Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my good friend Harold Brown. Harold is celebrating his 30th anniversary as chief executive officer at Prairie du Chien Memorial Hospital. Wisconsin's second oldest city, Prairie du Chien, is a town of 5,500 people that is rich in both history and culture. Located on the beautiful Mississippi River, Prairie du Chien works hard to maintain its pioneer heritage. Memorial Hospital, a model for rural hospitals around the country, is a 40-bed facility that receives approximately 1,800 admissions and 6,600 emergency room visits each year. Under Harold's guidance, Prairie du Chien Memorial Hospital has won both national and state awards for its exemplary service. My friend Harold has brought an enormous amount of leadership to his position at the hospital. He has been a small and rural hospital administrator for 37 years and was previously a health care consultant and medical education administrator for 6 years. He has received numerous awards, most recently the Governor's Exemplary Employers Award and the Wisconsin Children's Trust Fund Award, both in 2002. In 1988, Harold received the Louis Gorin Award for Outstanding Contribution to Rural Health Care by the National Rural Health Association. Continually awarded the Employee of the Year Award by the employees of Memorial Hospital, he also received the Community Distinguished Service Recognition Award for 25 years of service. From 1985 to 1990, Harold worked hard to provide new services for the elderly at Memorial Hospital. He developed and implemented certified hospice and rural regional hospice, as well as day care for the elderly. He helped establish an independent living program for seniors, as well as meals-on-wheels service. Further, Harold was instrumental in starting elderly apartment housing, as well as a companion care program. In 1990, Harold expanded Memorial Hospital's service to the community to include, among other programs, child day care, expanded rehab services, athletic training, parish nursing, and personal care. A longtime member of the Wisconsin Hospital Association, Harold is also a part of the National Rural Hospital Association, serving as the group's president in 1996. He is also a board member of the Rural Wisconsin Hospital Cooperative, an organization that includes 26 rural hospitals. A member of the AIDS committee, Harold is involved with Shared Health Services, a corporation providing services to 400 hospitals and nursing homes. Harold continues to take an interest in Prairie du Chien. A highly active member of the community, he is a member of the City Planning Council, the Special School Board Committee, and the St. Peter's Lutheran Church Council. His service has not gone unnoticed; in 1997, Harold was awarded the Volunteer of the Year Award by the National Rural Health Association. He received the Prairie du Chien Area Chamber of Commerce C.F. LaPointe Award in 1999, an honor that is given annually for service to one's community. He has committed himself to not only the healthcare needs of Prairie du Chien but to its other needs as well. Harold's service to the state of Wisconsin and the community of Prairie du Chien has been tremendous. He has dedicated much of his life to providing quality health care and has touched many lives along the way. Harold is truly a man of great service, and I feel privileged to call him a friend.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my strong support of this legislation anticipating next year's 150th anniversary of the Grand Excursion of 1854, offered by my colleague, Mr. Leach. The Grand Excursion is regarded as one of the greatest promotional trips ever devised in our Nation's history--one that changed the face of the upper Mississippi River. In 1854, the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad became the first railroad to reach the Mississippi River. To celebrate, the owners and contractors for the railroad proposed an excursion for a select group of stockholders, friends, and family. But word spread quickly about the occasion, resulting in a 1,200- person entourage traveling from Rock Island, IL to the Falls of St. Anthony--now known as Minneapolis, MN. According to the Chicago Tribune, the excursionists were considered ``the most brilliant ever assembled in the West'': statesmen, historians, diplomats, poets, and newspaper editors. As the media wrote home to their newspapers, word spread about the wonders of the Nation's ``dark interior''. This event turned into an opportunity to show some of our Nation's most influential people the fantastic beauty, numerous resources, and the unlimited opportunities that the Mississippi River and the West could provide. The year after, steamboat traffic along the upper Mississippi River doubled, flooding the region with new settlers. The Grant Excursion also brought millions of dollars of investment to the area and positioned the upper Mississippi region as a dominant force in the development of the Nation in the 19th century. The Grand Excursion of 2004 is an opportunity to draw awareness from around the Nation and around the world about the recreational, commercial and environmental opportunities the Mississippi River provides. In addition to the ``Grand Flotilla''--the retracing of the Grand Excursion's journey by trains, paddlewheelers, and steamboats-- over 50 communities along the 419-mile route, many in my district, will hold festivals and educational events to commemorate the event's sesquicentennial. And those who are unable to participate first-hand in the celebrations will be able to experience the excitement through a dynamic website and through ``exploration trunks'' that will be provided with curriculum to classrooms throughout the region. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution of America's celebration of the Mississippi River: the Grant Excursion of 2004.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, we also support the passage of H.R. 788, a bill which is similar to legislation which passed the House in June of last year. It must be said, however, that there continues to be great concern regarding most cases where public land owned by the American taxpayer is exchanged for private land. In many instances it is not at all clear that the taxpayers are receiving full value for the lands being traded away in their names. In fact, in many cases it is clear that they are not. We have been working with our friends on the other side of the aisle and the Federal Land Management agencies to develop a more comprehensive approach to exchanges that might address the failures in the current process, and we look forward to continuing those efforts. In the meantime, it is our hope that we would only approve specific exchanges that truly serve the best interests of the American taxpayer. Fortunately, it appears we have such an exchange in this instance. The basic concept of the exchange contained in H.R. 788 appears to serve both the interests of the private landowner as well as the park. In addition, once authorized, this exchange will go through a full NEPA process, including appraisals, which should identify and address any remaining issues. We commend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) on his legislation and support passage of H.R. 788 and encourage our colleagues to do the same. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the Chair of the Committee on Resources, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, including their entire staff for the help and assistance that they provided in this legislation. It is a bill that has received wide bipartisan support. In fact, it passed the House last year. We were unable to get it on the unanimous consent calendar in the Senate; so we are back here today to move the process along. But it is a process that has been in the works for quite a few years, Madam Speaker. I have been fortunate enough to spend nearly my entire life alongside one of the greatest national treasures that exists in this great country, the Mississippi River Basin. Like so many others, I grew up enjoying the diverse recreational activities: swimming, boating, fishing, hunting along the river's shore. It was a true Tom Sawyer type of childhood. In fact, it is the background or context to a couple of the greatest American novels written in American literature by Mark Twain, ``The Adventures of Tom Sawyer'' and ``The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.'' As a young boy, though, back in the 1960s growing up, I noticed some problems that the river basin was having. Going to some of my favorite swimming beaches, they would be closed from time to time because of high bacteria count; or going to some of my favorite fishing holes, there would be signs posted warning not to eat the fish that we were catching from the river because of high mercury count. And as a young boy growing up and seeing that, I knew something was not right. A lot of progress has, however, been made in regards to the health and sustainability of the Mississippi River Basin. With the passage of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, significant progress has been made. But it is still an incredible national treasure and ecosystem that faces many challenges. In fact, if one were to consult with most river basin experts, they will tell them that the greatest challenge that the basin faces today is the amount of sediments and nutrients flowing into the river basin, affecting the quality of the water supply, destroying the natural habitat, filling in the back bays. Why is this important? It is, first and foremost, the primary drinking source for over 22 million Americans who rely on the river basin and the river's tributaries for their water needs. It is also North America's largest migratory route with over 40 percent of water fowl species using the Mississippi River Basin as the main corridor during their migration route in the spring and fall every year. It also is a multifaceted, multiuse river system with incredible economic advantages, given the commercial navigation that takes place on the river, hundreds of millions of tons of product, a lot of it agricultural product, on barges being used to transport the product to market. It has just in the upper Mississippi River Basin alone a $1.2 billion recreation impact for the communities within the basin, a $6.6 billion tourism impact. This year we are going to be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the National Refuge System. The Upper Mississippi River Wildlife Refuge is the largest refuge system in the entire country. In fact, most people are surprised to learn that we have more visitors to the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge than they have in the entire Yellowstone National Park System every year. Farmers rely on the health and sustainability of the river basin. That is one of the reasons we have the fertile farmlands in middle America today. Yet every year our farmers are losing topsoil; they are losing over $300 million worth of applied nitrogen that ultimately flows into the river basin and has an ecosystem impact on it. That is what we are trying to correct with this legislation, Madam Speaker. H.R. 961 authorizes the U.S. Geological Survey to coordinate and integrate Federal, State, and local government agencies' efforts, develop guidelines for data collection and storage, and establish an electronic database system to store and disseminate the information. USGS would also establish a state-of-the-art computer modeling program to identify significant nutrient and sediment sources at the subwatershed level to better target reduction efforts. H.R. 961 includes strong protections for the privacy of personal data collected and used in the monitoring and modeling of activities. Input from farmers, the navigation industry, sporting groups, environmental organizations, government agencies, was solicited and used for this legislation. The legislation also fits with the recommendations of the Mississippi River Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force for reducing, mitigating and controlling the hypoxia problem in the Gulf of Mexico. It was a report that was formally submitted to the Congress for our consideration in January of 2001, and many of the recommendations and proposals contained in this legislation tracks those recommendations significantly with the task force and the work that they had done. Amazingly enough, in the course of our work and putting this legislation together, I discovered that there were also 77 nonpublic private entities doing some form of water quality testing along the Mississippi River Basin. Unfortunately, because the data was not standardized, it was not being collected and it was not being pooled in order to get the complete snapshot of what was happening throughout the river basin. What this legislation will do is try to coordinate those levels, from the public sector to the private sector, giving USGS the lead, given their expertise in doing a lot of the water quality and modeling and monitoring that they are already involved in, but to expand it, so we have a complete scientific picture of what is taking place in this valuable ecosystem, so we will know how better to direct the limited resources that we have to optimize the programs that exist, or perhaps create some new programs in order to accomplish the ultimate reduction in the flow of sediments and nutrients that affect the river system. In the Upper Mississippi alone, in order to maintain the navigable channels for commercial navigation, we are spending over $100 million a year just in dredging costs. So I think there is a significant budgetary impact by getting the science right and getting it in place so that we can reduce that sediment and, therefore, hopefully also have an opportunity of reducing the cost of dredging to maintain the important commercial navigation that exists along the river. We have worked very closely with the five States in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. In fact, the governors recently submitted a letter to the administration and the Congress basically calling for this type of scientific, comprehensive approach in dealing with the nutrient and sediment flows that affect their regions. That is what we are trying to accomplish here. Madam Speaker, obviously with this personal background and experience and the work I have done on the river basin, I feel a certain individual responsibility to try to provide some focus on this incredibly important national treasure that we have in the Mississippi River Basin, a treasure that I feel has gone neglected for too long. One of my first goals in coming to the United States Congress