Baron Hill

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I respect thousands of family farmers in southern Indiana. I have family members who operate family farms. I understand how the estate tax can cause a lot of hardship for asset-rich and cash- poor family farms. It sometimes can prevent farmers from passing their farms on to their children which is a real tragedy. I support the substitute to this bill, because it sends immediate estate tax relief for the family farmers and small businesses who really need it. The majority proposal requires farmers and small businesses to wait 10 years for estate tax relief. Family farmers and small business operators need estate tax relief now, not 10 years from now. Mr. Speaker, I also support the substitute to H.R. 8, because unlike the Majority proposal, it offers estate tax relief in a fiscally responsible way. When it is fully implemented, H.R. 8 will costs $50 billion a year which threatens our hard-won balanced budget. I believe it is more important to continue paying down the national debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare than giving a tax break to people whose estates are worth tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing the telephone excise tax as well. This legislation will make telephone bills cheaper and easier to understand. People in my district in southern Indiana have told me they do not understand their telephone bills, the confusing fees and surcharges on their phone bills. They do not know why their bills are so high even when they make few or sometimes no long distance calls. I petitioned the Federal Communications Commission last fall to make phone bills more fair. The laundry list of flat fees and taxes drive up phone bill costs and confuses consumers. Today we, as Members of Congress, have an opportunity to take an immediate step to lighten the burden on consumers by supporting this bill. Eliminating this unnecessary tax will be just the first step toward making phone fees more fair and easy to understand.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the dedication of the Hayden Historical Museum's ``Center of Gravity'' marker in Hayden, Indiana. On Saturday, May 20, 2000, I will attend the ribbon-cutting ceremony in Hayden to commemorate nearly 150 years of a phenomenon that has relocated two major transportation systems and caused other unusual events in Hayden's history. Town historians say the first train rolled into Hardenburg (now Hayden) on July 4, 1854. Allegedly, the train crew reported that the usual amount of steam power needed to ``pull out of Hardenburg'' would not suffice. Similar reports continued over the years, but no apparent conclusions or solutions were identified as to what ``pulled things down'' in Hayden. Years later, the railroad relocated to the south side of town where this mysterious force seemed to disappear. However, the story doesn't end there. In the 1920s, U.S. Hwy. 50 came through town on the road now running in front of the Hayden Historical Museum. Once again, motorists complained of a strange force that slowed them down, caused their engines to misfire, and made it hard to start again if they stopped. After a few years, authorities relocated the highway farther south of town than the railroad and again the problems ended. Hayden High School teacher and coach Charles ``Chuck'' Hurley coined the popular phrase ``the Hayden Spirit'' for a similar phenomenon that seemed to ``pull back '' people to Hayden just as the trains and cars seemed to be ``pulled down'' by the infamous force. The ``Center of Gravity'' is not the only force that attracts people to Hayden, Indiana. Hayden is a great place to live and raise your family. The citizens of Hayden take great pride in their community and work hard to keep their churches, schools and civic organizations strong. The ``Hayden Spirit'' represents what is best about Hoosier small town life. I am honored the citizens of Hayden have asked me to join them on Saturday when they mark the point from which this mysterious power emanates--the ``Center of Gravity.'' The Hayden Historical Museum keeps the Hayden community strong. The museum commemorates Hayden's past accomplishments and helps build its strong future. Elementary school members of Hayden's Little Hoosier Historians and middle school members of Whitcomb's Winners use the Museum every day to study the history of their town and state. The Museum library contains books, authentic letters, and a pictorial history of the town where Hayden's children can learn about the people and history of their small town of 250 people. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the people of Hayden in Congress. I applaud their enthusiastic commitment to education, arts, family, and community. The dedication celebration this weekend honors not only the Hayden Historical Museum's status as the ``Center of Gravity,'' but also the illustrious past and promising future of a remarkable Indiana community.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it prevents consideration of an amendment which I offered that would bring fundamental fairness to the way we convey property from closed military facilities. Last year's defense authorization bill included language to forgive debts and allow communities to reclaim property from installations closed under the Base Realignment and Closure Act. The amendment which I offered that was not included in the rule would have extended this same opportunity to communities with military facilities outside the BRAC process. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has already decided that communities with BRAC facilities should receive property at no cost so they can more easily transform closed bases into engines of economic growth. Yet, many other communities in the same exact situation are still expected to bear the burden of paying for transferred property merely because their facilities happen to be closed outside the BRAC process. This is not right. It is equally not right that while this bill and several amendments already adopted allow for no-cost conveyances of several facilities across the country, this House is denied the ability to consider an amendment that would simply treat all closed facilities the same. I have a special interest in this issue because a community in my district is working hard to transform the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant into a center for economic development. A no-cost conveyance of this property would make their job much easier. But I want all communities to be able to benefit from the fair deal we already have given BRAC communities. That is why I regret that this rule does not make my amendment in order.