Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First of all, I do not believe the amendment has any practical effect. There are no funds currently expended by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management in regards to the bear baiting that is going on, but there is a larger issue at stake. This amendment would overturn over 200 years of Federal precedents of deferring to State agencies, State wildlife experts, and the people of the States in the management of their own wildlife herds. Nine States choose to allow bear baiting because it is the most effective and humane manner of managing bear populations where it is very difficult to go in and hunt them anyway. We have had cases in northern Wisconsin where bears are walking into towns, walking into public school yards because their population is exploding. If you take this management tool away from States like Wisconsin, like Michigan, like Minnesota, we fear there is going to be an explosion of the bear population and an unnecessary risk to children's lives and other people's lives. Mr. Chairman, I think we should stay true to historical precedent. The Federal agencies have deferred to the States on this issue. That is how it has been for 200-plus years. That is how it should remain. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Harley-Davidson Motor Company, an institution that has been a significant part of the social, economic, and cultural heritage of the United States. Harley-Davidson is special to Wisconsin. In 1903, William S. Harley and Arthur Davidson designed and produced their first motorcycle. They continued to manufacture motorcycles, with help from Walter and William Davidson in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and soon the city became headquarters for the Harley-Davidson Motor Company. Since the first small shop opened a century ago, Harley-Davidson has designed and produced millions of motorcycles enjoyed by people all over the globe. From the first V-twin powered motorcycle in 1909 to the Softail Deuce in 2003, Harley-Davidson has proven itself to be a leader in technological innovation, a tradition we hope will continue for years to come. Mr. Speaker, Harley-Davidson has come to the service for this country when asked and without hesitation. During World War I, the company supplied 17,000 motorcycles for dispatch and scouting use by the Allied armed forces. In fact, the first Allied soldier to enter Germany after the signing of the Armistice was riding a Harley. At the outbreak of World War II, the company almost entirely suspended its civilian line in favor of military production. By war's end, almost 90,000 motorcycles were produced for the military. When we constantly hear stories of corporate greed and misconduct, it is refreshing to have a company like Harley-Davidson leading by example by donating millions to reputable charities. For example, since 1980 the company has been a national corporate sponsor of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, raising more than $40 million to fund research and health services. The impeccable craftsmanship and high-reliability of Harley-Davidson motorcycles is evident in the company's intensely loyal fan base. Since its inception 20 years ago, the Harley Owners Group, affectionately known as ``H.O.G.,'' has grown to more than 800,000 members and 1,200 chapters worldwide. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the 8,168 employees, over 4,000 of which are in the great state of Wisconsin, Harley-Davidson for their 100 years of hard work and dedication. Each of them is part of a company that has enjoyed a long, rich history and tradition. I know I stand with the rest of my colleagues in wishing Harley-Davidson the best of luck for the next 100 years.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, to a farmer, `erosion' is the progressive loss of some of the best means to robust and sustained production from their lands. It is one of the most expensive and difficult problems threatening their liveliehood--but, fortunately, it is a loss many farmers prevent by enrolling some of their marginal working lands in voluntary conservation programs. Now, Mr. Chairman, I mention this because of the cynical irony at hand--today, it is Congress that must act to prevent another form of `erosion', the erosion of legislation this Congress passed with great debate just one year ago--the 2002 Farm Bill. At the time, I led an effort to increase funding to conservation programs that are available to all farmers because I strongly believed the 2002 Farm Bill to be too heavily weighted to primarily assisting the largest growers of a few commodity crops in a handful of states. Because of this lopsided tilt toward commodity subsidization, many who are not eligible--including dairy farmers, ranchers and fruit and vegetable farmers--rely upon conservation programs to boost farm and ranch income and to ease the cost of environmental compliance. I argued that a small shift in funds from the commodity programs to voluntary conservation programs would significantly help more farmers in more regions of the country. At the end of the debate, conservation programs made some gains, though not all that I had sought. The Farm Bill provided nearly $3 billion for USDA conservation programs in FY 2004, including $1.1 billion for working lands incentives programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the Conservation Security Program. The point, however, is that the 2002 Farm Bill was the end product of vociferous debate and was the culmination of all Members' input. Unfortunately, the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill before us today undermines all of those efforts by rewriting the Farm Bill to reduce these critical working lands incentive programs by nearly 10 percent. Make no mistake, if passed, this bill will do nothing less than deny farmers and ranchers the funds they were promised. The fiscal year 2004 Agricultural Appropriations bill before us today is supposed to provide the resources needed to help America's struggling farmers and ranchers--not go back and begin chipping away at pieces of the Farm Bill to better suit the view of a few appropriators. Yet, this is exactly what has happened. In total this Appropriation Bill seeks to eliminate more than $100 million from conservation