Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to honor my good friend Oscar Peterslie who received the Outstanding Older Worker award in the State of Wisconsin for 2003 by the Experience Works Prime Time Awards Program. Experience Works, a nonprofit focused on employment, training and community services for older workers, began the Prime Time Awards Program 6 years ago, and Oscar is the first winner from La Crosse, Wisconsin.

I applaud Oscar who, at the age of 81, currently works more than 40 hours per

week as an assistant manager for the Pearl Ice Cream Parlor at 207 Pearl Street in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The La Crosse community is fortunate to have an old-fashioned ice cream parlor such as Pearl's. I cannot think of a better place to bring my two sons, Johnny and Matthew, on a warm summer evening to enjoy their special homemade ice cream and candy.

Oscar, his son TJ, daughter-in-law Michelle and their daughters always offer a warm greeting to customers that walk through their door. Moreover, for several years I have had the pleasure of living down the block from the ice cream parlor on historic Pearl Street, allowing me to frequently stop over for my favorite homemade chocolate ice cream, a convenience that has put considerable pressure on my belt line.

The work that Oscar, TJ, and Michelle do in the La Crosse community helps make western Wisconsin a special place to live and to raise a family.

In addition to Oscar's work at the ice cream parlor, he has contributed significantly to our country and local businesses in Wisconsin. During World War II, he was a Marine sergeant in the Pacific Theater. After the war, he managed the A & P grocery store in La Crosse for 21 years and then became a real estate agent until 1993.

It is apparent that service to our community has always been important to Oscar Peterslie. He remains active in numerous community activities and services as a member of the La Crosse Masonic Temple, Badger Lodge number 345. He is also widely known as a Shriner's clown, brightening the faces of both young and old as he works the parades with his infamous 3-foot harmonica.

Mr. Speaker, may everyone learn from the service and dedication shown by this noble and honorable man, Oscar Peterslie, Wisconsin's Outstanding Older Worker for 2003. Oscar has made a difference in the La Crosse community and created a chocolate ice cream addiction I do not think I will ever be able to break.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Flake/McGovern amendment to lift the United States travel ban to Cuba.

Over the past 40 years, our policy of isolation toward Cuba has been an arguable failure. The removal of the totalitarian regime in Cuba has not occurred--even a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba's primary financial sponsor. Positive movements toward political change have not occurred in Cuba over the past 40 years--even as an overwhelming number of former communist regimes have collapsed and embraced democratic principles. These factors beg the question of whether our current policy toward Cuba is the best course of action for the people of the United States and the people of Cuba. At the very least, these factors demand that we reexamine our current policy.

With the free exchange of ideas and words profoundly important in American culture, it seems contradictory that our government would deny its people the opportunity to peaceably spread this concept without unnecessary restrictions. lf the central mission of American Foreign policy is to protect Americans and our interests abroad, how does restricting the ability of Americans to travel to Cuba, a nation deemed by the U.S. Department of Defense as not posing a ``military threat to the U.S. or to any other countries in the region,'' justifiable?

I am concerned that Cuban civilians suffer under government oppression, and it is time to confront the fact that denying direct American tourism to Cuba has resulted in no beneficial change. The island of Cuba is only 90 miles away from the United States and is surrounded by nations that embrace democracy. Positive steps to bring American ideas and words to Cuba are the right course of action, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday July 23, 2003 I was unable to record my vote on final passage of H.R. 2800, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY04, and the four recorded votes on amendments immediately preceding. My unfortunate and unavoidable absence was due to the fact that I fell very ill earlier in the evening.

Had I been able to vote I would have voted the following: Rollcall No. 425: ``yes,'' Rollcall No. 426: ``yes,'' Rollcall No. 427: ``no,'' Rollcall No. 428: ``yes,'' and Rollcall No. 429: ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the Committee for including in the report on the Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill language reiterating its support for the East Central European Scholarship Program (ECESP). This program has operated successfully for a number of years at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and has had positive impacts not only in the various Balkan nations on which it is focused, but also on the La Crosse campus of the University of Wisconsin.

As we look at the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan today, it is clear how critically important it is that we work to ensure that nations taking shape in the aftermath of conflict have the human resources to sustain democratic institutions and free market economies. Over the past 14 years, ECESP has conducted technical training for democratic institution building, health care administration, and financial sector management, among other fields. The program's efforts have resulted in strengthened skills and understanding for over 1200 administrators, managers and government leaders. ECESP alumni include members of national parliaments and the European Council, bank examiners of central banks, hospital administrators as well as administrators of nongovernmental and non-profit organizations.

