Baron Hill

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, when I was growing up in Jackson County, Indiana, 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 schools brought people together and helped keep their towns strong and vital places to lives. They were the heartbeats of their communities. When school consolidation forced high schools to close, it tore the hearts right out of these communities. These high schools, along with thousands of other small schools around America, were closed because for many years educators followed a 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 schools money. We need to rethink our assumptions about larger schools. New research shows that achievement levels in smaller schools are higher, especially among children from disadvantaged backgrounds who need extra help to succeed. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would not authorize a separate program. Title IV of the bill includes a list of innovative options that local schools can explore. My amendment would simply add smaller learning communities to that list. My amendment would simply allow local education agencies to judge for themselves whether a smaller learning community program is the best strategy for helping students and teachers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for their words and their strong support on this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Baird), my good friend.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I, like many of my colleagues, would like to support this budget, because who would not want a tax cut along the lines that had been proposed. It is politically popular to support the tax cut, and I would like to do it. I believe that we can offer some kind of tax cut, but this is not realistic. This is something that cannot be done. I know the American people must be quite confused as to who is right and who is wrong. But let me pull out this chart. Maybe this will clear it up. This is from the President's budget proposal that outlines what the budget surpluses are going to be over the next 10 years. As my colleagues can see, this tax cut is predicated upon the fact that these surpluses are going to materialize. I do not know of any American family that would go out and buy a new car or a new house based upon income that he was told that he was going to receive for the next 10 years. No common sense person would do this. But, yet, that is what we are about to do in the Congress of the United States, Mr. Speaker. I think if my colleagues know this fact, they have to conclude that this is a bad idea and that we ought to vote against it.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce H.R. 1658, the ``Burley Buyout Act of 2001,'' a bill to buy out Burley tobacco farmers and end the Burley tobacco price support program and quota system. H.R. 1658 has been endorsed by the Indiana Tobacco Growers Association, which represents southern Indiana's 2,000 Burley tobacco farmers. Burley tobacco has been growing in southern Indiana for almost two centuries. As farmers migrated westward from Virginia to Kentucky and southern Indiana in the early 1800s, they brought with them their native state's most important crop. A typical example of an early Indiana tobacco farmer was Thomas Lincoln, the father of Abraham Lincoln, who moved from Kentucky to Spencer County, Indiana, in 1816 and raised a small plot of tobacco on his farm. Over the years, tobacco has continued to be an important part of the economy in our rural communities, and today there are 2,000 Burley tobacco farmers and 8,000 owners of tobacco quota in southern Indiana. These farmers and quota owners are very familiar with the tobacco price support program, which the federal government created in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 to protect tobacco farmers from price volatility. The program guarantees a minimum price for the tobacco that farmers grow, so long as farmers agree to limit their tobacco production. The tobacco price support program worked well for many years, but now the program is no longer protecting farmers' incomes. Since the mid- 1990s, Burley tobacco quotas have been cut in half. In 1997, the tobacco quota was 705 million pounds. This year, the quota is 332 million pounds. In other words, tobacco farmers can only grow 47% of the amount they could produce five years ago. The result is that their farm incomes have been cut in half over the last five years. To make matters worse, both U.S. and foreign tobacco companies are buying an increasing amount of their tobacco from foreign producers that are not subject to the U.S. quota and price support system. The percentage of imported Burley tobacco used in U.S. tobacco products has risen from around 20% in the early 1980s to almost 40% today. At the same time, the U.S. share of world burley tobacco exports is steadily declining. In addition, because so much of the tobacco quota is now owned by non-growers, tobacco farmers have to include significant quota rental expenses into their production costs. The University of Kentucky's Will Snell estimates that quota rental rates averaged around 40 cents a pound in the 1990s, which means that quota rental payments make up about 20-25% of a tobacco farmer's production costs. A consequence of declining quotas and high tobacco production costs has been that the government has directly subsidized tobacco growers