and renewable energy programs that has been authorized under the 2002 Farm Bill. Farmers and ranchers who depend upon these programs, and who have been hit hardest financially in recent years, will receive a disproportionately large cut in spending in FY 2004. In contrast, I am disappointed to note that no cuts have been proposed to commodity payments flowing to the largest grain farmers in just 15 states. Specifically, sections 737, 738 and 745 of the underlying bill will respectively limit the enrollment of the Wetlands Reserve program by slashing 50,000 acres, or about $56 million from its authorized level; cut $25 million from the Environmental Quality Incentive program; and totally gut the Conservation Security program. Despite the funds provided by the Farm Bill, most farmers and ranchers offering to restore wetlands and grasslands or offering to change the way they farm to improve air and water quality are still rejected when they seek USDA conservation assistance. For example, farmers and ranchers face a $1.4 billion backlog when they seek cost- sharing from the Environmental Quality Incentives program to improve water quality or wildlife habitat. These long lines will only grow longer if cut funds provided by the Farm Bill as has been proposed in the underlying bill. WRP and EQIP are programs proven to assist farmers while helping the environment, and CSP holds equal promise. Farmers have offered to restore most than 600,000 acres of lost wetlands by enrolling farmland into the wetlands reserve program. But, nearly all of these farmers will be rejected in FY 04, thanks in part to the cut included in this Appropriations Bill. These farmers are offering to restore more wetlands than the entire Nation destroys in a decade. Wetlands are not only crucial to wildlife and fish habitat but also to our own sources of drinking water. But the Agriculture Appropriations bill instead proposes to cut, rather than increase, funding to this crucial program. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, by providing more than $6.5 billion for working lands programs like EQIP and CSP in the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress decisively increased funds to help farmers manage working lands to produce food and fiber and simultaneously enhance water quality and wildlife habitat. EQUIP helps share the cost of a broad range of land management practices that help the environment, include more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides and innovative technologies to store and reuse animal waste. CSP is a new program that will link conservation payments to gradually increasing levels of performance. In combination, these programs will provide farmers the tools and incentives they need to help meet our major environmental challenges. Again, appropriators did not seek any cuts from the commodity programs, and it is these programs that the administration has identified as a barrier to successful negotiations in the World Trade Organzation as well as to the secure economic future of developing nations. Mr. Chairman, President Bush recently toured the African Continent. In a New York Times article about the trip, the President is quoted on the topic of domestic agriculture subsidies as saying, ``. . . It will come up in every country we come to, because African leaders are worried that subsidies, agricultural subsidies, are undermining their capacity to become self-sufficient . . .'' And in recent testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick spoke about the need to ``Harmonize and reduce trade-distorting domestic support programs.'' The prior global negotiating effort--the Uruguay round (1986-1994)-- was the first serious attempt to impose reforming disciplines on the world agricultural trade. Yet, the Uruguay round only started the job of tackling trade-distorting domestic subsidies by allocating them into three categories: ``green box'' subsidies, which involved payments decoupled from production incentives such as conservation programs; ``amber box'' subsidies, which includes payments linked to production, were capped at current levels and then cut by 20 percent and ``blue box'' subsidies, for payments linked to reductions in production, were allowed subject to specific criteria. In his testimony before Congress, USTR Zoellick stated, ``The current `DOHA Round' of negotiations seeks to build on the first step of the Uruguay round by pressing for much more substantial reductions to achieve a more levels playing field. To do so, the United States has proposed a cut of over $100 billion in trade-distorting support globally, undertaken in a manner that harmonizes levels across countries, with the eventual elimination of these subsidies all together.'' Mr. Chairman, as much as some appropriators and a few others in Congress may want to avoid the inevitable need to reform our domestic commodity support programs, it is equally unfortunate they have used this spending bill to erode our past work and break Congress's promise to America's farmers and ranchers. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this misprioritized and shortsighted bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise before you today to honor the historic village of Stoddard, Wisconsin. This year, from July 11 to July 13th 2003, Stoddard will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. This beautiful village, the crossroads of western Wisconsin, is bordered by majestic bluffs and the mighty Mississippi River. Located along the great river road, Stoddard quietly represents Wisconsin's heritage and natural beauty. The first to arrive in the Stoddard area were the native Americans who planted their tradition and history in the region. However, it was Henry H. White and his family who really developed the future site of Stoddard after coming to the area from Vermont in 1868. His son, C.P. White, is credited for the naming of this village after Colonel Thomas B. Stoddard. Colonel Stoddard originally came to the area in 1853 and helped build and expand the new community. He was a great promoter of railroads and helped form the La Crosse and Prairie Du Chien Railroad Corporation. With its general stores, blacksmith shops, school, and railroad, life in Stoddard was a shining example of successful rural communities in the united states. While