Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush and Commerce Secretary Don Evans announced the recipients of the Malcolm Baldrige Award, our Nation's highest honor in quality and performance excellence, named after the 26th Secretary of Commerce. It is my pleasure to join them in congratulating the University of Wisconsin- Stout for becoming the first university ever to receive the award. I would also like to commend my good friend Chuck Sorenson, the chancellor at Stout, and the entire faculty and staff there for their hard work and dedication in helping make UW-Stout the extraordinary institution it is today. In 1987, Congress established the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. businesses. The award promotes quality awareness, recognizes the quality and performance achievements of U.S. organizations, and publicizes successful performance strategies. It is given to U.S. organizations that have exemplary achievements in seven areas: leadership, strategic planning, customer and market focus, information and analysis, human resource focus, process management, and business results. All applicants for the Baldrige Award undergo a rigorous examination process that requires nearly 1,000 hours of outside review. Teams of examiners visit the finalists to clarify questions and verify information; and finally, an independent board of examiners reviews all applications and produces a report citing strengths and opportunities for improvement. I am pleased that UW-Stout has received such a prestigious award. Many of us in western Wisconsin have long known the outstanding work done by the students, the faculty and the staff at UW-Stout that have made it an exceptional institution of higher education. UW-Stout is an outstanding role model for the 21st century education organizations, and it will now gain the national recognition their efforts deserve. UW-Stout Stout is one of 13 publicly supported universities in the University of Wisconsin system. It has approximately 1,200 faculty and staff and about 7,700 students. UW-Stout offers 27 undergraduate and 16 graduate degrees. In addition to undergraduate and graduate degree programs, there are a variety of outreach programs and services to business, industry and society, and provides a full rage of support services to students. In addition, UW-Stout's ``mission driven-market smart'' focus is characterized by an array of programs leading to professional careers, primarily in industry and education. It has maintained graduation replacement rates at or above 98 percent since 1996, and employers have consistently rated 99 to 100 percent of its graduates as prepared to work. Although the Malcolm Baldrige Award is a tremendous achievement for UW-Stout, it is not the first award that the University has received. UW-Stout has received multiple awards for innovative programs and partnerships. In April 2001, UW-Stout received the national recognition from Newsweek as one of 34 schools cited as a ``hidden treasure.'' Some of the other awards include the 1995 Governor's Glass Ceiling Award; the 1999 Outstanding Award for Technology Transfer from the National Association of Management and Technical Assistance Centers; and the 1998 American Association of University Women Equity Initiative Award Winner. Furthermore, UW-Stout has excelled in applying technology to instruction. Technology, when used effectively, can stimulate learning, enrich lives and create greater opportunity for the future of UW- Stout's students. Beginning in the fall of 2002, toting laptops to class will soon be as common as carrying books. UW-Stout is the first university in Wisconsin to launch an initiative that will place a laptop in the hands of every incoming freshman. To make the notebook computers even more portable, the program opted to use cutting-edge wireless technology. Each laptop is equipped to communicate with one of several Lucent base stations located on campus, allowing students to work on their laptops while in the classroom, the hallways, or even outdoors. That is, however, only one of UW-Stout's innovative achievements. It is truly an exceptional university, and I am proud that this university is in my congressional district back in western Wisconsin. Again, I am pleased UW-Stout has achieved the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. They are truly a leader in the field of higher education, and I commend them for their hard work.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise reluctantly in opposition to H.R. 3005 today. I say reluctantly, because I believe in trade, the necessity for it to achieve economic growth and expanded opportunities for all of our workers, I believe the President needs this authority, and I have supported all trade agreements in Congress since I have been here; this debate today, however, is not about being for trade or against trade, it is about establishing the rules of trade in the 21st century. The world is very different than it has been in the past when trade negotiations were, by and large, about reducing trade barriers, quotas, and tariffs. There are many more complex and evolving issues involving trade: labor and environmental standards, antitrust, health and safety standards, privacy standards. The major issue for trade in the 21st century will be the harmonization of these different standards. And the question is do we harmonize upwards or downwards? Do we improve standards around the globe or is it a race to the bottom? That is why I, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), believe there needs to be a greater institutional role for Congress to have consistent with our Article I, section 8 responsibilities in the Constitution. But I resent the fact that many of us have had to come begging in the 11th hour to get the majority party and the administration to do right by American workers today with an adequate worker relief package which is the right thing to do anyway. That should not occur. It should have been dealt with months ago, but instead it came to this. Trade policy should not be partisan or personality driven. Let's instead do it right. So unfortunately I