Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, one of the strengths of the labor union is they are there representing the workers. They leverage the number of workers there, and they are representing their interests, and they oftentimes reduce wages in order to get a better health care plan.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume for the purposes of a colloquy to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a former State legislator and a colleague on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, it would be, because we respect existing State law.

Mr. KIND. Again, it is not mandated unless the State offers that right now.

Mr. KIND. That would be covered.

Mr. KIND. That would also be covered under our substitute.

Mr. KIND. That would be covered.

Mr. KIND. That is right.

Mr. KIND. Yes, it would.

Mr. KIND. It would, indeed.

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

Mr. KIND. One other significant difference between our substitute and H.R. 660 is ours would have a uniform premium rate for all employees. Employees could not be discriminated against with higher premium rates because they happen to be sicker than their fellow employees in the workforce. Ours would establish a uniform insurance premium rate for them so there would not be that type of price discrimination against the sicker in our population.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, we state that our substitute is fully paid for under the budget resolution, so we are not asking for new money. And with due respect to my friend from Georgia, we would hope a lot of employers would continue to offer the basic health care coverage that exists today. But the reason there were so many State battles throughout the country in State legislatures is because many of them were not. That is why these hard-fought battles need to be respected, and our substitute does. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for making estate tax relief permanent so that family-owned farms and businesses can be passed down from generation to generation. The estate tax should be updated and modernized to reflect both the economic growth so many Americans have experienced in recent years, and the hard work of millions of entrepreneurs and those just trying to make a living. These businesses should not be punished for being successful or for simply having their owners pass away. The United States is the land of opportunity, encouraging free enterprise and rewarding entrepreneurs. The estate tax should be modified to protect family-owned small businesses and family farms from the threat of having to be sold just to pay the tax. But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 would fully repeal the estate tax for all Americans at a time when the administration is running record deficits that threaten the futures of our children's children. As we all know, the estate tax applies to fewer than 2 percent of all estates, about 50,000 a year. This bill would initially cost the Nation's treasury $161 billion over 11 years, and $840 billion over the following 10 years. Mr. Speaker, the majority's policies have turned a projected $5.3 trillion surplus into an estimated $3 trillion deficit over 10 years. This year alone, our budget deficit will reach a record $400 billion and will likely exceed $500 billion next year. However, even with these record deficits, we are debating yet another tax cut on top of the fiscally irresponsible $350 billion tax cut package this House recently passed. With the majority's policies leading our Nation toward a fiscal train wreck, we should not be talking about totally repealing the death tax and instead talk about doing something about the debt tax, which falls upon all Americans. The growing amount of taxes needed to pay interest on the national debt will double under the Republican budget, costing the average family of four $8,453 in 2013. That is $8,000 a year that the average family will have to pay in taxes that will not go to provide better schools, national defense, or other government services. With the staggering budget shortfalls facing our country, Mr. Speaker, complete repeal of the estate tax is simply not an option I can support. Therefore, I am supporting the substitute being offered by my good friend Mr. Pomeroy. His legislation will immediately help the small businesses and family farms by increasing the estate tax exemption to $3 million for individuals and $6 million for couples. This meaningful, commensense bill will exempt 99.65 percent of all estates from the estate tax. Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to avoid towering deficits and reduce the debt future generations will inherit. We must give them the capability and flexibility to meet whatever problems or needs they face. I cannot, in good faith, support legislation that will put our country further into deficit spending with a tax cut that will hurt future generations for the unforeseeable future.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1308, the Relief for Working Families Tax Act. Today, we have the opportunity to help 6.5 million working families with 11.9 million children while maintaining fiscal responsibility. However, the Majority does not wish to do that. Rather, they would prefer to pass an $82 billion tax package without any provisions to offset the cost. The Senate overwhelmingly passed a $9.8 billion tax package that would immediately benefit our children and not increase the deficit; we must do the same. The federal deficit has now exceeded $400 billion for 2003, a new record, and is approaching $500 billion for 2004. Yet, the Majority wants to borrow another $82 billion. In a time of exploding budget deficits as far as the eye can see, we cannot pass a plan that will further compromise our economy. It is imperative that we put money back in the hands of working Americans to create jobs and build a strong future. The bill before us today, however, only serves to further weaken our economy and burden our children. The child tax credit legislation passed by the Senate on June 5th, 2003 extends relief to families making between $10,500 and $26,625, who were left out of the Majority's irresponsible tax package we recently considered. Just examine the facts: one in six families would gain from the child credit refund increase; in my home state of Wisconsin alone, 11 percent of families would benefit. In thirteen States, at least 20 percent of families would be helped. In addition, the legislation passed by the Senate would provide benefits for the children of the brave men and women of our Armed Services. However, the House Majority is offering a partisan obstruction impairing our ability to help these children, by adding $70 billion worth of additional tax cuts. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and bring up the legislation the Senate passed so we can get it to the President's desk by this weekend. We must not let the Majority solve a $3.5 billion dilemma with an even greater $82 billion dilemma. It is evident that this plan creates more harm than good; it not only increases the budget deficit of today, but also increases the debt of the future. Thus, for a better today and a brighter tomorrow, I firmly oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to oppose it with me.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support of this measure. I am a proponent of genetically modified (GM) food, and firmly believe that its continued implementation and use provides a number of important benefits for the American farmer and worldwide consumers. Furthermore, I believe we are legally correct and justified in asking the World Trade Organization (WTO) to impose penalties on the EU for maintaining a moratorium on import permits for genetically modified crops in violation of its rules. However, I fear that our government's efforts will have the unintended consequence of wreaking havoc on the current WTO trade discussions. As we all know, the U.S. farmer would benefit much more if, in the current Doha Round of the WTO, the EU nations agreed to slash the generous agriculture subsidy assistance they provide their farmers. According to a recent Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international organization that seeks to help governments tackle the economic, social, and governance challenges of a globalized economy, in 2002, the EU provided $112.6 billion in agricultural subsidies to their farmers. This amount totals approximately 1.3 percent of the EU GDP. Compare this staggering number with that of the United States, which generously provided in 2002 $90.3 billion (0.9 percent of our GDP) to farmers in the form of agricultural subsidies, and you can easily see why reform of domestic agricultural policy and worldwide agricultural trade liberalization is much needed. In addition to fighting this important fight on GM foods today, the Administration and Congress need to hold the Europeans' feet to the fire on reforming their domestic agriculture policy and making their country more open to imported goods. The Doha Round was devised to accomplish these two objectives. Moreover, the U.S.'s policy on GM foods must not just single out Europe. In an article, which appeared in yesterday's The Wall Street Journal, many U.S. soybean traders are accusing the Chinese of impeding soybean imports due to the failure of various inspection permits. The article continues by stating, ``China last week announced it will extend to April 20, 2004, strict regulations on crops containing genetically modified organisms that had been set to expire September 20th.'' Thus, the question that needs to be asked--Is China moving toward closing its borders in perpetuity on import permits for genetically modified crops? Will the U.S. government file a similar petition against the Chinese government? If so, when? If not, why not? After all, under commitments China made when it became a member of the WTO in December 2001, it must open its market to agricultural products. Mr. Speaker, I will support this resolution and encourage my colleagues to do likewise--but I suggest more substantive work be done to reform domestic agricultural policy and worldwide agricultural trade liberalization policies that currently stand in the way of sustainability and prosperity of our farmers.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. That is really the point of tonight's Special Order is what is going to get the economy back on track. That is what all of America embraces. We need to grow the economy, create jobs, stimulate investments. There is nothing that solves problems better for our Nation than a growing economy. But the fact of the matter is over the last 2 years, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) recited these stats, is we have lost 3 million jobs in this economy. Two million of our citizens have gone from middle class back into poverty. During the 1990s when we had declining deficits and surpluses, 8 million of our citizens went the other way, from poverty into middle class. We have had over a trillion dollars of corporate assets that have been foreclosed upon over these last 2 years, one of slowest worker productivity rates in the last 30 years. The economic policies are not working. And that is what we need to do is get together in a bipartisan fashion and figure out a plan that is going to work for working families and for all Americans throughout the country so we can stimulate economic activity and create jobs again. That is what we need to do rather than pursuing an idealogical agenda that has a poor track record during the 1980s, the first part of the 1990s, and now it is deja voodoo economics all over again here in the new century. And that is really the task that lies before us today. But unfortunately, there is an unwillingness with the administration and leadership of Congress to admit that things are not working. Most reasonable and logical people, when they find themselves in a hole, stop digging. Ideological extremists ask for a bigger shovel. And later this year, as true as we are standing in this well today, there is going to be another trillion dollar tax cut proposal coming before this body with everything including the kitchen sink involved in it. They are just clinging to this mantra that tax cuts solve all the problems that this country is facing, when, in fact, the record belies that and it is very troubling.

