Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), my ranking leader, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2300. But, first, a high school quiz. Who said: ``war is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength?'' Of course that was George Orwell's Big Brother in the classic novel 1984. With the introduction of this legislation this evening, I think perhaps we have slipped back into Orwell's 1984 with this classic doublespeak. No sooner do we pass a good bipartisan Title I reauthorization bill that targets funding to the most needy and most disadvantaged students across the country, then we turn around and bring this legislation that would basically act as a bomb and blow up and eviscerate the very provisions that we just passed a few short hours ago. The key to the Title I funding has been the targeted funding stream to those students most at need, this legislation would destroy that goal. H.R. 2300 would turn the targeted funding into a block grant, effectively turning the Federal Government into the great tax collector for States in the form of a Federal revenue sharing program. Well, no one likes to collect taxes for any particular reason. We can also see where this road would take us. If we just merely act as an intermediary, collecting taxes just to turn around to give it back to the States, it becomes a very simple question as to why we are doing this at all. Why do we not allow the States to collect their own taxes and target the money the way they see fit, so there would be no role at all for the Federal Government? But that is what gets us back to 1965 and the very reason why the Federal Government passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It was the fact that some States and localities were not doing an effective job of targeting the neediest students across the country, that there became a need for the Federal Government to step in, in the form of a partnership, and assist with a funding stream that does target these disadvantaged school districts. The very entities that this is supposed to benefit are also in opposition to this legislation. The National Association of State Boards of Education is in opposition to it. In fact, they stated, and I quote, On bureaucracy: ``Straight A's will result in greater bureaucracy and blurred lines of authority.'' On effective use of funds, they stated: ``Federal resources must be targeted to be effective. Federal efforts supplementing State funding and State-level initiatives have been successful in assuring equity to low-income areas and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Distributing scarce federal funds on a per capita basis will only dilute these limited funds to an ineffectual level.'' On the Federal role in education, they stated: ``The leadership role the Federal Government plays in identifying and promoting national priorities cannot be overstated. It would be a mistake to abandon the national role in fostering specific educational improvement activities.'' Of course we have already heard the National Governor's Association themselves have come out in opposition to this bill. One additional reason is given that I cite from the letter that they have submitted to us: ``Only with a change to continue the targeting of Title I funds as required under current law and the maintenance of the above mentioned provisions would the `National Governor's Association' be able to bring bipartisan support to the legislation.'' There is a myriad of reasons, Mr. Chairman, of why this is bad legislation for the many reasons at the wrong time. Yes, we can provide greater flexibility to the localities. We have taken a step with education flexibility passed earlier this year, a measure I was happy to support. Let us give Ed-Flex a chance to play out and see how well that works before we take this great leap into a block grant, Federal revenue sharing program. And let us allow the Title I targeted approach to take effect with the improved provisions that we just passed a few short hours ago. Let us give that a chance first and see if that will help our most disadvantaged students throughout the country.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter of this very important amendment in this reauthorization process. I commend my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) for offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, when I came to the United States Congress, I came from the fiscal tradition of Senator Bill Proxmire in Wisconsin. I am very proud of the fiscally responsible record that I have developed as a young Member of this body. I believe we can maintain fiscal discipline while making crucial investments for our future. I do not often come to the House floor asking for an expansion of programs or more money for programs unless I feel in my heart that it is absolutely vital and necessary in order to accomplish the goals of those programs. This, Mr. Chairman, is one of those programs. An expansion of Title I funding, I believe, is just dealing with reality. There are school districts all around the country, high-poverty school districts, that are in desperate need of basic supplies, more material, and more resources. We have one example of the commitment that teachers are putting into their own profession and in their own schools from a news report that was released just a couple of weeks ago in the city of Waterbury, Connecticut, when teachers with their first two paychecks voluntarily took money out of their own pockets totaling $303,000 dollars and donated it back to the school district in order to use it for more books and supplies and computers and other educational needs. And it was based on a matching fund agreement with the city and the school board. This is just one example of many across the country of teachers who are willing to dip into their own pockets to buy supplies for the students that they are responsible for because policymakers are not doing the job, not giving them the tools to succeed with their students. That is a tragedy, especially when we are talking about a program such as Title I that is targeted to the highest at-risk students, who have the greatest need, and are the most disadvantaged students across the country. This is comparable to the great epic struggle of the 20th century for Western Civilization, the Second World War, with Winston Churchill coming to the United States, which was an isolationist country at the time and a reluctant ally to get involved with the fight against Naziism and fascism. Churchill understood that and he went to F.D.R. and said, I understand the position you are in as a Nation, your reluctance to get involved in European entanglements. But if you give us the tools, we will finish the job. The United States did give England the tools through Lend-Lease and Churchill called that the most ``unsordid act'' of generosity. That is a common refrain we are hearing from across the country from administrators and parents and teachers that if we policymakers