From 1989 until 1998, ECESP focused its work in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, assisting in the systemic reforms required for integration into the European community. Since 1998, ECESP has been engaged in similar efforts focusing on Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Romania. I look forward to working with USAID, institutions of higher learning, and my colleagues in Congress to help expand this program model in the former Soviet Republics and Central Asia, as recommended by a recent USAID funded evaluation, and explore similar possibilities in the Middle East.

Over the last decade, the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, through ECESP, has been able to provide training to some 300 financial managers from all of the participating ECESP countries. That training has provided these managers with expertise in bank risk management, financial management, and supervision of financial institutions, all of which are critically important to stable market economies. At the same time, the program has enabled U.S. students on the UW-La Crosse campus to benefit from interaction with the international students and a greater awareness of international perspectives in these areas.

USAID is currently considering a new multiyear agreement with the Center for Intercultural Education and Development based at Georgetown University, which manages ECESP. As that agreement is finalized, I strongly encourage USAID and the Department of State to maintain the current level of support for this important and successful program. ECESP is an important component in our efforts to stabilize the Balkan region, and it is a commitment that we need to see through.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Chile-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA). While I maintain reservations about certain sections of this agreement, overall I believe that this FTA succeeds in lowering tariffs on American goods entering Chile and will benefit Wisconsin and the United States.

As our Nation leads the world into the 21st century, we should not shy from opportunities to guide and expand global trade. Chile has persevered as a model of successful, pro-trade economic growth in a region scarred by economic turmoil. Our enhanced engagement with Chile, symbolized in the free trade agreement, is a necessary commitment to stability and economic prosperity in Latin America, while at the same time serving to expand American export opportunities.

The U.S.-Chile Agreement will essentially level the playing field for U.S. companies and workers. Currently, Chile imposes a uniform tariff of six percent on American exports. Under this agreement, the tariff will be eliminated immediately on approximately 85 percent of U.S. exports. Tariffs on the remaining exports will phase out over the next 4 to 12 years. In comparison, 65 percent of Chile's exports enter the United States duty-free under the Generalized System of Preferences program, with the remaining goods facing an average duty of 0.5 percent.

With the United States economy still in a slump, the consequences of not pursuing an FTA with Chile are extreme for American workers. In 2001, exports from the United States to Chile totaled over $3 billion. This was 17 percent of all imports into Chile and made the U.S. Chile's largest single country trade partner. Over the past 2 years, however, the percentage of American imports into Chile has decreased as other international competitors have completed FTA's with Chile, including Mexico, Canada, Central America, European Union, and South Korea, and have taken over as major suppliers to the Chilean market. As a result, the U.S. has seen its share of the Chilean market drop by one third, and its bilateral trade position reverse from surplus to deficit.

This define in market share is evident in my home state of Wisconsin. For example, in 2000, Wisconsin exports to Chile totaled over $120 million--in the top quarter of all U.S. states. Of this amount, over $90 million was in industrial machinery. However, in 2002, Wisconsin exports to Chile declined to $72 million total and $47 million in industrial machinery.

The FTA with Chile will benefit Wisconsin in additional ways, including opening up the Chilean market to U.S. agriculture imports. Chile's tariffs on dairy imports from the U.S. will drop from as high as ten percent to zero in four years. The National Milk Producers Federation expects that exports will increase by several million dollars during the first few years of the agreement, and continue to grown down the road.

As I mentioned earlier, I do have concerns with this agreement, but on its merits, I believe the FTA with Chile addresses a number of important issues and will benefit the American economy. Today's trade environment is constantly changing, with non-tariff trade issues impacting all aspects of our economy and law. Through 14 rounds of negations over 2 years, negotiators were able to hammer out agreements on very complicated and important issues including intellectual property, e-commerce, agriculture, market access, and government procurement. In these respects, this FTA addresses growing challenges facing international trade in the 21st century.

Controversy remains on a few very important aspects of any trade agreement--those dealing with labor and environment. While these provisions are some of the most difficult to find agreement on with potential trade partners, I along with many in Congress, believe trade agreements can serve to raise labor and environmental standards in developing nations and that such provisions must be included in bilateral trade agreements.

While differing from the labor provisions in the Jordan agreement, the labor language in this bill, requiring Chile to enforce its labor laws or be subject to penalty, is acceptable because there is wide agreement that Chile's labor laws are consistent with high International Labor Organization standards and are systematically enforced. In addition, there is wide agreement that, while possible, it is very unlikely that Chile would ever lower labor standards to entice trade.