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en block package and urge my colleagues to support it as well. This package includes a couple of amendments that will help free up money for economic development in towns with old military installations. All communities should be able to use closed facilities as engines of economic growth. This is simply a matter of fairness. I, too, have a closed military installation in my district. It is called the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant. Unfortunately, under current law, some communities that lose military installations are treated differently than others. Yesterday, I testified before the Committee on Rules about an amendment that I believe levels the playing field. My amendment would authorize the Secretary of Defense to convey former military installations in property communities free of charge. Of course, I hope that my amendment will be made in order. But I am pleased that we are helping the communities in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, for many years, people in Washington, Democrats and Republicans, have not been writing budgets that use real numbers. The majority's budget we are considering today is more of the same old song and dance, spend money the government does not have and make promises Congress cannot keep. The budget we are asked to vote on today sets spending levels that we all know will not address our national priorities and forces us to take money from Social Security and increase the national debt. I am a fiscal conservative Democrat who believes we should write a budget that uses real numbers and makes promises Congress can actually keep. The Blue Dog budget does this. It proves we can write a realistic budget that addresses the national priorities both parties share. For example, the Blue Dog proposal makes a serious commitment to our national defense and to the men and women who serve in the military. It provides $15 billion more than the Republicans do and the administration's plan and $10 billion for veterans. The Blue Dog budget also calls for a $40 billion tax relief. The American people need it, and we can afford this. It gives families, farms, and small business owners much needed tax relief but within a framework of fiscal responsibility. The organizing principle behind this Blue Dog budget is restoring fiscal responsibility to a government that has been spending more than it has taken in over the years. It pays off the national debt faster than any other budget proposal the House will consider today. The moral thing to do is to relieve our children and our grandchildren of this debt. I urge my colleagues to support this Blue Dog budget resolution.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Yes, in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am a new Member of Congress but I am a veteran observer of Congress. For 20 years, I have watched this Congress spend more money than it took in. Year after year, I watched our government run deficits every year and charge their irresponsibility to a credit card paid for by the American taxpayers. The result of all of these years of overspending is a massive national debt. In 1980, the government had $700 million in debt. Today our debt is $3.6 trillion. Our debt has become so big that 14 percent of all the money the government spends is just to cover interest payments on this debt. Mr. Speaker, despite what people in Washington believe, we do not have a large budget surplus. Our surplus is based upon uncertain 10- year projections. To pass this today is like spending an inheritance we have not yet received. Committing money that one may or may not have 10 years from now is just bad business. Any businessman, of which I am one, and businesswoman looking at government's finances would recommend that before we do anything else we should reduce our debt burden and pay back what this Congress has already spent. Mr. Speaker, there are many good tax relief and spending proposals I would like to support this year. One of them is a marriage penalty tax reduction. There are millions of married couples in this country who pay higher taxes than single people, and I believe this is wrong. I believe Congress should give tax relief to married couples this year, but I believe Congress needs to increase defense spending this year, to boost our national security, continue our efforts to recruit and retain the most talented and promising soldiers in our armed services. I believe Congress needs to put priority on keeping the promises we have made to our veterans, helping our family farms and making our schools better and safer, but I cannot support these proposals before Congress commits to acting in a fiscally responsible way. It makes no sense to pass tax and spending legislation before we have created a budget framework that guarantees that the taxpayers' money is used in a responsible way. Congress cannot go back to the old ways, and that is what this motion to recommit guarantees. I am introducing this motion on behalf of the Blue Dog Coalition. This motion establishes the principle that guides all of our activities this year. This motion says that, before we begin debating anything else, Congress must pledge to pay off the government's publicly held debt of more than $3.6 trillion over the next 12 years. This motion says that debt reduction should not be an afterthought in this year's budget process. It says that the debt reduction should be our guiding principle. Now is the time to see if my colleagues across the aisle will commit to paying off our debts or if they are willing to pass a bill that could actually increase our debt or force Congress to start borrowing money from Social Security again just like Congress has done for the last 30 years. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will get up and say that the Joint Committee on Taxation has concluded that Democrats oppose tax relief. That is the same old Washington spin doctoring that has got us into this mess in the first place. Democrats will say that our debt is because of Reaganomics. Let me say that again. The Republicans will say that the Democrats are against tax relief, and the Democrats on my aisle are going to say that Reaganomics caused this large debt. This is all a bunch of spin doctoring; that is all it is. People are tired of the spin doctors on both sides of the aisle. It is what got us in this mess in the first place. It really does not matter who is to blame for saddling our children and grandchildren with a $3.7 trillion debt. It is time to start getting the government's fiscal house in order and paying back what this Congress has borrowed. I challenge everybody in this House to do the right thing for our children and our grandchildren and commit to paying off the debts that this government has built up over the last 30 years.

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague from Indiana, I regret that I cannot support this resolution. Phonics is a proven method of reading instruction that has a place alongside other approaches to teaching reading. But I think this resolution goes a bit too far. The Federal Government should not tell professional educators in our States and local school districts how to teach reading to their students. I believe communities know best when it comes to educating their kids and I had thought my colleague, Mr. McIntosh, would agree with this sentiment. I'm concerned about education policy as a representative in Congress, but I have a much greater stake in education as the father of public school kids and the husband of a public school teacher. My wife, Betty, is a middle school math teacher. My two oldest daughters are products of the public schools and my youngest still attends a public school. I hear every day from them about the successes and challenges in our schools. That's how I know the power to make decisions should be at the local level and the focus should be on how to help our communities better educate our students. We should always keep in mind that the Federal Government is only a junior partner in our Nation's education process. More than 95 percent of the money our country spends on education comes from the States or from local communities. The ultimate day-to-day responsibility of running our Nation's schools does not belong to the Federal Government, but to the parents, teachers, and administrators who work with our children every day. The Federal Government plays a limited, but important, role in our education system. Its role is to help States and localities address their toughest challenges. Through programs like Title I and Head Start, the Federal Government helps disadvantaged kids and schools with challenging student populations. It helps millions of kids to go to college through student loan programs. It also provides educators with important research on teaching methods and school performance. When the Federal Government addresses these important education priorities, it must spend the taxpayers' money responsibly. The Federal Government has a duty to ensure that its resources are actually being spent on the problems we are trying to solve. But beyond targeting federal funds to specific areas where local schools need help. Congress should resist micro-managing and allow local schools to make their own decisions. We have to maintain the delicate balance between Federal educational priorities and local control of schools. States and localities must have the flexibility to address their problems in ways that make sense for them, but our Federal resources must remain targeted at the people and communities who need them most. While it makes sense to give States and localities discretion, I don't believe we should send money to States without asking for accountability and results. Governor George W. Bush of Texas was on the right track when he recently said: ``The Federal Government must be humble enough to stay out of the day-to-day operation of local schools. It must be wise enough to give States and schools more authority and freedom. And it must be strong enough to require proven performance in return.'' This resolution goes too far because it directs schools and teachers to use a specific educational technique. I'm going to vote against this resolution because Congress should not be dictating a school's curriculum from Washington. The Federal Government's role is to support the people who educate our kids, not to tell them how to teach reading. We should stick to the things that we can do. We must resist the temptation to meddle in places where we have no business. That takes humility and a measure of wisdom, but I am confident that together we can find the strength to do the right things for our students.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for H.R. 2737, a bill that authorizes the National Park Service to convey 39 acres of land to the State of Illinois for an interpretive center to be constructed along the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House of Representatives on other projects commemorating the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition. However, I feel that I must, as I have done in the past, set the record straight on where the Lewis and Clark expedition began. Mr. Speaker, contrary to some of the statements made by my colleagues on the floor this afternoon, the expedition of these historic partners began at the Falls of the Ohio, near Clarksville in southern Indiana. On September 1, 1803, Meriwether Lewis began his journey down the Ohio River toward Clarksville, Indiana, where he eventually met his partner on the expedition, William Clark. By October 14, Lewis had reached the Falls of the Ohio, a series of dangerous rapids created by a