Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I support the efforts today to make necessary technical changes to the Higher Education Act. On behalf of the 3rd Congressional District of Wisconsin, I have a significant interest in a particular section of this legislation that will assist the University of Wisconsin two-year campuses in my home state. Over the past 30 years, Congress has established a series of programs to help low-income Americans enter college, graduate, and move on to participate more fully in America's economic and social life. These programs include financial aid programs that help students overcome economic barriers to higher education, as well as TRIO programs which help students overcome class, social, and cultural barriers to higher education. Currently, TRIO regulations allow multiple branch campuses to submit separate grant applications so long as the programs are run on campuses that are both geographically apart and independent of the main campus of the institution. Unfortunately, the Department of Education does not recognize the University of Wisconsin system as having ``independent'' two-year campuses because the thirteen branch campuses share a single chancellor. Thus, the University of Wisconsin's two-year college system is only eligible for one TRIO grant, which currently provide only $435,000 for 475 students. This group of students is only 6 percent of those eligible for funding under the program. Since 1996, when the UW campuses were first denied individual TRIO grants, until 2004, when they will next be able to apply for individual grants, they will have lost more than 1.4 million dollars in funding. This money could have served hundreds of students. These institutions of higher education should not be penalized simply because of their administrative structure. Therefore, I am pleased that language from H.R. 4637, legislation I introduced with Congressman Petri, that makes technical changes to the TRIO regulations, is included in this bill. The language will redefine what constitutes a different campus, allowing the University of Wisconsin's two-year schools to compete fairly for TRIO grants, just as other schools already do. In the end, these campuses will be able to serve more students who need assistance. Mr. Speaker, I am happy that this language was included in FED-UP. I support assisting students in attaining a higher education. This legislation will help more people attend college, and as a result be more competitive in the workforce.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just want to commend the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations for his attention to this very serious issue that has afflicted the State of Wisconsin, chronic wasting disease. Mr. Chairman, I am an avid hunter myself, with two little boys, and this has sent shock waves across the entire State of Wisconsin. This is the first time the disease has been detected east of the Mississippi. It has now been detected west of the Continental Divide. It has also been detected down in New Mexico. This is a disease that is spreading across the continent, and the paucity of scientific research has led to a lot of bad options on how to contain it. That is why earlier this year I introduced legislation to establish a comprehensive scientific research program so we can start getting some answers in regard to CWD, and what we can best do to contain it and hopefully eradicate it, so future generations may enjoy the sport of hunting whitetail in the State of Wisconsin. But this has received a lot of attention. We have been working in a bipartisan fashion within the Wisconsin delegation. Our leader here, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on the Committee on Appropriations has been very attentive to these issues, and the mounting expenses and the great concern we have in Wisconsin over the impact of this disease. I am heartened to hear the assurance from the other Members of the committee, the ranking member and the chairman himself, whom we have been in touch with, in regard to their attention to this issue. I am confident that if we can continue proceeding in a bipartisan fashion, hopefully we will be able to get things in place in order to prevent the further spread of this disease, and hopefully, eventually the eradication of it.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution as well, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), my good friend and colleague, and also one of the finest golfers in this institution. (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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? Seniors without prescription drug coverage often pay the highest prices for their medication. Pharmaceutical companies negotiate prices with their most favored customers, such as HMOs, but seniors without drug coverage do not benefit from these negotiations. Not only do my seniors face price discrimination in their hometowns, but also they can go to Canada and get the same medicine for a substantially cheaper price. On average my constituents would pay about 80 percent less for their drugs in Canada than they do at home in western Wisconsin. That is wrong. The cost of prescription medicines should not place financial 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. Unfortunately, today's debate is a sham. We will not have the opportunity to discuss this issue in a fair and open process. The majority decided to railroad the debate and silence the minority by not allowing an alternative to be debated and voted upon. 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 polices which they have said they won't offer. If insurance companies won't offer these policies, how will seniors actually obtain prescription drug coverage under the leadership plan? Every insurance company with whom I have spoken has said that they will not offer a drug-only insurance policy. In fact, during our last debate on this issue, the Health Insurance Association of America, which consists of nearly 300 insurance companies, released a statement claiming, ``These `drug only' policies represent an empty promise to America's seniors. They are not workable or realistic.'' Why should the insurance companies provide these drug only policies? They are in the business of insuring risk and there is no risk associated with a drug only policy. This single benefit policy will result in adverse risk seleciton--only people with predictably high prescription medicine costs will purchase the plan. This will increase the cost to the insurance companies who in turn will pass the costs on to the beneficiaries through higher premiums. In addition, 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. Wisconsin may end up on the short end of the stick like we have in the past under Medicare. Another problem is the huge hole in coverage. Once a senior hits $2,000 in drug costs there is no coverage until they spend $3,700 in out-of-pocket expenses. Nearly half of all seniors have drug expenditures over $2,000 and will receive no drug coverage for part of the year. Further, there is no help for low-income seniors to cover their drug costs over $2,000 and before they hit the stop-loss. We must provide a real solution to the problem of prescription drug coverage for our seniors. The Republican plan falls woefully short. The Democratic proposal, however, heads in the right direction and builds on the current Medicare program. The benefit would include: a $25/month premium; a $100 annual deductible; 20 percent cost-sharing for drug costs; and $2,000 out-of-pocket annual stop-loss. Low-income individuals up to 150 percent of poverty will pay no premium or cost- sharing. The Democratic plan would guarantee a minimum benefit and ensure that those who live in Wisconsin would receive the same benefit as those who live in California or Florida. This plan is expensive but it would work because of its simplicity. The question about its affordability depends on whether the American people want a meaningful prescription drug program or if they would rather see large tax cuts in the future for the wealthiest Americans. 