Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, just for one final thought on this subject. I was very encouraged. In fact, we are seeing a new awakening within the business community about how inextricably linked their future success and growth needs are to the education system. We are seeing many more private-public partners being formed and creative ideas coming out of the private sector of how they can assist in improving professional development with the teachers, getting the technology into the classroom, making sure that every child, regardless of where they happen to be living and growing up, are going to have access to the important technology so we can close this digital divide and raise all our kids up so they can be competitive in what is going to prove to be a very tough and very competitive marketplace following their education careers. So that is, I think, a very positive and encouraging development, and I know many of us on the committee and within the new Democratic Coalition in particular are finding creative ways of how we can foster and encourage this type of private-public partnership to achieve common objectives. I think it is the direction we need to be going in. Right now, from what I see, there is a lot of hope and promise in this direction.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for yielding to me for this opportunity to join him in this special order discussion of environmental issues affecting the year 2000 campaign, especially the Presidential race. First I want to commend the gentleman and compliment him for the leadership role he has assumed here in Congress regarding a whole host of environmental issues, but especially the sustainable development issue that is sweeping across the country and that large and small communities, urban and rural, have to contend with now on an ever- growing basis of how they can grow and manage the growth in a sustainable way so that they all enjoy livable communities. In fact, the gentleman is the founder of the Sustainable Development Caucus that has formed in the House of Representatives and I am a proud member of, and the gentleman brings in a lot of experts and speakers in order to enlighten Members of Congress on how Federal policy can sometimes adversely affect the sustainable development goals of our communities back home, and what we can do then to change that course of action, and how we can assist our communities back home through the dissemination of information and ideas on their sustainable development goals. And the gentleman has really elevated that issue on the national plane, and I commend you for all of your hard work in that regard and look forward to working with the gentleman on that in the future. I just want to take a few moments to talk about why I am supporting and why I think the Gore-Lieberman ticket is a strong ticket and the right ticket to go with for the next 8 years in this country. I had an opportunity now as a member of the new Democratic coalition of working both with Vice President Gore and Senator Lieberman on a whole host of issues, and there are not two people who are more committed to environmental issues and sustainable development issues, the impact that it has on our country, than Vice President Gore and Senator Lieberman. Mr. Speaker, both of them realize and understand that we can have sustainable economic growth in this country without jeopardizing the environment at the same time, and both of them has shown an incredible amount of leadership and courage at this time on this very issue. In fact, I had the pleasure of traveling back with both the Gores and Liebermans the day after the convention in LA so that they could start their general election campaign in my hometown in La Crosse, Wisconsin, which is a beautiful area in western Wisconsin situated right on the banks of America's river, the Mississippi River. There was a tremendous crowd and rally waiting for them at La Crosse that launched them on their general election campaign, and we all boarded the Mark Twain Riverboat that we took then down the Mississippi, and given that my congressional district has more miles that border the Mississippi River than any other congressional district in the Nation, I felt a certain moral responsibility to assume leadership on issues that affect the Mississippi River Basin. So I helped form a bipartisan Mississippi River caucus, and this was a great opportunity for me to talk to both Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in regards to the importance of that river basin, the Mississippi, through the heartland of our country, and some of the programs and projects that we have working on it, and both of them were very impressed and very supportive with the number of projects that affect the river basin, the sustainability, trying to preserve and protect it for future generations, one of which is the environmental management program for the Mississippi River. This is a program set up through the U.S. geological survey that has long-term resource monitoring and data collection, also habitat restoration projects in the upper-Mississippi basin that the Corps of Engineers helps us on, in order to deal with the adverse effects that growth and development have had on this important river system. It has received tremendous amount of support within the Clinton-Gore administration and also from Senator Lieberman. But I have also introduced a bill that we are trying to work through Congress right now; I had a chance to talk to both of them on it. It is the Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act. And it is a very simple bill with the overall goal of trying to reduce the amount of sedimentation and nutrients that flow into the river basin. I had a chance to speak at length with Al Gore about this legislation especially as we are drifting down the Mississippi River. He said this is something right in line with his own environmental philosophical beliefs and a direction we need to go on when it comes to environmental policy. And to accomplish the reduction of sediments and nutrients flowing into the basin and resulting in back bays being filled up and the destruction of wetlands, we would implement, again, through the U.S. Geological Survey, a comprehensive scientific monitoring and modeling program, so we can identify where the hot spots are, better direct our limited resources to get the most optimal effect on the investment in order to combat some of these challenges that the river basin faces. We also build upon existing land conservation programs that come out of the USDA so that farmers can participate in good land stewardship programs that are voluntary and incentive based because we understand they are going to be a crucial component partnership in trying to reduce the sediment and nutrient flows into this river basin. And there are some very good programs that we are relying upon in order to accomplish our objective, one of which is the conservation reservation program. This is a program out of USDA that allows farmers to take land out of tillage and out of use, especially land that could lead to erosion problems and, therefore, water management problems in the area. This is a program that Vice President Gore has been a staunch proponent of, understanding that it is a voluntary incentive-based program for farmers to participate in. Mr. Speaker, it helps them with the reliable steady income stream for those who are able to enroll in CRP, and I believe that as we shape the next farm bill, this is a direction we need to be going in in regards to foreign policy, rather than passing a multiple billion dollar farm relief package. If we can have a more reliable sustainable farm support through land conservation programs, this would help our family farmers during a very difficult period when we have historically low commodity prices. Milk prices now are looking at a 20, 30 year low. These are popular programs that our farmers are asking for expansion and more of. Unfortunately, Governor Bush has come out in strict opposition to the conservation reserve program. I do not know why, since it is widely popular within the agriculture community and with family farmers because of the win-win situation that it creates, good land stewardship, good land conservation programs, which help drinking water supplies and watershed areas. I think that is a distinct difference for people to judge the various tickets in this year's fall campaign, a tremendous difference that I think is going to have an impact throughout rural America of what party, what administration is going to be supportive of this direction in agriculture policies. I mean those are just a couple of reasons why I think again, Gore- Lieberman is the strongest ticket when it comes to environmental issues and environmental policy. One that I know that we would be able to work successfully with in the next 8 years during the administration, because again they recognize that good environmental stewardship should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, all too often the debates and the programs that we support come down along party lines, and it should not have to be that way. I mean, we see what the polling numbers show. The national and local polls of how popular good environmental programs are to the people back home. And so for a Bush-Cheney ticket to kind of offhand discount some very important land conservation programs that our farmers can benefit from, I think is an issue that should be out there and will become more and more a part of this Presidential campaign. But again, I thank my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for allowing me to share a few minutes with him tonight during this special order. I commend the gentleman for the leadership role that he has taken here in the United States Congress on the sustainable development issues, the bike caucus that he helped form as well to encourage alternative modes of transportation, given the congestion problem that we face here in the District itself. And I do look forward to working with him in the future on these important programs.