it already had developed a rich history, it was not until 1903 when a post office was needed that Stoddard was officially born. Interestingly, Stoddard only become a river town in 1937, when the pool created by lock and dam #8 flooded 18,000 acres of bottom land and brought the river to its doorsteps. Stoddard's centennial celebrates the best of rural America. There are thousands of rural communities across this nation that form the backbone of rural life. These communities are the incubators of local politics, commerce, education, recreation, entertainment and faith for rural neighborhoods. Collectively, the hard working citizens of small town America are the builders of our great nation. I am frequently in Stoddard because, like many others in the area, I enjoy fishing in the Mississippi off of the new islands created by the E.M.P. program in pool 8, and my wife and I often take our two boys to visit my mother and stepfather, Greta and Don Lake, who live there. As often as we can, we also try to stop by Rocky's Supper Club for one of the best fish fry's in western Wisconsin. I am proud to congratulate the citizens of Stoddard on their unique anniversary. It is important that we all recognize their unique contribution to the development of western Wisconsin, and I wish all Stoddard residents happiness and success for another 100 years.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to promote the continued work of the Congress and the Department of Defense to make sure our reserve troops are medically ready to deploy when called upon. In meeting the global challenges of the post-cold-war era, our military reserve forces have become more important than ever. In fact the role of the Reserve and National Guard in the total force has transformed over the past decade from manpower replacements to essential operators in the daily missions of our armed forces. This is now more apparent than ever as over 200,000 Reservists are serving on active duty related to our military action in Iraq, in peacekeeping and counter-terrorism operations around the globe, and domestic security operations here at home. The increased use of the reserve component seems likely only to increase given our current military force structure and current and future obligations around the world. Given this trend, the ability for reserve units to timely deploy when called upon is critical. To be effective, our reserve troops need to be medically ready and able to perform their mission. Members not able to deploy when called up limit the ability of units to perform, cause delay, and demand costly changes in operation plans. The medical and dental readiness of the reserve components has continually been an issue of concern for the Department of Defense. According to the U.S. Army Medical Command, a ``significant number'' of Army Reservists could not be deployed during mobilization for Persian Gulf War in 1990-91 due to medical reasons. Further, a study by the Uniformed Services University found that an estimated 25 percent of Army Reservists mobilized in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, were not deployable due to dental problems. Recently, the government accounting office completed a report on the ability of the Army Reserve to meet medical and dental readiness requirements, as directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for FY02. The GAO found that periodic physical and dental exams for early- deploying reservists are valuable for the Army and that the Army should seek to consistently meet the statutory requirements for monitoring the medical and dental status of Army Reservists. However, the GAO report only reaffirmed what the Army already knew, and starting in March 2001, the Army made a fundamental shift to ensure the readiness of its reserve forces. By coordinating and contracting with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the private sector, the Army is able to address readiness needs through an innovative, efficient, and cost-effective program called the Federal Strategic Health Alliance, or FEDS-HEAL. The FEDS-HEAL program won the Hammer Award created by former Vice President Gore to recognize outstanding Federal organizations that significantly improve how the Government operates. The FEDS-HEAL program fixes the logistical problems that hampered the Army's ability to get Reservists into the limited number of Army medical treatment facilities for required exams and screenings. FEDS-HEAL works with VA medical facilities, HHS Federal occupational health facilities, and over 2,000 approved private medical and dental providers throughout the Nation to get Reservists the attention they require nearby and in a timely manner. In addition, the FEDS-HEAL program office reviews and maintains records on individual Reservists, a factor that the GAO noted as key to success in efficiently fulfilling medical readiness requirements. The problems in fulfilling readiness requirements are not unique to the Army Reserve, and the remedy pursued by the Army is applicable to other services. Noting the tested success of the FEDS-HEAL program within the Army Reserve, I encourage the other reserve components to thoroughly examine their ability to meet reserve readiness requirements and look to the FEDS-HEAL program as a model. In coordinating the entire reserve component into a reserve medical and dental readiness program, we may be able to reduce costs further through increased volume while boosting benefits to the DOD in terms of efficiency and to the VA and private providers through increased reimbursements. The other major factor in attaining compliance with readiness requirements is adequate funding. I, and other Members of Congress, want to ensure that readiness is a top priority among the reserve components, and we will continue to work with the military to assess readiness needs. Again, I commend the Army Reserve for implementing the FEDS-HEAL program and encourage expanded use of the program for other reserve forces to meet readiness requirements.