Mr. KIND. It is one of my chief concerns as a member of the Committee on the Budget, as a Member of this House, the fact that the fiscal decisions being made today, if carried out the way we have intended is going to set up future generations for failure. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I do believe deficits matter. As a father of two little boys back home, I do believe deficits matter. At a time when we should be investing in our children's and grandchildren's future, we are borrowing against their future. This is happening at exactly the worst moment in our Nation's history, when we have 80 million of the so-called baby boomers all marching in lockstep to their retirement, which will start in a few short years; and we are digging this fiscal hole deeper and deeper and deeper at a time when the next generation will be taking over the reins of leadership. We will be setting up future Congresses and the younger generations for failure unless we can reverse course. I appreciate the voice of my colleague in this deficit wilderness of warning the Nation of the consequences of these fiscal policies. The ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), has been telling us for a very long time that we need to keep an eye on the bottom line with the spending and the revenue streams and try to maintain some balance. The question I have for both of the gentlemen here is that it was such a remarkable turnaround during the decade of the 1990s, unfortunately, we do not have another decade like that to prepare for the onset of the baby boom generation's retirement; but were there some fiscal tools available during the 1990s that no longer exist today, that we should consider putting back in place in order to develop some fiscal discipline and some fiscal responsibility in this House again before it is too late?

Mr. KIND. I think the gentleman makes a very important point. The PAYGO did require fiscal discipline because for any proposed increase in discretionary funding, there had to be an offset in the entitlement in order to maintain balance. And it put the Nation in a position where there was a true lockbox on Social Security and Medicare trust funds, where the money was not being robbed to pay for other aspects of Federal spending which has gone out the window again in 2 short years. They have taken all the money out of the Social Security and Medicare trust fund to pay for these tax cuts or to pay for other spending programs when we should be downloading our debt in anticipation of this massive retirement boom. One final point on the tax cut that was recently enacted into law, there was a lot of fanfare and Rose Garden ceremony, naturally, for the tax cut that the President signed. But what did not receive as much attention was the day before, unceremoniously and very quietly, within 20 seconds, the President also signed an increase in the debt ceiling by a trillion dollars.