was to help form a bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus between the North and the South so we can get together from time to time and discuss the issues that affect our specific geographic areas, but also how we share this one continuous ecosystem and what we can do, working together, to better preserve and protect it and make sure it is sustainable, so not only can we use it, but our children and grandchildren will be able to benefit from its use. So I thank the members on the Mississippi River Caucus for the support that they gave to this legislation. All of them were original cosponsors of the bill. I want to especially thank the co-chairs of the Upper Mississippi River Caucus, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who I have worked closely with on this legislation, for the help and support they have given, as well as the cochairs of the overall Mississippi River Caucus, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). I thank them for their support of this legislation. In addition, I want to thank Holly Stoerker of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, Doug Daigle of the Mississippi River Basin Alliance, Dr. Jerry Schnoor of the University of Iowa, and especially Dr. Barry Drazkowski and the administration and staff at St. Mary's University in Minnesota. Their expertise and work was essential in crafting this legislation, and I am very thankful for their assistance. Also greatly appreciated is the tireless work of Allen Hance of the Northeast Midwest Institute and former Sea Grant fellows in my office, Jeff Stein, Ed Buckner, Laura Cimo and currently Melissa Woods, who consulted with stakeholders throughout the region. Their efforts were essential in shaping and reshaping this legislation into a focused, effective bill with broad support. I also want to especially pay particular thanks to some staff members who have given a couple quarts of their own blood in order to reach the consensus that we have established with this bill, namely Brad Pfaff, Ben Proctor and Darrin Schrader, with the countless hours they put in crafting this important piece of legislation. Finally, I want to thank the members of my Mississippi River Advisory Group back home for their help and input throughout the process. H.R. 961 represents a commonsense move toward building the scientific foundation necessary to remedy nutrient and sediment problems in the region. I believe this is a needed, cost-effective step in preserving the upper Mississippi River Basin and its multi-use heritage for future generations. I also believe it could provide a wonderful model for similar types of scientific modeling and monitoring efforts in other river basins and watershed areas throughout the entire country. So, I again thank my colleague for his support of the legislation. It has wide bipartisan support, and I would encourage its passage today.

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month. In 1987, Congress passed a resolution designating the month of March as Women's History Month and a time to honor, ``American women of every race, class and ethnic background [who] have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways.'' For 2003, the theme of Women's History Month is ``Women Pioneering the Future.'' In celebration of this month, I would like to focus on four women from Wisconsin's history and honor their contributions to society. First, I would like to recognize Cordelia A.P. Harvey. An army nurse during the Civil War, Ms. Harvey worked vigorously in support of soldiers and their families. She not only collected money to support soldiers and their families but also campaigned for cleaner and more efficient hospitals for the soldiers. Her determination and sense of good will is something all Americans can strive for today. Born in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Helen Mears was a talented artist who won her first prize for sculpture at the age of nine. She studied formally in New York and Europe and was commissioned to sculpt a woman and winged eagle design, the ``Genius of Wisconsin,'' for the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Her sculpture of temperance reformer Frances Willard was the first of a woman to be placed in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall. Ms. Mears enjoyed a successful career and is remembered for her limitless energy and artistic ability. Kathryn Clarenbach is a woman who has made invaluable contributions to our educational system. A graduate of the University of Wisconsin- Madison, Ms. Clarenbach created the continuing education program for women at the university and was appointed chair of the Governor's Commission on the Status of Women upon its creation in 1964. She chaired the commission for 14 years and continues to serve as an inspiration to all women. Finally, I would like to talk about Edna Ferber. A talented writer, Ms. Ferber spent her early years in Appleton, Wisconsin and eventually wrote for the Milwaukee Journal. After four years at the paper, she returned to Appleton where she proceeded to write short stories. Credited with introducing the character of the American businesswoman to modern fiction, she composed not only books but plans as well, many of which have been turned into Broadway productions and movies. Each of these women has had an impact not only on Wisconsin's history but also on the history of the nation as a whole. Whether in art or literature, activism or teaching, each of these women truly was a pioneer in her field and deserves our remembrance.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, we have no objections to this legislation in its current form and would encourage our colleagues to support its passage. H.R. 620 provides a unique arrangement for funding certain local public schools. The legislation authorizes the National Park Service to provide funds and services to supplement the educational services and facilities provided to children of Yosemite National Park employees and the park concessionaire at three small local schools located within the park system. Similar legislation was considered in the 107th Congress. Initially, a significant number of issues and problems were associated with that bill; however, the sponsor, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), agreed to a number of changes requested by the minority and the administration; and it appears as if we have worked out some of those concerns. There were also changes made to the bill as a result of negotiations with the Committee on Education and the Workforce that holds joint jurisdiction with the Committee on Resources over this matter. As a result of those changes, the bill passed the House in April of 2002. H.R. 620 is essentially the same bill that was passed through the House last year with limitations on the amount, use, source, and duration of the funds for these local schools. Of particular note, while the bill authorizes the use of appropriated funds, it is our expectation that these will be newly appropriated funds and not come from the existing operating budget within the park system. Yosemite National Park, like many other national parks, has significant operating challenges. The park can ill afford to divert operating funds to a nonoperations function. Madam Speaker, as I noted earlier, this legislation does provide a unique arrangement for funding what should be a local responsibility. However, we have no objection to the bill's consideration, and again we encourage its passage here today. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution commending our brave men and women of the armed services. I wish them Godspeed and a quick and decisive victory so they can return home soon and safe. America is the greatest democracy the world has ever known. The advent of a new century has brought new threats and new terrors never before imagined that threaten our cherished freedoms and liberties. Fortunately, we have some of the finest citizens of our country who choose to serve to defend those cherished liberties, even at times, by giving their last full measure of their lives. They do it for their country, they do it for their families, and they do it for their buddies in the foxhole next to them, and thank God they do it well. Each generation has faced its own unique challenges and has risen to address them. Now it's our turn and I am confident that the current generation of servicemen and servicewomen will perform honorably and successfully. We are so very proud of them. With military action to disarm Saddam Hussein just underway, my thoughts and prayers are with these men and women, as well as their families. Over 2,200 members of the Wisconsin Air and Army National Guard are serving on active duty as well as many Reservists from across the Badger State. Our appreciation not only goes out to them but also to their families and their employers for their support and sacrifice during these challenging times. I want to particularly express my appreciation to the members and families of the Wisconsin Army National Guard's 229th Engineer Company out of Prairie du Chien and Platteville under the command of Capt. Robert Pruitt, the 829th Engineer Detachment out of Richland Center under the command of Capt. Kurt Geilfuss, and the 1158th Transportation Company with members from Tomah and Black River Falls under the leadership of 1LT Jason Stebbins, and Army Reserve's 652nd Engineer Company out of Ellsworth under the command of Capt. Dean Kasparek. These units have been activated and deployed. They can take great pride in knowing that they are part of the greatest military force the world has ever known and that they have the support of a grateful nation. We owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid. I also want to thank Maj. Gen. Al Wilkening, the Wisconsin Adjunct General and LTC Tim Donovan of the Wisconsin Army National Guard, along with Col. Mike Stazak, commander of Ft. McCoy, Army Reserve Total Force Training Center and his staff in western Wisconsin. The people of Wisconsin are proud of their service and the service of all the men and women of our armed services during this important time in our Nation's history. As our military effort continues, I and other members of Congress will work to ensure that our service men and women have all the resources necessary to fulfill their mission. My thoughts and prayers are with those serving our country, 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 bless our troops during this difficult time and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, now that the military campaign to disarm Saddam Hussein has begun, our thoughts and prayers go out to the young men and women in uniform as well as to their families. May they complete their mission quickly and decisively so they can return home soon and safe. Yet here we are today in this Chamber to consider a fantasy budget. It is ludicrous for the House leadership to move forward with this budget debate by ignoring the issue of the day, Iraq, and the cost of that campaign, merely to lock in huge tax cuts and offer unrealistic spending cuts to health care, education and veterans' services. We know the proposed Draconian cuts will not happen, but we also know that the President will send an emergency supplemental spending request for Iraq shortly to us and demand that a check be sent back immediately, and it will be, because we all do support our troops during this time. But this is the classic recipe for exploding budget deficits as far as the eye can see; it's the height of fiscal irresponsibility occurring at exactly the wrong moment during our Nation's history when 80 million of our Americans, the so-called baby boomers, are rapidly approaching retirement age, a demographic time bomb ready to explode. That is why the Republican budget proposal, in effect, constitutes taxation without representation, because it will be our children and our grandchildren who will be asked to pay for this fiscal mess. I couldn't think of doing anything more unfair to them. As the father of two little boys, I did not come to this Congress to leave a legacy of debt for them or future generations to climb out of. Our Democratic alternative, however, anticipates this demographic time bomb by achieving balance by 2010, while offering an economic stimulus plan now, which is fair, quick, and responsible. It supports our troops, but it also supports our Nation's veterans, our seniors, and our children's education programs. So I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute. I would call on the leadership in the House to pull their budget resolution so that we can have an honest debate with honest figures, factoring in the cost of the Iraq operation. I encourage my colleagues to support the substitute.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and ranking member on the Committee on the Budget for yielding to me to engage in this very important discussion we are having this evening. Mr. Speaker, as the country is at the precipice of war in Iraq, I am sure all of our House colleagues would join me in extending our best wishes and our thoughts and prayers to the young troops who are answering the call for the defense of our freedoms and liberties in this country. I have had the opportunity over the last month, month and a half, to attend a lot of the deployment ceremonies back in the Third Congressional District in western Wisconsin based on the call-up of National Guard and Army Reserve units. I have had a chance to talk to many of these young soldiers as they are being called up. Let me tell the Members, they are very impressive. They are well-trained, well-committed, very patriotic, have a deep love for our country, and are willing to risk their lives for the defense of our security. As we move forward in the days and weeks and perhaps months ahead, our thoughts and prayers go out to them and their families. We will do everything possible in this Congress to give them the support and resources that they need. In the meantime, business is still being conducted. One of the items of business scheduled for this week is a very important discussion in regard to our national priorities as it relates to the Federal budget. It has been said that a budget defines where various parties are on certain issues. This follows on the heels of President Bush's budget proposal submitted to us just a few weeks ago that actually calls for the largest budget deficit in our Nation's history. It does not offer any plan on how we bring fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility back to this place, how we can bring the budget back into balance before the demographic time bomb explodes in this country. That is