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I too want to commend the leadership of the committee for putting together this bipartisan piece of legislation. This is an important piece of the overall higher-education bill that we have to reauthorize during the rest of this session. It recognizes the importance of teacher quality in the classroom. It recognizes the fact that because of attrition and the aging population, retirement, we will have to replace 2.2 million teachers over the next decade. It also recognizes that the quality of a teacher is the second most important determinant of how well students perform in the classroom, right behind the active involvement of loving and caring parents in their own child's education. But it also recognizes the new mandates that are being placed on schools and school districts throughout the entire country under No Child Left Behind that mandates that every classroom have a qualified, certified teacher by 2005 and 2006 under the No Child Left Behind legislation. And in part, this bill is meant to address these growing challenges as a Nation. But like my friend from Maryland indicated, there is a growing gap between the rhetoric for support for education in this country and what is actually being appropriated and the resources and funds that are going to achieve the success that we are demanding of our school districts. I am particularly pleased that under this legislation it is reauthorizing the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology program. This is a program that has been highly successful in preparing prospective teachers to use technology to help students reach their highest potential. Unfortunately, in the education appropriations bill that will start later today and tomorrow, the Republican majority has zeroed out funding for that technology program, even though we have this powerful new learning tool and yet there exists a gap between the integration of that technology in classroom curriculum. We need more resources and more training for teachers on how to use this technology rather than zeroing it out. I am also disappointed that under the labor-HHS and education appropriations bill that we are $8 billion short in fully funding the No Child Left Behind legislation. We are setting up these school districts for failure unless we provide them the tools and resources they need to meet the new Federal mandates that are passed under this legislation. The President ran as an education President. He got passed the No Child Left Behind, which establishes these new Federal mandates. And I think it is outrageous that he is not funding this now, as the promise was just a short year and a half ago that he would. Let me say in conclusion that I am very proud and I think every Member in this House is very proud of the military force that we have protecting our country. We have a lot of well-motivated, well-trained individuals that comprise our Armed Forces; but it does not just happen by accident. We invest a lot of money in our military to make sure they have the proper training and the proper equipment so they can be an effective military force around the globe as they carry out our orders as policymakers. But we have another national security threat that I am afraid is going neglected, and that is the investment in the future of our Nation, in our children, and in these education programs which will also make our country strong. We need to do a better job of backing up the rhetoric around here with the resources. This bill is a start if the funding follows, and I would encourage bipartisan support for it.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I supported H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003 and I am pleased to have the opportunity to support it on the House Floor today. The 1998 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act established a loan forgiveness program for teachers in title I schools. Borrowers with no outstanding loan balance as of 1998 could receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness after teaching for 5 years in a title I school with at least 30 percent poverty. This legislation would increase the amount of loan forgiveness for math, science and special education teachers from $5,000 to $17,500. It is critical that we ensure all classrooms have highly qualified teachers, especially in schools with high populations of students disadvantaged by poverty. This bill, however, could be significantly improved by expanding loan forgiveness to teachers of all disciplines in high poverty schools, to Head Start teachers, and to teachers in rural schools. Rural schools across America are struggling as they attempt to provide a strong and sound educational experience for their students. Their remoteness, limited resources and small faculties present numerous challenges for school administrators and school boards. In addition, rural teachers in Wisconsin earn 11 percent less than teachers in urban school districts. School loan forgiveness for teachers in rural schools would allow new teachers to view careers in small rural school districts as positive professional options. During committee consideration of H.R. 438, and again during Rules Committee yesterday evening, I offered an amendment that would have helped small rural school districts increase their competitiveness for recruitment of teachers. This amendment would have expanded the eligibility of the loan forgiveness provision to teachers in rural schools. Moreover, because this amendment did not increase the cost of the bill, I am disappointed that it was prevented from being considered on the House Floor. Ensuring that all of our children have highly qualified teachers is critical to ensuring their achievement. In the 1999-2000 school year, over a fifth of secondary students took at least one class from a teacher who neither majored nor minored in that subject in college; over a third received instruction in at least one class from a teacher who was not certified in the subject nor had academic training in that subject. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 438 will help put qualified math, science, and special education teachers in the classroom and although I am concerned that H.R. 438 does not go far enough in assisting our local schools and teachers, it is a step forward. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I hope we can continue to work to ensure that all our students have highly qualified teachers.