I, along with many members, also remain concerned with the inclusion of immigration policy in a fast tracked trade bill. While the USTR argues that the temporary workers provisions can be an aspect of services trade, I believe that Congress must thoroughly debate any changes to immigration policy. These objections were strongly conveyed by my colleagues and I to the USTR, and as a result the implementing language before us includes language placing certain H1-B visa restrictions and caps on the temporary worker provisions in this agreement that were previously excluded.

Trade agreements cannot be one-size-fits-all, and this comprehensive bilateral agreement conforms to the characteristics of Chile and the United States. With an open and developed economy grounded in market- based principles, a strong and growing middle class, a credible labor movement, and laws respecting human rights, Chile is a model trading partner. It is in the strategic interest, and economic interest of the United States to engage Chile and complete our nation's 5th bilateral free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA). While I maintain reservations about certain sections of this agreement, overall I believe that this FTA will benefit Wisconsin and the United States.

As our nation leads the world into the 21st century, we should not shy from opportunities to guide and expand global trade. Singapore is a model of successful, pro-trade economic growth in a region still seeking to establish stable economies. Our enhanced engagement with Singapore, symbolized in the free trade agreement, is a necessary commitment to stability and economic prosperity in Asia, while at the same time serving to expand American export opportunities.

The U.S.-Singapore FTA builds upon an already strong trade relationship with mutually low tariffs. While over $16 billion in American imports in 2002, Singapore is the 11th largest export market for the U.S. This includes over 120,000 manufactured goods exported to Singapore from Wisconsin with a total value of $102 million, including $42.6 million in industry machinery.

Some of the most important benefits to U.S. workers in this agreement will be realized by addressing issues of growing concern for international trade in the 21st century. Today's trade environment is constantly changing, with non-tariff trade issues impacting all aspects of our economy and law. Through numerous rounds of negotiation over 3 years, negotiators were able to reach agreements on very complicated and important issues including state-of-the-art intellectual property protections, e-commerce, market access, and government procurement. Further, this agreement increases government transparency and regulatory reform necessary to protect American businesses and women.

As I mentioned earlier, I do have concerns with this agreement, but on its merits, I believe the FTA with Singapore addresses a number of important issues and will benefit the American economy. It also serves to demonstrate to other Asian nations the high standards demanded by the U.S. when engaging in trade relationship.

As with the Chile Agreement, controversy remains on a few very important aspects of any trade agreement--those dealing with labor and environment. While these provisions are some of the most difficult to find agreement on with potential trade partners, I, along with many in Congress, believe bilateral trade agreements can serve to raise labor and environmental standards in developing nations an must be included in FTA's.

While the labor provisions in this agreement differ from those in the Jordan agreement, the labor language of this bill, requiring Singapore to enforce its labor laws or be subject to penalty, is acceptable because there is wide agreement that Singapore's labor laws are consistent with high International Labor Organization standards and are systematically enforced. In addition, there is wide agreement that, while possible, it is very unlikely that Singapore would regress and lower labor standards to entice trade.

I, along with many members, also remain concerned with the inclusion of immigration policy in a fast tracked trade bill. While the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) argues that the temporary worker provisions can be an aspect of services trade, I believe that Congress must thoroughly debate any changes to immigration policy. These objections were strongly conveyed by my colleagues and me to the USTR, and as a result, the implementing language before us includes language placing certain H1-B visa restrictions and caps on the temporary worker provisions in this agreement that were previously excluded.

One of the most confusing aspects of this agreement relates to the Integrated Sourcing Initiative (IS). I, along with many members, had serious reservations about this ambiguous provision as originally drafted and raised these concerns with the USTR. The implementing bill before us, however, includes language virtually nullifying the transshipment concerns with the original draft. Under this bill, the ISI only applies to the limited number of information and medical technology products already allowed to enter the United States duty free under the WTO's Information Technology Agreement. And, contrary to the original draft, this list of eligible products cannot be expanded without congressional approval. In order for a third party to take advantage of the ISI, the eligible product would have to first be shipped to the U.S. from the country of origin, then to Singapore, and then back to the United States. Given these restrictions, there is wide agreement that the ISI will not pose a threat to American workers.

Trade agreements cannot be one-size-fits-all, and this comprehensive bilateral agreement conforms to the characteristics of Singapore and the United States. With an open and developed economy grounded in market-based principles, a strong and growing middle class, and laws respecting human rights, Singapore, like Chile, is a model trading partner. It is in the strategic interest, and economic interest to engage Singapore and complete this bilateral free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.