the 800-pound gorilla that will not be discussed all this much in the course of this budget debate, but needs to be raised, the fact that we have 80 million of our Americans, the so-called baby boomers, rapidly approaching retirement age and soon to start entering these important programs. There is very little planning on what to do for that inevitability. We will be offering an alternative budget proposal that brings in fiscal responsibility, fiscal discipline, anticipating this great demographic challenge we face while recognizing the domestic priorities we share in the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the Republican budget proposal that will be before us is an Enron-like document with a lot of smoke and mirrors, with a lot of numbers being thrown out there, but with very little basis in reality. Many of the programs that are being discussed for cuts I think the Members in the majority party realize will not happen. It will be an impossibility, because they do drastically underfund crucial education programs and investment in the future of our country, our children, at a time when No Child Left Behind is just now being implemented. It also underfunds important health care services that our citizens rely upon, close to $250 billion in proposed cuts in the Medicare program in the next 8 years alone, at a time when rural health care providers now are being discriminated against because of the inequities of the reimbursement rates as they exist under current formulas. It is something that I think there is bipartisan agreement in this Chamber that has to be corrected, but the budget we will be discussing and looking at in the next couple of days does nothing to address those inequities that need to be addressed. It also calls for, amazingly, close to $16 billion worth of cuts in crucial veterans' health care services at a time when we are about to commit new troops in a major military engagement, a very dangerous operation. The message that sends our Armed Forces I think is the wrong message at the wrong time, because of the lack of commitment in ensuring that we will fund the promises made to the current veterans who are accessing these important veterans' health care programs. Just to highlight this issue, because it is not just us scrutinizing the budget, but outside organizations, and my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), already discussed this in his comments earlier, the national commander of the Disabled American Veterans, Edward Heath, Sr., already wrote a letter to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), in regard to the concerns his organization has in the Republican budget proposal. Commander Heath wrote and I quote, ``You are quoted as saying 'We are asking tough medicine at a tough time.' You are asking veterans to swallow a bitter pill to remedy an illness of your own making. While we all like to see taxes reduced when prudent, cutting already underfunded veterans' programs to offset the costs of tax cuts is indefensible and callous.'' You will be cutting benefits and services for disabled veterans at a time when we have placed thousands of our service members in harm's way, fighting terrorism around the world and when we are sending thousands more of our sons and daughters to fight a war against Iraq. Now, these are outside groups and organizations that do have a stake in the outcome of these budget debates. These are not mere intellectual exercises to them and their members. They have real impact on other real people in real families in each of our congressional districts. And as our friend from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) just highlighted, the reason why we are seeing these types of Draconian budget cuts proposed is in order to jam a $1.4 trillion new tax cut in the budget and try to make sense with that dynamic which, again, I submit will be impossible to do on the backs of veterans throughout the Nation. What does that leave us then? It leaves us on the philosophy and a position that the majority party in this Congress and apparently many down to the White House are feeling more and more comfortable with each day, and that is the idea of spending and borrowing, spending and borrowing, and running up these massive budget deficits for as long as the eye can see. As the father of two little boys, I did not come to this Congress 6 years ago to leave a legacy of debt to my children or to the children of this country. What will be proposed this week if that type of economic plan is implemented is nothing short of taxation without representation because it will be on the backs of our children and our grandchildren that will be asked to fund the liabilities that will come from these budget decisions that may be made in the next couple of days. I could not think of anything more morally irresponsible to do than to create this gigantic budget debt, this huge deficit burden which will fall on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren to deal with when it is their time to take over the leadership of this country. And also, it could not happen at a worse moment. Unlike the budget deficits that were accumulated during the 1980s and early 1990s, we do not have the luxury of the decade of the 1990s now to reverse track and to rein in fiscal discipline and to bring the budget into balance, and, in fact, start running budget surpluses so we could actually download the National debt. The clock is ticking and time is running out because the boomers are rapidly approaching their retirement in a few short years. We still have an opportunity to address the economic needs of this Nation. We still have a chance to prove to the American people that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can deal with the national security threats, we can support our troops, especially during this time, but we can also address the domestic challenges that exist in this country, so we can give the children the opportunity that many of us had by accessing a quality education and funding No Child Left Behind, so we can protect the natural resources of this country and live up to the promises of veterans and the health care services that they rely upon. In conclusion, let me just commend my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the leadership that he has provided us on the Committee on the Budget. We have had to make tough choices in putting together our own budget alternative. I think it balances the needs between the military commitment that we are currently engaged in with the domestic priorities that we share as Americans while recognizing that there is some room for tax relief in order to stimulate the economy, to get the economy growing again. And a growing economy can help solve a lot of problems that we have in the Nation. And but for his leadership and his honesty, we would not be able to submit, I believe, an honest budget alternative that will, I think, receive wide support within the Democratic Party. So I thank my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the leadership he has shown, all the hard work that the members of the Committee on the Budget have shown thus far; and, hopefully, we still have time to bring a truly bipartisan budget proposal that does make sense to the current obligations that we face, but also the future obligations that are coming up just around the corner.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for one more question, so I assume we can expect then, when military action is being taken in Iraq, that at some point the administration will submit a supplemental emergency funding request for the operation in Iraq, and typically, when we are dealing with emergency supplementals, are offsets found for those?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our leader on the Committee on the Budget for highlighting what appears to me to be an impossible policy position to take on the eve of war in Iraq, but the question I have for my colleague, in his analysis of the Republican budget proposal, have they allotted a nickel or a dime in regards to the military build-up or military action or the rebuilding that will have to take place in Iraq?