can just give them the tools, they can finish the job. This is the next great challenge that we face as a Nation in the 21st century: to be able to provide quality educational opportunities for all our children regardless of where they live and the wealth of their communities. Yes, we can demand greater accountability and even more flexibility at the local level. We did that earlier this year with the Ed-Flex legislation. But let us not delude ourselves into believing that this debate is not also about dollars and cents to the classroom. Adequate resources is a very important ingredient to doing the job that we would like to see local school districts be able to perform in enhancing student performance and giving all of our children the educational opportunities that they desperately need and deserve. So I want to encourage the Members of this body, in the bipartisan spirit in which the amendment is offered, to support this amendment and improve on what is a good bill but what can be a better bill with the passage of the $1.5 billion increase in the authorization level. This is just an authorization level. We still have to convince the appropriators that this is a level that needs to be fully funded. But I think it also sends not only a message to the appropriators but to the American people that the United States Congress is getting serious about establishing the priorities that are important to our country. Education is one such priority that should be at the top of the list when it comes to balancing the budget and allocating our limited resources for one of the most effective investments that we can make in our children.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the outstanding efforts of three of my constituents who are participating in the Voices Against Violence Teen Conference in the Capitol this week. Susan Yang is a senior from La Crosse Central High School. Susan has been involved in efforts to curb youth violence and drug use throughout her teens and is a real role model within the Hmong community in western Wisconsin. Lucas Meyers is a senior at Hudson Senior High School in Wisconsin. Lucas is the student body President and editor-in-chief of his school paper and is a natural leader involved in many aspects of his community and school. Finally, Sergeant Roger Barnes of La Crosse Police Department, who is a coordinator for the D.A.R.E. and the G.R.E.A.T. programs back home. Sergeant Barnes has dedicated his law enforcement career to the betterment of youth in our community and works tirelessly to see that all our children have better options in their lives. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to pay attention to what they and the other 350 students who have assembled here in the Capitol this week have to say at this conference so that we may work together in a bipartisan fashion to implement policy to prevent youth violence in all of our communities.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2. It is a good bill I think we can support with bipartisan effort today. But it can be better. And it can also be made worse. It can be better by the acceptance, I feel, of some crucial amendments that will be offered later today, one of which will be offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) on gender equity issues; one by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) which will increase the authorization level of this program by $1.5 billion. But it is also a bill that can be made worse through a variety of amendments that may also be offered, one of which is the portability amendment, which I think given the roughly per capita $600 share that a student receives under Title I funding really does not go that far if it is attached as a voucher or portability type of provision rather than a targeted one. This week, we had over 350 students from around the country come to our Nation's Capitol to have a serious discussion about school violence. One of the common refrains that I have heard in speaking to a lot of the students which are from western Wisconsin is that we here at the Federal level and the State legislatures have an obligation to ensure that all the students in the country receive a quality education regardless of the wealth of their community, regardless of their own socioeconomic background. And in essence, in a nutshell, that is what the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was really geared to do over the last 35 years and specifically the Title I funding. The Federal role in K-12 public education is relatively small, roughly 6 or 7 percent of the total spending that is going on out there, but it is a very important role because of the targeted nature in the limited funds in this bill, roughly $8.3 billion. It is targeted more to the disadvantaged, lower-income students in our school system. And because of that, we are able to leverage the money to get a bigger bang out of the buck. I am concerned with the directions that some of the amendments will go to as far as vouchers, portability that would dilute that leverage effect on the quality of education. I certainly hope that after today's debate and the amendment process that we go through and, hopefully, at the conclusion when we receive bipartisan support that we do not take up another measure tomorrow, referred to as ``Straight A's'' that would effectively blow up everything that we do in essence today by just block-granting all the money back to the States, and we would lose that crucial targeted priority effect that we currently have right now in Title I funding. But one component of the bill I want to speak on, and I want to commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett) in this regard, and that is the rural school initiative. We have got some changes in Title X funding that targets rural schools because of the unique nature that they always face and the challenges that they face, the isolated nature, the difficulty in recruiting teachers and administrators, the difficulty of them to join professional partnerships, consortiums for professional development purposes. What the rural school initiative will do is add greater flexibility, along with some accountability provisions, to give them more leeway in targeting this money and how best they can use it to get the best results in rural school districts. So I commend both the chairman and the ranking member for the efforts that they have put into it and the ranking members on the subcommittee that truly believe that this is a good bipartisan bill that, hopefully, at the end of the day, will receive all of our support.