Mr. Chairman, change for any program can be a good thing, if it is change the right way. That is why I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Head Start bill this evening. The recommended changes are wrong for the children of the Head Start program.

The story of Head Start is that it works. It is a highly successful program. Studies have shown for every $1 we invest in children at this age in Head Start programs, we realize $4 to $7 worth of savings down the line. There is not a business person in the country that would not take that deal.

According to surveys, 96 percent of the Head Start families express a high level of satisfaction with their Head Start programs because of the quality and the accountability that exists there already. That is probably why there has been such overwhelming opposition to the radical Republican transformation of the Head Start program before us tonight.

We have heard the concerns of the block grant proposal that they are recommending without accountability or quality assurances. We have also heard the concerns that the bill would legalize religious discrimination in the Head Start program.

What we have not heard this evening is that under their bill they call for a reduction in funding for professional development programs, again affecting the quality of these programs.

What we also have not heard, perhaps a very important issue, is that they are planning on moving forward with an entirely new testing regime by this fall for these 3- and 4-year-olds, when experts in early childhood development tell us, unless we do it right, unless we have the right measurements, it could do more harm than good for these children.

That is why I got included in the legislation a National Academy of Sciences study to recommend what measurements are appropriate for children. But instead of waiting for the results of that study, they are moving forward on an untested, unscientific, new testing system this fall, which could do our children more harm.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I join educators, parents, and Head Start staff around Wisconsin as well as many of my colleagues here today in opposing drastic changes to the highly successful, early education Head Start program. Changes offered by the Bush Administration and backed by the Republican Congressional majority threaten the program, which has helped millions of high-risk children from impoverished families achieve academic success.

In the 38 years of Head Start, there has always been bipartisan consensus to continue this program that currently helps more than 13,000 children in Wisconsin and 2,000 in the 3rd Congressional district alone. As a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, it is my believe that the majority leaders have put our 3- and 4-year-old children in the middle of a partisan tug-of-war.

Under the bill, which I voted against during the committee consideration, the burden of Head Start would be on the shoulders of cash-strapped States through a series of block grants. Under current law, the Department of Health and Human Services gives money directly to local Head Start programs. Under the proposed changes, however, block grants would be administered by new State bureaucracies, which would cost additional money and provide no guarantee the money would go towards Head Start.

Nearly every State in the nation is facing a budget deficit. We cannot take the chance that one dime of this critical funding would fail to go towards Head Start and the kids it serves.

Educators and parents are particularly upset with the changes because of the success rate of Head Start. Further, numerous studies indicate that every dollar spent on Head Start saves taxpayers $4 to $7 in the future due to savings and lower education and welfare expenses.

I offered a series of amendments to H.R. 2210 during Committee markup and again to the Rules committee last week. The first amendment would restore to current law the 2 percent set aside for training and technical assistance for improving program quality in Head Start. We know the key to quality Head Start programming is having quality teachers dealing with the students. And, yet, the base bill before us would actually go backwards. It

would decrease the training and technical assistance fund to an undetermined amount between 1 and 2 percent. That is especially disconcerting since we know that approximately 2.5 percent of Head Start funds are currently being spent on such programs.

This money is critical for quality staff. Funds are being used to supplement teacher salaries and train staff in a variety of areas. For example, this funding is used to improve staff qualifications, to implement early childhood curriculum, to assess child development, to monitor child health and safety, provide human resources training, support parenting and family services, and to better integrate the use of technology in Head Start centers in working with these kids. Now is not the time we should be going back on the maximum amount that is allowed for ongoing training and technical assistance.

Furthermore, I offered an amendment that would have halted the National Reporting System until the National Academy of Science (NAS) reports to Congress on the appropriate standards and benchmarks for school readiness and valid measures of assessment.

I am concerned with the Administration's implementation of a country- wide testing system for Head Start children despite protests by early child education experts who question the validity and reliability of the assessments developed. The National Research Council's ``Eager To Learn'' report warns, ``assessments must be used carefully and appropriately if they are to resolve and not create educational problems.'' Thus, while we support ongoing assessments of Head Start children to help ensure their school readiness, these specific assessments were developed behind closed doors and with very little input from Congress, Head Start Centers, or other experts.

Reauthorization provides Congress with an opportunity to evaluate appropriate standards and benchmarks for school readiness, as well as valid measures of assessments for Head Start students. Unfortunately, efforts to slow down and properly evaluate the National Reporting System during Committee consideration were defeated. For the sake of our children, it is important that these assessments are not rushed and are given ample review before implementation.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 2210. I will not support any legislation that reduces the opportunities for children. All children deserve a high-quality prekindergarten program and according to numerous studies that is exactly what Head Start children currently receive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act (H.R. 2427). Every day, seniors in western Wisconsin face the escalating cost of prescription drugs. A recent Families USA study found that the prices of the 50 drugs most commonly used by seniors increased by an average of three and a half times the rate of inflation over the past year. And between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased by 44 percent.