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over the recent terrorism conducted by Palestinian extremists against the citizens of the state of Israel. This comes just weeks after a groundbreaking summit where both Palestinians and Israelis came together and agreed to the Road Map to Peace. It is most unfortunate that one small sect of extremists shake the relationship between the two. My colleagues and I mourn the loss of 22 innocent Israeli citizens who have fallen victim to this terror since the summit. In addition, we morn the loss of the dozens of civilian Palestinians who have also died as a result of terrorism. These lives, I believe, should also be mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of this measure today, but I think we missed a great opportunity to send a clear message that this Congress is fully committed, along with the President, in support of the Roadmap for Peace. The Roadmap recognizes the importance of including both Israelis and Palestinians in establishing much desired peace in the region. While the Roadmap may have its flaws, I believe it is the only way to get both parties back on the track to peace. The people of the United States stand firm in our commitment to the security and health of a democratic Israel. We must continue to do all we can to promote negotiations to advance the peace process in the Middle East. Together we can root out the terrorism that plagues the region and move forward with one goal in mind, peace.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, providing affordable Medicare prescription drug coverage for our nation's seniors is one of the most pressing issues facing our country today. Even though the elderly use the most prescriptions, more than 75 percent of seniors on Medicare lack reliable drug coverage. It is time to modernize Medicare to reflect our current health care delivery system. The use of prescription medications is as important today as the use of hospital beds was in 1965 when Medicare was created. I have heard from a number of seniors in western Wisconsin regarding the problems they have paying for prescription drugs. One woman from Deer Park, Wisconsin, a small town in my district, wrote to me and said: My medication is $135.00 per month. Fortunately my husband is not on any medication. If we both were not working part-time, I guess that we would have to make a choice between food and Medication--does one eat to survive or take the medication for a ``long and happy life''? What is to happen to this couple if the husband falls ill and has high drug costs too? The cost of prescription medicines should not place financial strains on seniors that would force them to choose between buying drugs and buying food. We need to make prescription medicines affordable and accessible to all of our seniors. I came to Congress to work toward a real solution to this problem. Unfortunately, today's debate is a sham. We will not have the opportunity to discuss this issue in a fair and open process. There were several alternatives presented at the Rules Committee late last night and they should be debated on the floor today. The majority, however, chose to dedicate only one day to this debate and allowed only one alternative and no amendments to be made in order. Our Nation's seniors deserve better. They deserve an open process, but the Republican leadership has failed to deliver this. The Leadership has also failed seniors with their prescription drug proposal. The Republican plan is doomed to fail because the plan relies on health insurance companies to offer drug only policies which they have said they won't offer. Further, there is no fall back option. So, if insurance companies won't offer these policies, how will seniors actually obtain prescription drug coverage under the leadership plan? Providing a drug benefit through private plans could be problematic, specifically for folks living in rural and small communities. There are no requirements as to what has to be covered and the coverage may vary from area to area depending on the plan. Because is there is no guaranteed benefit, Wisconsin may end up on the short end of the stick like we have in the past under Medicare. The biggest problem with the leadership bill is the fact that it will fully privatize Medicare in 2010. This is a radical provision that will be the demise of the traditional Medicare program on which our seniors have depended for nearly 40 years. In 2010, seniors will be given a lump sum to purchase health isuruance, including traditional Medicare. There is concern that the healthy seniors will leave traditional Medicare and the premiums will increase dramatically, up to 47 percent. In addition, under the leadership bill, each local area will have a different premium for fee-for-service Medicare. For example, seniors in Wisconsin might have to pay more to enroll in fee-for-service Medicare than seniors in Florida. This is a drastic departure from Medicare's fundamental principle that seniors across the country pay the same premium for the fee-for-service benefit. We must provide a real solution to the problem of prescription drug coverage for our seniors. The Republican plan falls woefully short. All of the Democratic alternatives offered at the Rules Committee would be better than the leadership bill. One proposal, the Medicare Rx NOW Act, is a simple straightforward plan that provides assistance to the seniors most in need, those with low incomes and seniors with high drug costs. This proposal builds on the Medicare program seniors know and provides them with a guaranteed benefit for no additional premium. Another proposal put forward by the Blue Dogs is based on the bipartisan Senate bill. Unlike the House bill, this proposal includes a fall back provision to ensure that all seniors would have access to a prescription drug plan. In addition, this bill does not include the privatization components of the leadership plan. In addition, both of these alternatives provide substantial improvements to Medicare payments for rural providers. Both pieces of legislation include equalizing the disproportionate share hospital payments for rural hospitals, an increase in the bed limit for critical access hospitals, and a geographic adjustment for rural physicians. None of these provisions are included in the leadership's bill. It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership has squandered an excellent opportunity to try and solve the problem of prescription drug coverage in a bipartisan fashion. Instead they have steamrolled ahead and present our nation's seniors with an unworkable solution to a grave problem. I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed proposal.