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a supporter of Norwood-Dingell and in strong opposition to the Boehner substitute. This debate is really a very simple debate. Do my colleagues think that medically necessary, important health care decisions should be placed in the hands of doctors in consultation with their patients or should health plan administrators sitting in their offices hundreds of miles away be making these life-and-death decisions. And there are life and death decisions being made. For me, the debate is about a young family in western Wisconsin who, 2 years ago, were informed that their 10-year-old little girl had an inoperable brain tumor, and they wanted this particular form of treatment that the doctor was recommending. The health plan administrator says, ``We will cover that as long as it is an AMA-approved treatment.'' The problem, when they talked to the AMA, is that there was no such thing as an ``AMA-approved'' treatment. So they denied coverage. As a father of 2 young boys myself, I can think of no greater fear than a parent facing the prospect of losing a child. They then did what any parents would do under the circumstances. They went into debt. They borrowed. They took a second mortgage out in order to finance the treatment. They ended up with over $100,000 of debt. That young girl eventually died last year. It should not be this way. Under the Norwood-Dingell bill, administration of a health plan will no longer be able to hide behind the shield of ERISA protection but instead will be subject to an internal and external review process and held responsible for negligent medical decisions. No longer should parents be faced with the draconian decision of having to mortgage their families' life away or face the prospect of losing a child. Let's put medical decisions back in the hands of doctors and their patients, not insurance companies. I urge my colleagues to support the Norwood-Dingell bill and oppose the Boehner and other substitutes.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important contribution of cooperatives to the economic health of the nation. October, after all, is National Cooperative Month. Cooperatives represent economic opportunity for nearly 40% of Americans who are members of a cooperative. Cooperatives come in many forms--rural electric, agriculture, telephone, credit unions, consumer co-ops and more. This year commemorates the 155th anniversary of the cooperatives as we know them today. In 1844, the Rochdale Society of Pioneers in England formalized cooperative activity by writing down their principles and practices. These principles and practices are the basis of today's cooperative enterprises, which serve more than 600 million people in every country in the world. In the United States, about 30 percent of farmers' products and farm supplies in the United States are marketed through cooperatives. Rural electric cooperatives operate more than half of the electric distribution lines in the United States and provide electricity for more than 25 million people. Consumer-owned and controlled cooperatives pioneered prepaid, group-practice health care. Today cooperative health-maintenance organizations (HMOs) provide health-care services to more than one million Americans. Moreover, credit unions have more than 63 million members and assets in excess of $100 billion. In my home state of Wisconsin, 2.9 million citizens depend on more than 800 cooperatives to market and supply agriculture products, as well as to provide credit, electricity, telephone service, health care, housing, insurance, and numerous other products and services. Cooperative businesses employ approximately 20,000 Wisconsin residents. Cooperatives provide hundreds of millions of dollars in annual economic activity in Wisconsin and pay millions of dollars annually in taxes. Cooperatives have a rich history in my home state, with Wisconsin being one of the first states in the nation to enact a law authorizing cooperatives in 1887. A young woman--Anne Pickett--started Wisconsin's first dairy cooperative in 1841, pooling milk from neighborhood farms, processing it into our state's world class cheese and shipping it to the ``big city'' of Milwaukee for sale. In addition, the nation's cooperative marketing of livestock had its beginnings in Wisconsin during the 1920s, when local livestock shipping associations organized at rail points to ship livestock to a terminal market. Mr. Speaker, cooperatives are owned by their members who come together to meet their common economic, social, and cultural aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. Member-owned cooperatives elect a board of directors who determine its management structure and direction. Cooperatives are everywhere, helping people meet their common needs through group effort. Like everything else in today's world, cooperatives are changing to meet today's challenges. During this Month, let us pay tribute to the important role that cooperatives have played in the tremendous economic success of our nation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as the representative from Wisconsin's Third Congressional District and a co-chair of the Upper Mississippi River Task Force, I rise in support of the Energy and Water conference report for fiscal year 2000. I am pleased that the conference report includes $18.955 million for the Environmental Management Program (EMP), a cooperative effort among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Biological Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ``ensure the coordinated development and enhancement of the Upper Mississippi River System.'' The EMP is designed to evaluate, restore and enhance riverine and wetland habitat along a 1,200 mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. This appropriation will allow the state operated EMP field stations to remain open and continue to fulfill their mission by collecting essential data on the rivers. This funding along with the recent passage of the Water Resource Development Act of 1999 highlights the EMP's importance to the Upper Mississippi River Basin's economic and environmental well being. In addition, I am especially grateful that the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations conference report, provides $3 million in funding for the Kickapoo Valley Reserve Project in western Wisconsin. This money will be used for remediation of past contamination, completion of site safety modifications, and the continuation of the work on satisfying the authorized highway relocation requirements. In 1962, Congress first authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a flood control dam at La Farge, Wisconsin. This dam project, however, was abandoned in 1973 due to environmental and economic concerns. Since the decision to abandon the project, more than 8,600 acres of land have been held in a state of limbo. Recently through the dedicated efforts of many concerned citizens in western Wisconsin, this area is finally being restored for recreation and agriculture uses. Passage of the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water conference report will help advance this much needed project toward its completion. While the conference report contains these two excellent projects, I am gravely disappointed that an anti-environment provision that would curtail the Federal Government's efforts to reduce global air pollution is included. Such unnecessary language will hamper global efforts to preserve our environment for future generations. Though I am opposed to including the Knollenberg provision, because of the importance of these two projects for Wisconsin and other important Energy and Water projects which are included in this conference report, I will vote for final passage.