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 steam-rolled ahead and presented 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 thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), or Dr. Hastings, for yielding me the time. I also want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), for reintroducing the legislation and for the leadership that he has provided, as well as the leadership that the Chair and the ranking members on the appropriate committees have given this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I do rise as a strong supporter of the rule, as well as for H.R. 3389, the bill to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program Act. While my district is far from either coast, the State of Wisconsin is host to some of our Nation's most important fresh water resources. With the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River as our borders, and more lakes, actually, than the State of Minnesota, water- quality issues are central to the lives of Wisconsin residents and the residents in the upper Midwest region. Mr. Speaker, the sea grant program provides Wisconsin with valuable tools for research and education associated with our unique natural resources. Through the University of Wisconsin system, support from sea grant enhances scientific research, education, and outreach throughout the entire State. In fact, the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute is nationally recognized as a leader in marine science education. I also have a personal interest in the sea grant program. Since I was first elected to Congress, my office has benefited as a participant in the Sea Grant Policy Fellowship Program. Serving in 1-year fellowships, sea grant Fellows have provided invaluable knowledge and experience to my office. As a co-chair of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Congressional Task Force, these Fellows have had their hands full working not only with water resource issues that affect my congressional district, which has more miles along the Mississippi River than any other congressional district in the Nation, but also have been helping to coordinate efforts throughout the entire five-state basin area in the upper Midwest. The United States has thrived through scientific achievements, and we must continue to encourage our students to pursue math and science education. The sea grant program is a great example of our efforts in this area, and noted accomplishments by the participants in the program represent how valuable this investment is. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to again thank the former sea grant Fellows that have served in my office, Jeff Stein, Ed Buckner, Allen Hance, and Laura Cimo, for their outstanding work. I would also like to thank the Members of this body for their past support of the sea grant program, and I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation today.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of making permanent the marriage penalty tax relief bill passed last year. I strongly believe that we should eliminate the tax penalty that some married couples incur because it is simply the right thing to do. Yet, it must be done in a fiscally responsible way that will not put our country further into the red. That is why I support the alternative legislation being offered by Representative Matsui, which will allow the marriage penalty tax relief bill passed last year to become permanent in 2010 as long as the extension does not raid the Social Security trust fund. In 2010, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will determine if permanent repeal of the marriage tax will not result in a raid on the Social Security. If, on the other hand, OMB determines the repeal will raid the trust fund, the repeal will be put on hold. This alternative bill to H.R. 4019 is a fiscally responsible approach to eliminating the marriage penalty because of the inclusion of the Social Security trigger mechanism. Moreover, the alternative offers permanent relief from the marriage tax penalty while also providing the Federal Government added flexibility. As we have seen all too clearly in these past 9 months, the Government needs the ability to revisit economic forecasts before moving forward with policies that may seriously cripple our ability to respond to new problems. Lastly, the alternative bill before the House today sends the right message to the American people: that we are serious about returning to the practice of fiscal responsibility and protecting Social Security. In comparison, H.R. 4019, sends the wrong message because it is so clearly fiscally irresponsible. It will cost nearly a half a trillion dollars over 10 years and will not have an impact until 2011, the same time that the baby boom generation will retire, and strain our Social Security and Medicare resources. Even Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, testified before the Senate Budget Committee in January 2002, warning Congress ``the fiscal pressures that will almost surely arise after 2010 will be formidable.'' Last year we passed a budget that boasted a 10-year unified surplus totaling $5.6 trillion. The administration and House leadership claimed that an expensive tax cut plan and other costly initiatives were eminently affordable and there would be enough of the budget surplus to eliminate most or all of the national debt. Thus, Congress passed a tax cut costing over $1.3 trillion. Unfortunately, the budget situation has changed dramatically since last year; large budget surpluses have been replaced by large and growing budget deficits due to the war on terrorism, increased homeland security, and the large tax cut. This year's deficit will be nearly $314 billion and over the next 10 years, the non-Social Security deficit will total $2.6 trillion. Mr. Speaker, tax relief is a bipartisan issue. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the need for providing tax relief to the hundreds and thousands of struggling families across our country. But making this tax cut permanent is not the result of bipartisanship. The large tax cut passed last year has already derailed the opportunity we had to reduce our large national debt and prepare for our future obligations--for aging population and children's futures. After decades of deficit spending, it is our responsibility to reduce the debt future generations will inherit. We must not keep digging a deeper hole for our children to climb out of in the future, rather, 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 and pass a legacy of debt onto my two little boys. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this fiscally irresponsible tax cut. Making the tax cut permanent without consideration for our Nation's fiscal situation will only further exacerbate our country's poor fiscal health. We must shore up Social Security and Medicare and reduce the national debt before passing such an expensive tax cut that we cannot afford. I did not come to Congress to saddle my two boys with a debt burden they did not create.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for making estate tax relief permanent so that family-owned farms and family-owned businesses can be passed down from generation to generation. Further, I support tax relief that helps spur small business investment and job growth. Family-owned businesses should not be punished for being successful or for having their owners pass away. Fundamentally, the United States is the land of opportunity, encouraging free enterprise and rewarding entrepreneurs. The estate tax should be modified to protect family- owned businesses and family farms from the threat of having to be sold just to pay the tax. 