du Chien, will be celebrating her 80th birthday on July 28, 2003. She has been a valuable citizen of Wisconsin for about 78 years and a resident Prairie du Chien for 64 of those years. I am requesting from your office a Letter of Commendation for her years of giving to the people of Prairie du Chien, making it a better city in which to live. No, these are not the types of things that will get you in the local paper but people doing these types of things are what make for healthy communities. Here are the reasons why I feel such. a commendation is in order. Den mother with the Boy Scouts; Girl Scout leader; Sunday School teacher in her local church; her many hours of service to the developmentally disabled at the Meadow Lane group home; volunteering at the Care Center; looking after many elderly persons throughout the years, cleaning their homes and providing meals; being there with a listening ear for more people than I could count; and taking people for groceries who do not drive. The list could go on and on. My mother is truly a person who loves and cares for the people around her never asking for anything in return. I'm sure you will agree that people like this are what make for a strong community. I feel she has helped to make Prairie du Chien a better place to live. Thank you for considering my request. Her five children are hosting an open house for her on July 19th, at the Faith Evangelical Free Church, in Prairie du Chien, from 1:30-4:30, with a special program being held at 2 p.m. If you feel you can honor my request, the letter would be presented at that time. You may write me at the above address or e-mail me. Thank you for your response. Sincerely yours, Mary (Konichek) Mandigo.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 212, offered by my friend and colleague, Representative Sam Johnson. This resolution properly recognizes the service sacrifice of the 22 nations, thousands of American service members, and millions of South Korean citizens who stood together half a century ago in defense of the principle of freedom. The Korean Conflict is often referred to as the Forgotten War. Yet, this war is only ``forgotten'' by those who have not been blessed with the teachings of history--not by the millions of Americans, whose lives have been touched in so many ways by those committed to opposing tyranny and injustice, regardless of the sacrifices required. America entered the Korean War with a military made up of a mix of war-scarred servicemen and women toughened by the hard lessons of Guadalcanal, Okinawa and Normandy, as well as a new generation of soldiers and sailors who had only seen war on the silver screen, and a newly created Air Force. After three long, bloody years, the fighting ended. We had rebuilt a military that became, even by today's standards, one of the most coherent fighting forces in the world. The alliance, consisting of units from 22 nations, supported an armistice that prevented the potential death of millions more in a savage, spreading war, and permitted South Korea to flourish into a miracle of freedom that we witness today. Tragically, nearly 37,000 American soldiers fell on the fields of battle and lost their lives in the Korean War. There were also far too many who were taken prisoner or met an unknown fate, whose ranks of over 8,000 remain today unaccounted for, but never forgotten. Indeed today, this nation continues to search for every missing warrior who fought to preserve the freedom we cherish; we seek and demand the fullest possible accounting of America's fallen heroes. It is our solemn promise that we will never forget or forsake them. Nor will we forget the veterans who returned home to help reshape this nation and the world. And while some returned to parades and fanfare, many returned quietly without public recognition and the ``thanks'' they deserved. On July 27, 2003, our nation will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the armistice with North Korea--giving us the opportunity to reaffirm our appreciation and extend the gratitude some soldiers never received. Many Americans, including the thousands of veterans and their families from that war, will take a moment to remember the meaning of their service: whether they rest in Korea, remain unaccounted for, or have returned home to their families and the freedom they fought to defend. More than 1.5 million Americans served during the Korean War. Today, Americans are still there on-point, still defending freedom in Korea. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines serve alongside their South Korean counterparts, astride what has been called the world's most dangerous border. We pause today to recall with gratitude the sacrifices of all veterans who have served the causes of democracy and freedom. To the veterans of the Korean War and their families, we especially offer our thanks. The world could be a significantly less friendly place if you had not stepped forward selflessly when you were needed. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, from Korea to Iraq, let's not forget the sacrifices our men and women in uniform, and indeed their families have made on behalf of this great country. Remember too, that on any given day, there are Americans on guard, demonstrating and defending democracy and freedom in over 100 countries around the world. God bless our service members, our veterans and their families. God bless America.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill to expand funding for the low-income weatherization program and other important energy efficiency programs. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. Weatherization programs help all Americans in all areas of the country, from those congressional districts with hot, sweltering summers to my Third Congressional District of Wisconsin, which as you know experiences long, bitter cold winters. During this year of unprecedented rising energy prices, it is important that this Congress have an honest discussion of our nation's energy policy. Importantly, this amendment shows the American people our dedication to energy conservation measures. Mr. Chairman, much of the focus on our current energy crisis has been the rising price of crude oil and natural gas. But in my district and throughout the country, the price of heating oil has risen as much as 30 percent in the past year. Conservation efforts such as the weatherization assistance program go a long way to helping us become less dependent on foreign oil. Mr. Chairman, the weatherization assistance program helps correct the disproportionate energy burden faced by low-income Americans. The program has helped make over five million homes more energy efficient and the average home has seen heating savings of 23 percent. With many low-income households spending over $1,200 on energy costs annually, this energy efficiency savings can further help these families afford the basic necessities of life. Mr. Speaker we do not want any of our citizens having to make the difficult choice between food and fuel. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.