drop in the river over a two-mile series of limestone ledges. The following day, Lewis and his crew safely crossed the falls on the north side of the river. They then set out to meet Clark, who was living in Clarksville with his brother, Revolutionary War hero George Rogers Clark. The noted historian, Stephen Ambrose, writes of Lewis and Clark's meeting in Clarksville in his best-selling book, Undaunted Courage, ``When they shook hands, the Lewis and Clark Expedition began.'' During the two weeks following the meeting, Lewis and Clark recruited the first official members of the expedition, a group often referred to as the ``Corps of Discovery.'' Men from across the region traveled to Clarksville hoping to be selected to join the expedition. Lewis and Clark chose nine men in Clarksville to join them on the journey, and as Ambrose notes in Undaunted Courage, there ``the Corps of Discovery was born.'' The crew departed on October 26, 1803, thus marking Clarksville, Indiana as the actual point of origin for the Lewis and Clark Expedition. From there, the Explorers' remarkable adventures spanned over 8,000 miles of unknown land. No bicentennial celebration would be complete without noting southern Indiana's part in the Lewis and Clark story I encourage all Americans wishing to retrace the steps of the explorers or to learn more about the importance of the expedition to our nation, to visit the Falls of the Ohio and surrounding area. I am pleased that Congress is taking the initiative to promote and support the commemoration of such a remarkable piece of our American history. That is why I support H.R. 2737.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on October 26, the President signed into law S. 800, the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. This bill promotes and enhances public safety through the use of 9-1-1 as the universal emergency assistance number, furthers deployment of wireless 9-1-1 service, and supports states in upgrading 9-1-1 capabilities and related functions. While S. 800 is another advance in the provision of efficient and timely emergency services, it would not have been possible without the vision and tenacity of a former Member of Congress, J. Edward Roush, from Huntington, IN. In 1967, as a member of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the former Committee on Science and Astronautics, Congressman Roush questioned a representative of the International Association of Firefighters during a hearing on the Fire Research and Safety Act of 1967. The association noted response time is critical to fighting fires. Responding to this comment, Congressman Roush proposed establishing a three digit, single, nationwide telephone number for reporting fires and other emergencies. The subcommittee members thought this was a good idea, but it would require a commission to study and review the whole matter. Ed Roush would not let an idea that could save so many lives get lost in commissions and studies. In that very hearing, he told the subcommittee members and guests that he intended to launch a one man crusade to establish a national emergency number. Ed Roush made good on his promise. To get the Congress' attention, he introduced a sense of Congress resolution supporting a single, three digit emergency number. He made speeches around the country; visited and encouraged police, fire and emergency personnel; and wrote letters to local government officials and other Members of Congress. AT&T (the only telephone company at the time) argued that dialing ``0'' for operator was sufficient. But Ed Roush knew the blind, elderly, disabled, children, or anyone in an emergency situation, deserved an easy and accessible number that would quickly connect them to the appropriate emergency responders. The Bell system decided it was worth a try. In January, 1968 in Congressman Roush's office, AT&T held a news conference announcing it would make available a single, three digit emergency number ``911.'' Roush's home town of Huntington, IN became the first city in the Bell system to establish E-911 service, when Congressman Roush placed the first call. Yet, local police, fire and other emergency services were hesitant to turn over their communications facilities and multiple emergency numbers to a single agency and number. Ed Roush patiently undertook a national education campaign to alert these agencies and the American people to the life-saving possibilities of adopting ``911.'' The stories began to come in--of fires cut short, lives saved, babies delivered, and children learning the 911 number. Over the years ``911'' has de facto become the universal emergency telephone number. Mr. Speaker, each of us comes to Congress with the hope of improving the lives of our constituents. Ed Roush's one man crusade to establish a uniform emergency telephone number has saved the lives of countless Americans. As S. 800 becomes law, we should not forget it was the vision and dedication of Congressman Ed Roush of Indiana who put America on the path to a universal, emergency assistance number over 30 years ago. And for that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today, I grudgingly voted for the Conference Report for Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, H.R. 2684, but I still think Congress could have done better by our veterans. I voted for H.R. 2684, despite the fact that it did not include the $3 billion increase in veterans health care that veterans say they need. Unfortunately, there was no way left to improve this bill. I am still very concerned about how this year's budget will affect veterans. Earlier this year, the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars), DAV (Disabled American Veterans), PVA (Paralyzed Veterans of America) and AMVETS stated in their Independent Budget and in testimony before the House Veterans Affairs Committee that the VA needed a $3 billion boost in health care funding to provide adequate care. The American Legion requested a slightly smaller, but still substantial, increase in veterans health care funding, as well. I agree with many of my colleagues who believe the original Clinton Administration request for VA health care funding was way too low. It essentially maintained the existing funding level. And although the House VA/HUD Appropriations bill did include a one-year, $1.7 billion increase in veterans health care, it fell well short of what veterans groups say is needed. I voted against the House version on this VA/HUD Appropriations bill because defeating it would have given House members another opportunity to find the money needed to properly fund veterans' health care. Unfortunately, the Senate did not offer a higher funding level and the conference committee settled on the smaller increase. I voted for this bill, but I know we can do better. In the future, I hope we will listen to the veterans and work together to better address our veterans' most pressing needs. They deserve it.