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of weeks ago, I had an opportunity of traveling around my congressional district visiting many schools and getting into a lot of technology classrooms that our kids are using, but I also used that as an opportunity to release a study that I had conducted in the congressional district in regards to where we were on class size reduction. And the study actually showed that in western Wisconsin we are doing a pretty good job and the results are showing with enhanced student performance. But as I talked to the administrators and teachers and parents, they were asking for the creation of more partnerships and more dedicated revenue streams for class size reduction. In Wisconsin, we have something called revenue caps that prevents our local school districts from increasing revenue spending on priority areas and education. One of the sources of funding that they are looking to more and more as a result of this policy is a revenue stream from Washington, and that is why I think the Obey amendment being offered here today is very important, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Schools throughout my home-State of Wisconsin are tapping every resource available to reduce class size. School districts are also struggling to maintain and build the facilities necessary to offer a quality learning environment. Class size reduction efforts at the local, State and Federal levels are proving effective at improving academic achievement. Schools across Wisconsin have been taking advantage of both the State class size reduction program, known as SAGE, and the Federal Class Size Reduction program to hire new teachers and provide professional development opportunities for their staffs. We in Congress must remain committed to these priorities to ensure that all of our students benefit from the enhanced learning environment smaller classes and modern buildings offer. These efforts must not be considered short-term fixes, but long-term commitments. But we should be committed to providing critical resources to particular areas and students in need. The role of Federal Government in education has always been to help those children with the most need and to address problems of national significance. At this point in time, simply increasing Federal block grants at the expense of proven, needed programs does away with that focus and simply reduces the role of the Federal Government to that of a new stream of revenue for Governors unwilling to tackle education issues directly through State funding. Everyone's talking about education this election season. And I believe I hear candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties talking about the need for greater accountability. Yet, more open-ended block grants are not going to advance accountability. I'm all for local control of schools, but let's be honest; the level of funding we provide, while critical to many individual students and local schools in need, does not circumvent local control over their schools. But by targeting funds to those most in need and projects of most critical need we will continue the commitment to education we all claim to have.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, Abraham Lincoln, during his address at Gettysburg, stated that the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. Inspired by those words, as well as the words from countless number of veterans back in my own congressional district and across the country, I was motivated to draft and also introduce today, with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the Veterans Oral History Project, which will direct the Library of Congress to establish a national archives for the collection and preservation of our veterans' oral history through videotape testimony. Now that we have the technological means to do so, I think this is a worthwhile investment for this country to make. It would be a gift from our veterans which will keep on giving not only today but tomorrow, and God willing, for generations and centuries to come. There is a sense of urgency in introducing this bill which has, I am pleased to report, received wide bipartisan support, with a majority of the Members in the House of Representatives willing to be original sponsors of this legislation. Senator Max Cleland will be introducing the bill in the United States Senate this week as well. There is a sense of urgency, given the fact that we have roughly 19 million veterans still living in this country today, of which 3,400 are from the First World War, roughly 6 million are still living from the Second World War and they are passing away by a rate of roughly 1,500 a day. If we are to truly honor our veterans, then I think this Nation needs to make every conceivable effort to try to preserve their memory. I am struck by the number of people who I have encountered who have regrets today because they did not take out the family video camera and videotape their grandmother or grandparent or father or mother and talk to them about their years of serving our country and some of the great conflicts that we went through as a Nation during the course of the 20th century. I envision now, with this project, with the cooperation of a lot of people across the country, including family members, friends, neighbors, the VFW and American Legion halls, school students, class projects, who could go out and interview these veterans on videotape, I envision that a child in the 21st or 22nd century will be able to call up on the Internet the testimony of their great, great, great, grandfather or grandmother and in their own words listen to their experience during the Second World War or Korea or Vietnam or the Gulf War, for instance. This is something that we can do with relative ease. The Library of Congress is already involved in a similar type of project with the American Folk Life Center where they are videotaping community leaders around the country as to how they would like their communities to be remembered 100 or 200 years from now. They are also engaged on a comprehensive project to digitize the information that they are collecting; and what this project would call for is for the Library of Congress and the talent and expertise that they have there to index the videotape and digitize that and make it available to families and to anyone who wants access to this very important piece of our Nation's history. When I have been working on this project, I have had a chance to think of many of the veterans who I have encountered back home, people like Glenn Averbeck, from my congressional district who served in Korea and was part of the occupation force in Japan after the Second World War. I think of Don Bruns, a former POW during the Second World War. One story Don likes to tell is when he bailed out of a shrapnel-ridden B17 over the skies of Germany and he landed in a patch of kohlrabi. To this day, he cannot stand the sight or smell of that vegetable; but there is more to Don's story as he tells of the days of hunger in the stalag, days of boredom, days of anxiety and days when his captured comrades drifted towards insanity waiting for the day when they would be liberated or the day when they would escape. These are the stories that we need to capture, in Don's words, and preserve for history's sake. When I talk about the Veterans Oral History Project, I think of William Ehernman, a World War II vet shot down in the Pacific. William tells of flying cover for PT boats in the Pacific, including flying cover for one young commander, a Naval officer by the name of John F. Kennedy. I also think of Golden Barritt, a World War I veteran from my district who died just last summer. It is a shame that we did not get Golden's oral history from the Great War. He almost reached his 100 birthday, and just last year he received a medal from the government of France for his participation in the First World War. I also think of my father, who I did get a chance to videotape who served in the Army; my uncle who served during the Second World War; and also my younger brother who recently served during the Gulf War. So I am encouraged by the bipartisan support that many of my colleagues have given for this legislation, and I would encourage this House to move the legislation quickly since time is of the essence.