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have a real and honest debate today, and make in order the Dooley substitute. I, along with others in the New Democratic Coalition, have worked long and hard to offer a viable alternative to the base bill. The bill before us, unfortunately, will jeopardize the very sanctity of the Medicare program. The Dooley bill, on the other hand, is simple, progressive and affordable. It helps those seniors who needs the most assistance, the low-income and those with high drug costs. It offers zero premium payments; it is Medicare as seniors know it. The benefits are integrated into Medicare part B, and every beneficiary gets a guaranteed benefit for no additional premium. Unlike the House and Senate Republican bills, this bill has no gap in coverage, and it is fiscally responsible. It fits within the budget resolution that was passed earlier this year. Later today, it is my understanding that Senators Hagel and Clinton and Ensign will be offering the same exact Dooley substitute on the Senate floor. We should be allowed to debate the same measure today. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Wisconsin native Mr. Charles Mulcahy for his nomination by HM King Albert II of Belgium to become a Knight in the Order of Leopold. Mr. Mulcahy has served with distinction as Honorary Consul of Belgium since 1985. He has provided guidance to the development of bilateral economic, commercial, cultural, scientific and educational relations, assisted Belgian citizens, and promoted Belgian interests over the past 15 years. Mr. Mulcahy has been an active participant in business and economic development matters for over 25 years. He is a senior partner with the law firm of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is known for his representation of commercial business concerns, from initial organizations, capital formation, developing strategic alliances and joint ventures between Wisconsin companies and overseas business interests. He has guided numerous companies through various growth and development phases involved in building a business. He has worked closely with businesses on their legal matters, including negotiating distributor agreements and establishing subsidiary or branch operations for clients throughout the United States, Europe and Asia, and serves on the Board of many companies engaged in international trade. Mr. Mulcahy's leadership in the area of world trade is reflected in his role as founder of the Wisconsin World Trade Center (WWTC) in 1987. He served as the initial President of WWTC and continues to serve as a member of the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors. Mr. Mulcahy is past president of the Milwaukee World Trade Association and is also past chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Institute of World Affairs of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Mr. Mulcahy's record of service to Wisconsin businesses and to the Belgian of is distinguished and worthy of praise. His nomination to become a Knight in the Order of Leopold is truly deserved.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate that we are having today. Just to correct one of the things just stated by the previous speaker, the Department of Labor, just like H.R. 660, would be in charge of administering the substitute plan that we have before us today. They would actually contract with state-licensed insurers to offer basic insurance plans. The significant difference, though, is that we are asking everyone to play on a level playing field, to respect States' rights, and to not have Federal preemption. Because for those who believe in the free market system, which I think most of us do, it can only work if everyone is playing by the same rules instead of trying to establish a two-tier system. And that, I believe, is going to be the best hope we have, through price competition, of keeping a check on rising premium costs. There has been a lot of citing of statistics throughout the afternoon, a lot from the Congressional Budget Office, and so I will provide for the Record a letter from the Congressional Budget Office stating their analysis of H.R. 660. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage our colleagues, in conclusion, to support the substitute, one that does provide an opportunity for more small employers to provide health care coverage to their employees, one that respects State law, one that provides some premium assistance so they can afford it. I encourage support of the substitute and a ``no'' vote on H.R. 660. Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to above is as follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, June 18, 2003. Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman: This letter responds to your request of June 17, 2003, for additional information on CBO's estimate of the impact of H.R. 660 on enrollment in the health insurance markets for small employers and self-employed workers. We expect that the effects of the bill would be fully reflected in those markets by 2008, and all of the following numbers refer to that year. Under current law, CBO estimates that approximately 30.1 million people will be enrolled in health insurance offered by plans in the state-regulated small group insurance market. Under the bill, CBO estimates that combined enrollment in state-regulated plans and association health plans (AHPs) would rise by about 550,000 people to a total of 30.7 million people. Of this, approximately 23.2 million people would retain coverage in the state-regulated market. About 7.5 million people would be enrolled in AHPs, including the additional 550,000 people who would not have been covered by any small-employer plan under current law, and 6.9 million people who would have been covered in the state-regulated market. The same consideration apply to self-employed people. We estimate that approximately 4.7 million people will be enrolled in state-regulated coverage purchased by self- employed workers under current law. Under H.R. 660, CBO estimates that combined enrollment through state-regulated insurers and AHPs