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my full support of H.R. 1451, the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act. This bill would authorize the creation of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, a group charged with the responsibility of recommending to Congress activities to celebrate the bicentennial of President Lincoln's birth. I am particularly pleased that the bill has been amended to include commission members from my home state of Indiana. This is important because many people don't realize President Lincoln spent 14 years of his life on a small farm in Lincoln City, Indiana. There he helped his father on the farm and developed his love of reading. It was in Lincoln City that he also lost his mother, Nancy Hanks Lincoln, when he was nine years old. These events during his formative years in Indiana contributed greatly to the development of President Lincoln's extraordinary character. Mr. Speaker, the residents of Indiana are proud of this heritage. H.R. 1451 will help highlight the extraordinary life of our 16th president. No commemoration would be complete without noting southern Indiana's part in the Abraham Lincoln story. I encourage all Americans wishing to learn more about this American hero to visit Lincoln City, Indiana, and the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial. I am pleased Congress is taking the initiative to promote and support the commemoration of such a remarkable figure in our American history.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the recent violence we have seen in our schools has made all of us take a serious look at our children, our schools, and ourselves. Too many of our children wake up every day and go to schools that make them feel disconnected and detached from their teachers, their parents, and their communities. I am introducing a bill tomorrow called the Smaller Schools, Stronger Communities Act which I hope will make our schools smaller and strengthen the sense of community and safety that many of our schools today are lacking. A principal of a successful small high school recently wrote that small schools ``offer what metal detectors and guards cannot, the safety and security of being where you are well-known by people who care for you.'' I hope this bill will encourage local school districts to find new ways to help their students feel connected to their schools, their communities, and their parents.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last April, shortly after the terrible tragedy that occurred at Columbine High School in Colorado, I spoke with my freshman colleague from the State of Washington (Mr. Baird). My colleague from Washington is a trained psychologist, so I asked him for his thoughts about the Columbine tragedy. Since Mr. Baird is a trained psychologist, I was expecting a long academic explanation using lots of psychological terms regular people do not understand. Instead, he had a simple solution, an explanation. He looked at me and said, ``Baron, our schools are too big, and these kids do not know one another.'' The Columbine tragedy and other recent events of violence in our schools have made all of us take a serious look at our children, our schools, and ourselves. These recent tragedies have forced us to think about how we educate our children and how we can make our schools safer and better. This is a personal issue for me, for my wife, Betty, is a middle school teacher; and my youngest daughter is in the eighth grade at a public school in my hometown of Seymour, Indiana. I do not believe that there is one easy solution to all of the problems our schools and our children face today, nor do I believe that we politicians in Congress could pass some law that would solve every school's and every child's problem. I strongly believe that the people who work with children every day, the parents, the teachers and local school administrators, are in the best position to make decisions about their schools. But this week I am introducing a bill that I hope will make some small contribution to addressing a problem that I and other people have been talking about for many years. It is a problem that the recent episodes of school violence in Colorado and Georgia and other places around the country have once again brought to the forefront of our national debate. It is the problem that my colleague Dr. Baird was talking about. Our schools are too big and too impersonal. Too many of our children wake up every day and go to schools that make them feel disconnected and detached from their teachers, their parents and their communities. The goal of my bill that I am introducing, the Smaller Schools Stronger Communities Act, is to make our schools smaller and to help parents, teachers and administrators and students strengthen the sense of community that many of our schools today are lacking. My strong feelings about this issue come from my own experience growing up in southern Indiana. When I was growing up in Jackson County, there were more high schools than there are today in towns like Tampico and Clear Spring and Cortland. There were high schools that local kids attended and local families supported. These communities were proud of their schools. Their schools brought people together and helped keep their towns strong and vital places to live. These schools were the