over the past several years. For many years, the tobacco industry proudly insisted that the government tobacco program operated at ``no cost'' to taxpayers, since the tobacco stabilization cooperatives always repaid the money borrowed from the CCC with interest. In 1999 and 2000, however, the federal government distributed almost $700 million in Tobacco Loss Assistance Payments (TLAP). In addition, in the year 2000, Congress forgave $500 million in loans that cooperatives owed the CCC and assigned 220 million pounds of the Burley pool stocks to the CCC. The tobacco price support program is no longer offering tobacco growers the economic stability they used to enjoy. The statistics clearly show that the price support system is no longer guaranteeing farmers a good living. Furthermore, the tobacco program can do little or nothing to counter the long-term economic forces that are challenging tobacco growers. For this reason, I am proposing that the federal government buy Burley tobacco farmers and quota holders out of the price support program. Ending the tobacco program gets the government out of a costly agricultural production control program that is no longer working and allows farmers who want to stay in the tobacco business to be more competitive in the world market. My bill, H.R. 1658, the Burley Buyout Act of 2001, immediately terminates the tobacco program and: (1) Compensates all quota holders with the fair market value of the property right their quota represents. It would pay all quota owners a one-time payment of $8 per pound for the average number of quota pounds they have owned over the last ten years. (2) Provides transition payments of $1.50 per pound for the next five years to active tobacco producers to help them move from the price support program to other activities, including growing tobacco in the open market. These payments will be based on the average number of quota pounds tobacco farmers have grown over the last three years. (3) Provides $50 million each year in grants for the next five years to help communities that are heavily dependent on tobacco to adjust to the economic changes that might be caused by ending the price support program. As Congress prepares to write the next Farm Bill, my colleagues on the House Committee on Agriculture and I have an opportunity to review the laws and programs that affect most farmers. This opportunity only comes around about once every five years. For this reason, I believe it's appropriate for us to review the tobacco price support program too, and I feel strongly that it is time to make significant changes and end the program. I urge my colleagues to support and adopt H.R. 1658, the Burley Buyout Act of 2001.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce H.R. 1583, a bill to name the Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in New Albany, Indiana, after my friend, mentor, colleague and the former Congressman of southern Indiana's 9th district, Lee Hamilton. I would like to thank State Representatives Bill Cochran and Jim Bottorff of the Indiana General Assembly for urging Congress to designate this building in honor of Lee. Lee Hamilton served the people of southern Indiana with distinction for 34 years in the United States House of Representatives. In the course of his long career, he established himself as a leader in international affairs, serving as the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, the House Intelligence Committee and the Iran- Contra Investigation Committee. Lee was an honorable, forthright and trustworthy member of Congress whom we could always count on for a calm voice of reason as our nation dealt with foreign policy issues throughout the Cold War. Lee Hamilton served as my Congressman from the time I was 12 years old until he retired in 1998. Lee's common sense leadership in Congress helped make southern Indiana a better place for Hoosier families to live and work for over thirty years. No matter how important he became out in Washington, we always knew he was working hard for us. When Lee retired from Congress in 1998, Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote, ``Hamilton is a throwback to the old days of the House and not just because he still has the crew cut he wore when he came to Washington as a small-town Hoosier lawyer in the Democratic landslide of 1964. He is an exemplar of the common-sense, instinctively moderate model of legislator that used to be common in Congress but is increasingly rare today.'' Lee currently serves as the Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC and the Director of The Center on Congress at Indiana University. He has received numerous public service awards including the Paul H. Nitze Award for Distinguished Authority on National Security Affairs, the Phillip C. Habib Award for Distinguished Public Service, the American Political Science Association Hubert Humphrey Award, the Indiana Humanities Council Lifetime Achievement Award, and the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress' Statesmanship Award. I believe it is only fitting that we designate the Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in New Albany as the Lee H. Hamilton Building to pay tribute to his limitless dedication and service to the people of southern Indiana.