would rise by about 70,000 people to 4.8 million people. Of this, approximately 3.8 million people would retain state-regulated coverage. About 1.0 million people would obtain coverage through AHPs, including the additional 70,000 people who would not have been insured under current law, and 0.9 million people who would have been covered in the state-regulated market. If you would like additional information on this estimate, the CBO staff contact is Stuart Hagen, who can be reached at 225-2644. Sincerely, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me quickly dispel a couple of myths. We have heard a couple of occasions new mandates are going to add costs to the employers. First of all, there are no new mandates under the substitute. We merely respect State law. We do not require compliance. It is a voluntary program. If small business employers do not think it is a good financial deal for them, they do not have to join. There is nothing mandating their requirement. We have also heard the word ``taxes'' being used, too. Let me reiterate, this is paid for in their own budget resolution. So there is no new taxes that we are talking about with respect to this substitute. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the coauthor of this alternative bill. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a very knowledgeable member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have had I think a very enlightening discussion so far today in regards to the real impact of these associated health plans, what they are potentially capable of doing and what the danger of them are. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has been citing repeatedly, there is an objective study there indicating the potential impact if this legislation enacted of increasing the ranks of the uninsured throughout the country by an additional million people. That is heading in the wrong direction considering we have 41 million uninsured today, many of them, between 50 and 60 percent of that 41 million, working in small businesses throughout our Nation. We have a serious issue that requires a serious response and a serious plan to provide some real relief for small business employers to their employees. These are people who wake up every morning. They go to work. They play by the rules. They are asking for basic health care coverage like their neighbors next to them. Unfortunately, H.R. 660 pulls up a little bit short in a couple of respects. First of all, it creates a current two-tiered system exempting the health care plans from currently State-regulated requirements. These are decisions made by State legislatures reflecting community values in regards to what type of health care coverage is important for their citizens, for their communities, for the society at large. And what is being proposed now is exempting a whole category of health insurance plans from basic health coverage such as cancer screening, mammographies, prenatal care, maternity care, diabetes, autism coverage in some States, and for those whoever worked with autistic children understand the importance of treating autism is early recognition, early intervention, and a lot of times that will not occur unless there are health plans that provide such coverage, and if we do not intervene early in these children's lives, there are exponentially greater costs for society at large down the road. We offer a substitute, which I believe addresses the challenge that we are facing as a Nation more honestly and more fairly. The Democratic alternative that I have worked on with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and others on the committee would provide direct assistance to small businesses and their employees, another shortcoming of H.R. 660. There is no incentive, there is no help financially to enable employers to provide this type of coverage for their employees. And everyone I know is familiar with the small business employer that is operating on the margin, oftentimes losing money rather than making money. And if there is not some type of financial incentive that our substitute bill offers it is unlikely that they are going to be able to extend their health insurance coverage to their employees who currently do not have them. What our substitute would do is it would direct the Department of Labor to establish a small employer health benefit plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. Many of the Members of Congress here today are members of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. I have not encountered too much criticism of the health plan that Members of Congress are receiving. I think small business owners and their employees should be given the same opportunity on an affordable basis. The program would contract with State license insurers to offer a minimum insurance package for all employees of businesses of fewer than 100 people. Small businesses would be eligible for a premium assistance under our plan as would employees earning below 200 percent of the poverty level. This alternative has the potential of providing health insurance coverage to 33 million Americans who currently go without it today. The number stands in stark contrast to the estimated 550,000 that the Congressional Budget Office has calculated under H.R. 660. Perhaps most importantly, our plan is paid for under the budget resolution that the majority party has passed earlier this year. It fits within the budget confines by providing these premium assistance to small business employers, and to those employees at 200 percent less of poverty, providing financial assistance and the financial means to actually access health plans and provide coverage for their employees. H.R. 660 does not provide any of those means. What we may see under their budget resolution coming back at us shortly is some form of tax credit or some type of tax deduction, which is not going to help the numerous employees and small businesses operating at 200 percent or less poverty level, who are paying very little Federal income taxes in order to qualify for such credits, unless they are willing to extend that coverage to those employees. But wait a minute. We are right now engaged in a heated debate over a child tax credit on these very same principles; so it is doubtful that they are going to be able to provide that type