hearts of the communities, and when we consolidated, when school consolidation forced their high schools to close, it tore the heart out of these communities. These high schools along with thousands of other smaller schools around America were closed because for many years educators have followed the rule that bigger schools are better. For a long time we all assumed that bigger schools were better because they could offer students more courses, more extracurricular activities, and could save school districts money. The statistics on school size show how dramatically this bigger-is- better approach has changed the way we educate our children. In 1930 there were 262,000 elementary, middle and high schools in America. Today there are only 88,000 schools. In 1930 the average school had 100 students. Today's average school has 500 students. Some education experts are now arguing that school consolidation has gone too far. More and more educators today believe that our children do better academically and socially in smaller schools that are closer to their homes and their parents than in the big schools with thousands of students. Because many schools have become too big, they sometimes harm the students they are supposed to be helping. Many students in big schools never develop any meaningful relationships with their teachers and never experienced a sense of belonging in their schools. When I start looking at the issue of big schools, I was surprised to find that some of the biggest critics of big schools are high school principals. The men and women who run our high schools, who work with our teenagers every day, say that schools are too big and too impersonal. In 1966 the national association of secondary school principals released a report criticizing the bigness of today's high schools. The principals recommended that the high school of the 21st century be much more student centered and personalized. Here is what the high school principals said: students take more interest in school when they experience a sense of belonging. Some students cope in large impersonal high schools because they have the advantage of external motivation that allows them to transcend the disadvantage of school size. Many others, however, would benefit from a more intimate setting in which their presence could be more readily and repeatedly acknowledged. Experts have found that achievement levels in smaller schools are higher especially among children from disadvantaged backgrounds who need extra help to succeed. A recent study of academic achievement and school size concluded that high schools and smaller schools perform better in course subjects of reading, math, history, and science. Students in smaller schools also have better attendance records, are less likely to get in fights or join gangs. A principal of a successful small high school recently wrote that small schools offer what metal detectors and guards cannot, the safety and security of being where you are well known by the people who care for you the most. The bill that I am introducing, the Smaller School Strong Stronger Communities Act provides grants to school districts that want to develop school size reduction strategy. This bill does not introduce a new mandate or try to micromanage local education authority. It simply supports education leaders in school districts who decide they want to implement a plan to reduce the size of their school units either through new building space or through schools within schools. I hope this bill will encourage local school districts to take a look at this idea and perhaps think about ways they can make their schools smaller and to find ways to help students feel connected again to their schools and their communities and their parents. This bill and the academic research I have been discussing here today make a very simple point about our schools, our kids, and ourselves. Our lives are better when we feel connected to the people we live and work with.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my support for H.R. 1033, the Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act. This bill will authorize the Department of the Treasury to mint 500,000 one-dollar coins to commemorate the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Mr. Speaker, many people don't realize it, but the expedition of these historic partners began at the Falls of the Ohio, in southern Indiana. In October of 1803, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark joined with other explorers at the Falls of the Ohio to set off on their journey to explore the Louisiana Purchase. The crew departed on October 26, 1803, thus marking Clarksville, Indiana as the actual point of origin for the Lewis and Clark Expedition. From there, the Explorers' remarkable adventures spanned over 8,000 miles of unknown land. Mr. Speaker, the residents of southern Indiana are proud of this heritage. Currently the three communities of Jeffersonville, Clarksville and New Albany are working together to build the Ohio River Greenway--an extensive project to revitalize the southern Indiana riverfront. The intended completion date for this project is set for 2003, just in time for these three communities to come together in celebration of the 200 year anniversary of the beginning of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. This bill will help highlight the extraordinary expedition by Lewis and Clark and will provide support for the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council and the National Park Service in efforts to plan and organize events to commemorate the bicentennial of this historic expedition. And no commemoration would be complete without noting southern Indiana's part in the Lewis and Clark story. I encourage all Americans wishing to retrace the steps of the explorers or to learn more about the importance of the expedition to our nation, to visit the Falls of the Ohio and surrounding area. I am proud that Congress is taking the initiative to promote and support the commemoration of such a remarkable piece of our American history.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, as of this moment, there is no budget surplus. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we have an on budget deficit of $4 billion in the fiscal year of 1999. If we take away the surplus in Social Security, our budget is running a deficit. If we read the fine print of the CBO print, we will not have a real budget surplus next year either. CBO estimates that we will have a $3 billion deficit for fiscal year 2000. I do not believe that it is fiscally responsible to spend money that we do not have and that we may not have in the future. After 30 years of budget deficits, this Congress has still not learned that it cannot spend money it does not have. As we stand on the brink of finally balancing our budget and beginning to pay down our $5 trillion debt, the leadership of this House has put forward a bill that could blow a giant hole in our budget and create trillions of dollars of new debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. I urge this body to set aside whatever real surpluses we have over the next 3 years to pay down our God-awful debt and to protect Social Security and Medicare. This is the responsible thing to do.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I want to repeat as a freshman Member of Congress what has already been said by the previous speakers. We have no budget surplus. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we will have an on- budget deficit of $4 billion in the fiscal year of 1999. If we take away the surplus in Social Security, our budget is still running a deficit. If we read the fine print of the CBO report, we will not have a real budget surplus next year either. CBO estimates that we will have a $3 billion deficit for fiscal year 2000. I do not believe that it is fiscally responsible to spend money that we do not have and that we may not have in the future. After 30 years of budget deficits, this Congress has still not learned it cannot spend money it does not have. As we stand on the bridge of finally balancing our budget and beginning to pay down our $5 trillion debt, the leadership of this House has put forward a bill that could blow a giant new hole in our budget and create trillions of new dollars of debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. What happens if the budget forecasts change and our economy does not produce the surpluses the experts are now predicting? We will turn again to Social Security and its trust fund and use the Social Security trust surpluses to conceal the irresponsible behavior just like Congress has done for the last 30 years. This is wrong. The decisions we make this week about our budget priorities will affect millions of Americans, including our veterans, the people who put themselves in harm's way for our country. I just received a seat on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I am learning how many unmet needs there are in our veterans' community. Many veterans are not receiving the health care, as was previously mentioned, and other benefits they were promised when they enlisted to defend our country. Over the next few years, Congress must act to make sure that we keep the promises that we made to our veterans when they enlisted in our armed services. We will not be able to keep these promises if we pass a bill this week that soaks up every cent of our projected budget surplus for the next 10 years. We will have no money to fix the problems that plague our veterans' health care system. So, Madam Speaker, I urge this body to set aside whatever real surpluses we have over the next few years to pay down our God-awful debt that we have collected and to protect Social Security, Medicare, and our country's veterans. This is the responsible thing to do.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2280, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 1999. I believe that this bill makes some important changes to the benefits available to veterans. I am a cosponsor of this bill. It increases rates of disability compensation and indemnity compensation to veterans. It enhances the quality assurance program at the Veterans Benefits Administration. It also provides permanent eligibility for housing loans for members of the Selected Reserve. And it reauthorizes important programs for homeless veterans. I wanted to be sure to mention this bill because another of its provisions helps get construction of the World War II Memorial underway. This past Memorial Day, I attended a wonderful ceremony back in Versailles, Indiana. At that ceremony the American Legion Post in Versailles presented me with a check for one thousand dollars to forward to the American Battle Monuments Commission to help build the World War II Memorial. That struck me as uncommon generosity from men and women who have already given so much. I salute them and all the people who are making this monument possible. The more we work toward building this memorial, the more World War II veterans will be able to see this proud symbol of what our ``Greatest Generation'' accomplished. I ask my fellow members of Congress to support the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act because it honors our veterans and helps to provide the benefits that they have earned. Since taking office in January I have been talking to the House leadership about ways I could become more involved in Veterans' issues. Last week, I'm proud to say that I received a seat on the Veterans' Committee. I know that we owe a lot to those who currently serve our country and also to those who have served in the past. With this appointment I hope I can make a real difference for all our veterans. This year, one of our nation's oldest and most distinguished service organizations, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, celebrates its 100-year anniversary. I was first reminded by constituents that this year marked that important anniversary. The first bill I sponsored and the first speech I made in the United States House of Representatives was to celebrate and recognize the Veterans of Foreign Wars by requesting that the U.S. Postal Service issue a stamp commemorating the VFW's 100 year anniversary (H. Res. 115). I still believe that we will be able to accomplish this task. I hope that my recent appointment will help move this process along.