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my good friend from Kentucky that that bill is not a perfect bill. It is not even close to being a perfect bill. I would ask the American people, or I would ask my constituents if they want tax relief now or they want tax relief 10 years from now? My guess is the constituents in my district would want that estate tax relief now. Now, there are not many multimillionaires in my district in southern Indiana, but there are many family farmers and small business owners who have enough land and equipment and buildings to make them liable for the estate tax, and they want estate tax relief now, not like the Republican Party wants to give 10 years from now. The Republicans give Indiana farmers and small business owners very little help if they die between now and the year 2011, but by raising the tax exemption to $4 million, like we want to do, my constituents and the American people get estate tax relief now. And I think that is what they want.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, farmers in southern Indiana are not getting much for their corn and soybeans. It is not going to get any better any time soon. Southern Indiana farmers are the same as the farmers and ranchers across this Nation. They are experiencing tough times. Their only certainty is more uncertainty about the future. Over the last 3 years, Congress has had to give farmers nearly $25 billion in ad hoc emergency assistance. Without these emergency payments, they would not be in business today. American farmers produce the world's finest food. Stop and think about where we would be if we did not have family farmers working hard to give us a safe, secure, and abundant food supply. It is time for Congress to be honest. Our farmers and ranchers should not have to depend on a wink and a nod, and then hope their income support payments appear in a supplemental bill. Instead, they should know what to expect now, this month, as they prepare for planting. Various farm organizations have testified before the Committee on Agriculture. They have told us Congress needs to increase the agricultural baseline by as much as $12 billion a year in the next farm bill. The majority's budget does not guarantee needed funding for agriculture. Instead, if agriculture is increased at all, it will have to compete with defense and other priorities for a limited amount of time in a so-called contingency fund. Congress cannot do anything about uncertain weather conditions, but the Blue Dog budget does take some of the uncertainty out of farming. The Blue Dog budget follows the lead of farm groups and increases the mandatory spending baseline for agriculture by a total of $57.1 billion over 5 years. That is $57.1 billion more than the majority's budget. The Blue Dogs are responsible about budgeting, and they are realistic about the needs of America's farmers and ranchers.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, a politician's first instinct is to promise everything to everybody. It is a lot easier for politicians to say yes to everybody and put off the tough choices until later. That is why this House set up a budget process that forces us to make tough choices between our competing priorities. It is the same process every responsible American family and business follows. Before they start spending money, they sit down and figure out how much they have. In a perfect world we would have all the money we needed to take care of all our priorities. But this is not a perfect world. We have to make tough choices. If we want to give people bigger tax cuts, we will have to take some money out of Social Security and Medicare. If we want to pay down more debt, we will have to restrain spending or tax cuts. Let us do the hard work first. Let us write a budget, laying out our priorities, then let us give people tax cuts. President Bush and the Senate are debating tax cuts within a budget framework and we should be doing that in the House as well.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, my wife and I taught our three daughters to eat their dinner before they could have their desert. What this House is doing today is they are trying to have their dessert before they eat their dinner. Now, the way we eat our dinner here in Congress is we write a budget. We sit down and we decide what our priorities are going to be. We answer some difficult questions, like how do we balance tax cuts against paying down the national debt? How do we balance tax cuts against protecting Social Security and Medicare? How do we balance tax cuts against supporting the men and women in our Armed Forces, our farmers, and our veterans? That is what budgets are for. Mr. Speaker, we are going to get our dessert this year. We are going to have a tax cut this year, but we should eat our dinner first. We have to figure out how to fit this tax cut into a responsible budget framework. Let us pass the budget first, then cut taxes.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, introducing a trillion dollar tax bill without a budget framework is like going to the racetrack and putting all your money on the long shot. The leaders of this House only win their wager if the Congressional Budget Office's surplus projections are accurate for the next 10 years, but even CBO says it would not bet on its own budget numbers. CBO says its surplus estimate for the next year has a 50 percent chance of being wrong by more than $97 billion. For years 6 through 10, CBO says the odds are even longer. This is a big problem, because two-thirds of the $5.6 trillion surplus are supposed to materialize in years 6 through 10. Mr. Speaker, almost 20 years ago Congress made another gamble on the projected budget surpluses and it lost. That is exactly the way then- Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker described the 1981 tax cut. He called it a riverboat gamble. We lost enough money on that bet. Let us pass a budget resolution before we take up tax and spending bills.