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act. Last year, leadership tried to enact a $792 billion tax cut bill that would have seriously endangered efforts to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, pay down the $5.7 trillion debt and invest in important priorities such as education and a prescription drug benefit for all seniors. The American people soundly rejected this fiscally irresponsible plan. This year nothing has changed except House leadership has broken apart their big tax bill into smaller pieces. So far, the leadership tax agenda adds up to more than $748 billion over 10 years. This amount is nearly the same as the large irresponsible tax bill rejected last year. The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief bill passed by the House and the Senate and vetoed by the President is, once again, just another vehicle for leadership to push through their tax cuts, at the cost of $280 billion over ten years if its provisions remain permanent, while providing nothing for hard working families. While I support tax relief for those couples who are penalized, I do not, however, support H.R. 4810. Most of the tax cut would go to couples that pay no marriage penalty at all, in fact they receive a marriage bonus. That is why I supported the substitute originally offered by Representative Rangel, which was fairer and more fiscally responsible. In fact, two-thirds of America's couples would get the same tax cut under the alternative bill, as they would under H.R. 4810. It would have eliminated the marriage tax penalty by increasing the basic standard deduction for a married couple filing a joint income tax return to twice the basic standard deduction for an unmarried individual, but it would not have further exacerbated the current inequities in the Tax Code by providing a large tax act windfall to couples receiving a marriage bonus, that is, paying less in taxes because they are married than they would if they were single. Although the President vetoed H.R. 4810 in August, leadership has insisted upon using the short period of time that remains in the 106th Congress to vote on this bill again, knowing that it will not be enacted into law as currently drafted. If leadership was serious about providing relief to married couples who incur a penalty, they would have worked for a truly bipartisan bill that all Members of Congress could have supported and the President would have signed into law. From the beginning leadership proved they were not serious about tax relief when they broke their own budget rules by first bringing up their bill in February, long before they passed a budget resolution. Their timing was purely for show, they wanted to provide tax cuts for married couples on Valentine's day. Further, they never bothered to schedule bipartisan meetings to discuss their bill, they never held a House- Senate Conference meeting, and leadership drafted the final bill behind closed doors. Our current strong economy has begun producing surplus federal revenues, and, as you might imagine, there is no shortage of ideas for ``using'' the surplus. I am in favor of providing relief for those couples who are penalized by the marriage tax and I hope we can still reach a compromise on tax relief. Unfortunately, this tax relief would have made it more difficult to meet our nation's existing obligations; such as paying off our $5.7 trillion debt, protecting Social Security, modernizing Medicare by offering a prescription drug benefit, and investing in our children's education. Surplus funds allow us to pay down the principal on this burdensome debt, thus reducing the annual interest payments which amount to approximately $250 billion annually. In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated, that ``ongoing progress to pay off the national debt is an extraordinarily effective force in this economy,'' and that our first priority should be to continue to rack up annual surpluses. Mr. Speaker, we can have tax cuts this year, but they should be the right ones, targeted at those who are currently penalized by the marriage tax. I urge all my colleagues to oppose the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief bill and sustain the President's veto of the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act. Then let's get back together to pass a reasonable compromise that recognizes our obligations to pay off the national debt, strengthen Social Security, modernize Medicare and invest in our children.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I rise in support of this family literacy measure, and to applaud the leadership of Chairman Goodling as he finishes a long and distinguished career both on our committee and in this chamber. I am particularly pleased to support the LIFT Act because earlier this year, an organization in my Congressional District received an award from the Secretary of Education proclaiming it as an outstanding program in adult literacy services. The Chippewa Valley--Literacy Volunteers of America has been providing family literacy services in the Eau Claire area for nine years. In general, Even Start--Family Literacy programs provide ``four legs'' of support in helping families who face unique education challenges. Using Even Start--Family Literacy seed money, the Chippewa Valley Literacy Volunteers have been able to provide services for (1) early childhood, (2) adult education, (3) parenting education, and (4) parent and children relationships. The community in which this group operates has a large Hmong population, who have been especially well-served by this program through both English-as-a-second-language classes and parent-child development assistance. The Chippewa Valley group has also been successful in assisting families move from welfare to work. In fact, Wisconsin is home to a variety of such programs that have successfully used Even Start money as seed funding while developing funding mechanisms from local community sources as well as other federal programs. Even Start provides the kind of services we should all like to see enacted in our communities; services that we as federal policy makers should be proud to assist. These are comprehensive, integrated efforts to help whole-families, and to assist the most needy in our communities reach self-fulfillment and self-sufficiency. I am pleased Chairman Goodling pursued bipartisan support for this bill in an effort to give our communities effective, useful resources to help families. In closing, I must also say that I am pleased to have served with Chairman Goodling on the Education and Workforce Committee. I always appreciate his fairness and no-nonsense approach to committee business. I hope this body as a whole will honor the legacy of my friend from Pennsylvania and strive to pass effective, quality education legislation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose, HR 8, the Estate Tax Repeal. The Leadership has scheduled a vote to attempt to override the president's veto of H.R. 8 in hope that they can take the backdoor route to enact the first installment of their $2 trillion dollars of tax cuts that favor the wealthy over the working families. If this complete repeal of the estate taxes is adopted, it would provide $200 billion of tax relief to the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country. Not only is this not fair it will make it harder to meet our existing obligations such as paying off the 5-7 trillion dollar national debt, saving Social Security, investing in education and modernizing Medicare to provide a prescription drug benefit. If the leadership were serious about providing estate tax relief to small businesses and family farms, they would have worked for a truly bipartisan estate tax that all members of Congress would have supported and the president would have signed into law. There will be no estate tax relief, however, if the leadership is not willing to compromise. With only 19 days remaining in this legislative session, why are we wasting our time debating a bill that benefits the few and prevents us from taking meaningful action on prescription drugs, a Patient's bill of Rights, school construction, and a modest increase in the minimum wage? I believe we should provide relief to family farms and small businesses and that is why I supported the Rangel alternative that was offered during debate in July. This alternative would have provided fiscally responsible estate tax relief to all small business and family farms starting Jan. 1, 2001. Specifically, it would have immediately raised the special exclusion from the estate tax from $675,000 to $4 million for a couple owning a farm or small business and would have lowered the estate tax rates by 20% across the board. Unfortunately, congressional leaders opposed this alternative and now continue to waste our time and the taxpayers money debating an estate tax bill that is doomed to fail, only to be used for political purposes during an election year. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can still reach a compromise on tax relief. But we need sensible tax cuts that stay within a budget and go to working families. As Secretary Summers stated, ``in this new era of surpluses, Congress faces profound economic choices that will affect all Americans. There is a strong case for targeted relief, but to put repeal ahead of increasing the minimum wage, putting in place a Patients' bill of Rights, giving tax relief for middle-income families, and strengthening Medicare and Social Security would be to sacrifice the economic interests of most Americans.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 8. Any tax cut must be done in a fiscally responsible manner, and not derail the opportunity we have to reduce our large national debt, and prepare for our future obligations to our aging population.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill before us today and in strong support of the substitute being offered on our side. Mr. Speaker, here we are in Washington in the middle of July, but one would think with the legislation before us that it is the middle of the winter because we have been hit with a veritable blizzard of large tax- cutting measures, the closer we get to election day. My constituents in western Wisconsin, honestly know a snowjob when they see it. Unfortunately, I think this is just another of a series of election- year politics, playing politics with future budget surpluses, because that is what this debate is really about, what is the best priority use of future budget surpluses if, in fact, they do materialize. There is a clear difference between the two parties on this. I came to Washington, Mr. Speaker, with a lot of concern in regards to the $5.7 trillion national debt. I am the father of two little boys who are just 4 and 2, and I refuse to support policies that are going to make it more difficult for us to eliminate this legacy of debt that we are due to pass on to future generations unless we have the courage to resist large tax cuts now and use the money for debt reduction and shoring up Social Security and Medicare. The series of tax cuts when you put them all together would virtually consume every last cent of projected budget surpluses if in fact they materialize at all. There is no guarantee that they will. But let us talk for a minute about the policy implications of these series of tax cuts, and who better to listen from than the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Chairman Greenspan. This is basic Macroeconomics 101. He has been telling us consistently in his testimony, large tax cuts now are bad economic policy because it will overstimulate the economy and force the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates to slow the economy down. That would be detrimental to all citizens who need to make home, car, credit card, student loan or other payments. It will also make it more worthy to invest in new capital and create more jobs. Here are just a couple of statements that Chairman Greenspan said: ``Saving the surpluses if politically feasible is in my judgment the most important fiscal measure we can take at this time to foster continued improvements in productivity.'' Another one: ``We probably would be better off holding off on a tax cut immediately, largely because it is apparent that the surpluses are doing a great deal of good to the economy.'' Perhaps most importantly, Chairman Greenspan said this: ``Lawmakers are counting on unpredictable economic trends to continue producing the budget surpluses they need to pay for their tax cuts. The long-term forecasts are often inaccurate and lead to vast errors in predicting budget deficits and surpluses. You should not commit contingent potential resources to irreversible uses.'' That is exactly what we are doing in these series of tax cuts when you look at them all together. Go slow. We can provide modest tax relief for families who need it but we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way. Let us not bank our future on projected surpluses that may never materialize. Let me be clear: the House leadership has embarked on a series of tax cuts that will obliterate a surplus that is the hard-won product of nearly 8 years of fiscal discipline. Taken all the tax cuts offered in this session, over two trillion dollars, they will consume virtually the entire projected budget surplus in the next 10 years and then explode in the second 10 years. Now is not the time to abandon responsible budgeting by spending money before it even comes in the door. Further, this bill will leave fewer resources for other priorities within the Medicare Program, including extending the solvency of the Medicare trust fund, creating a Medicare prescription drug coverage benefit, investing in education, and providing relief to rural hospitals and other health care providers. I support the substitute to H.R. 4865. This substitute is fiscally responsible and will provide tax relief for middle income seniors who need the most assistance. Rather than eliminating the tax for all seniors, this proposal sustains the tax on Social Security benefits for individuals who earn more than $80,000 and for couples earning more than $100,000, roughly 95 percent of all seniors are covered under the alternative. Furthermore, this substitute will only go into effect those years in which there is enough of an on-budget surplus to replace lost revenues. I have always felt that if projected budget surpluses do in fact materialize, we have a number of existing obligations that we must meet, such as paying off our $5.7 trillion national debt, shoring up Social Security and modernizing Medicare with a prescription drug benefit and investing in education. These should be our top national priorities before we pass large tax cuts that will benefit the most wealthy and consume the entire projected budget surplus that may or may not materialize. If those commitments are given their due priority, then fiscally responsible tax relief can be provided to those struggling families trying to make ends meet. We must not enact risky tax cuts today that will result in harming our seniors and our children tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this final bill. America's seniors are depending on us to balance the needs for tax relief with the need for Medicare solvency. We can do both in a fiscally responsible way.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), for yielding me the beginning portion of his 1-hour special order. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise this evening to pay tribute and to express the Nation's gratitude to a man who has served his country with valor and distinction over 30 years, one of the great patriots of our time, Admiral Jay Johnson. Last weekend in Annapolis, Admiral Jay Johnson retired as Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy. In that capacity, Admiral Johnson has firmly led the world's largest Navy through challenges and responsibilities rarely experienced by a peacetime military force. A comparable Navy of such complexity and capability has never before plowed the seas, and Admiral Johnson has been at its helm through tensions in Asia, action in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans, and the humanitarian relief around the world. Admiral Johnson was raised in West Salem, Wisconsin, a small town in my congressional district, and I know the folks back home are immensely proud of their local hero. After graduating from the United States Naval Academy in 1968, Admiral Johnson flew combat missions in the F-8 Crusader over Vietnam, including missions with Senator John McCain. After transitioning his flying skills to the now venerable F-14 Tomcat, Admiral Johnson went on to command a carrier airwing, a carrier battle group, and a Navy fleet. During his long and distinguished career, he also served on shore at the Armed Forces Staff College and the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group and received numerous decorations, citations and accolades. I believe one of the most impressive aspects of Admiral Johnson's service as CNO has been his unwavering commitment to the men and women who serve in the uniform of the United States Navy. During Admiral Johnson's term with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his Navy served in 45 operations around the world. Yet even while guiding the Navy through extremely complex operations during a period of heightened operational tempo, Admiral Johnson maintained undaunting support for his sailors and tirelessly advocated on their behalf at the Pentagon, the White House, and here in Congress. He has made it clear that military readiness depends greatly on the resources this country brings to bear on the training, pay and benefits and quality of life of its servicemen and women. I believe his message has been heard loud and clear here in Congress. At the birth of our Nation, President George Washington once said, and I quote, ``Without a decisive Naval force we can do nothing definitive and with it everything honorable and glorious.'' In 1961, Admiral George Anderson, then CNO of the Navy, stated, quote, ``The Navy has been a tradition and a future and we look with pride and confidence in both directions,'' end quote. Mr. Speaker, Admiral Jay Johnson has proven both men right. Admiral Johnson has led the U.S. Navy through incredible trials with great honor. He has upheld the finest traditions of the Navy and our Nation while ensuring the bright future for the men and women who chose to follow the bold course he has set. Mr. Speaker, throughout his life and his career in the Navy, Admiral Johnson has set a fine example of spirit, dedication, fortitude, and leadership for all Americans, young and old. I urge all Americans to take to heart the vision set out by Admiral Johnson during his confirmation hearing when he said, and I quote, ``We will steer by the stars and not by the wake.'' On behalf of the residents of western Wisconsin, I proudly commend Admiral Jay Johnson for his illustrious career in the service of our country. I also commend his wife, Garland, for her loyalty, patience, and steadfastness in the face of the challenges a life in the military poses to every family, and I am sure my colleagues join with me here tonight in wishing them all a very long and happy retirement.