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this resolution. Prostate cancer comes in four stages. Approximately 6 years ago, my then 51- year-old brother went to the doctor because he was having problems. He found that he was in stage four of prostate cancer. Still we did not give up hope. Still we prayed a lot, held hands a lot, talked a lot. But in the final end, he did not make it, and he died. He died a very horrible and agonizing death. I will never forget it as long as I live. It has affected me dramatically. I hope my brother's pain and suffering does not go in vain, because today I have the opportunity to evoke his name and support this resolution, and hopefully all that pain and suffering, if we can save at least one life in America through this resolution or through this speech, if we can just save one life in America because of this resolution today, the meaninglessness and pointlessness of his pain and suffering will not go in vain.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment because it allows Congress to lead by example. Members who are frugal and able to return a portion of their office allowances should have the right to designate unspent office funds for deficit reduction or to pay down the national debt. This amendment ensures that unspent Congressional office funds are returned directly to the U.S. Treasury rather than accumulating in a contingency fund for the leadership. Mr. Chairman, our national debt now stands at more than 5.6 trillion dollars. The interest payments on this debt are the government's second highest budget expenditure. One of the best things we can do for our country right now is pay off our debts. As our government stops borrowing so much money, there will be more money at lower interest rates for the American people. I suggest we pass this amendment so that unspent office funds contribute to economically strengthening our nation.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am a new member of the House Committee on Armed Services, but I understand the importance of a strong military. I support this bill because I believe our Armed Forces have urgent unfunded needs, including the military infrastructure, equipment and spare parts. Most importantly, I believe that this is the year of the troops, and I support a pay raise, pay scale reform, and retirement benefits reform. I am also glad to see this bill includes $378 million for the Army's Environmental Restoration Account. The fund in this account benefits areas such as the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant in Charleston, Indiana. For many years, the Charleston facility and the men and women who worked there served our national defense by manufacturing essential parts of the ammunition used in combat in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Now that our military no longer needs this facility, the Army Corps of Engineers is cleaning up this land and preparing it for the transfer to a civilian reuse authority. I am proud of the thousands of Hoosiers who worked in the ammunition plant over the years, and I am pleased that the army is helping these communities make the site an engine for future economic growth.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today the House voted on the Conference Report of H.R. 1141, the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill. I voted against this bill and would like to explain my vote. Some of the spending items in this bill were bona fide emergencies. One emergency is supporting our troops currently deployed overseas in Kosovo. I have voted several times to support our troops and the NATO operation in Kosovo. When our generals say they need 6 billion dollars to support our troops in Kosovo, I believe that is legitimate emergency spending. I spoke recently on the floor of this House about the emergency many American farmers are facing at this moment. Farmers need credit right now to plant their crops and pay their bills. I am a member of the Agriculture Committee and represent thousands of southern Indiana farmers. I believe that getting our farmers adequate loans and credit should be one of our top priorities. I believe helping farmers stay afloat is also legitimate emergency spending. But this bill spends billions of dollars on items that are not emergencies. For example, today's bill spends almost twice what our generals say they need to meet our troops' needs in Kosovo. I am a member of the House Armed Services Committee and understand that our military has many pressing needs. One of our military's most urgent needs is giving our soldiers pay and retirement increases. I will support increases in defense spending during the regular budget process. I believe that fiscal responsibility requires us to consider measures such as these during the normal budget process, where we make the often difficult decisions about how we spend our limited resources. It is not fiscally responsible to reach into the surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for government projects that we should be finding ways to pay for in the normal budget process. We only have a budget surplus this year if we count the surpluses generated by the Social Security Trust Fund. We should not be using the money in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for needs that are not emergencies. One of my top priorities in Congress is making sure that the Social Security program will be solid and solvent for future generations. Our government does not have many more pressing needs than saving Social Security. I will not vote for spending our Social Security funds on items that are not emergencies. Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for the Supplemental Appropriations bill because the original purpose of this so-called ``Emergency'' bill was lost somewhere in the process. It became a way to spend billions of dollars outside of the budget process we have set up to control our spending. The final version of this bill was not fiscally responsible and I could not vote for it.