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the HEALTH Act, H.R. 5. Although I support the concept of sensible medical malpractice laws, this bill goes too far in defending negligence and not far enough in protecting patients. In my home state of Wisconsin, we have medical malpractice laws that work. The components of this successful law include a cap on non- economic damages of $442,000, which is indexed annually for inflation; a requirement that all providers carry malpractice insurance; and a victims' compensation fund. The victims' compensation fund is a unique entity that has served both patients and health care providers well. The fund operates by collecting contributions from Wisconsin health care providers and paying the victims once an award has been determined. The physicians are liable only for the first $1 million in an award. If the award exceeds $1 million, the compensation fund will pay the remainder of the award. A major problem with H.R. 5 is that it goes beyond medical malpractice law by including the provisions regarding pharmaceutical and medical devices. The bill completely exempts from liability medical device makers and distributors as well as pharmaceutical companies, as long as the product complies with FDA standards. These provisions would have no effect on medical malpractice insurance rates. Instead, they would leave victims with little recourse and render them unable to hold pharmaceutical companies and the makers of defective medical products accountable for faulty or unsafe products. Another problem with H.R. 5 is that it overrides some state laws. While the bill would not override Wisconsin's own cap on non-economic damages, it would supersede our state laws regarding statute of limitations, attorneys' fees, and the criteria for punitive damages. This bill is a one-size fits all solution that is not right for Wisconsin. Although I oppose H.R. 5, I agree that medical malpractice issues must be addressed. Unfortunately, H.R. 5 is modeled after California's law, not Wisconsin's statutes. The successful components of Wisconsin's medical malpractice laws could be the basis for a much better bill. I urge my colleagues to go back to the drawing board to craft a consensus piece of legislation that both protects patients and keeps physicians in business. In Wisconsin, we are proud to have laws that effectively accomplish both of these goals. These laws are threatened, however, by the current proposal. Therefore, I oppose H.R. 5.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, one hundred years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt displayed historic vision and took a bold step forward in his quest to protect our Nation's natural wonders. He decided that the plight of one group of birds on a scant five acres in Florida was important enough to warrant the protection of the Federal government. Roosevelt made this decision on March 14, 1903, continuing his commitment to protect American public lands. In creating a National Wildlife Refuge, however, Roosevelt brought the American public on a great ideological departure from the principles underlying our National Park System: While those lands are set aside for the enjoyment and appreciation of people, wildlife refuges are for the sole benefit of wildlife. This ideological leap was truly historic, and I commend President Roosevelt and celebrate his enduring legacy. Since the first refuge was established in our State in 1912, the Wisconsin refuge system has become an integral part of life for our citizens. Our five wildlife refuges and two wetlands management districts attract nearly two million visitors each year. They provide critical habitat for our State's world-renowned wildlife resources, as well as opportunities for recreation and groundbreaking research. Horicon Marsh, covering 32,000 acres, is the largest fresh water cattail marsh in the United States and is designated as a ``wetland of national importance.'' Tremplealeau, The Upper Mississippi River, and Horicon National Wildlife Refuges are designated as ``globally important bird areas.'' And Necedah National Wildlife Refuge serves as the summer home for research experiments with the migration of highly endangered whooping cranes. I wonder whether the President knew what he was setting in motion when he set aside those five seemingly inconsequential acres. Could he possibly have dreamed that such humble beginnings would flourish into the grand national wildlife refuge system that we boast today? That system now consists of more than 575 individual units and encompasses over 95 million acres. Refuges can be found in every State in the Union, protecting more than 250 threatened or endangered plants and animals, including such beloved and symbolic species as the manatee, bald eagle, and California jewelflower. These figures far exceed any expectations that President Roosevelt may have had. Our refuge system is truly a triumph of American vision and commitment to responsible stewardship of our unparalleled natural heritage. I am proud to support the National Fish and Wildlife Service in its vital mission and grateful to be able to pass this legacy on to future generations of Americans.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Washington State for yielding to me. I just wanted to commend the gentleman for having this discussion this evening. I think it is perhaps the most important decision that the President is about to make on behalf of our Nation, and it is a decision that is going to affect our relationship with the Arab world and the rest of the international community for decades to come. But one of my concerns is for the past several months Congress has been AWOL on this issue, absent without leave. And I think there is still time for us to engage on this fundamentally important decision, and that is what will be the future course of events in dealing with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. And somehow, some way I think we need to come to grips with the new reality of the international order, and that is there are some bad people out there that pose security threats against the safety of our citizens, but it is imperative that we figure out a way of distinguishing between those individuals who are deterable and those who are undeterable. Certainly I would put Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda regime in the undeterable category. Those are the ones we need to focus on, we need to get after in order to enhance the security of our people in this country. I think there