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today the creation of a new Federal program that will subsidize aqua farmers that raise lobsters to sell to consumers, and the amount of the subsidy will depend on the distance these lobster farmers are from Boston and Maine. Sound silly and ridiculous? Well, it is of course, but welcome to the world of our Federal dairy policy. Milk is the only product produced in this country that faces price discrimination based on where it happens to be produced and what it is used for, and that distance is based on a city in the heart of my congressional district, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. But today, Members of Congress have the ability to allow reform, much needed, long overdue reform, of that antiquated, depression-era policy to go forward by voting no on 1402 and saying good-bye finally to the ``old moo-doo'' economics that we have been operating under since the great depression.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that is very common sense and straightforward. None of us here today relishes having a debate where we have to pit region against region in this country, farmer against farmer, family against family. It should not be that way. My amendment would establish a different way of approaching our national dairy policy, recognizing that there is going to be a need for support for small family farmers because of the volatility of the current marketplace. But it also recognizes there is no economic justification for a price differential based on any location of the country, and also based on what the milk is used for. So what I am proposing in my amendment is a national pooling of the Class 1 differentials, what farmers receive for the milk they produce for consumption purposes. Class I differentials would be pooled and then equitably and fairly distributed to all of the producers, regardless of what region of the country they happen to be producing in. That would eliminate the need for this regional conflict, the constant struggle that we face perennially here in this Congress, of pitting farmer against farmer, and I think it is probably the fairest and most practical approach. Mr. Chairman, I understand why the system was created during the Great Depression in 1937, to deal with milk shortages in other regions, but now with the interstate transportation system and refrigerated cars, we can transport milk across the country with relative ease so there is no further economic justification to continue the depression- era, government-controlled policy. So, in an attempt to try to eliminate this regional conflict as it exists today and to treat all producers equitably and fairly, I am offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I think it is altogether appropriate that I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Green Bay, Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding this time to me. Let us come back to the spirit in which this amendment is offered, and that is to highlight the trade implications that this amendment is meant to address, and there are many. If our dairy farmers, farmers generally across the country, are to survive in the future, it is going to depend in large part on the ability to export products beyond our borders. Agriculture already is our number one export industry. We have an opportunity south of our border to take advantage, if we position ourselves correctly, of an emerging dairy market. That has proved more and more difficult because of policies of outside nations, especially the European Union. If anyone today is under the illusion that what we do on 1402 does not have an effect on our trade policy in the agricultural sector, Mr. Chairman, they do not understand how other countries are viewing what we are doing here today. Last December, I had an opportunity along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), Senator Pat Roberts, a few other representatives, to go over to Brussels and speak with members of the European Commission and European Parliament in regards to the reforms that they are looking at over their common agricultural policy. I raised the issue that in the European Union they have some of the highest state-subsidized dairy policies in the world, and they have a competitive advantage over us because of that high state subsidy. They turned to me and said: ``Listen. Until you are able to get your own house in order, who are you to come over here and lecture to us about lowering trade barriers and moving to a more free trade market system?'' That is what is at stake here. We have another round of WTO discussions coming up this fall. If we are incapable of tearing down trade barriers that exist domestically over in the dairy policy, it is going to be very difficult for our trade representatives to have the moral authority and the credibility to engage in those WTO talks to convince other countries to move to a more free trade market system around the globe and give our farmers the opportunity to compete fairly and effectively. That ultimately is going to determine the success or the failure of our family farmers.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment accurately reflects the position that the dairy farmers in the upper Midwest have on this whole issue. They are not looking for any special advantage. They are not looking for any competitive advantage over the rest of the country. They certainly do not want to visit any additional hardship on family farms, regardless of what region they happen to be living and working, breathing, and dying in. But they have not heard to this day any economic justification for maintaining this Depression era policy which, as this map shows, is based solely on geography and distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, which is a beautiful city located in the heart of my congressional district. With today's modern transportation system, we can ship fluid milk around the country with relative ease. That is what this amendment is meant to do, to end the regional fighting, to end the constant struggle where we pit farmer against farmer and family against family in this country, when it does not have to be that way. We should support this amendment and have a national pooling mechanism in which the Class 1 differentials will be pooled and then distributed fairly and equally to each producer in the country, regardless of where they happen to be living and producing the milk. That is why I brought this amendment forward, Mr. Chairman. I think it really gets to the crux of the whole debate that we have been having here. It certainly speaks to our producers' position back home, where they are not looking for an advantage anywhere, just the level playing field and the ability to compete fairly in our own domestic market without these artificial trade barriers prohibiting a free flow of goods within our own border. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a freshman Member of this House and someone who has distinguished herself as a real champion of family farmers.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I, quite frankly, am flabbergasted to understand where this $200 million lost figure comes from because it just belies the facts. In fact, USDA released an analysis over the past year what the basic formula price, what the producers would get through class I differentials under the reform proposals that they have announced and which will take effect on October 1. Virtually every region in the country under the more free market- oriented pricing system actually sees more income in their pockets rather than less. The Boston region, 38 cents per hundred-weight; Des Moines, $1.22 more; New York 23 cents more; Philadelphia, they lost 2 cents this past year; St. Louis, 96 cents more; El Paso, 27; Atlanta, 69; Seattle, 42; Kansas City, 85; Cleveland, 87; Tampa, $1.19 more; Louisville, 71; Boise, 82; Minneapolis, $1.27. In fact, the figures just released for the month of October this year, the first month when the reform takes effect, shows that on a national average the producers get 57 cents more per hundred-weight class I than they would under the 1402. So the issue is simple. We can vote for passage of 1402 and by doing so we would be taking money out of, rather than putting more money into, the pockets of the producers over this past year and for the month of October. Now, I commend my colleagues who are in support of 1402 for their desire to help the small family farmers. But if there has been one common denominator in this entire debate regardless of the region is that we can all stipulate that our family farm earnings have been suffering badly and they have been suffering for some time under the current system. But I submit that the continuation of the status quo with the government-set price differentials only encourages large corporate farms to produce for the mailbox and the Government check, rather than for basic economic principles of supply and demand. Look at the increase of large corporate farms in these regions that see a higher price differential. They in turn put the squeeze on the small family farmers. So if we want to help the family farmers, let us support this amendment; let us have some confidence that they can compete under the principles of supply and demand, that we do believe in the marketplace, and that we are not going to create these artificial price systems which will only encourage the larger operations to go into that because of the price differentials and ultimately hurt our small family farmers. That is the direction that we should be going in, and that is why I support the Boehner-Obey amendment and would ask my colleagues to vote no on final passage.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Stenholm amendment and in support of the Dooley amendment. I truly believe that if we really want to do everything we can to enable our dairy farmers to survive in current market conditions, we need to do two things, one of which is to allow us to move forward this reform from USDA that moves us to a more market-oriented pricing system rather than a government price-controlled system. Even though it is very incremental, it is a step in the right direction. The other important thing, we can do is to do everything within our power to empower the individual producer with more risk-management tools so that they have more control over their own destiny. There is a very important risk-management tool that is available to farmers that have the luxury of dealing with co-ops and that is called forward contracting. In fact, we have a pilot options program taking place right now in a variety of counties throughout Wisconsin that allow producers to enter into options or future contracts. The concept is simple. If they can lock in on a predictable price and a revenue return that they can rely upon, then they will not be subject to the vagaries of the marketplace and the wild, cyclical ride that we have seen throughout the dairy industry and throughout most of the agriculture industry, with drastic price fluctuations. This risk-management tool gives those individual producers who are willing to crunch their own numbers and determine what their individual cost of production is, to enter into private contracts placed on future prices. Now, if they know that their cost of production is say 11 bucks per hundred-weight and they can lock in on a future contract of 12 bucks per hundred-weight, they are going to be making a buck profit per hundred-weight. And that is a tool that our farmers in the region are just now starting to utilize. That is why I am in favor of the Dooley amendment. It would expand future contracting beyond cooperatives. I think we should be empowering these farmers regardless of the access they have to co-ops. There are many producers around the country that do not have access to co-ops. In Wisconsin, we have roughly a little more than 80 percent of our dairy farmers that do have co-ops that they can forward contract with. But there are roughly 20 percent that want to be able to do this with private entities, and that is more true in other parts of the region that do not have a lot of co-ops to join and forward contract with. So if we are really going to help our family farmers today, I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the Stenholm amendment, support the Dooley amendment, and allow forward contracting for producers, regardless of where they happen to be producing and regardless of whether or not they can join a co-op or deal directly with a private entity.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1402 on final passage. This is a debate, quite frankly, that I am sure no one has looked forward to. It seems to be a perennial thing that goes through this United States Congress, and it is unfortunate in many respects. I think this is bad legislation based on policy reasons, but also based on procedural reasons. First, the procedure, Mr. Chairman. Back in 1996, my predecessor, Steve Gunderson, who was then chairing the Dairy Subcommittee, was going to write some legislation in the Freedom to Farm bill to reform this depression-era milk-pricing system that exists in this country. But there was an agreement reached, an understanding reached back then that instead of having legislation go forward under Freedom to Farm, they were going to let the regulatory and rule making process at the Department of Agriculture take its course. Over the next few years, the Department of Agriculture held countless hearings across the country, took testimony from experts in the field, from dairy producers, and proposed a reform that is due to take effect on