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize a fantastic program that benefits young people throughout the nation, and to pay special tribute to the chapter in my congressional district. Earlier this month, I had the pleasure to spend some time at the National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) on the University of Wisconsin-- Eau Claire campus. This is the twentieth year that an NYSP summer camp has operated in the Chippewa Valley region of western Wisconsin, at which disadvantaged youth take part in athletic, math and science activities for five weeks. The sports component of the program emphasizes instruction, competition, physical fitness and lifetime sports. The classroom programs cover nutrition, drug and alcohol awareness, higher education preparation and career discussions in addition to the science and math curriculum. Of the 180 or so NYSP programs that operate nationwide each summer, the University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire camp has been recognized as one of the top five programs seven times. It has also been rated as the top program twice in the last decade. NYSP is an excellent example of how federal partnerships with communities can work for the betterment of America's young people. Funds for NYSP are provided through the Department of Health and Human Services and are administered through the NCAA. In my home state, additional funds for food services are provided through the Department of Agriculture. NYSP provides the kids who participate in the camps with wonderful opportunities they would not otherwise have to learn, play, and form new friendships in friendly, safe and supportive environments. This year at UW--Eau Claire, 589 young people participated in NYSP. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all of the many staff and volunteers who run the NYSP program at UW--Eau Claire. In particular, I wish to recognize Lisa McIntyre, Bill Harms, Jeff Lutz, Tom Platt and Tony Hudson, whose dedication to the program is very admirable, and who make sure I am kept up-to-date about the progress and success of NYSP each year. I offer a special word of congratulations and thanks to Diane Gibertson, who has been the Activities Director of NYSP in Eau Claire. Diane is retiring this year, and was instrumental in establishing NYSP in the Chippewa Valley twenty years ago. Diane's tireless efforts over the years on behalf of youth in our community serves as a shining example for all of us--young and old--to follow our dreams, and to take time to help make the dreams of our children come true. Once again, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of western Wisconsin, I congratulate and thank all those who have made the NYSP program an amazing success. Our children, and our communities, are certainly the better for their efforts.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the substitute and in opposition to the final bill. I feel that the substitute is much more fiscally responsible than the attempt in the final version to basically bet the entire budget surplus on the hopes that the surplus money projected out in 10 years will in fact materialize. But I have always felt that, given the current economic numbers, we can provide some tax relief to Americans and working families, and even to seniors who need it, as long as it is done in a fiscally responsible way. The substitute creates an exemption for individuals up to $80,000, up to $100,000 for married couples, and will exempt 95 percent of seniors in our country, and yet it will not bet the entire farm by the complete elimination that the final bill calls for. I also think it is fair to do it that way as well, because when you look at current earnings and what they are taxed on for FICA purposes, it phases out at roughly $76,000 in the current year. That means those earning more than $76,000 no longer pay FICA taxes, yet working families below that level are taxed on every dollar that they earn. The other point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is this: this body has never been accused of being consistent philosophically on a lot of issues, and we are not in this instance. Earlier this summer when gasoline prices were spiking around the country, there was a lot of talk and excitement out here about repealing the Federal gas tax to provide relief. But when people realized that that would mean taking money out of the Highway Trust Fund to do it, a dedicated revenue stream, they said, oh, no, no, no, we cannot do that, we should not touch that, because it will jeopardize roads and highways and bridges. Now, all of a sudden, when we have a dedicated revenue stream that goes into Medicare and a tax cut proposal is on the table to withdraw funds from that, that seems to be acceptable. That seems to be okay if we do it, even if it may jeopardize the long-term solvency of the Medicare program. We could not do it with the gas tax repeal, which is a more regressive tax than what we are talking about in this instance, but we are willing to jeopardize the Medicare program under virtually the same exact circumstances. At least the substitute ensures that surpluses in fact materialize to pay for the revenue shortfall in the Medicare Trust Fund that the tax repeal will create.

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

Mr. KIND. We could have done the same exact thing with the gas tax with the Federal Highway Trust Fund, but that was not acceptable because there was a dedicated revenue stream for our infrastructure needs, just as there is right now with the Medicare.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) in introducing the National Family Farm Dairy Equity Act of 2000. This legislation will provide countercyclical dairy payments to our Nation's hard-pressed area farmers when the market price falls below $12.50 per hundredweight for milk. As we all know, dairy has been a highly controversial political issue in this Chamber, oftentimes pitting region against region and farmer against farmer regardless of where they are producing in this country. It is time we end this political regional fight and bring our family farmers together with a national approach. Despite the well-intentioned regional disputes, one thing is clear and indisputable: family dairy farms across the Nation are hurting with prices at over 20-year lows. Thousands of family farmers are forced out of business each year and our rural communities in all regions suffer as well. We are losing four to five family dairy farms a day in the State of Wisconsin alone under these conditions. In fact, the price for Class III milk, milk manufactured for cheese, has been less than $10 per hundredweight since the beginning of this year. This rock-bottom price has had a devastating effect on family farmers in my home State of Wisconsin, America's dairyland. Despite the disastrously low prices that are plaguing our family farmers, dairy is a stepsister to the other agriculture commodity programs. Unlike wheat and feed grains, which received the lion's share of the $22 billion of emergency relief over the past two years, dairy has received a paltry 1.5 percent of this sum, or roughly $325 million. While this assistance has been appreciated by many within our dairy industry, it is far from a panacea. Instead of being constant, these payments are subject to political pressure and the whims and demands of the appropriators in Congress. The legislation we have introduced today is quite simple. It provides for greater income from dairy production by creating a $12.50 per- hundredweight target price for all classes of milk. But this legislation is market reflecting; it is not market distorting. Moreover, this legislation makes the dairy program more consistent with Federal programs for other commodities, similar to the loan deficiency payment which is currently applied to wheat and feed grains, which is strongly supported by Members from both political parties. Dairy farmers will receive payments only when the market price falls below this certain target price. Hence, in good times when the prices are greater than $12.50 per hundredweight, producers will not receive any payment. In times of poor prices, the size of the payment will be linked to the difference between