Mr. KIND. That is over next year alone. Just to put this in context, the entire national debt in 1980 for the preceding 200 years was roughly $900 billion, and they are proposing to have a $1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling in 1 year alone. This was not economic stimulus that he signed into law. It was major structural tax reform, and it should be referred to as such. And no less an expert on capital accumulation in this Nation and the world, Warren Buffett has also weighed into decrying this tax cut. He says there is something fundamentally unfair with a tax cut proposal which will reduce his marginal tax rate, Warren Buffett, who is worth about $55 billion, will reduce his tax rate to roughly 5 percent when the receptionist in his own office has a marginal tax rate of 30 percent. Even Warren Buffet says that is not fair; that is not the values that reflects our great Nation. But that is what this tax cut was about. A major restructuring of the Tax Code, who is going to pay and who is going to be left on the hook. And, unfortunately, again, no less an expert on capital accumulation than Warren Buffett, he says it does not fly and it is very troubling.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, this July the village of Lyndon Station, Wisconsin, in the heart of my congressional district, will be marking its centennial celebration. This beautiful, tranquil village lies in eastern Wisconsin and is surrounded by some of America's richest farmland. The village of Lyndon Station is a jewel in the crown of Juneau County. This community has been a primary contributor to the region's settlement, development of the timber industry, expansion of agriculture, and a hub of community trade and commercial growth for over 100 years. The first settlers were native Americans who used the banks of what is now called Lyndon Creek to camp and hunt the abundant wildlife in the mixed prairie-woodland of this region. The first European settlement of the present village site was in 1849. Three brothers and two sisters of the Havey family arrived in this area to start a new life, having immigrated from Kildare, Ireland during the worst years of the potato famine. They settled near the present village location and were the beginning of a wave to discover the fertile soils of central Wisconsin. Other settlers soon followed and established land claims in and near the growing village which became known as Kildare. In 1857, the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad spurred new life into the area when it built a railroad station as it pushed its lines of commerce further west. By 1870, the name Kildare Village was changed to Lyndon Station Village since the name Kildare was already being used for the township. There has been much speculation as to the origin of the name Lyndon, and it still remains a mystery; but such a mystery only adds to the community's charm. In 1903, Lyndon Station was officially incorporated as a village in the State of Wisconsin, even though the name had been on maps for nearly half a century. The Lyndon Station Village Centennial celebrates the best of rural America. There are thousands of small rural communities across this Nation that form the backbone of rural life. These communities are the incubators of local politics, of commerce and education, recreation, entertainment, and faith for our rural neighborhoods. Collectively, the hardworking citizens of small-town America are the builders of our great Nation. I am proud to congratulate the citizens of Lyndon Station Village on their 100th anniversary. I believe that it is important to recognize their unique contribution to the development of central Wisconsin and wish them happiness and prosperity during the next 100 years.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution honoring our brave men and women of the Armed Services. Their duty and sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan are appreciated by all Americans. New challenges facing our Nation demand increased vigilance on the part of our Armed Services. With these increased demands, the role of the National Guard and Reserve Forces is critical in providing the total force necessary to ensure our security. Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to meet with many National Guard and Reserve members from western Wisconsin who have been called up for service Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq. Over 2,300 members of the Wisconsin Air and Army National Guard are serving on active duty. The people of western Wisconsin are proud of their service and the service of all the men and women of our Armed Forces during this important time in our Nation's history. We still have much to do in terms of peacekeeping and rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan. In this effort, it is important that we engage our allies to share responsibility and pursue an effective, sustained commitment to peace and stability in the region. If we can do this right, we will not have to again, sometime down the road, send our military forces over to fight. In addition, we recognize today all of the `round-the-clock' work put in by the military personnel and DoD civilian employees at military mobilization platforms around our Nation. In western Wisconsin, I represent Fort McCoy, one of the Army Reserves' power projection platforms. Ft. McCoy has been continuously processing and training mobilized members of the National Guard and Reserve for the past six months. Their efforts have been key in getting our forces ready for combat. It is also important that we recognize the support and sacrifice of the families and employers of our troops. They are the backbone of our fighting forces, and we appreciate their commitment during these challenging times. The American people and the Congress of the United States stand behind our Armed Service Members and those that support them. As our military effort continues, I and other Members of Congress will continue to work to ensure that our service men and women have all the resources necessary to fulfil their mission. My thoughts and prayers are with those serving our Country overseas, as well as their families. America is firmly behind our troops, and we're all hoping to see them home safe, secure and soon. May God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hoyer/ Greenwood/Johnson substitute, the Late Term Abortion Restriction Act, and in opposition to the underlying bill. In June 2000, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska statute that ostensibly prohibited ``partial- birth'' abortions. The court based its decision on two determinations: (1) the statute lacked any exception for the preservation of a woman's health; (2) the statute placed an ``undue burden'' on the right to choose abortion because its vague definition of ``partial birth'' abortion could cover multiple procedures, at any time during a pregnancy, regardless of viability. Due to these determinations, the court found the Nebraska statute unconstitutional. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, however, indicated that if changes were made in the legislation to address these concerns, restrictions on late-term abortions could be found constitutional. Unfortunately, the authors of H.R. 760, the underlying bill, failed to follow the outline by Justice O'Connor. The legislation I support, the Hoyer/Greenwood/Johnson substitute, is a bipartisan effort that meets the Supreme Court's criteria. This substitute would ban all abortions after fetal viability, allowing an exception to protect the life or health of the mother. This bill did not eliminate a particular procedure; it would prohibit all late-term post-viability abortions by whatever method or procedure. Most people, even those who oppose abortion, would make allowances for pregnancies as a result of rape or incest. There is no doubt that a young girl who becomes pregnant as the result of rape or incest can medically carry the pregnancy to term. However, many of us would say that that young girl should have the option to terminate that pregnancy as a means to safeguard emotional well-being--that is an argument in favor of recognizing the traumatic impact of a pregnancy due to rape or incest. Some would argue that the pregnancy could be terminated earlier. We would hope so. However, the psychiatric and sociological record is replete with scientific and anecdotal evidence that even in the most supportive environments, girls who are victims of rape and incest are reluctant to reveal their abuse, leaving them vulnerable to emotional and mental breakdown, self-destructive behavior, and, in the worst case, unrecognized or unacknowledged pregnancies up until the last trimester. Only the Hoyer/Greenwood/Johnson substitute would adequately address this serious issue. While this has been a difficult issue, I must oppose H.R. 760. This bill does not recognize the constitutionality issues raised by the Supreme Court. It does not contain an exception for a woman's health, nor does it adequately define ``partial birth'' abortion in such a way as to address the issue of ``undue burden.'' I am confident that if this bill is signed into law, the Supreme Court would strike it down. As a Member of the U.S. Congress, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I will not betray that oath. Now that the Supreme Court has determined the constitutional parameters for a partial-birth abortion ban in the Stenberg case, I must adhere to that decision and cannot vote for a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional. H.R. 760 does not comply with the Court's decision.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost reverence and respect for the flag of the United States, one of the most recognizable symbols of freedom and liberty in the world. And I have the utmost respect for those who want to protect it. Among other things, the flag represents our rights as Americans, including those protected by the Bill of Rights. The first amendment in particular is the amendment that embodies the very essence upon which our democracy was founded because it stands for the proposition that anyone in this country can stand up and criticize this government and its policies without fear of prosecution. The first amendment is perhaps the best known provision of the Constitution and has been well guarded over the years by Congress and the Courts. But today's amendment would create a tremendous spiritual change, effectively turning the words ``no law'' in ``Congress shall make no law'' into ``few laws.'' Which is to say it would sap the first amendment of the principle it represents, the one that insists that this country does not punish ideas, no matter how unpopular. But here we are, yet again, debating an amendment that would for the first time in our Nation's history change the first amendment to our Constitution, without a compelling reason. Flag burning is exceedingly rare. Yet supporters have never let themselves be restrained by the fact that the amendment represents a non-solution to a non-problem, and whose predictable outcome would be to make flag burning the ``in'' protest among the young and antisocial. I am going to oppose this legislation, not because I condone or do not feel repulsed by the senseless act of disrespect that is shown rarely against one of the most cherished symbols of our country, the American Flag, but because I recognize that our Constitution can be a challenging document. It reminds us that our democracy requires all of us to permit the expression of ideas that we may spend a lifetime opposing--and not simply move to pass an amendment to silence their voice. Our democracy, rather, is about advanced citizenship. It asks all Americans to fight and even protect the right of our fellow citizens to express views that are against what we believe and value most in our country. There are few things that evoke more emotion, passion, pride or patriotism than the American Flag. But if we pass this amendment today, where do we stop? Do we move to protect other icons of American patriotism? Should we pass an amendment that prohibits the burning of a copy of the Declaration of Independence or of the Constitution? Let us not go down that path today. We have done well these past two centuries without having to amend the Bill of Rights. In a country of over 280 million people, I do not believe that the actions of a few individuals should compel us to change our most fundamental principles. I respect our flag as well as those who have fought and died to protect the ideals which it symbolizes, but I also respect those very ideals and principles contained in our Constitution. The purity of the first amendment should not be adulterated now so that Congress can protect flags that nobody's burning anyway.