One solution for many Wisconsin residents is to drive to Canada where they can purchase prescription medication at a substantial savings compared to a drug store in the United States. On average, American consumes in 2002 were charged 38 percent more than consumers in Canada. A 38 percent savings is sizable amount of money to an individual on a fix income. H.R. 2427 would help all seniors realize this savings.

The legislation we are debating today is about inserting competition into drug pricing, to ensure that Americans no longer have to pay a 25- to 40-percent premium over the prices paid in other countries. As we embark on the largest entitlement expansion in recent history, $400 billion, we must ensure that we get the best price for prescription medicines. We owe it to our taxpayers to ensure that they are getting the best bang for their buck.

The legislation before us would lower prescription drug costs for all American consumers by allowing the importation of drugs with appropriate safeguards. This legislation mandates that the Food and Drug Administration approve drugs and manufacturing facilities before reimportation. In addition, imported drugs must be packaged and shipped using approved counterfeit-resistant technologies. The truth is, more people in Wisconsin have become sick from imported strawberries than from imported prescription drugs. Today, the FDA only imports roughly 1 percent of imported food. Surely we can do a better job of ensuring the safety of imported drugs.

As I travel around my district in western Wisconsin I consistently hear about the high cost of prescription medicines, not only from my seniors but also from businesses and average citizens. The Pharmaceutical Market Access Act is a significant step in the right direction to bring prescription drug costs down and ensure that all Americans have better access to affordable medicines. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2327.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise before you today to honor Dorothy Konichek for her commendable service to the community of Prairie du Chien. Mrs. Konichek is celebrating her 80th birthday and has been a citizen of Prairie du Chien for 64 of those years. As we celebrate this special day, we must also honor Mrs. Konichek for her distinguished citizenship and service.

She has an unbelievable dedication to serving her community and has extended her goodwill to many organizations. Mrs. Konichek has given countless hours to the seniors in her community by volunteering at the Care Center. She eagerly offers her generosity and kindness of heart to ensure that the well-being of the senior members of Prairie du Chien is met. She has tirelessly given her time at the Meadow Lane Group Home for the developmentally disabled and has eagerly taken on leadership positions in her church and community that have contributed to the welfare of Prairie du Chien's youth.

I am proud to congratulate Dorothy Konichek on the celebration of her 80th birthday. It is important that we all recognize and commend her for her remarkable character and distinguished citizenship. Her commitment to service has supported the community of Prairie du Chien for 64 years. Mrs. Konichek embodies a standard of service that can be appreciated by all who live in the State of Wisconsin.

Alma Center, WI, June 22, 2003.

Representative Ron Kind,

House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Kind: My mother, Dorothy Konichek, long

time resident of Prairie du Chien, will be celebrating her

80th birthday on July 28, 2003. She has been a valuable

citizen of Wisconsin for about 78 years and a resident

Prairie du Chien for 64 of those years.

I am requesting from your office a Letter of Commendation

for her years of giving to the people of Prairie du Chien,

making it a better city in which to live. No, these are not

the types of things that will get you in the local paper but

people doing these types of things are what make for healthy

communities.

Here are the reasons why I feel such. a commendation is in

order.

Den mother with the Boy Scouts; Girl Scout leader; Sunday

School teacher in her local church; her many hours of service

to the developmentally disabled at the Meadow Lane group

home; volunteering at the Care Center; looking after many

elderly persons throughout the years, cleaning their homes

and providing meals; being there with a listening ear for

more people than I could count; and taking people for

groceries who do not drive.

The list could go on and on. My mother is truly a person

who loves and cares for the people around her never asking

for anything in return. I'm sure you will agree that people

like this are what make for a strong community. I feel she

has helped to make Prairie du Chien a better place to live.

Thank you for considering my request. Her five children are

hosting an open house for her on July 19th, at the Faith

Evangelical Free Church, in Prairie du Chien, from 1:30-4:30,

with a special program being held at 2 p.m. If you feel you

can honor my request, the letter would be presented at that

time. You may write me at the above address or e-mail me.

Thank you for your response.

Sincerely yours,

Mary (Konichek) Mandigo.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 212, offered by my friend and colleague, Representative Sam Johnson.