the target price and the market price. Payments would be made monthly, not annually, as is the case under the dairy transition payment. This legislation targets Federal assistance to medium-size family farms. Specifically, under this tripartisan national bill, producers would receive assistance up to the first 2.6 million pounds of milk produced annually, reflective of milk produced by approximately 150 cows on a farm. Unlike past and current agricultural programs, producers would not receive financial assistance if they increased production. Also, new entrants would be eligible to participate. Healthy, vibrant family dairy farms are vital economic, social, and cultural resources that we have but are now at risk. Sadly, this Nation takes this resource for granted and fails to fully appreciate the vital role that dairy farmers play in every consumer's daily life. Dairy is an important part of our economy. If we fail to safeguard this vital resource entering the new century, America risks losing the family dairy farms that have made us strong. My legislation safeguards this precious resource and this honorable way of life. Mr. Speaker, as Congress begins to consider alternatives for its next farm bill, I believe the National Family Farm Dairy Equity Act is a right step to provide a safety net for America's dairy families who have experienced so much financial hardship due to misguided Federal policies. I look forward to working with my colleagues on efforts to assist our Nation's hard-working dairy farmers.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), introduced the Corps of Engineers Reform Act of 2000. The purpose of this legislation is to reform the project review and authorization procedures at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and let the sun shine in through greater civilian oversight of Corps projects. Through this legislation we hope to persuade our fellow Members of Congress to act this session to clarify the mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to restore the public's severely eroded trust in the Corps. The Corps of Engineers is the primary Federal agency responsible for construction and maintenance of our Nation's water resources infrastructure. The Corps' civil works mission is large and vital, with projects in the areas of flood protection, navigation, irrigation, hydropower and recreation. In recent years, the Corps has assumed a more significant role in the areas of environmental protection and restoration. Despite its historic reputation for professionalism and integrity, the Corps is at present an embattled agency. Over the past 6 months, the Corps has come under intense fire because of alleged improprieties in connection with its multiyear, $50 million Upper Mississippi River- Illinois waterway system navigation study. Earlier this year, Congress also learned of efforts by top Corps officials to increase the Corps' civil works budget from its current level of $4 billion a year to over $6 billion by 2005. Reports about the Corps' attempts to push through projects that lack a sound economic justification or that contain inadequate environmental provisions point to the breakdowns in the Corps' process for planning and approving water resources projects. This bill attempts to fix that problem, and with these reforms to lift the cloud of distrust and suspicion that currently hangs over the Corps of Engineers. Last year, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences published a report entitled New Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This study was the product of 2 years of careful input and analysis by leading economists, engineers, environmental scientists, and water resource planners, including former high-level Corps of Engineers officials. The bill we introduced today builds on many of the key recommendations contained in the study. Specifically, it clarifies congressional intent with respect to the Corps' broad mission in water resources planning. The bill states that, and I quote, ``It is the intent of Congress that economic development and the environmental protection and restoration be coequal goals of water resources planning and development.'' The bill creates new advisory and review procedures through the establishment of an environmental advisory board, an independent review panel, and a stakeholder advisory group. The legislation also calls for the ongoing monitoring of the economic and environmental results of all Corps projects exceeding $25 million. The purpose of this monitoring program is to establish the baseline data needed to evaluate current and future Corps projects and to ensure that all Corps projects meet high standards of fiscal responsibility. Finally, the bill seeks to ensure that environmental damages caused by projects are fully mitigated. Under this legislation, the Corps would also be required to mitigate damages to wildlife on a one-to-one basis. The overarching purpose of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to restore trust and confidence in the Army Corps of Engineers and to enable the Corps to get on with its important work on our Nation's rivers, lakes, coastlines and harbors. The best way to achieve this goal is to increase the level of transparency, and through transparency create greater accountability in the Corps' planning process, and to establish guidelines that strike a genuine balance between economic development and other social and environmental priorities. In closing, I would urge my colleagues on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to work to build significant reforms into this year's reauthorization of the Water Resources and Development Act. I would like to thank the efforts of key environmental and taxpayer groups, such as American Rivers and Taxpayers for Common Sense for their support and interest in Corps reform. Finally, I would invite other interested groups and citizens across the Nation to join in this effort to bring fiscal responsibility and environmental accountability to the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. This bill is the exact marriage penalty relief bill that was passed in February. So I must ask why are we wasting valuable time debating legislation that has already been considered and which the president threatened to veto last February? It is time that we provide tax relief for those couples that are truly penalized and then use the remaining time in this session to do what the American public is asking for; providing prescription drug coverage, paying down the national debt and strengthening Social Security and Medicare. While I support tax relief for those couples who are penalized, I do not, support H.R. 4810 which would provide tax relief half of which will to go those couples who benefit from a marriage bonus rather than a marriage penalty under the current tax code. Further, this bill would cost $182.3 billion over the next ten years and would give the lion's share of its tax cuts to higher-income families. The average tax cut for families with incomes less than $50,000 would be about $149 per year, while families with incomes over $75,000 would get an average tax cut of nearly $1,000 per year. That is why I oppose H.R. 4810 and support the substitute offered by Representative Rangel, which is fairer and more fiscally responsible. The substitute would do a better job of fixing the marriage penalty, and cost less than half as much as H.R. 4810. It would assure that the Alternative Minimum tax (AMT) does not deny the tax relief the bill promises. The AMT ensures that everyone pays at least a minimum tax. Under H.R. 4810, many married couples with children will not get the advertised tax relief because they fall under a complex set of AMT rules. When this bill was drafted behind closed doors, it ignored the effect of the AMT. As a result, by 2008, nearly half of the American families with two children would be under the minimum tax and receive nothing or less than what H.R. 4810 promised. Like the bill, the substitute would reduce the marriage tax penalty by increasing the basic standard deduction for a married couple filing a joint income tax return to twice the basic standard deduction for an unmarried individual. The substitute also would reduce the marriage tax penalty by modifying the tax code in order to make more married couples eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) beginning in 2001. It would increase the income level at which the credit begins to phase out by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in 2002 and thereafter. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do what is right for the American people and oppose H.R. 4810 and support the substitute that provides genuine relief for our citizens who are truly penalized.