of tax relief to employees who need it and cannot afford health plans generally. I mean there is a reason why the National Governors Association, Republican and Democratic governors alike, are in opposition, why the State Attorney Generals Association is opposing, why the State legislatures throughout the country are opposing, why many consumer interest groups and health care providers are opposing H.R. 660, because they fear that the ultimate income will be expanding the ranks of the uninsured rather than reducing that number. I think we all have the best intentions in the plans that we are advocating here today to try to reverse course on the 41 million, to try to provide small businesses with an opportunity of providing some health care coverage for their employees, but we believe there is a right and there is a wrong way of doing it. We believe that the Democratic substitute being offered which does not preempt State law, which does provide some financial assistance, premium assistance for small employers, which is paid for under the budget resolution is the way to go if we are truly interested in reducing the number of the uninsured in this country, and thereby affecting the premiums that other health plans have to pay. Because if the uninsured get sick or get hurt, they still go in, they still access, they still get care, but those costs are then shifted on to those plans that pay for it. Our plan would reduce the number of uninsured and thereby save costs and help reduce the premium increases that so many of our employers, large and small, are experiencing today. And with that, I encourage my colleagues to support the substitute. Vote no on the H.R. 660. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time and also commend him for his leadership and the energy he has shown on this subject, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Madam Speaker, there is a serious problem throughout America in regards to the rising cost of health insurance, double-digit premium increases. As I travel around my congressional district in western Wisconsin visiting businesses large and small alike, it is the number one topic on their lips, the difficulty of being able to provide health insurance coverage for their employees with the double-digit increases that they are facing today. Part of the problem in western Wisconsin deals with the inadequacy of Medicare reimbursement rates, which then is cost-shifted on to the private plans; but also part of the problem is the number of uninsured and the cost shifting that occurs when they receive treatment. We saw the statistics a little earlier, 41 million uninsured. Those numbers are going up. Between 50 and 60 percent of the uninsured are employees working in small businesses. It is a crisis situation out there, and I have not met a small business owner yet that is happy with the fact when they cannot provide some basic health coverage for their employees. Unless we deal with it in an honest and, I think, straightforward plan, the numbers will only get worse. There are some here today that think H.R. 660 is the answer to the crisis we are all experiencing in our own districts. I happen to disagree. I think there are some serious flaws with H.R. 660. I believe that, at best, the underlying legislation would do very little to address the plight of the uninsured. There is a recent CBO analysis that said that, at best, we might be able to extend additional coverage for half a million Americans, a far cry from the 41 million who are currently uninsured or the 25 million who are working right now in small businesses. At worst, there is a Mercer report that shows that because of the premium increases in other health plans, we could see another million Americans losing their health insurance coverage because of H.R. 660. What also is a major problem is that it exempts State laws. These are community value judgments made in each of our States in regards to what health care practices should be covered for the citizens. Yet the legislation today is calling for a preemption of that State law, an eradication of the federalism that has existed in this country for a very long period of time. It is one of the reasons why we have so many people opposing the legislation, from the National Governors' Association, from the Democratic Governors' Association and Republican Governors' Association, the State Attorneys General Association, not to mention the Association of Insurance Plans, as well as the National Conference of State Legislatures. Why would you, if you believe in the free market, as I think most of us do, and believe in price competition, try to set up an uneven system where you have two different sets of plans playing by two different sets of rules? It does not make sense. If you are going to force price competition in the free market system, you need to have everyone playing on a level playing field playing by the same set of rules, such as the State laws that exist right now, rather than exempting a whole category of people. I think our substitute offers a better alternative, and I would encourage our colleagues to support that.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think we may be making major policy based on a few phone calls here today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is modeled after the Federal employee health plan. I never heard so much complaining about the Federal employee health plan before, which Members of Congress participate in. It is the classic case of the double standard yet again. There are no new mandates. We respect State law. We do not preempt state law. Furthermore, their own Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Associated Health Plans will lead to higher insurance costs for 80 percent of small business employers and employees. Their legislation will impose a higher cost burden on small businesses throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), someone who is concerned about the increase of 1 million more uninsured under H.R. 660 and also understands the importance of State health insurance coverage.

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Illinois, my good friend, that is why our substitute is much better. We have one comprehensive pool that small businesses can buy into if they choose, therefore leveraging their bargaining power.