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 will ensure that estates that are $6 million or less for a couple or $3 million for an individual will pay no estate taxes beginning January 1 of 2003. This is a meaningful exemption that picks up all but a few taxable estates. In fact, only 0.36 percent of estates remaining will be required to pay the tax. At a time of national crisis that calls for shared sacrifice, the leadership wants to make the repeal of the estate tax, that benefits less than one percent of taxpayers, permanent in 2012. This will drain more than one trillion dollars from the budget just as the Baby Boom's retirement reaches full force; making the estate tax repeal permanent alone would cost 40 percent of the amount needed to make Social Security financially sound for the next 75 years. Last year we passed a budget that boasted a ten-year unified surplus totaling $5.6 trillion, which included repeal of the estate tax until 2011. The leadership claimed that an expensive tax cut plan and other costly initiatives were eminently affordable and there would be enough of the budget surplus to eliminate most or all of the national debt. Thus Congress passed a tax cut costing over $1.3 trillion. Unfortunately, since then, the budget surplus has disappeared, due to the war on terrorism, increased homeland security, and the large tax cut. This year's deficit will be nearly $314 billion and over the next ten years, the non-Social Security deficit will total $2.6 trillion. After decades of deficit spending, it is our responsibility to 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 our future generations for the unforeseeable future, including my two little boys. Tax relief, however, is a bipartisan issue. I am cosponsor of H.R. 1210, the Family-Owned Business Survival Act. This bill would repeal the limitations on the estate tax deduction for family-owned business interests. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the need for providing estate tax relief, but this bill is not the result of bipartisanship. The tax cut passed last year has already derailed the opportunity we had to reduce our large national debt and prepare for our future obligations to our aging population and children's futures. Making this repeal permanent will only further exasperate our nation's poor fiscal health. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for leadership to pursue its own individual agenda to score political points in an election year. This is purely a symbolic vote timed as millions of Americans begin to consider the candidates in the fall elections. I urge my colleagues to oppose this fiscally irresponsible tax cut and support the Pomeroy alternative. Unlike the leadership's bill, the alternative will give immediate relief to our family business and family farmers and will cost less than one-half of H.R. 2143. We must shore up Social Security and Medicare and reduce the national debt before passing such an expensive tax cut that we cannot afford. I did not come to Congress to saddle my two boys with a debt burden they did not create.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this process is wrong. What is occurring here, starting last night and throughout the course of the day and perhaps into tomorrow and this weekend, is wrong, because it is perpetrating just yet one more fraud upon the American people on an important policy issue, an important debate that we should have in this Chamber, and that is what type of economic policy are we going to be pursuing as a Nation that will have long-term broad implications for virtually every single American in this country? Today, Mr. Chairman, we have visitors up in the gallery of the House. I see some seniors. I see middle-aged Americans. I see young children and students from around the country. The debate we are having today is an important one because it affects every single life in this Chamber today and every single life throughout the country. What is hidden is a fraud covered under the guise of an emergency supplemental bill under all the patriotic speeches we have been hearing over the course of the last 24 hours, support for troops, support for homeland security, we can stipulate right now that we are in support of the troops, we are in support of investment in homeland security. There is no issue, there is no wedge that divides Republicans and Democrats on that. But it is the extraneous provisions that have been attached to the supplemental bill that is wrong, and it is fraudulent, and it is being done for political purposes, for partisan motivation alone. It is wrong to have provisions that adjust the Medicare reimbursement so it affects just a few hospitals in this country, excluding the host of other hospitals, including those in my district, that are suffering under inadequate reimbursement rates, but they are being added to the supplemental bill figuring it is something that is going to fly through mainly for political purposes. But what has me mostly concerned about this supplemental is the important debate we should be having in this Congress and throughout the Nation about raising the debt in this country by over $750 billion. When you talk to people about annual deficits and national debt and the impact it is going to have on the financial markets, people basically say ``what?'' But what this is about is the national credit card and adding $750 billion more on the national credit card and the interest payments we are going to have to pay for years and years to come. Now, they are fond on the other side of accusing Democrats of favoring tax-and-spend provisions. But what they are pursuing is even worse in regards to economic policy. They are spend and borrow and borrow and borrow. I would submit, what is more fair than to ask the current generation of Americans to contribute to the benefits and the programs that we have today through taxes that they should be paying for, or whether we should deliver the benefits of those programs, but delay the pain and burden of paying for them to future generations, to our children and to the next generation of children when these IOUs come due because of the large national debt that is being accumulated and the obligation that our kids are going to have to meet in future years. That is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I have 2 little boys at home. They are just 3 and 5, and hopefully within a couple of days I am going to be able to return and look them in the eyes. I want to be able to tell them we had the courage and we had the wisdom in this Congress to be thinking about their futures and the future of our country, rather than short-term political gain and what impact this might have on the next election cycle. But by hiding the increase in the national debt ceiling under the guise of a patriotic supplemental bill, we are delaying the day of reckoning and, unfortunately, that burden, that obligation and responsibility, will not be falling upon the current generation who is asking for the programs that need to be paid for, such as the investment in defense spending and homeland security. Instead, it is going to fall on the youngest and most vulnerable in our Nation today, our children and future generations. That is what is so wrong with this process right now. I understand they do not want to debate the economic policies they passed last year and the fact we are back into annual structural deficits again. It is a replay of the 1980s all over again. But the difference today, Mr. Chairman, is this simple fact: We do not have the luxury of recovering from the failed economic policies of the past by turning the economy around and running surpluses again, because we have 77 million Americans all marching lockstep to their retirement in a few short years. Now is the time to maintain fiscal discipline. Now is the time to pursue fiscal responsibility, to prepare our country and to prepare future generations to deal with the aging population, with this demographic time bomb that is about to go off. But, unfortunately, that is not what is being considered in this supplemental. Instead, they are trying to increase the debt ceiling, digging a deeper hole, creating a greater financial burden for future generations and our children, and that is what is wrong, and that is why 1 party at least has to stand up and tell the truth to the American people today. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Older Americans Month, May 2002. The theme this year is America: A Community for All Ages, recognizing the national community in which we live, and paying tribute to the multi-generational family that is the strength of America. Older members of our families and communities provide us with a historical perspective and contribute to our nation's greatness and prosperity. The experiences, stories, and knowledge of our senior citizens are integral to our understanding of our country and our world. To help preserve their stories I am proud to have authored legislation during the 106th Congress that created the Veterans History Project. The Veterans History Project is run by the Library of Congress, which coordinates a collection of video and audio recordings of the personal histories of American war veterans, as well as copies of their letters, diaries, and photographs. The library will also establish a publicly accessible archive for these recordings and documents. Beyond this project, I have always strongly advocated for legislation that supports our Nation's seniors. Two of the most important issues facing older Americans today are Social Security and prescription drug coverage under medicare. The solvency of Social Security is a serious concern for all Americans. I have consistently supported legislation that shores up and secures Social Security benefits for our older Americans. For example, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 4671, the Social Security Widow's Benefit Guarantee Act. This bill would increase widows' and widowers' Social Security Benefits to 75 percent of the combined amount the couple had been receiving prior to the death of the spouse. In a typical case, a widow's benefit would increase by 12 percent, or more than $100/month. The House just passed the Republican version of this bill, which is a good first step toward ensuring these benefits. Similarly, the rising cost of prescription drugs is one of our most important health care challenges. Currently, senior citizens who pay for their own prescription medication pay more than twice as much for drugs than do the pharmaceutical companies' most favored customers. Exacerbating this problem is the fact that even though seniors use the most prescriptions, over 75 percent of seniors on Medicare lack reliable drug coverage. Recently, both Republicans and Democrats have talked about introducing and passing legislation that provides prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I am working with my colleagues to craft legislation that would provide a voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit, providing access for every senior no matter where they live or what their income. Easy solutions to the high cost of prescription drugs and the solvency of Social Security do not exist. It is my hope that as the 107th Congress progresses, my colleagues will not forget about the needs of our older Americans, and will continue to work for legislation that preserves the benefits our Nation's seniors richly deserve.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the cosponsors of the Democratic substitute and I also rise in opposition to the Republican base bill. Mr. Speaker, we have a tale of two different visions here between these two bills: Our vision that believes in maintaining the importance of State flexibility and State innovation in implementing the next round of welfare reform, that believes in empowering the individuals on welfare reforms through access to education and a job training programs and that believes that we need to be careful in regards to what we do with the children of these families. We provide the resources to help with quality child care services because we know that those on welfare are not going to enter the workforce if they know the kids are not properly being taken care of in a quality environment. That is in contrast to the Republican version, which is very long on conservatism and very short on compassion. If everyone truly believes that welfare reform should be about welfare to work, then why do we not create an incentive rewarding States that help welfare recipients get decent, meaningful jobs? That is exactly what we accomplish with the Democratic substitute with an employment credit rather than a caseload reduction credit that they want to continue under current law. Their approach is to reward States for merely kicking people off the welfare rolls yet we do not know what happens to them because there is a paucity of data in regards to where the families are, what they are doing and what happens to the kids. The other important link with this is making sure that there is a greater responsibility for the noncustodial parent. Our bill provides an incentive for States to make sure that noncustodial parents, fathers of these kids, to get a job and contribute with child support payments rather than the entire burden falling on single mothers. Their approach is a $300 million experimental marriage counseling program that we have no information on whether it even works given again the paucity of research in this area. Finally, we must recognize there are those on welfare that are there for a reason, either because of domestic abuse, sexual assaults, cognitive and physical disabilities. Our legislation recognizes the most vulnerable in our society and gives States the flexibility they need in order to deal with those unique cases. I encourage support for the substitute and reject the Republican alternative. The Republican bill is a step in the wrong direction; it replaces state flexibility with unfunded mandates, it promotes make-work at the expense of wage-paying employment, and does nothing to help families escape poverty when they leave welfare for work. I worked closely, however, with Representatives Cardin, Woolsey, Tanner, and Thompson in crafting a Democratic substitute that better assists the states in moving families from welfare to work and I empower individuals so they can become self-sufficient. During consideration of welfare reform in the Education and Workforce Committee I offered three amendments that would have improved the base bill. The first amendment was an employment credit; the second amendment would have given states incentives to put fathers to work so they could pay child support; and the third amendment would have allowed states to consider domestic abuse or sexual violence in the development of families' self-sufficiency plan. Unfortunately, I withdrew the fatherhood amendment under the agreement that Leadership would continue to work on the amendment between committee consideration and the floor. They did not, however, stand by their commitment and excluded this amendment from HR 4735. Furthermore, Leadership adopted the domestic violence and sexual abuse amendment by voice vote in committee but did not include it in the final bill. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee I offered the employment credit amendment with Congressman Levin and I offered the fatherhood amendment with Congressman Roemer. Yet, once again, the House Leadership voted against my amendments and prohibited them from consideration on the House floor. the democratic substitute The Rules Committee did, however, accept the Democratic substitute as part of the Rule for debate on the House floor. As one of the new Co- chairs of the New Democrat Coalition, I am pleased that the substitute incorporated many of the New Democrats' suggestions. In 1996, one of the signature New Democrat initiatives was the successful welfare reform legislation. Centered on the principle of ``work first'', this approach, coupled with efforts to make work pay, has succeeded where previous attempts to reform welfare failed. Our Democratic substitutes strengthen the current work requirements. It increases the work participation rate to 70% and increased the number of direct work activities hours from 20 to 24 hours. These increased work requirements are consistent with the president's proposal. In addition, the caseload reduction credit is replaced with the employment credit, which I offered in committee. Our substitute also provides states with an additional $11 billion for mandatory childcare funding over five years; it increases the set aside for child care quality from 4% to 12%; and it provides an inflationary increase for the TANF block grant. Conversely, the Leadership's bill would impose nearly $11 billion over the next five years in unfunded mandate on the states, without the additional resources we include in our substitute. In Wisconsin, my home state, the unfunded mandates would add another $134 million over five years to the state's current $1.1 billion budget deficit. Our substitute also provides the states with the flexibility and freedom to innovate. Specifically, it allows states to count education and training towards its participation rate for up to 24 months. This is significant because the most promising state programs that help welfare recipients obtain and advance in a job combine a ``work first'' approach with supplemental training and education. The Republican proposal eliminates vocation educational training from the list of work related activities that count towards the State's participation rate and limits other education and training to a mere four months. Further, our substitute allows states to assist legal immigrant families with federal TANF funds while the Republican bill would maintain the ban on providing legal immigrants with Federal assistance. Employment Credit Amendment Current law rewards states for removing people from the rolls. Because the credit does not take into account whether welfare leavers are working, states can win reductions in their participation requirements without actually helping leavers find jobs. Further, because caseloads are at historic low, states will have a difficult time benefiting from the revised caseload reduction credit included in HR 4735. Even the president eliminated the caseload reduction credit in his proposal and replaced it with his own employment credit. We need to shift the focus and reward states for not only moving families off the rolls but also for moving them into jobs, with a bonus for moving them into higher-paying jobs. The amendment I offered during mark-up in committee would have done just that by replacing the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit. Under the employment credit, for every one percent of welfare recipients that leave the rolls for work, the state's work participation requirement would be reduced by one percent. In addition, it would have increased state flexibility and measured the state's performance along the entire continuum from welfare to work. Noncustodial Parent Amendment The first round of welfare reform required low-income mothers to work rather than make welfare a way of life. Reauthorization, however, should challenge the fathers of TANF children to also be responsible for raising their children. Thus, I offered an amendment with Congressman Roemer during committee mark-up that would have rewarded states with a credit towards its worker participation rate if they worked with fathers to increase their employment and pay child support. The additional piece to this amendment would have rewarded states even further, with a bonus to states that achieve or exceed employment performance targets. This bonus was authorized at $100 million, and the money would have come from the funding for the Family Formation and Healthy Marriage program. While very little research exists about marriage and its direct benefit to children, substantial research shows working fathers most effectively improves children's emotional and financial well-being. domestic and Sexual Violence Amendment Violence is a fact of life for too many poor women; as many as 60% of women receiving welfare have been victims of domestic violence as adults. The incidence and severity of violence in their lives can keep them from escaping poverty. Therefore, the amendment I offered in committee would have required states to screen women on welfare to determine if they have been subjected to domestic or sexual violence and then states may refer them to necessary services. It is unfortunate that this assessment will not be included in the development of families' self-sufficiency plan. It is critical that these women receive the necessary assistance to help them heal and escape poverty. Conclusion While it is unfortunate that my amendments were not included in the base bill, I am pleased to be a lead sponsor of the Democratic substitute and to have the opportunity to offer it on the floor today. My colleagues and I worked hard to reach a compromise that we think will best serve our nation's various populations and their needs. Most importantly, our alternative will allow states to focus on placing welfare recipients into real jobs and helping them escape poverty. That should be our number one priority, which sadly, the Leadership's bill does not accomplish.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce that has partial jurisdiction over the legislation, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the martial law rule, in opposition to the general rule to the base bill, and opposition to the Republican bill, and in strong support of the Democratic substitute. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious piece of legislation before our body this year. This affects many, many of our constituents in each of our congressional districts. Many of our Members on this side feel very strongly about the substance of this legislation, the impact it is going to have on individuals and families and young children throughout the country. But since the very beginning of the process of this legislation in the House, the minority party has effectively been shut out and excluded. And this is true at the subcommittee level, at the full committee level, and now at a time when this legislation is brought before the American people for debate and consideration on the House floor. We were not allowed one amendment to be considered tonight for discussion and for a vote on the minority side. I guess the way the process works we should feel very fortunate and lucky that we are even offered a substitute, based on the way things have worked out. But this is an important piece of legislation. People do feel strongly about it because this is not about the old law now where we are going to hear a lot of speeches about the success of moving people off of welfare and due to the strong economy and due to the innovation in various States, including my own State of Wisconsin, there has been success in the last 5 years moving people off of welfare reform. This is about the next generation of welfare reform. Dealing with the toughest recipients right now who are still on welfare due to some very good reasons, whether it has been domestic abuse or sexual assaults against them or cognitive disabilities or physical disabilities, these are the tough cases; and we need to think creatively in how we are dealing with that if we are truly interested in talking about individual empowerment and self-sufficiency and lifting people out of poverty. But, unfortunately, we will not have that debate today. We will not be offered the chance to offer constructive amendments to move the process forward on a bipartisan basis. And because of that, I encourage my colleagues to support the substitute and vote ``no'' on final passage.