rise in opposition and encourage support for the motion to recommit. As our Nation leads the world into the 21st century, we should not shy from opportunities to guide and expand global trade. Opening up foreign markets to American goods not only provides economic growth potential, but also exposes American ideals to people around the globe. I cannot, however, support the majority's trade authority legislation because it does little service to real problems facing this Nation, refuses to guide trade negotiations in a positive way, and unnecessarily maintains a weak constitutional role for Congress in regulating international commerce, which is our obligation under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. In a world fused by global integration and communication, international trade has become a linchpin of not only our national economy, but also the economies of most nations. We must remember that today's vote, however, is not about promoting or suppressing trade between the United States and other nations. This vote is about how our Federal Government goes about the process of regulating commerce between nations. Our Founding Fathers deliberately put Congress in control of regulating commerce with foreign nations. With the impact of tariffs and duties directly affecting their diverse constituencies, Members have a responsibility to weigh in on the regional impacts of these mechanisms. Today's trade environment is constantly changing, with nontariff trade issues impacting all aspects of our economy and law. Issues including antitrust law, intellectual property, and pharmaceutical costs, along with concerns over regulatory harmonization, require intense negotiations at a new level. Nonetheless, the role of Congress should not be ignored as it is in H.R. 3005, but reestablished in recognition of these new challenges. To this end, I encourage my colleagues to consider the establishment of a Congressional Trade Office that could analyze the implications of trade negotiations, and address the concerns of Congress. Such an office would also be able to provide all Members, not just certain committee leaders, with information on the range of issues facing each region in a nonpartisan, objective fashion. In formulating a trade authority bill that will help establish how America engages the rest of the world in the 21st century, I had hoped this Congress would seize the opportunity to move toward positive, fundamental changes in world trade agreements. Unfortunately, by forcing a partisan trade bill, the House leadership dismissed this opportunity, effectively limiting our Nation's ability to advance international labor, health, safety, and environmental standards, as well as improve transparency in international organizations. Developing trade relations between the United States and foreign nations is often mutually beneficial on economic, societal, and political fronts. We cannot, however, ignore that with such engagement, competition increases and can result in winners and losers. In my home town of La Crosse, WI, Isola Laminate Systems recently laid off 190 skilled workers due in part to a worsening economy, but also due to government trade policies relating to textiles. These laid off workers should have every opportunity to receive adequate benefits, including health and training, through Trade Adjustment Assistance. While the majority has thrown a bone to workers in regard to increased TAA assistance, the shortcomings of TAA have not been resolved. Moreover, it is important that any real Trade Adjustment Assistance reform provide benefits to our Nation's agricultural producers. America's family farmers are impacted by our trade agreements through markets being both gained and lost. Unfortunately, agricultural producers are not currently eligible for trade adjustment assistance even though family farms are going out of business at record levels. Providing income assistance and job employment skills should be as important for America's farmers as it is for our Nation's industrial workers. As recent reports have indicated, our Nation's economy has been in recession since March 2001. In combination with immediate and long-term economic losses associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11, the economy's downturn has resulted in faltered businesses and laid-off workers. In response, Congress has done little to come to the aid of displaced workers throughout the country, despite demands by Members and promises from the House leadership. In an effort to push unemployment legislation I, along with some of my colleagues, sent a letter on October 24, 2001 to the majority leadership stating our refusal to support Trade Promotion Authority unless displaced worker aide is addressed beforehand. The 11th hour promise to recommend action on unemployment benefits for our Nation's affected workers is not concrete, not encouraging, and not enough. As a supporter of increased trade opportunity, I consider this vote very important. H.R. 3005 as it currently stands, however, does not provide assurances that the concerns of western Wisconsin residents will be adequately addressed in future trade negotiations. If Congress is going to cede some of its authority over the regulation of commerce with foreign nations, such a proposal should be based on deliberate policy and not partisan politics. The failure of the House leadership to come to the negotiating table and work in a bipartisan manner on this important issue is shameful. I strongly encourage my colleagues to pass the motion to recommit and include language from the Rangel-Levin- Matsui Comprehensive Trade Negotiating Authority Act, which more accurately addresses the issues of international labor and environmental concerns, and strengthens the critical role Congress should play formulating trade.