October 1. This is a very small, gradual reform, but a reform that heads in the right direction in leveling the playing field and creating a fair and more equitable dairy policy for all of the producers in this country. But now, here we are in the eleventh hour, just a few short days before that reform is to take effect, with this legislation that would effectively stop that reform. This is unfortunate, because I believe people's words in this House should stand for something, and agreements should count for something. I am afraid that if we cannot rely on each other's promises and agreements that are reached, I shudder to think what the environment is going to be like in this chamber on a whole host of other issues. But there are policy reasons to oppose this as well. Milk is the only product that faces price discrimination in this country based on where it is produced and what it is used for. There is no other product that faces this same type of discrimination, and under the current policy, that subsidized rate is based on distance from a beautiful city in the heart of my congressional district, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. It does not make any sense. For those Members, especially rural Members, who constantly complain about the disparity in reimbursement rates under the Medicare formula, how can they continue to defend a dairy program that effectively does the same thing, based on geography in this country. For those Members who are strong advocates of fair trade with other countries around the world, how can they continue to defend a dairy policy that effectively creates trade barriers within our own country. It is comparable to setting up a new Federal program that would subsidize aqua farmers for raising lobsters based on distance from Boston and Maine or farmers that are growing oranges and get a higher subsidized rate based on how far they are from Florida or even high-tech companies, giving them a competitive advantage because they are further away from the Silicon Valley. The point is that under our current economic system, there are going to be comparative advantages for producers, especially in agriculture, that the government should not interfere with. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues cannot vote ``no'' on H.R. 1402, I am going to be offering an amendment today which will stop pitting region against region, farmer against farmer, family against family. It is a pooling program where the Class I differentials, what the farmers get for the milk they produce for drinking purposes, would be pooled and then distributed equally and fairly to all of the producers around the country, regardless of where they happen to be producing that milk. I think that is a fair, equitable and a common sense approach which would finally end this constant regional fighting and civil war over dairy policy that we have in this chamber all too often.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise today urging my colleagues for a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1402. We are going to have plenty of time over the next day, 24 hours, to talk about the policy merits of H.R. 1402, the bad policy implications involved with it. I think we can all stipulate that family farmers across the country, no matter what region they happen to be living and working in, are going through some very tough times. The farmers in western Wisconsin who I represent and one of the largest dairy producing districts in the Nation do not want any further hardship to fall on any other family farmer, in any other aspect of the country. They are not looking for any special advantage. All they are asking for is a level playing field and the ability to compete fairly in our own domestic market when it comes to making a living on a dairy farm. That is all they want. We will have time to get into the policy implications behind H.R. 1402, but I think the Members should vote against H.R. 1402 because this legislation should never have been brought to the floor to begin with. I believe that the institutional integrity of this place is on the line with the introduction of this legislation in the 11th hour. Let me explain. Back in 1996, my predecessor, Steve Gunderson, who was chairing the dairy subcommittee was going to legislate in the Freedom to Farm bill some corrective changes on the milk pricing system, a system that was in place during the Great Depression, a stopgap, short-term measure in order to deal with the problems that this country was experiencing during the Great Depression. But sometimes one of the hardest things to change in this place is the status quo. But instead of allowing Representative Gunderson and his supporters to go forward with legislation in Freedom to Farm, they said, no, instead, let us let the regulatory and rulemaking process at the Department of Agriculture deal with this. They have through that mandate in Freedom to Farm. Over the last few years, they have held countless hearings across the country. They have taken testimony from experts in the field, from the dairy producers, public comments through e-mail, letters, personal testimony even from Representatives of Congress. They have come forward with a proposed reform that is due to take effect on October 1, a reform that was voted by over 96 percent of the dairy producers in this country, to take effect on October 1. Now, in the 11th hour, regardless of the agreement that was reached back in 1996 in the Freedom to Farm debate, this legislation is coming to the floor; and that is wrong. I fear to think what this place will become if people's words do not count for anything anymore, if agreements do not matter. I believe that is what is at stake here. Besides the fairness and the policy implications behind reforming the milk pricing system, if we cannot reach agreements in this body and live up to those agreements in future years, then I shudder to think what this environment is ultimately going to look out. So I would encourage my colleagues vote against the rule, to vote against final passage, and cast a vote in favor of the institutional integrity of this House of Representatives.