is still a debate going on in regards to Saddam Hussein and whether he, in fact, can be deterred. But what is most disconcerting in all this is that we have lost a lot of good will in the international community. The international coalition of support that the President said he would work hard to try to achieve last fall has not come together and we are dealing with a different set of circumstances in an entirely different context today than when the first Iraq resolution came up last fall: The security threat that North Korea now poses against us, which I think is still the most imminent threat against our Nation's security today, even more than Saddam Hussein. The fact that we do not have this coalition of support to do it the right way, not the military operation which we can pretty well do on our own but the rebuilding afterwards. I am afraid we could win the war but lose the peace. And that is why international support is so crucial. But also the domestic implication. The President a couple weeks ago submitted a budget calling for the largest deficit in our Nation's history, and it does not include a dime for the cost of the military buildup in the Middle East or the possible military action or the rebuilding that will have to come afterwards. These are issues that all of us in this Congress should been engaged in in having a national discussion, however unpleasant that might be. That is what a great democracy needs to do. And that is why I earlier this week called on the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and Majority Leader Frist to allow the United States to have a renewed discussion, to give our constituents back home an opportunity through their representatives to voice their opinions and their concerns in regard to this very important decision. And that is why, again, I want to just thank my friend from Washington State (Mr. Inslee) for trying to have a dialogue on this very important issue, because a lot of folks back home feel that they are wondering where Congress is in all of this. And instead of having these meaningful discussions, we are instead discussing about changing French fries to freedom fries. I mean, how trivial can you get? So as we move forward, and I still think there is time to engage the country but also the international community in regard to this important decision, hopefully we will have more of an opportunity for Congress to get back involved in this and get the policy right. And regardless of what decision the President makes, and if it is a decision to send the troops in, I would hope at a minimum there would be consensus in the country that we need to support our troops. I have been to a lot of deployment ceremonies for Guard and Reserve units in Wisconsin, and I had a chance to meet a lot of those who are being called up today, and let me tell you they are impressive individuals. Well-trained, well-motivated, very patriotic. They love and believe in their country, and we need to give them support in their mission. But it is our task as policymakers to make sure we get the policy right, and there is where the conversation should take place, and there is why we need to have these type of discussions. So I thank my friend again for the opportunity to speak on this important issue, for the leadership he has shown on this important issue. And hopefully we will be able to work and engage together on this. That it is not just one individual here in this country making such a profound decision that will affect our position on the global scene for many years to come.

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 are appreciated by all Americans, and it is right that we pay recognition to them today. The post September 11th world demands increased vigilance on the part of our armed services. With these increased demands, the role of the National Guard is critical in providing the total force necessary to ensure our security. Over the past month, I have met with many National Guard and Reserve members from western Wisconsin who have been called up for service in the global war against terrorism. Recently, I attended send-off ceremonies in Prairie Du Chien, Platteville, and Richland Center, Wisconsin for units of the Wisconsin National Guard that have been called to duty. These men and women and their families are answering the call of their country, even though some have been given very limited notice by the Department of Defense. In one instance, the time between alert and mobilization was only 2 days, making it increasingly difficult to make arrangements regarding family and work obligations. Every member of the Wisconsin National Guard, however, has reported enthusiastically and without hesitation. They are well-trained, well-motivated and, in short, very impressive individuals. Our country is fortunate to have the quality of individuals in our Armed Forces. I want to particularly express my appreciation to the members and families of the 229th Engineer Company out of Prairie Du Chien and Platteville, the 829th Engineer Detachment out of Richland Center, and the 1158th Transportation Company with members from Tomah and Black River Falls. These units have been activated and are likely to be deployed overseas. Over 2,200 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 services during this important time in our Nation's history. Our appreciation also goes out to the families of these service members for their support and sacrifice during these challenging times. The American people and the Congress of the United States stand behind our armed service members, and we know they will be successful in their mission.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the legacy of Fred Rogers, the man loved by generations of children for his many years as television's ``Mr. Rogers.'' Perhaps no other American has done as much to foster the public's interest in child education and advocacy. He touched the lives of millions of children during his show's 33 seasons on the air, and I feel privileged to honor his life here today. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing this resolution to the floor. For 33 years Mr. Rogers invited America into his living room and gave us a tour of his neighborhood. Mr. Rogers infused his world with a creative mixture of fact and fiction, introducing his young viewers to both the real world and a world of make believe. Children saw the insides of bakeries, police stations and glass-blowing factories. Meanwhile, they also learned the values of sharing, compassion, and community from the puppets who became characters in their daily imaginary lives. Fred Rogers showed us that not only is education important; it can also be fun. On July 9, 2002, President Bush awarded Mr. Rogers the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I call on this body to offer its recognition of the life of a man whose personal mission to improve the lives of children made a difference in all of our lives.