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is an unfair rule, and it does not give the minority party a chance to engage in a meaningful, substantive debate about the base bill by offering amendments. Now, during the course of this debate as it resumes tomorrow, we are going to hear a lot of fluff and a lot of bluster about empowering individuals with work and jobs, but if we are truly interested in lifting people out of poverty, we must be interested in giving them an opportunity for work. Yet, an amendment that myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) wanted to offer which would have established a work credit, an incentive for States to move people off of welfare into meaningful, respectable paying jobs, is denied an opportunity to be fully heard. We are also going to be hearing a lot of talk about the importance of two-parent families and the role of fathers with welfare reform. Yet an amendment I wanted to offer with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that would create an incentive for States to make sure that noncustodial parents get work and also pay child support payments, which is important for the upbringing of these kids, is denied a meaningful debate during consideration of this legislation. Also, another important area that needs to be addressed with the base bill, and that is victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault are in a unique situation. They sometimes have deep psychological scars and it is not easy for them to turn their life around. Yet, consideration of those issues, which are very important for a lot of people currently on welfare rolls throughout the country, is not given meaningful attention under the base bill. These issues, however, have been addressed in the Democratic substitute, one that we will be hearing more about and the differences, the basic differences between the two bills, and that is why I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we can open up the base bill for more discussion. But if that fails, support the Democratic substitute and vote ``no'' on the Republican underlying bill.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. In its present form I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Committee on Agriculture, I know and truly appreciate how hard it is to form a consensus farm policy with so many different competing regions, experiences, different interests and ideas, in what should constitute the farm bill. You throw in an important election season, and it makes it very, very difficult. And I appreciate the work that has gone in from the leadership on the committee and the staff in particular. But this has not been about personalities, it has been about process and the policy; and unfortunately, it has been a bad process, and it has resulted in bad policy. That is why later today at the end of general debate, I am going to be offering a motion to recommit with instructions based on a motion to instruct conferees that passed the House by 265 votes a little over 2 weeks ago. It would establish a meaningful payment limitation cap, consistent with the Senate language, of $275,000, without exceptions, without loopholes. Now, if you believe it is good farm policy for the next 10 years to continue to heap more and more taxpayer subsidies on a few but very large commodity producers in this country, then you probably should vote against my motion to recommit. But if you believe, as I do, that we can do better, that we can produce a more fair and balanced farm bill that helps all our family farmers in all regions of the country, maintain fiscal discipline, and also maintain the opportunity for trade opportunities for our farmers, then I would encourage my colleagues to support the motion to recommit. It is drafted clearly, very simply. The committee can adopt the language and report right back with the farm bill. This does not have to be a deal-killer; this does not have to ruin the ability to be able to provide a meaningful and balanced farm bill for all of our family farmers and to give them certainty in the upcoming planting season. That is really what is at stake, in what direction we are going to go; whether we can have the courage to be consistent, where a majority of the Members of the House, a majority of the Senate are already on record of supporting a meaningful payment cap of $275,000; or if we are going to revert back to the old style farm policy. I encourage my colleagues to support the motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, to understate the phrase, this has been a very difficult process, trying to put together a farm bill and projecting out in future years the needs of our family farmers, but we can still produce a better result. We need a farm bill, a farm bill that will be a more fair and balanced farm bill for all our family farmers in all regions of the country. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I intend, at the conclusion of the debate, to offer a motion to recommit with instructions, based on a motion that already passed this House a little over 2 weeks ago with 265 Members of this House on record supporting a $275,000 meaningful payment limitation cap consistent with the language that is already in the Senate bill and consistent with the majority wishes in the United States Senate. There exists a majority in both the House and the Senate now to take this approach to farm policy, so we cannot only have a safety net for our family farmers but also be able to do it within the realm of fiscal responsibility and fiscal discipline; being able to provide more benefits to family farmers in all regions, while also maintaining the hope and promise that we can open up greater market access to agriculture products produced in this country. That has to be a part of any long-term farm policy. Without a meaningful payment limitation cap, the next round of trade talks are in serious jeopardy, in my opinion. We are hearing the clash of the international community coming down on this Congress with the farm bill that is before us today, telling us it will jeopardize the ability to negotiate fair trade agreements for our American producers. With the money and resources that are freed up with this payment cap, we would have more for volunteer and incentive-based conservation programs, programs that will lead to better watershed management, quality water supplies, the protection of wildlife and fish habitat, and, ultimately, the protection of productive farm land itself. We would be able to have additional resources for agriculture research, for rural development and nutrition programs, but also for the new energy program, relying on biomass and biofuels, which is the wave of the future. Now, this is the way it should be decided, through a debate and by a vote. It should not be a clash of personalities; rather, an honest debate over ideas. I believe this motion to commit will produce a better farm bill at the end of the day and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. First of all, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding to me and securing time the night before one of the most important pieces of legislation affecting rural America and our farmers, the agriculture sector, will be coming before us. I want to commend my other colleagues here, too, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for the leadership they have shown on the issue and the particular insight they have brought to this debate. In the past, farm bills have been a tricky proposition to put together. First