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Doolittle substitute and in strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill. I think there is just a fundamental difference between these two different bills. If my colleagues believe there is too much money in the political system, then support Shays-Meehan. If my colleagues believe there is too much influence of money in the political process, then support Shays-Meehan. The difference between the two is very simple. Rather than take a step to contain the big dollar contributions to the political parties, Doolittle would blow the lid off current contribution limits. Instead of reducing the influence of special interest money, the Doolittle substitute would start a bidding war. Shays-Meehan, on the other hand, would eliminate the biggest of the big money contributions to the political process, the unregulated soft money contributions. This chart demonstrates the trend of soft money contributions during presidential election years. In 1988, it was roughly $45 million; but then it escalates every presidential year after this. In 1992, $86 million; 1996, $262 million; and if current projections of the first 6 months of this year hold true, we are looking at between $500 million to $750 million in soft money contributions in this next election cycle. The people across the country see what is happening. They may not understand the nuances of current campaign finance rules, but they do understand that there is too much money in the political system and that money translates into access and influence. What is funny about today's debate is some of the CEOs who are making these large soft money contributions are also saying that the system is broken and needs fixing. In fact, a business group called the Committee for Economic Development recently endorsed campaign finance reform. The chairman of that committee calls the current system a ``shakedown'' and business executives have no choice but to ``play by the rules of the game.'' It is time to rewrite the rules of that game and eliminate soft money contributions. So I urge my colleagues to reject this ``show-me-the- money'' substitute bill that is being offered and instead support true comprehensive campaign finance reform, the Shays-Meehan bill. This vote is long overdue. For almost three years we have heard about the abuses in the campaign finance system. We have heard from our constituents that they feel their voice has been drowned out by the big money special interests who push their own agenda. We have heard a lot of rhetoric from leaders in Washington who say they want to clean up our elections yet have failed to allow a vote on changing the system until now, when it is too late to affect this year's elections. There are many members of this body who are committed to reform of our broken campaign finance system. I applaud the efforts of my friends Congressmen Shays and Meehan for their courageous leadership on this issue. The Shays-Meehan bill will take the biggest money out of the political process and bring some control to the independent expenditures that have come to dominate our elections. It is a good first step to fix a problem that has no simple solution. I had worked in the last session of Congress with a bipartisan coalition of freshman members of Congress to craft our own campaign finance reform bill. That bill is a substitute bill being considered today. I will not support that bill this year because it is more narrow in focus, although it still gets at the most common abuses in the campaign system without a constitutional threat. Since Shays-Meehan passed the last session of Congress, and because it is more comprehensive, I will continue my support for it. Both the Shays-Meehan substitute and the Hutchinson substitute are honest, bipartisan attempts to fix our broken election process. I believe that this House works best when we work in a bipartisan manner, and that is how both these bills were created. However, because only one bill can advance today, given the current rules of debate, that bill should be Shays-Meehan. Ultimately this debate boils down to the belief that there is too much money in campaigns. If you support that idea, as I do and most constituents I talk to in western Wisconsin do, then you support campaign finance reform. If you believe that we need more money in the system then you will oppose Shays-Meehan. The majority of the public doesn't believe that Congress has the courage to change a system that appears to benefit our own interests. Today we have the opportunity to show the public that we can take the big money out of this system and put elections back into the hands of the people we are sworn to represent. It's time to reduce the cynicism in our political process and increase the credibility of this democratic institution. Support the Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I too want to compliment the Speaker for giving us this opportunity to debate what I feel is the most important issue that we are going to bring up in this session of Congress, and that is the debate and the votes on meaningful campaign finance reform in order to return some credibility to our political process. When I was first elected in 1996, the shortcomings of our current system became obvious to me. The tidal wave of money washing around during an election does not elevate political discord and contribute to the debate of ideas. It simply drowns out the voices of those who cannot afford to buy into the process. The big soft money contributions contribute to the perception that special interests have too much influence in the political process. And that perception is correct. So here we are once again, attempting to right the wrongs of our current system. Drawing from the lessons from the previous session of Congress, the best chance we have for reform is represented by the Shays-Meehan bill. With a united front in the House, we can send a clear message to the Senate today that the time for reform is now. The citizens of western Wisconsin have told me that our democracy belongs to the people, not to the large money special interests. They do not expect us to take no for an answer on this important issue of reforming the political process. I encourage my colleagues to support Shays-Meehan today and to oppose the ``poison-pill'' amendments and substitutes.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2488. This is a very serious debate about a serious piece of legislation. If this tax cut were to pass and actually be signed into law, it would set the course of fiscal policy for the next several decades in this country. And I don't get it. When a family in western Wisconsin enjoys good times, they see it as an opportunity to take care of existing obligations first. For the Federal Government, this should mean paying down the $5.7 trillion national debt and shoring up Social Security and Medicare for future generations. What this legislation proposes, however, is the equivalent of my wife Tawni and I going into our local bank and telling our bank officer, ``Yes, we know we have a mortgage and a car loan and credit card payments. But we would like to restructure those debts so we can enjoy some additional money now and shift these debt obligations onto Johnny and Matthew, our 3-year and 1-year-old sons.'' We would get laughed out of the bank if we said that. I didn't come to Congress to leave a legacy of debt to my children and mortgage their future with an act of such irresponsibility. That's why I oppose this riverboat gamble of a tax cut. A short time ago, before former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin retired, I had the opportunity to ask him what he felt we, as policymakers, should do to ensure the prosperity of our nation in the next century. His response was two-fold--first, we should pay down the $5.7 trillion national