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 270, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Americans should take time during Native American Heritage Month to recognize the many accomplishments and contributions made by native peoples. As our Nation enters into the 21st century, it is important that we recognize the elements that have shaped our history and our culture. The contributions made by Native Americans represent a significant aspect of American heritage, not only in a cultural sense, but also in the sacrifices, dedication, and patriotism displayed by Native Americans throughout our history. In my home state of Wisconsin, there are 11 federally recognized tribes representing close to 50,000 American citizens. In addition, a large number of Wisconsin cities, counties, lakes, and rivers hold names representative of the strong Native American heritage in the area. This rich history in Wisconsin is also illustrated through Native American educational programs in public schools and many cultural celebration events. Indeed, the common values of many Wisconsin communities reflect Native American heritage including a deep respect for land, air, and water resources, agriculture, and history. This legislation encourages Americans to celebrate Native American Heritage Month and honor Native American contributions to our national history and culture. As a member of the Native American Caucus, I appreciate the emphasis this resolution puts on Native American Heritage Month, and I am hopeful such efforts continue.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 88, expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should issue a proclamation recognizing a National Lao-Hmong Recognition Day. The United States owes a debt of gratitude to the Hmong veterans, and their families, who served as loyal and dedicated allies during the Vietnam conflict. Through their sacrifices, many American lives were saved in Southeast Asia, and our nation must remain committed to recognizing their service. Over this past weekend, we honored those who served our nation through Veterans Day parades and celebrations around the country. Many Hmong, however, are not considered veterans by our government even though they participated in covert operations directed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Between 20,000 to 30,000 Hmong lost their lives during the war and more than 100,000 Hmong were forced to either flee or live in refugee camps. Presidential proclamation of a National Lao-Hmong Recognition Day will represent our resolve as a nation that the Hmong soldiers who fought for the freedom and liberty in Southeast Asia should be honored for their service. This legislation is also important because it calls on the people of the United States to recognize not only the military service of Lao- Hmong veterans and their families, but to also recognize their valuable contribution to American society. Approximately 170,000 Hmong currently reside in the United States, including 35,000 in my home state of Wisconsin. Their cultural contribution to America's melting pot should be recognized, too, because it is through our diversity and understanding that our nation gains strength. H. Con. Res. 88 represents America's gratitude to the Lao-Hmong for their sacrifices in defense of American values and freedoms, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, aviation security is a matter of national security. In the wake of the September 11th attacks, when the terrorists were able to take weapons on board four separate flights with ease, it is vital that the Congress act now to pass comprehensive legislation to prevent future assaults. We must take this opportunity to make our nation's skies safe for all Americans. Mr. Chairman, we must act now to plug the holes in our aviation security network. We need to invest in technologies that can screen all luggage that is checked onto a plane, and not settle for the low percent that is x-rayed now. We must pay and train our passenger screeners more so that they will have the tools they need to perform their jobs effectively. We must also invest in security measures at airports to ensure that the people who work in and around grounded planes are authorized to do so. And finally, we must invest in technologies that will make our planes safer, including stronger cockpit doors and other security measures so passengers and crew are protected during flight. Mr. Chairman, experts agree that our current airline security system is broken. We need to invest in technology and people to make sure that both our airplanes and airports are symbols of safety and freedom, not outlets for attacks on America. For this reason I support the bipartisan Ganske/Oberstar substitute.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3090, the Economic Security and Recovery Act. While our nation is still tending to the wounds inflicted upon us on September 11th, it may be necessary to provide an economic stimulus package that jump starts our currently sagging fiscal system and helps our country recover. I do not believe, however, this is the time for Congress to use this economic slump and the war against terrorism as an excuse to revisit previous agendas in a budget-busting frenzy. It is fiscally irresponsible to put our country back into deficit spending to ensure that the House Leadership secures its priority tax cuts for their large campaign contributors. These tax cuts will not have the desired affect of boosting our economy; rather they will threaten the fiscal discipline that prompted much of the 1990's economic boom, because H.R. 3090 is paid for by taking funds directly out of the Social Security surplus rather than finding responsible offsets in the budget. The cost over ten years, including added interest to national debt, is a hefty $274 billion. Again, it would be taken out of the Social Security trust fund after virtually everyone in this Congress promised not to do so. The goal of a stimulus package should be to give the economy a quick jolt while minimizing the damage to the long-term budget. In order to achieve this fine balance, the legislative package we pass today should provide an immediate but temporary, short-term injection of resources that will put money into the pockets of families and business that need it and will spend it. Unfortunately, H.R. 3090 includes an acceleration of income tax cuts that would put $39 billion in the pockets of the richest