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I wish to voice my strong support for H.R. 4442, The National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act. My congressional district in western Wisconsin has more miles along the Mississippi River than another other district in the basin. My district is also home to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, a refuge whose 200,000 acres extend 261 miles southward from Wabasha, Minnesota to just north of Rock Island, Illinois. The Upper Mississippi Refuge lies at the heart of an area that serves as a migratory flyway for 40 percent of North America's waterfowl. It provides habitat for some 292 species of birds, 57 species of mammals, 37 species of amphibians and reptiles, and 118 species of fish. Moreover, it is the most widely used of all our National Wildlife Refuges, attracting roughly 3.5 million visitors a year--more than Yellowstone National Park. Despite this fact, the Upper Mississippi Refuge currently lacks a full-time refuge manager. The nation's busiest refuge does not have a visitor center and there is only one handicapped boat landing along the entire border of the refuge. I support Mr. Saxton's National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000 because it will draw much needed public attention to the rich resources and the serious needs of Region 3 refuges as well as others across the nation. H.R. 4442 endorses Secretary Babbitt's directive to the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a long-term plan to address the priority operations, maintenance, and construction needs of the Refuge System. This legislation goes a long way toward ensuring that the Refuge System will remain strong and vital for many years to come. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of H.R. 4442.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, this great country has an incredibly rich history. From the great Native American civilizations to the current era of global engagement, American history describes an incredible, sometimes turbulent journey toward the greatest democracy in the world. If the statistics cited in this bill are accurate, it is a shame so many of our college graduates know so little about that history. I am proud to sit on the subcommittee on Higher Education, particularly since six universities are located in my district. It is important that we promote U.S. history in our colleges and universities to ensure that our future generations know we developed as a society and a culture. For example, the Constitution embodies our most cherished beliefs of democracy, liberty, justice, and equality. The fact that scarcely half of the college students recently tested knew even general information about the principles and institutions that make up the backbone of our country is sadly unacceptable. We cannot afford to have our colleges graduate historically illiterate citizens. I admit I have a personal passion for history, and for me I benefit from working in Washington and city's close proximity to so many historical treasures. In particular I truly enjoy visiting the sites of the Civil War to pay homage to the men and women. Such opportunities have allowed me to actually experience parts of our history, and the excitement and interest of these places are only enhanced by reading about them and studying them beforehand. I am also a student of European history, in particular, the history of 20th Century Europe. In this information age and new economy I would like to point out to college students that world history also remains important to their education. Learning the history of other cultures will greatly prepare them for their future in this rapidly changing world. Improvement of education remains one of my top priorities in Congress. Therefore, I support this bill in order to encourage our college students to learn the history of their nation; a history that laid the foundation for their current and future opportunities.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise out of serious concern about what is taking place throughout rural America, especially the adverse impact that low commodity prices are having on family farmers today, not just in my district, but this is true from East Coast to West Coast and virtually every region throughout the country. The bill that the House is considering today is woefully inadequate for those family farmers throughout rural America. As we all know, the current situation in the countryside today is dire, but the price of nearly every commodity across the board is at or near record lows. In my western Wisconsin district, dairy farm families are experiencing some of the lowest prices in more than two decades. Wisconsin dairy farmers currently receive less than $10 per hundred weight for milk that sells for over $35 or more at the grocery store. With such market inequities, roughly five to six dairy families are going out of business in the State of Wisconsin alone. That is intolerable. That is inexcusable. We need to do better. Unfortunately, on this issue, Congress has been asleep at the wheel. In short, the 1996 farm bill is failing our family farmers, while in fact, as the ranking member just pointed out, we are spending more money today than we ever did prior to the farm bill being passed back in 1996, and sending money to nonproducing land owners. We are providing only lip service and no relief to those actually working and toiling on the farms and what they require. One month ago, this body literally tripped over itself to push out the door a $15 billion crop insurance bill which contained $8 billion in emergency farm relief funding. As is too often the case, that bill primarily assists larger agribusiness at the expense of mid-size dairy, beef, and hog producers. This Congress needs to take swift action to stop the hemorrhaging that is occurring in rural America. Despite the best intentions of the chairman and the ranking member, this bill falls woefully short. While this package takes care of many other farm commodities such as sugar and mohair and cotton, it fails to acknowledge the problems plaguing America's dairy farm families. Because this Congress remains stuck in neutral, I decided to take some proactive steps to address the major issues affecting America's dairy farm families. Later this week, I plan to introduce legislation that mandates accurate price reporting for all manufactured dairy products throughout the country. I am also working with dairy groups across the nation to develop a comprehensive dairy package which provides a price safety net when the market falls apart on our farmers. The need for these proactive steps is long past due, and I am hopeful that the House and my colleagues will look upon these measures favorably and support them when they are introduced. Mr. Chairman, the time for action is now. We cannot lose any more farmers because of shortsighted, narrowly conceived farm policy supported by some here in this Chamber. I am disappointed that this bill does not do more to assist the hard-working men and women who labor daily to produce our Nation's milk, cheese, butter and yogurt. The farmers back home are not looking for any special privileges or any special advantages compared to other farmers throughout the country. What they are asking for is the recognition that we, as a nation, cannot afford to lose family farmers and see further consolidation of the agriculture industry that is taking place with a greater emphasis on larger and larger agribusiness operations who are starting to dominate more and more of our food supply throughout the country. This is a very serious and I believe a very dangerous trend in the long run because we may find ourselves waking up some morning in this country, realizing that our entire food supply needs as a nation is dependent upon a few very large corporate elites producing our entire food needs. Then we are quickly talking about a national security crisis at that point. Hopefully, this body will recognize the true crisis that exists right now and have the courage to take action, which is long overdue, of opening up a farm bill that obviously is not working for producers from Coast to Coast and finally do right by our family farmers, who are struggling day in and day out, many holding on by their fingernails just to stay in business. We cannot afford to see the greater and greater consolidation taking place throughout the country and us becoming more and more dependent on fewer and fewer hands for our food supply.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kelly-Kanjorski amendment and ask that the House support its adoption. This amendment recognizes that inclusion of language to prohibit funding for the American Rivers Heritage Initiative into the Agriculture Appropriations Act is short-sighted and ignores the tremendous benefits of this important program. Since its inception, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative has been extremely popular with communities and local government officials. Currently, there are over 50 communities that are included in the Upper Mississippi River American Heritage River Initiative. Four (4) river communities within my district participate in this program. ``River towns'' are some of our nation's oldest and have rich cultural, social and natural histories. In the past, many of these towns were forced to turn their backs on the river because the costs associated with redevelopment were too large and the planning process too cumbersome. Today, however, as a result of this initiative, people are returning to the river and seeking to integrate it into their daily lives. The communities in my district are working to invest in riverfront development projects that share the story of their communities' pasts while also stimulating much-needed economic development. With help from the ``River Navigator,'' these communities are better able to identify and utilize Federal programs and services that assist them in meeting the objectives of natural resources and environmental protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation. Mr. Chairman, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is a successful program and should not be eliminated as a result of the short- sightedness, misinformation, and false allegations by those who seek the initiative's demise. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment that eliminates the bill's funding for USDA's Agri-Tourism program. In the last twenty years, my state of Wisconsin has lost over one half of its dairy farms--decreasing from 46,000 in 1980 to less than 21,000 today. At the same time, the average age of the Wisconsin dairy farm has increased to 58 years. The family dairy farm is struggling with many pressures; unstable commodity pricing, unpredictable trade policies, and the growing pressures of sprawl. Adapting to change and taking advantage of emerging traveler interests in agriculture and rural places is a wonderful opportunity for Wisconsin's farms and rural communities. Wisconsin's natural scenery of rolling hills, bluffs, coulees, valleys, lakes, and rivers are tourist destinations for many outside visitors. In addition, it is often times important to families that they are able see cows, pigs, goats, and sheep in their natural settings instead of in picture books and on television. Many visitors have never been on a farm and seek bed and breakfasts that are in rural farming communities. Unfortunately, there currently is little effort to link our family farmers with tourists. For these reason, programs such as USDA's Agri-Tourism provide important steps in linking tourists with farming communities. In addition to providing important recreational opportunities for tourists, agri-tourism can provide needed financial assistance to our farm families. It would be short-sighted for Congress to eliminate this important program. I urge my opponents to oppose this misguided amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in opposition to the majority bill that is before us today. I believe that the bill before us is set up for failure, and it is set up for failure for one simple reason, they don't want to do it. I do not want to question the motives of the Republican leadership in offering this type of bill, but we do know the intent and motivation of the insurance industry that is being called upon to provide the drug-only insurance plan in order to make this bill work. They do not want to do it. In fact, in recent testimony by Charles Kahn III, President of the Health Insurance Association of America, before the Committee on Ways and Means earlier this month, he stated and I quote, the proposals we have examined that rely on stand-alone drug-only insurance policies simply would not work in practice. Designing a theoretical drug coverage model through legislative language does not guarantee that private insurers will develop the product in the market. Mr. Speaker, good things happen in this place when we come together and work in a bipartisan manner to deal with a serious yet complicated issue such as providing affordable drug coverage to seniors who need it. That process did not take place today. I think we need to go back to the drawing board and get it right. 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 a small town in my district wrote to me and said: I am sending you my medicine receipts for the month of March. Why doesn't Medicare cover the cost of these drugs? This is more than I can handle on my Social Security income. Her monthly cost for prescription medicines is $382.13. That is a lot of money for a widow on a fixed income. Other seniors in my district are paying substantially higher medicine prices than pharmaceutical companies most favored customers, such as HMOs. A study conducted in my district found that price discrimination by pharmaceutical manufacturers is one of the principle causes of the high prescription medicine prices that confront seniors. Senior citizens who pay for their own drugs pay more than twice as much for drugs than do the pharmaceutical companies' most favored customers. Not only are my seniors facing price discrimination in their hometowns, but they can go to Canada and get the same medicine for a substantially cheaper price. For example, a senior in Rice Lake, Wisconsin pays $105 for a prescription of Zocor. If this senior makes the short trip to Canada, then she would only pay $59 for the Zocor prescription--a 129 percent difference. 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 strains on seniors that would force them to choose between buying drugs and buying food. We need to make prescription medicines affordable and accessible to all of our seniors. 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 policies 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, in February, the Health Insurance Association of America, which consists of 294 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 because most seniors need prescription medications. This single benefit policy also will result in adverse risk selection--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, under the Republican plan, there is no guarantee that seniors will have access to the specific drugs that they need. Plans may establish restrictive formularies and exclude medicines they don't want to cover. If a senior needs a drug the policy doesn't cover, then he must prove that other similar drugs have an adverse effect on him and go through the hoops of an uncertain appeals process just to get the drug he needs. 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 heads in the right direction and builds on the current Medicare program. Our plan would allow Medicare beneficiaries the choice of traditional Medicare or Medicare HMO with a defined benefit that would be available across the country. Further, seniors would have lower premiums and a lower catastrophic cap. Another issue our plan addresses is the regional disparities in Medicare reimbursement rates and payments. There are some seniors in select parts of the country that receive prescription drug coverage through Medicare+Choice plans, an HMO. Most seniors across the country, however, do not have this benefit. For example, the only Medicare+Choice plan in my district cannot afford to offer a drug benefit because of the low Medicare payment. Even though all seniors pay into the Medicare system, only a few receive the extra drug benefit. While both the Republican and Democratic proposals provide for some target relief such as increasing the minimum payment and moving faster to the 50/50 blend, the Democratic plan includes language that Congress will work to provide equal treatment for all seniors by not compounding the geographic disparities that unfairly penalize Medicare+Choice plans from doing business in low payment areas. The Republican plan is silent on this issue. 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. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``present'' today on this bill, not because I do not personally believe in the motto adopted by the State of Ohio, but because to do otherwise would be a disservice to my elected office, the judicial branch of our federal government, and the Constitution upon which our government is based. This body has no authority to act in an advisory capacity to the courts of this land. The separation of powers embodied in the Constitution establishes separate and co-equal branches of government each possessing a unique role in the governance of the nation. Congress is authorized to enact laws, and the courts--under Article III as administered by the Supreme Court--are authorized to determine the constitutionality of those laws. Congress should not purport to advise the courts regarding the constitutionality of a ruling of a particular court involving a particular matter. Such action is well beyond the scope of our constitutional role. The bill brought today is a knee-jerk reaction to a court decision that many Members disagree with. While I respect their opinions and their right to express themselves, I cannot support their attempt to influence this nation's courts in this manner and by this process. I am disturbed that a bill that claims to express this body's well- reasoned and deliberative judgment over the constitutionality of a state motto was brought to the floor using the suspension of the rules process. This bill was never fully researched and no committee hearing was held. Instead, it was rushed to the floor with no opportunity for amendment, scrutiny or serious discussion. As a Member of this great body, I have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, I must abstain from voting on this measure which was blatantly brought to the floor for the sole purpose of trying to score cheap political points during an election year.