debt, and second, we should not shortchange our investments in education. This legislation fails both of these goals. This tax cut proposal also ignores the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has repeatedly testified before us in Congress that the first, best use of any budget surplus is to reduce the debt. An emphasis on debt reduction would provide real tax relief to all American families, not just the top 1 percent who receive the bulk of the benefits of this proposal. A lower national debt would benefit everyone by lowering interest rates. Families who make mortgage, car, credit card, and other loan payments would realize tremendous cost savings, and businesses would be able to invest at lower cost, create jobs and increase productivity. Finally, lowering our national debt would be fair to future generations who would otherwise have to repay an obligation they did not create. A vote today against this legislation is a vote for fiscal responsibility and fiscal sanity. It is a vote for our children's future, and for continued economic growth and the promise of prosperity for our kids. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me the time. There has been a lot of reference this evening in regards to the money appropriated last fall in the omnibus appropriations bill for the 2-year NAS study. While that may be true, the legislative history behind that was also perfectly clear. At least it was on this side, and it was with the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations when they wrote to Secretary Herman a letter in which they stated, ``We are writing to make clear that by funding the NAS study, it is no way our intent to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics.'' Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in opposition to H.R. 987. And let us also be clear that if H.R. 987 does pass tonight, it will be the fourth time in 5 years in which this Congress was able to effectively block any movement, any progress, on issuing ergonomics rules from the Department of Labor and OSHA. Proponents of the legislation claim that there is not enough science to justify moving forward. This, however, is an issue that has been studied to death, over 2,000 studies exist examining ergonomics. As my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) already indicated, in 1997 the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health evaluated over 600 of those 2,000 studies; and they concluded that there is a substantial body of credible evidence showing the cause and effects of repetitive motion and injuries in the workplace. I am concerned that Members are using the 2-year NAS study as an excuse to go into a four-corner offense and just delay, delay, and delay and hope that no rule is every promulgated. Quite frankly, I do not understand why. There are a lot of companies in western Wisconsin that are already implementing their only ergonomic standards in the workplace, one of which is 3M, one of the largest manufacturing companies in the Nation, three fairly large significant plants are located in my district. And they are doing it for two reasons: first, because they recognize the need for it and, second, because it makes good business sense. In fact, the chief ergonomics officer for 3M, Tom Alban stated, ``Our experience has shown that incorporating good ergonomics into our manufacturing and administrative process can be effective in reducing the number of and the severity of work-related MSDS, which not only benefits our employees but also makes good business sense.'' 3M's evolving ergonomics process has been effective at reducing the impacts of these disorders on their employees and their business. From 1993 to 1997, 3M has experienced a 50-percent reduction in ergonomics-related OSHA recordables and a 70-percent reduction in ergonomics-related lost time. I think that is another good reason to vote against this legislation tonight. I would encourage my colleagues tonight to stand up for working families. Do what a lot of good businesses are already doing. Allow OSHA to move forward on implementing rules on ergonomics standards. It makes sense. It makes good business sense. And in the long run it is going to help the working people in this country.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge on the occasion of its 75th Anniversary. The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge is very important to the heritage and environmental conservation efforts of the Midwest. The refuge's mission is to provide public benefits associated with fish, wildlife, and wild areas by reserving the Upper Mississippi flood plain ecosystem for the enjoyment and use of this and future generations. For the past 75 years the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge has provided essential habitat for a wide variety of plants, fish, migratory birds, and other animals. As a boy growing up on the north side of LaCrosse near the Mississippi River, I developed a special connection to the river. My fond memories of past camping trips on the river's sand bars and fishing with my friends have helped me to see first hand the importance of responsible stewardship. These boyhood impressions of the river have inspired me to work to protect the Great Mississippi from environmental damage. As one of the four co-chairmen of the Upper Mississippi River Congressional Task Force (UMRTF), I have had an opportunity to effectively address stewardship issues pertinent to the Upper Mississippi River and adjacent lands. With the help of the UMRTF, attention has successfully been focused on the importance of refugees in the Upper Mississippi River Basin and their need for funding. In recent years, the refuges have been asked to do more and more with less and less funding. Although the refuges have received added responsibilities, funding for maintenance, habitat restoration and outreach have all faced budget shortfalls. The Upper Mississippi Refuge currently lacks a full-time refuge manager. Although the master plan for the refuge calls for 60 staff members, only 28 staff are currently employed. With the aid of the Task Force, I am working to address this problem. As a direct result of UMRTF efforts, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will increase refuge maintenance funding for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, and the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge by $1 million in fiscal year 1999. In the future, the Task Force will continue to focus attention on these refuges and the key roles they fill in providing essential habitat for a wide variety of plants, fish migratory birds and other animals. The Mississippi River is truly an environmental treasure. The Upper Mississippi refuge system plays a crucial role in protecting this national treasure so that current and future generations can enjoy the same environmental, recreational and economic benefits that we have enjoyed in the past.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)