This resolution properly recognizes the service sacrifice of the 22 nations, thousands of American service members, and millions of South Korean citizens who stood together half a century ago in defense of the principle of freedom.

The Korean Conflict is often referred to as the Forgotten War. Yet, this war is only ``forgotten'' by those who have not been blessed with the teachings of history--not by the millions of Americans, whose lives have been touched in so many ways by those committed to opposing tyranny and injustice, regardless of the sacrifices required.

America entered the Korean War with a military made up of a mix of war-scarred servicemen and women toughened by the hard lessons of Guadalcanal, Okinawa and Normandy, as well as a new generation of soldiers and sailors who had only seen war on the silver screen, and a newly created Air Force.

After three long, bloody years, the fighting ended. We had rebuilt a military that became, even by today's standards, one of the most coherent fighting forces in the world. The alliance, consisting of units from 22 nations, supported an armistice that prevented the potential death of millions more in a savage, spreading war, and permitted South Korea to flourish into a miracle of freedom that we witness today.

Tragically, nearly 37,000 American soldiers fell on the fields of battle and lost their lives in the Korean War.

There were also far too many who were taken prisoner or met an unknown fate, whose ranks of over 8,000 remain today unaccounted for, but never forgotten. Indeed today, this nation continues to search for every missing warrior who fought to preserve the freedom we cherish; we seek and demand the fullest possible accounting of America's fallen heroes.

It is our solemn promise that we will never forget or forsake them.

Nor will we forget the veterans who returned home to help reshape this nation and the world. And while some returned to parades and fanfare, many returned quietly without public recognition and the ``thanks'' they deserved.

On July 27, 2003, our nation will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the armistice with North Korea--giving us the opportunity to reaffirm our appreciation and extend the gratitude some soldiers never received. Many Americans, including the thousands of veterans and their families from that war, will take a moment to remember the meaning of their service: whether they rest in Korea, remain unaccounted for, or have returned home to their families and the freedom they fought to defend.

More than 1.5 million Americans served during the Korean War. Today, Americans are still there on-point, still defending freedom in Korea. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines serve alongside their South Korean counterparts, astride what has been called the world's most dangerous border.

We pause today to recall with gratitude the sacrifices of all veterans who have served the causes of democracy and freedom. To the veterans of the Korean War and their families, we especially offer our thanks. The world could be a significantly less friendly place if you had not stepped forward selflessly when you were needed. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, from Korea to Iraq, let's not forget the sacrifices our men and women in uniform, and indeed their families have made on behalf of this great country.

Remember too, that on any given day, there are Americans on guard, demonstrating and defending democracy and freedom in over 100 countries around the world.

God bless our service members, our veterans and their families.

God bless America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First of all, I do not believe the amendment has any practical effect. There are no funds currently expended by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management in regards to the bear baiting that is going on, but there is a larger issue at stake.

This amendment would overturn over 200 years of Federal precedents of deferring to State agencies, State wildlife experts, and the people of the States in the management of their own wildlife herds. Nine States choose to allow bear baiting because it is the most effective and humane manner of managing bear populations where it is very difficult to go in and hunt them anyway.

We have had cases in northern Wisconsin where bears are walking into towns, walking into public school yards because their population is exploding. If you take this management tool away from States like Wisconsin, like Michigan, like Minnesota, we fear there is going to be an explosion of the bear population and an unnecessary risk to children's lives and other people's lives.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should stay true to historical precedent. The Federal agencies have deferred to the States on this issue. That is how it has been for 200-plus years. That is how it should remain. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill to expand funding for the low-income weatherization program and other important energy efficiency programs. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.

Weatherization programs help all Americans in all areas of the country, from those congressional districts with hot, sweltering summers to my Third Congressional District of Wisconsin, which as you know experiences long, bitter cold winters. During this year of unprecedented rising energy prices, it is important that this Congress have an honest discussion of our nation's energy policy. Importantly, this amendment shows the American people our dedication to energy conservation measures.

Mr. Chairman, much of the focus on our current energy crisis has been the rising price of crude oil and natural gas. But in my district and throughout the country, the price of heating oil has risen as much as 30 percent in the past year. Conservation efforts such as the weatherization assistance program go a long way to helping us become less dependent on foreign oil.