of all, half of the Members of Congress, when you think about it, do not have a farm in their entire congressional district. So it is hard to engage individual Members of Congress on what constitutes the farm bill and the impact it is going to have on budgetary, fiscal policy and also rural programs, and, ultimately, support for our family farmers across the country. We have had a conference now that has been meeting for a period of time, and they are reporting out a bill. I, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is a member of the Committee on Agriculture as well, understand how terribly difficult the process is in a place like Congress to formulate a coalition to develop a farm bill given the competing interests, the different perspectives from different regions of the country, each with their own experiences, each with their own interests and insight on what should constitute a farm bill. But as someone who has been involved in the process now since all of last year, the markup in the committee and watching the conference committee do their work, I am a little disenchanted in the way the process has ultimately worked. Yes, we are in a political season, an election year. That has affected the outcome of the decisions being made on that. But when you look at the details that are just now emerging, the actual letter of the law being proposed, and even a lot of that is still unclear, and I think USDA should be very concerned that a lot of the provisions have not been clearly defined to enable them to implement what is in this conference bill, let alone whether it makes good policy, but you are talking about a bill that is going to have a huge impact on fiscal policy for this Nation for at least the next 10 years. We are talking about an additional $73 billion of new money on top of the roughly $100 billion that has been spent on farm bill programs under the old bill. Yet with these $73 billion of new money, roughly 75 percent of that is going to get sucked up in just a few commodity crop programs that will only benefit less than, less than, 30 percent of our American farmers in this country. Yet it is being hailed as this great safety net for our family farmers across the country. But any bill that comes forward that only affects roughly 30 percent and excludes, for all practical purposes, 70 percent of the American producers in this country hardly constitutes a safety net, in my book. But there are also very troubling implications, too, with the payment limitation caps that are alleged under this bill. Those of us on the floor here today brought forward a motion to instruct just a week ago, setting a payment limitation cap of $275,000 in a given year for an individual entity receiving these type of payments. Unfortunately, even though it passed with over 260 votes in the House and it received majority support in the Senate, the conferees basically ignored the wishes of the majority of Members of Congress in regards to the payment caps that we passed on a motion to instruct. Not only did they ignore it by increasing that to $360,000, but they carved out exceptions that would basically blow the lid off of any practical cap or limitation. These are mandatory spending programs that we are talking about here that are going to explode in the out years and have a devastating impact on fiscal policy in this Nation, not to mention distorting the marketplace, because we are paying producers not based on market conditions, but based on acreage and what they produce, which creates an incentive for them to produce more and more and more, which leads to oversupply and then a plummeting of these very same commodity prices and us getting in this vicious cycle of these mandatory payment programs going out, or, even worse, of having to deal with multibillion dollar farm relief bills because of an incentive program being created encouraging overproduction. So the motion to instruct that we passed with 260 votes would place a real payment cap of $275,000, which is still pretty generous in regards to these subsidy payments, but also using some of the money that would be freed up to go into these voluntary and incentive-based conservation programs, a little bit more into the agriculture research programs. So we are talking about some value added in creating wealth in the farm bill, rather than just direct subsidy payments.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I do have some additional information. In fact, I was just recently informed by our leadership on this side that we will be offering the motion to recommit based on the payment limitation caps. So we will have another chance tomorrow to effectuate the end product of this debate, so to speak. So I think this is going to be a very important motion.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, we will be offering the motion to recommit, based on, by and large, the motion to instruct, again that passed by 260 votes just a little over a week ago. Because what we have now is a product that is greased to go. It was just filed a couple of hours ago. We are trying to pour through the details. We all know the devil is in the details in a lot of legislation. It is really in the wording, and what exceptions are thrown into these bills that can have a tremendous effect on policy. So we are trying to pour through that as quickly as possible. But given the fact that the Members of the House and now the Senate are on record of supporting a 275 payment cap that has already passed, I think we have an opportunity with this motion to recommit to send it back to the conferees with these instructions again that this is really the will of the majority of Members of Congress, and that they need to treat it seriously this time, rather than brushing it off as merely an advisory type of motion. So we are going to have to get the word out between tonight and tomorrow. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for one final point. I want to be perfectly clear on this point. I represent over 10,600 family farmers in my congressional district alone. What we are proposing here should not be perceived for a second to be antifarmer. It is rather how can we help effectuate good farm policy for basically the next 10 years. There is one crucial aspect in regards to these subsidy payments that I think a lot of our colleagues have ignored or just overlooked, and that is the trade implications. I mean historically, a round of trade discussions have usually dealt their fatal blows over disputes over farm policy. Now we are starting to hear the rest of the world in a single chorus cry out against the tremendous amount of subsidies that we are piling on in this next farm bill and encouraging retaliation on their part, but even more than that, encouraging bad faith negotiation in the next round of trade discussions which are important to our family farmers, but also important for economic growth in this country. So if we do not get this aspect of the farm bill right in regards to our WTO obligations and setting up the next round of trade discussions for success rather than failure, this is something that is going to come back and haunt us for a very long time, not just on agricultural exports, but on a whole range of products that we need market access to, and it is going to be very hard to accomplish if this is the message that we are sending to the rest of the world, that we are going to pile on the subsidies here, virtually unlimited, and yet we expect them to open up their markets to our products. I thank the gentleman again for this time.