quarter of taxpayers in the years 2003 to 2005, when the downtown presumably will be over. This is not an economic stimulus. This is a policy that reflects the supply-side faith that cutting taxes is always a good thing, never mind the cost. It will also take $5 billion out of state budgets every year since states base their corporate tax rates on the federal tax code. Furthermore, a return to deficit spending will increase long-term interest rates, and will put a drag on any kind of economic recovery. The higher cost of borrowing increases the costs to families and firms, making economic revival less likely. Even the president acknowledged this when he said he wanted a stimulus package between $60 billion and $75 billion because he was ``mindful of the effect on long-term interest rates.'' Unless the administration weighs in against these tax cuts, the baby-boom budget crunch may get even nastier and make it impossible for our country to deal with the impending baby-boom retirement by keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent for that huge influx of recipients. H.R. 3090 will not provide the average American the extra cash to put into our financial system. This is not the time to pursue our individual agendas but it is the time for a fiscally responsible short- term package that pushes our economy forward and provides relief for families in need. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3090 and support the motion to recommit. The rush to cut corporate taxes to stimulate economic recovery is at best a questionable economic prescription and at worst one that could do more harm than good. The motion to recommit is simple and straightforward in its instructions to reduce the tax cut provisions of the bill in an amount necessary to fund the additional appropriations that are needed to fix the war on terrorism and protect the safety of the American public; to provide that the legislation is temporary and fully paid for in the budget over the next ten years to avoid deficit spending; and to provide immediate relief to workers who lost their jobs and health coverage and to businesses affected by the economic circumstances. That is what a sensible and fiscally responsible stimulus bill should look like.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, of all the issues we have considered, and will consider, in the aftermath of September 11, securing the safety of our Nation against the threat of terrorism may prove to be the most challenging aspect of our recovery and security focus. One reason the terrorists targeted our Nation is because of the freedoms we enjoy as a nation, and the importance we place on individual liberty. By nature, the openness of American society is a liability when it comes to public safety. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have shown us that virtually any possible threat may be realized. The challenge of securing the Land of the Free is a delicate task. By considering the laws that protect personal privacy we risk alienating those values on which our Nation was founded. In taking on this challenge, I commend the Chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for recognizing the fundamental importance of this task, and working together to draft legislation in a fair and respectful manner. I just wish that process had been followed through all the way to the end instead of being hijacked the night before. The legislation before us today is not perfect. I, like many Members, have reservations about expanding boundaries in which Government may more easily encroach on personal privacy. However, these reservations must be weighed in light of our experiences, as well as Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution which states ``Congress shall have the power--to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . .'' As a former prosecutor, I have experience in dealing with criminal investigations and prosecutions, and understand the inherent need to protect the public against terrorist activities. While I maintain concerns regarding some aspects of the bill regarding the specifics of electronic monitoring and other provisions, I acknowledge the importance of modernizing our laws to reflect the use of new technologies. I also appreciate the committee work on issues including improving the security of our borders, providing benefits to individuals involved in the immigration system who were detrimentally impacted under the law by the attacks, and updating the definition of terrorist activities and criminal penalties associated with terrorism in light of September 11. In addition, the sunset provisions attached to this legislation will provide for a review of these changes. This legislation provides the best opportunity for our Nation to protect its citizens without crossing the Constitution, and I therefore support its passage.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Internet Equity and Education Act, H.R. 1992. There is vast potential for distance learning to transform higher education. Used properly it could improve the quality and affordability of higher education and life-long learning programs. Further, online education could expand access, particularly to individuals with disabilities and those isolated in rural communities. H.R. 1992 would lift financial aid limits for students enrolled in courses through telecommunications, reduce funding limitations for correspondence courses, and repeal the ``12 hour rule,'' a regulation that governs the amount of time students must spend in class per week. By updating these regulations, Congress acknowledges the increased role of technology in our education system. It is important for Congress to work with institutions of higher education to expand opportunities to all students through the emerging field of distance learning. While distance education opens new doors, it also creates new challenges to ensure the integrity of the student financial aid programs. We don't want to return to the days of fly-by-night schools that took student financial aid dollars money but failed to provide the students an education. I appreciate Mr. Isakson's and the majority's willingness to include safeguards in H.R. 1992 to curtail the potential for fraud and abuse in the student aid programs. Mr. Speaker, higher education is a key tool of success in our society. Distance learning provides increased opportunities for those who face barriers in the pursuit of higher education. We must not let obsolete rules and regulations deny individuals access to higher education and life-long learning programs. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1992.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), another distinguished member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding so I may clarify a couple of points. Again, our amendment and the offsets we would find under the farm bill would affect 3 percent of the farmers in this country. We hold harmless 90 percent of the commodity producers who are currently receiving subsidy payments. Of those 3 percent, they are still going to be receiving under our amendment to the base bill a doubling of the subsidy payments that they were receiving under the last farm bill passed in 1996, which just goes to point out the intense concentration of subsidy payments going to a few, but very large, commodity producers throughout the country. Perhaps Mike Kort, the Nebraska corn farmer who received $73,000 in subsidy payments last year alone said it best: ``There have to be limits. Why are we giving millions of dollars to millionaires?'' There has been some reference that we bypassed the committee process. Nothing could be further from the truth. We did not spring this amendment on people. We had a discussion in committee. We tried working with the committee and the staff to try to work something out before the bill came to the floor. But the truth is this: over 80 percent of farm bill funding goes to 15 States in this country; over 80 percent to 15 States. Those 15 States are very well represented on the Committee on Agriculture. This is a democracy. There are 35 other States that would like to have a say in the crafting of farm policy. There are 384 other Representatives who do not serve on the Committee on Agriculture who also have a right to be heard in regards to the direction of our support for family farmers in all regions. That is why we are here today discussing this amendment.

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, in fact, under our amendment, all farmers, including commodity crop farmers, will still receive substantial increases in Federal farm funding. Specifically, our amendment would leave intact a doubling of subsidy payments to commodity producers from what they received under the 1996 farm bill. How do we pay for our amendment? We find offsets from the largest, the biggest of the big, commodity producers, the 10 percent. In fact, this pie chart shows the universe of farmers in the country today. Seventy percent of our farmers do not produce the commodity crops or receive the subsidy payments that would be affected under our amendment. With the remaining 30 percent of those commodity producers, 90 percent of them are held harmless; and, therefore, the offsets would only come from 3 percent of the farmers or producers in this country. Hardly a revolutionary sea change. Of those 3 percent, they would still be receiving a doubling of the subsidy payments that they are currently receiving under the former farm bill passed in 1996. Hardly a radical change in policy proposal. What we are advocating in our amendment is simple fairness, simple equity, to recognize that there is a vast universe of farmers and producers in many regions throughout the country that are currently excluded under current farm bills and would continue to be excluded under the new farm bill. That is why we feel the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is fair. It is time for a fundamental change in farm policy. I would encourage our colleagues to support us in this amendment.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am one of the named sponsors of this amendment today. I am also a proud member of the Committee on Agriculture. Just to set the record straight, the amendment that we are offering today is not something that is new. In fact, it is based on legislation that I, along with 56 other Members of this body, introduced last June, the Working Lands Stewardship Act. It was an amendment that we had discussed during the markup of this farm bill in committee at the end of July, with the hopes of being able to discuss with the leadership further about working out some arrangement in regard to what we would like to accomplish. So with all due respect to the chairman, to claim that this is new or something just thrown upon them in the last 36 hours is not accurate. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman and the ranking member and the other members on the committee and the staff for the hard work that they have done in this farm bill. It is not an easy task to try to craft farm policy to help all our family farmers throughout the country. We can stipulate today that all of us have the intent to try to help our family farmers and the producers in this country under very difficult and challenging times. I represent a district in Wisconsin. The dairy industry is still the number one industry in the State of Wisconsin. In my congressional district in western Wisconsin, I have close to 10,500 family farms alone who are producing dairy, but every one of them is also producing commodity crops. So the claim that those of us offering this amendment are not working in the interests of family farmers is not fair or accurate. Today we have a chance to fundamentally reform agriculture policy so all farmers in all regions of the country will benefit under the next farm bill. The amendment we have today takes a little bit of the increase in subsidy payments that will go to the largest commodity producers in the country and will instead move those resources into voluntary incentive-based land and water conservation programs. As the Bush administration made clear in their statement on farm policy released just yesterday, even they cannot support the committee