Mr. Chairman, the weatherization assistance program helps correct the disproportionate energy burden faced by low-income Americans. The program has helped make over five million homes more energy efficient and the average home has seen heating savings of 23 percent. With many low-income households spending over $1,200 on energy costs annually, this energy efficiency savings can further help these families afford the basic necessities of life. Mr. Speaker we do not want any of our citizens having to make the difficult choice between food and fuel. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Chairman, to a farmer, `erosion' is the progressive loss of some of the best means to robust and sustained production from their lands. It is one of the most expensive and difficult problems threatening their liveliehood--but, fortunately, it is a loss many farmers prevent by enrolling some of their marginal working lands in voluntary conservation programs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I mention this because of the cynical irony at hand--today, it is Congress that must act to prevent another form of `erosion', the erosion of legislation this Congress passed with great debate just one year ago--the 2002 Farm Bill.

At the time, I led an effort to increase funding to conservation programs that are available to all farmers because I strongly believed the 2002 Farm Bill to be too heavily weighted to primarily assisting the largest growers of a few commodity crops in a handful of states. Because of this lopsided tilt toward commodity subsidization, many who are not eligible--including dairy farmers, ranchers and fruit and vegetable farmers--rely upon conservation programs to boost farm and ranch income and to ease the cost of environmental compliance.

I argued that a small shift in funds from the commodity programs to voluntary conservation programs would significantly help more farmers in more regions of the country. At the end of the debate, conservation programs made some gains, though not all that I had sought.

The Farm Bill provided nearly $3 billion for USDA conservation programs in FY 2004, including $1.1 billion for working lands incentives programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the Conservation Security Program.

The point, however, is that the 2002 Farm Bill was the end product of vociferous debate and was the culmination of all Members' input.

Unfortunately, the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill before us today undermines all of those efforts by rewriting the Farm Bill to reduce these critical working lands incentive programs by nearly 10 percent. Make no mistake, if passed, this bill will do nothing less than deny farmers and ranchers the funds they were promised.

The fiscal year 2004 Agricultural Appropriations bill before us today is supposed to provide the resources needed to help America's struggling farmers and ranchers--not go back and begin chipping away at pieces of the Farm Bill to better suit the view of a few appropriators. Yet, this is exactly what has happened. In total this Appropriation Bill seeks to eliminate more than $100 million from conservation and renewable energy programs that has been authorized under the 2002 Farm Bill.

Farmers and ranchers who depend upon these programs, and who have been hit hardest financially in recent years, will receive a disproportionately large cut in spending in FY 2004. In contrast, I am disappointed to note that no cuts have been proposed to commodity payments flowing to the largest grain farmers in just 15 states.

Specifically, sections 737, 738 and 745 of the underlying bill will respectively limit the enrollment of the Wetlands Reserve program by slashing 50,000 acres, or about $56 million from its authorized level; cut $25 million from the Environmental Quality Incentive program; and totally gut the Conservation Security program.

Despite the funds provided by the Farm Bill, most farmers and ranchers offering to restore wetlands and grasslands or offering to change the way they farm to improve air and water quality are still rejected when they seek USDA conservation assistance. For example, farmers and ranchers face a $1.4 billion backlog when they seek cost- sharing from the Environmental Quality Incentives program to improve water quality or wildlife habitat. These long lines will only grow longer if cut funds provided by the Farm Bill as has been proposed in the underlying bill.

WRP and EQIP are programs proven to assist farmers while helping the environment, and CSP holds equal promise.

Farmers have offered to restore most than 600,000 acres of lost wetlands by enrolling farmland into the wetlands reserve program. But, nearly all of these farmers will be rejected in FY 04, thanks in part to the cut included in this Appropriations Bill. These farmers are offering to restore more wetlands than the entire Nation destroys in a decade. Wetlands are not only crucial to wildlife and fish habitat but also to our own sources of drinking water. But the Agriculture Appropriations bill instead proposes to cut, rather than increase, funding to this crucial program.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, by providing more than $6.5 billion for working lands programs like EQIP and CSP in the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress decisively increased funds to help farmers manage working lands to produce food and fiber and simultaneously enhance water quality and wildlife habitat. EQUIP helps share the cost of a broad range of land management practices that help the environment, include more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides and innovative technologies to store and reuse animal waste. CSP is a new program that will link conservation payments to gradually increasing levels of performance. In combination, these programs will provide farmers the tools and incentives they need to help meet our major environmental challenges.

Again, appropriators did not seek any cuts from the commodity programs, and it is these programs that the administration has identified as a barrier to successful negotiations in the World Trade Organzation as well as to the secure economic future of developing nations.

Mr. Chairman, President Bush recently toured the African Continent. In a New York Times article about the trip, the President is quoted on the topic of domestic agriculture subsidies as saying, ``. . . It will come up in every country we come to, because African leaders are worried that subsidies, agricultural subsidies, are undermining their capacity to become self-sufficient . . .''