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for allowing me to offer my comments congratulating Lutheran schools. In his 1524 letter, ``to the councilmen of all cities in Germany that they establish and maintain Christian schools,'' Martin Luther wrote, ``My dear sirs, if we have to spend such large sums every year on guns, roads, bridges and dams, and countless items to ensure the temporal peace and prosperity of a city, why should not more be devoted to the poor neglected youth--at least enough to engage one or two competent men to teach school?'' Since this very humble request, the Lutheran Church's role in educating our young has flourished. There are currently 4,821 Lutheran schools operating in America, instructing over half a million students. These schools not only provide a traditional education, but also produce students strongly dedicated to their faith, values, and morals by providing an environment that encourages honesty, trust, respect, and responsibility. In a world which faces such grave social, political, and economic choices as ours today, it is especially important to remember the words of Martin Luther and recognize the contribution that the Lutheran Church has made to education in our own Nation and around the world. I congratulate our Lutheran schools and I thank them for all that they have done for the spiritual and educational well-being of our youth.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for the leadership that she has shown on this issue as well. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear again yet today. This is not a fight about banning human cloning. We all agree cloning for purposes of creating another human being is wrong and it should be prohibited. Instead, what we are arguing about is allowing scientific research to continue that can lead to cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries. Unfortunately, H.R. 534's approach would take a Howitzer after a house fly. What about bone marrow transplants? What about in vitro fertilization? If we logically extend the argument for H.R. 534, that is next. Some of the most advanced and exciting stem cell research in the world is occurring at the University of Wisconsin. I have had the opportunity over a few occasions to visit their research department; and while the research they are doing there itself is exciting, what is most impressive is how much in tandem the researchers of the science and the ethics department work. What most people do not realize on this subject is that therapeutic stem cell research is already a heavily regulated industry. The FDA has strict requirements on what they can and cannot do. But my main point is this: we need to do this if for no other reason than to provide leadership for the rest of the world. I am more comfortable knowing that our country, our researchers, our FDA is providing oversight and guidance on this discovery which could lead almost anywhere. Lets make sure that with our leadership, the discoveries will be used for the betterment of human kind rather than for nefarious purposes. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the substitute and rejection of H.R. 534.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 534 and in strong support for the Greenwood/Deutsch/DeGette/Eshoo/Kirk substitute. The United States has long been the leader in medical research and biotechnology. Biotechnological advances have the potential to transform the way we treat many debilitating diseases. One promising way that biotechnology is changing our lives is through the potential of stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is not cloning in the sense most people use the term, namely using technology to create a person who is a genetically identical copy of someone else. That type of cloning is reproductive cloning and is rightfully subject to a ban. The Greenwood Substitute would do just that. In addition, the Greenwood Substitute would also permit therapeutic cloning. The potential therapies that may be developed from therapeutic cloning are significant. Therapeutic cloning will help researchers pursue stem cell therapies that could impact the lives of millions of Americans suffering from many of our most devastating illnesses, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, ALS, heart disease, cancer, and spinal cord injury. Further, this technology offers hope to the more than 1 million American children who suffer from juvenile diabetes because of the potential to turn these cells into insulin- producing cells. We have entered the 21st Century and are on the verge of breakthrough biomedical discoveries that could save millions of lives. H.R. 534 would halt vital research that has the potential to revolutionize the biotech industry. Stopping this research in its tracks puts the United States at a clear and immediate disadvantage. Other nations such as Britain, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands, all of which currently have laws allowing therapeutic cloning from designated sources, continue to advance the technology. Molecular and cellular biologists committed to this research have already begun to look abroad, and they take with them lucrative investments from the biotech industry. Other scientists have dropped the cause all together, wasting precious time in the development of life-saving procedures that will someday help millions of people. Back home in Wisconsin, I have had the privilege of meeting with Dr. James Thomson, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has contributed greatly to stem cell research. Three years ago he became the first person to isolate stem cells from human embryos. He has not taken on this work lightly, he has thought carefully about the ethical implications of his research. For Dr. Thompson, the moral questions about embryo experimentation were not difficult to resolve; he concluded that research was the ``better ethical choice.'' Because embryonic stem cells have the potential to grow into any cell or tissue in the human body, scientists say they hold great potential for repairing damaged tissues or organs. But to extract them requires that the embryo be destroyed, therefore, every year since 1995, Congress has attached language to its appropriations legislation to ban taxpayer financing of the work. This ban requires that Dr. Thomson work into different laboratories, one of them in secret. He works primarily out of the university's primate center. This is his federally financed laboratory where he studies stem cells derived from the embryos of rhesus monkeys and marmosets. When he conducts research on human cells, he must, however, move to an entirely different laboratory. This one is paid for by WiCell Research Institute, a corporation set up as a subsidiary of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the nonprofit group that holds the patent to Dr. Thomson's work. The location of this lab has never been disclosed to ensure the safety of the workers. Freedom of research has led to the development of over 117 biotech products that have helped more than 250 million people worldwide. In addition, the biotech industry generated $28.5 billion in revenues in 2001, an increase of more than 350 percent in just ten years. Further, employment within the sector more than doubled in the same time period. The United States has an obligation to demonstrate our continued leadership in this arena and we can only do so with the support of our government. We cannot afford the loss of resources that a chilled scientific climate will bring. We should not cede our leadership, or our industry, to other nations. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Weldon bill. Support responsible research, vote yes on the Greenwood Substitute.