bill because, and I quote, ``. . . it misses the opportunity to modernize the Nation's farm programs through market-oriented tools, innovative environmental programs, including extending benefits to working lands, and aid programs that are consistent with our trade agenda.'' Our amendment accomplishes all these objectives by relying on flexible and innovative conservation programs that all farmers in all regions of the country can participate in, and it is entirely compliant with our WTO and trade agreement responsibilities. These objectives are far from radical, as some of our opponents claim. In fact, they are entirely consistent with where the Bush administration's principles and farm policy lie, and it is consistent with the work currently being done in the United States Senate. This is what the Bush administration had to say in their statement of policy released yesterday in regard to the committee bill: ``Some of our Nation's producers are in serious financial straits, especially smaller farmers and ranchers. Rather than address these unmet needs, H.R. 2646 will continue to direct the greatest share of resources to those least in need of government assistance. Nearly half of all recent government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, usually very large producers, while more than half of all U.S. farmers share in only 13 percent of the payments. H.R. 2646 would only increase this disparity.'' So Members do not have to take our word for it on the floor, or from others who support the amendment, they merely need to just look at the Bush administration's only statement of policy on the farm bill to understand where they lie in regard to the committee work. Our amendment provides economic assistance to all farmers who want to meet their environmental challenges. Unfortunately, today, most farmers, ranchers, and foresters are rejected when they apply for conservation payments. Seventy percent of farmers and ranchers seeking Federal funds to improve water quality are annually rejected due to the inadequacy of funding. More than 3,000 farmers offering to restore more than one-half million acres of wetlands are currently being rejected due to the inadequacy of funding. Nine out of ten farmers and ranchers offering to preserve their farms and preserve open space against sprawl by selling their developmental rights are currently being rejected because of the inadequacy of funding. Three thousand farmers and ranchers offering to create wildlife habitat on their farms and ranches are currently being rejected because of the inadequacy of funding. Three out of every four farmers and ranchers seeking basic technical assistance for their conservation plans on their own land are currently being rejected due to the inadequacy of funding. Unfortunately, just about all of these stewards will continue to be rejected under H.R. 2646 being offered today. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some of the specific misinformation spread about this amendment. Supporters of H.R. 2646 claim that the passage of our amendment will cause irreparable harm to the agricultural economy and to small farmers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the chairman and ranking member and my other colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture for the obvious hard work all of us have put in in trying to craft the next farm bill. This is not easy stuff. I want to commend my colleagues for the spirited debate we had on the floor today. This is what democracy is all about. It is being able to raise varying issues, have a discussion about them, and then ultimately a vote. But, again, let me just emphasize a couple of key points in this. The current commodity subsidy recipients now are going to be getting double the amount of subsidy payments, even under our own amendment under this new farm bill, so it is not like they are going to be experiencing a net loss or we are taking something away. We are only saying that perhaps a little bit of the huge increase that they are going to be getting could be shifted into these voluntary conservation programs so all farmers in all regions will be able to benefit. There are some who have claimed that we need to send the money to those who are producing the food in the country. I agree. But let us also remember, 70 percent of the farmers in this country are not receiving any commodity subsidies at all; yet those 70 percent of farmers are producing 80 percent of the food market value in this country. I think the time has come to include them into the farm bill and the benefits of the farm bill in a fair and more equitable fashion with the societal benefits that our amendment would also bring. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, today we have a chance to fundamentally reform agriculture policy so all farmers in all regions of the country will benefit under the next farm bill. I, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will offer an amendment that takes a little bit of the increase of the subsidy payments that the largest commodity producers will receive, and instead move those resources into voluntary and incentive-based land and water conservation programs that our farmers want and are calling for. As the Bush administration made clear in their statement on the farm bill released yesterday, even they cannot support the committee bill because, and I quote, ``It misses the opportunity to modernize the Nation's farm programs through market oriented tools, innovative environmental programs, including extending benefits to working lands and aid programs that are consistent with our trade agenda.'' Our amendment, Madam Speaker, accomplishes these objectives, and I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am a proud member of the Committee on Agriculture, and I am a representative from the State of Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, the dairy industry is still the number one industry in the entire State. The district I represent, the Third Congressional District of western Wisconsin, has approximately 10,500 family farms still existing, still operating, today, all of which are