And in recent testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick spoke about the need to ``Harmonize and reduce trade-distorting domestic support programs.''

The prior global negotiating effort--the Uruguay round (1986-1994)-- was the first serious attempt to impose reforming disciplines on the world agricultural trade. Yet, the Uruguay round only started the job of tackling trade-distorting domestic subsidies by allocating them into three categories: ``green box'' subsidies, which involved payments decoupled from production incentives such as conservation programs; ``amber box'' subsidies, which includes payments linked to production, were capped at current levels and then cut by 20 percent and ``blue box'' subsidies, for payments linked to reductions in production, were allowed subject to specific criteria.

In his testimony before Congress, USTR Zoellick stated, ``The current `DOHA Round' of negotiations seeks to build on the first step of the Uruguay round by pressing for much more substantial reductions to achieve a more levels playing field. To do so, the United States has proposed a cut of over $100 billion in trade-distorting support globally, undertaken in a manner that harmonizes levels across countries, with the eventual elimination of these subsidies all together.''

Mr. Chairman, as much as some appropriators and a few others in Congress may want to avoid the inevitable need to reform our domestic commodity support programs, it is equally unfortunate they have used this spending bill to erode our past work and break Congress's promise to America's farmers and ranchers.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this misprioritized and shortsighted bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Harley-Davidson Motor Company, an institution that has been a significant part of the social, economic, and cultural heritage of the United States.

Harley-Davidson is special to Wisconsin. In 1903, William S. Harley and Arthur Davidson designed and produced their first motorcycle. They continued to manufacture motorcycles, with help from Walter and William Davidson in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and soon the city became headquarters for the Harley-Davidson Motor Company.

Since the first small shop opened a century ago, Harley-Davidson has designed and produced millions of motorcycles enjoyed by people all over the globe. From the first V-twin powered motorcycle in 1909 to the Softail Deuce in 2003, Harley-Davidson has proven itself to be a leader in technological innovation, a tradition we hope will continue for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, Harley-Davidson has come to the service for this country when asked and without hesitation. During World War I, the company supplied 17,000 motorcycles for dispatch and scouting use by the Allied armed forces. In fact, the first Allied soldier to enter Germany after the signing of the Armistice was riding a Harley. At the outbreak of World War II, the company almost entirely suspended its civilian line in favor of military production. By war's end, almost 90,000 motorcycles were produced for the military.

When we constantly hear stories of corporate greed and misconduct, it is refreshing to have a company like Harley-Davidson leading by example by donating millions to reputable charities. For example, since 1980 the company has been a national corporate sponsor of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, raising more than $40 million to fund research and health services.

The impeccable craftsmanship and high-reliability of Harley-Davidson motorcycles is evident in the company's intensely loyal fan base. Since its inception 20 years ago, the Harley Owners Group, affectionately known as ``H.O.G.,'' has grown to more than 800,000 members and 1,200 chapters worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the 8,168 employees, over 4,000 of which are in the great state of Wisconsin, Harley-Davidson for their 100 years of hard work and dedication. Each of them is part of a company that has enjoyed a long, rich history and tradition. I know I stand with the rest of my colleagues in wishing Harley-Davidson the best of luck for the next 100 years.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to promote the continued work of the Congress and the Department of Defense to make sure our reserve troops are medically ready to deploy when called upon.

In meeting the global challenges of the post-cold-war era, our military reserve forces have become more important than ever. In fact the role of the Reserve and National Guard in the total force has transformed over the past decade from manpower replacements to essential operators in the daily missions of our armed forces. This is now more apparent than ever as over 200,000 Reservists are serving on active duty related to our military action in Iraq, in peacekeeping and counter-terrorism operations around the globe, and domestic security operations here at home. The increased use of the reserve component seems likely only to increase given our current military force structure and current and future obligations around the world.

Given this trend, the ability for reserve units to timely deploy when called upon is critical. To be effective, our reserve troops need to be medically ready and able to perform their mission. Members not able to deploy when called up limit the ability of units to perform, cause delay, and demand costly changes in operation plans.

The medical and dental readiness of the reserve components has continually been an issue of concern for the Department of Defense. According to the U.S. Army Medical Command, a ``significant number'' of Army Reservists could not be deployed during mobilization for Persian Gulf War in 1990-91 due to medical reasons. Further, a study by the Uniformed Services University found that an estimated 25 percent of Army Reservists mobilized in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, were not deployable due to dental problems.

Recently, the government accounting office completed a report on the ability of the Army Reserve to meet medical and dental readiness requirements, as directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for