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3801, the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. As a member of the Education and Workforce committee, I am proud to have been a part of the bipartisan effort to strengthen the quality of public education in all regions of the country. This bill restructures the Office of Education Research and Improvement, OERI, first authorized in 1994, maintaining the regional support structures to help our schools succeed. This issue is of special importance to the people of my district in western Wisconsin. The small, rural schools of my district strive to provide quality educational opportunities for their students, but need a support structure to help implement the many changes recently required by the Federal Government in the No Child Left Behind Act. OERI provides such a structure through regional laboratories and comprehensive centers. During reauthorization, I advocated for the continued funding of these regional entities that provide applied research and development along with technical assistance to schools in rural areas. At the same time, I support the need for a competitive environment geared toward performance-oriented funding for these regional entities. Without this type of regional structure, there would be no guarantee that schools such as those in my district would continue to receive these services. The comprehensive centers and regional educational laboratories are invaluable resources for providing quality education to children in our small, rural schools. The mission of the regional comprehensive center is to provide technical assistance to schools and districts, while the regional labs create strategies to promote student improvement through applied research. Schools in rural areas are often faced with the challenges of serving a community with a small population, making it difficult to maintain adequate funding and a strong technology infrastructure. The labs and comprehensive centers offer the assistance needed to meet the needs of students in these areas. By supporting these entities, children in rural schools can be afforded the same types of educational tools that their counterparts in large, more urban schools receive: access to educational technologies, enrichment in math and science, and gifted and talented education, all of which help prepare our children everywhere for the workforce of the future. In particular, the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, located in my home State, is able to provide schools with the tools they need for success. This comprehensive center at the University of Wisconsin- Madison School of Education provides services to Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. All of these States contain a large number of small, rural schools in need of the technical assistance and applied research to continue providing quality education to the students of their districts. The Wisconsin Center provides proven, quality research dedicated to improving education for students of all ages, and is indeed one of the premier comprehensive centers in the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have been a part of the committee that recognized the importance of strong research and evaluation in providing quality education to students of our country. I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman from Delaware, Mr. Castle, the ranking member from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, and the other members of the subcommittee for the continued efforts to make this bipartisan bill as strong as possible. Through our efforts we will continue to ensure that no child is left behind in our education system.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I commend him for his leadership and the leadership of the Hispanic Caucus in this conference in bringing up this important motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, as a new cochair of the Democratic Coalition, I am pleased to rise today in strong support of the Baca motion. This motion works to ensure that those who are here legally in the United States receive basic food stamp benefits. After the implementation of the 1996 welfare reform legislation, most legal immigrants lost their access to all welfare benefits, including food stamps. Although legal immigrants represent only about 6 percent of those on public aid, they took the brunt of the cuts made by the welfare law. Many of those who lost benefits were people who could not support themselves. They were too disabled, too old, or too frail to work. Further, research has shown that since this legislation was passed, many immigrant children have experienced increased difficulty in obtaining the resources to purchase nutritionally-adequate food. The motion before the House today would restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrants. Support for restoring this benefit crosses idealogical and partisan lines. A report issued by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, subsequent to the welfare law's enactment, recommended against denying benefits to legal immigrants solely because they were noncitizens. In fact, President Bush's 2003 budget includes a proposal to restore food stamps to legal immigrants who have lived in the United States for 5 years; but now, that is being blocked by the Republican majority in Congress during this conference meeting. As a New Democrat, I believe it is essential to support our legal immigrants. Our welfare reform law broke the long-standing agreement between future citizens and their adopted homeland. Legal immigrants share the same responsibility as citizens. They pay taxes; they serve in the military. Many, if not all, are working hard to become full- fledged citizens. The United States has always embraced legal immigrants who enrich our culture and work hard to make our Nation stronger; but just like anyone else, immigrants can sometimes fall on hard times. We now have an opportunity to do the right thing and reestablish the contract between legal immigrants and American society. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for showing the leadership on this important issue. I rise in support of the motion to instruct to adopt the Senate language to lift the embargo that has existed against Cuba all of these years. A sensible and fair trade policy is an essential feature of economic growth in this country, but the 40-year trade embargo against Cuba has not only been unfair, it has been a failure. Castro is still there. Yet it is our American farmers that are hurt the most by the inability to export to a country just 70 miles off from our coast. It is time to try engagement. At a time as we live in today when we are importing oil from such regimes as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, even Venezuela and even Iraq, to claim that we should not be trading with Cuba is the height of hypocrisy. Yet what is funny about this whole debate is the American people have been way out ahead of policymakers in this country, especially Presidential candidates as they go down to Florida and to the opposition to this very motion. In fact, in a recent poll conducted on this very issue, over 85 percent of the American people think that the United States should end all restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to the island of Cuba. And a majority of Members now are on record on repeated occasions of supporting lifting the embargo. The most recent vote in the House came down to a 301 to 116 opinion to lift the embargo. The most recent vote in the Senate passed 70 to 28. These votes indicate that there are veto-proof majorities in both the House and the Senate to deal with this issue. Yet it for too long has been tied up in Presidential electoral politics in the State of Florida. A majority of both the House and the Senate agriculture committee members favor lifting these restrictions. And even a majority of the conferees existing on the farm bill today favor lifting the restrictions. It is time to end this unfair trade policy. It is time to try engagement and let the sunshine in and also help the American farmers in the process. I thank my friend for his leadership.