producing some commodity crops. Therefore, I have had a strong interest, and all of the members of the committee have had a strong interest, in putting together a farm bill that is going to provide the assistance that our family farmers need across the country and not just in one particular region. In Wisconsin, over the last couple of years, we have been losing between four and five family farms a day, because of the low prices, because of the low milk prices, because of low commodity prices. So obviously, the farm bill that we have been operating under over the last 5 years has not inured to the benefit of most family farmers across the country. That is why I feel that it is time for a new approach with farm policy. I certainly appreciate the hard work of the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm); and all the members on the committee throughout the course of the last couple of years in putting together a comprehensive farm bill approach for the next 10 years. It has got to be one of the most difficult jobs in this place to do, to deal with all of the competing interests and all of the competing ideas and the policy proposals, and how do we weave that into a workable document to reach consensus. I commend them for their work, and I commend them for agreeing to an open rule, so that we can have an honest discussion and policy debate on some points of difference that some of us might have in regards to the direction that the base bill would take us in over the next 10 years. That is why I am going to be offering an amendment, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that would take a little bit of the money that would go to an increase in the commodity subsidies to the largest producers in this country and move those resources into the voluntary and incentive-based land and water conservation programs. We do that to help more family farmers in all regions of the country, especially those regions and farmers who are currently excluded under the current farm bill and would continue to be excluded under the direction of this new farm bill. We think that is the fair thing to do. We think the equitable thing to do is to include more regions and more farmers in supporting them in their time of need. Why is this important? Well, we can provide economic assistance to more farmers, including large commodity producers, through these conservation programs. They would still qualify under these programs, but we would also derive a certain societal benefit through better watershed management, quality drinking supplies, the protection of wildlife and fish habitat and, ultimately, the protection of valuable cropland itself through the farmland protection program that would receive more resources under our amendment. We are hoping that the next crop that is planted on these family farms is not a shopping mall, because we see the unbridled sprawl and the loss of productive farmland occurring throughout the country today. So I would encourage my colleagues to listen to the debate on this amendment and I ask for their support; and I again commend the leadership, given the work that they have put in thus far on the farm bill.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief. I, too, want to rise in support of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Smith) amendment. I think basically what it is saying is when is enough enough when it comes to the subsidy payments that direct Federal payments to some of the biggest producers in the country? We all know that the producers do not operate in a vacuum. They are making economic decisions day in and day out. Unfortunately, when I talk to a lot of the economists and those that study agriculture policy, they are fearful and very concerned that most of the economic decisions that are made is not based on what the market will support and what would drive market forces, but rather, for the government paycheck, and that is why I think we have seen an explosion of growth in various commodity producers around the country because they are looking at certain largess coming from Washington and these Federal payments and making their economic and business decisions accordingly. The Members have heard this from many, many different people. They are saying the same thing on the Senate side. Even the administration, in their policy statement they released this morning, is making the same exact point. So the Members do not have to believe the gentleman from Michigan. The Members do not have to believe me and what is being said about it. Look at our own administration right now and what they say. They are very clear in their statement of policy when they come out in opposition to the base bill. One of the reasons they do so is because it encourages overproduction while prices are low and I quote, ``A direct consequence of American farm policy for many decades has been excessive production and low prices. This policy began to change in the last farm bill. The administration believes strongly that our national farm policy should not distort market signals, thereby directly or indirectly depressing farm prices. H.R. 2646 would continue to contribute to overproduction caused partially by increased production-based payments to farmers per bushel grown at above-market prices.'' They go on to say that the approach under the base bill also fails to help the farmers most in need, and again, I quote the administration's policy statement in which they said, ``While overall farm income is strengthening, there is no question that some of our Nation's producers are in serious financial straits, especially smaller farmers and ranchers. Rather than address these unmet needs, H.R. 2646 would continue to direct the greatest share of resources to those least in need of government assistance. Nearly half of all recent government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, usually very large producers, while more than half of all U.S. farmers share in only 13 percent of farm payments. H.R. 2646,'' again according to the administration, ``would only increase this disparity.'' So I think the point the gentleman from Michigan is making is the point that many of us are making, and some of the amendments that we are planning on offering in the course of this farm bill debate, is that at some point we have to start making some decisions in regards to that farm policy, seeing what the overall economic impact is going to be based on the business and economic decisions that many producers are making throughout the country. So I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I think he has support from both the administration and also the work that is currently being conducted in the U.S. Senate in regards to their farm policy. I think it is a reasonable approach in order to put a check on the unbridled increase in production which leads to oversupply. It leads to a limiting of commodity prices and invariably leads to multibillion dollar farm relief bills coming out of this United States Congress over the last few years. We are caught in this vicious cycle right now, and I think the gentleman from Michigan's amendment is trying to address that and break us out of this cycle that we find ourselves in.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. In this time of crisis, it is essential that our nation maintain a strong economy for the upcoming challenges we will inevitably face. Having a viable, healthy airline industry is an essential component of a strong American economy. There are, however, certain flaws in this bill. For instance, there is no language providing for the many thousands of airlines employees and their families that have been laid off. In addition, the provisions allowing for CEO compensation are questionable. How these currently unemployed workers receive nothing in this bill while CEO's are specifically allowed continued compensation based on the previous year is unacceptable. That is not my idea of shared sacrifice to get us through this difficult period. I look forward to debating legislation that provides relief to the airline workers in the upcoming weeks ahead. Further, there are no specific provisions addressing air transportation safety concerns, that would bolster passenger confidence, and revitalize the industry. My support for this bill is based on my understanding that an agreement between Minority Leader Gephardt and Speaker Hastert has been made, ensuring Congress will address these important issues in the near future. These issues must be addressed and based on the Speaker's word, will be addressed. Therefore, for the purposes of bipartisan unity, and based on the promise of future action on issues that will help those most hurt by this tragedy, I will support the legislation for the benefit of our Nation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this resolution. But of all the important votes I have had to cast, this one scares me the most because we do not ultimately know the true magnitude of this challenge or its true cost. This is the beginning of a prolonged and lengthy fight against terrorism. I am confident that we will win most of these battles, but we should anticipate losing some as well, as we did last Tuesday. This resolution is not about retaliation or revenge, this is a matter of self-defense. Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, our ship of state was hit. And while we will not sink, we were bloodied on our own soil. Now it is time for all hands to be on deck, not just here in the United States but amongst all the civilized nations in the world as we band together to defend ourselves against international terrorism. Our President has requested this authority, and he will get it. And may God bless those men and women in uniform who will be asked to carry out this task.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this resolution and to offer condolences to the victims and their families of these terrorist acts. Yesterday's attack on New York and Washington was a monstrous and cowardly act against the entire United States and our people. It was well-organized and cold-blooded. The world watched as an army of heroes mobilized to help those in need at great risk and personal sacrifice. From my home State of Wisconsin, I have heard from many who share a common sense of grief and an outpouring of support for the victims and their families. Millions are answering the call for blood donations. Once again, our Nation is demonstrating that we can rise to any challenge. We will not be defeated, and living in fear will not be an option. The immediate task before us is to secure the safety of our citizens, both here and abroad, against any future attacks; to care for those victims and their families. Then we must determine how this happened, who is responsible, and how we bring them to justice. Justice will not be obtained overnight. I pray for the patience of the American people and for the patience of our President so that we may seek the truth and hold accountable those who are responsible. It is only through deliberate and thoughtful actions that justice is served and future attacks prevented. Yesterday, our age of innocence ended, just as it ended 60 years ago at Pearl Harbor. But unlike Pearl Harbor, there is no obvious enemy. But like Pearl Harbor, they have awakened a sleeping giant. In the shadow of this terrorist attack, we find ourselves at the dawn of a new era of warfare in the 21st century, one made more sinister by the stealth, cunning, and terror. We will recover from this, but we will never forget this. For those who mean us harm, let there be no mistake that the United States and the rest of the civilized world will unite together to defeat them. We have experienced this harsh reality as no nation should ever have to, and must work to prevent similar attacks both here and abroad. Toward this end, we will need to develop a new international alliance committed to identifying and rooting out terrorists groups before they have the chance to strike. In closing, I pray for the victims and their families; and I pray for leadership in this country that is calm, deliberate, and just, in the midst of fear, anger and a thirst for revenge. In short, leadership worthy of the ideals and values that have made our country strong and just.