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons southern Indiana is such a great place to live is because our citizens and organizations generously contribute their time and their money to help their neighbors and their communities. There are times, however, when a Hoosier shows a commitment to better his or her community that is above and beyond the outstanding work that is done every day. One of these Hoosiers is Ms. Christy Reynolds, of Jeffersonville, Indiana. She recently donated $25,000 to Haven House Services, a non-profit organization that provides shelter, support, and services to people in need in Clark, Floyd, and Harrison Counties. While making a contribution of $25,000 to any charitable program or organization is an act of great generosity, Christy's donation is even more remarkable. She was once close to being a resident of Haven House herself. A single mother of two daughters, ages 3 and 12, Christy and her family have lived in Jeffersonville their entire lives. As a teenager, Christy dropped out of high school and struggled with many of her parental responsibilities. She found her way to Haven House Services, a place that offered her healing, hope, and a chance to learn a vocation. She overcame some major obstacles and got on the right track. She is now employed as a VISTA volunteer at Haven House. She helps organize Haven House's spring and summer fundraisers, as well as the annual Christmas party Haven House throws for its clients in Clark and Floyd counties. Recently, Christy's father passed away after a long bout with lung cancer and she inherited $75,000. She gave $25,000 of this inheritance to Haven House. I salute Christy for this wonderful act of charity. As Haven House helped Christy get through her own difficult times, Christy is making it possible for Haven House to help other people who know the pain of being homeless and without hope. Christy has bought a home, left the welfare rolls, and in her own words, ``did what was right by giving to others. Because when you give, it comes back to you.'' Christy's contribution should be a reminder to all of us what generosity and love of neighbor really mean.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2 because I believe we should honor the commitment our government has made to protect America's seniors. We must guarantee that the money American workers pay into Social Security and Medicare, plus all of the interest those Trust Funds earn on this money, is used to keep Medicare and Social Security solvent. Not only will this bill help us shore up Social Security and Medicare, but taking these Trust Funds off-budget will allow us to pay down our national debt and keep our economy strong. Congress should protect the retirement funds we have promised to military retirees in the same way we are protecting Medicare and Social Security. We must not spend or otherwise dedicate any funds that are currently building in the Military Retirement Trust Fund, the on-budget fund that pays the military pensions of hundreds of thousands of men and women who have served this country in uniform. At the end of the year 2000, the balance of the Military Retirement Trust Fund was $163 billion. Over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office projects that more than $100 billion additional dollars will be set aside in the fund. Few people realize that the current the budget surplus estimate includes money already promised to military personnel for their retirement. We should not consider any of the dollars set aside for military retirees as part of this surplus. And we certainly should not spend any of the money in the Military Retirement Trust Fund for purposes other than paying the retirement benefits of our fighting men and women. While I support this bill, I hope my colleagues will do the right thing by passing similar legislation to protect the Military Retirement Trust Fund. My colleague, Gene Taylor, and I have introduced a resolution calling on Congress to preserve the Military Retirement Trust Fund. H. Res. 23, the Military Retirement Protection Resolution, says Congress should not use the Military Retirement Trust Fund money for anything but what it is intended for: paying military retirement benefits. That is the least we can do for the men and women who send so much of their lives defending our nation.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida and my good colleagues on the Blue Dogs Coalition. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago when I joined the Blue Dogs, I didn't know exactly what to expect, but I have discovered in the last 2 years that this is an organization of conservative Democrats that are very honest about what they say. Mr. Speaker, everything that we have heard here today is exactly as it is. One of the great things about being a Blue Dogs member, and there are 33 of us, is that one can rely on the information that one receives. What the American people have been receiving in terms of the speeches that have been made here this afternoon is the truth. If the truth is known to the American people, I think that they will agree what we are talking about in terms of paying down the debt is an important component of this budgetary process and something that we ought to be doing. Now, I cannot do as well as the other speakers have done so I will not repeat what they have said, but I do want to bring up one point and that is when CBO has made all of these huge projections of what the surpluses are going to be over the next 10 years, they will also tell us in their report that there is a 50 percent chance that they are going to be a hundred billion dollars wrong in the first 5 years. Most people do not realize that. Members of Congress I am sure do not realize that. If you do not take my word for it, go to the Web site. It is www.cbo.gov. Mr. Speaker, the other projection they talk about is in the following 5 to 10 years there is a 50 percent chance that they will be off at least $250 billion. So we are talking about at least, at a very minimum, of a $350 billion potential swing in these projected budget surpluses. That is why the Blue Dogs have never come up with numbers, they have always come up with percentages. The idea of paying 50 percent of these surpluses down on paying the debt is a realistic approach to this budgetary process that does not lock us in and jeopardize our future in terms of going back to the old days of deficit spending. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point that there is a huge room for error in these projected surpluses, that we need to be cautious. The most important thing that we can do is pay down the debt in a way that is fiscally responsible and do tax cuts in a way that is fiscally responsible.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 3621 to urge its passage. Granting William Clark the grade of captain is well-deserved and long overdue. Clark acted as a co-commander with Meriwether Lewis during their expedition and Lewis felt Clark deserved a rank equal to his. So with this bill, today, we can both recognize Clark's role in the expedition and carry out Meriwether Lewis's wish that Clark be given the rank of captain. This issue is of more than passing interest to the people of southern Indiana. These historic partners began their expedition at the Falls of the Ohio, near Clarksville, 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 set 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 William Clark, who was living in Clarksville with his brother, Revolutionary War hero George Rogers Clark. The noted historian Stephen Ambrose wrote this about 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 selected the first official members of the expedition, a group referred to as the ``Corps of Discovery.'' 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. Mr. Speaker, local officials and interested citizens in the Falls of the Ohio area are now planning an event of national significance to commemorate the bicentennial of the expedition's beginning. In 2003, Clarksville and the surrounding area will play an important role in commemorating the expedition and reminding our nation of its importance. I encourage all Americans wishing to retrace the steps of the explorers to visit the Falls of the Ohio and its surrounding area. And I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3621 so William Clark will receive the rank he was promised and so richly deserves.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2919, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center Act. As the Representative of a Southern Indiana district that housed many ``stops'' on the Underground Railroad, I am a co-sponsor of this legislation to promote preservation and public awareness of the Underground Railroad and those who helped African American slaves escape to freedom in the North. As we all know, the Underground Railroad was an informal system of transporting runaway slaves to freedom in the North and Canada. The ``stations'' of the Railroad were homes of slavery's staunchest opponents, and the ``conductors'' took the fugitives at night to the next station along the secret routes. The brave individuals who took these runaway slaves into their homes, fed them, hid them from authorities, and transported them to the next stop up the road did so at high risk, as those who aided fugitives were prosecuted, especially after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. I am proud to say that Southern Indiana played a key role in the Underground Railroad, one of the most powerful and sustained multiracial human rights movements in world history. The Ohio River, which separates Kentucky and Indiana, represented the border between slavery in the South and freedom in the North. There were twelve major crossing points for runaway slaves along the Ohio River, three of which were in my Congressional district. Once the slaves crossed the Ohio River, they were not only in free territory, Indiana, but they had placed that wide river between themselves and their pursuers. In Indiana, fugitives could find refuge at Bill Crawford's farm near the town of Corydon. Conductors transported fugitives from the mouth of Indian Creek in Corydon across Jackson County or Jennings County on their way towards Ohio. Those who took a different route over the Ohio River found refuge in Jeffersonville and Rising Sun. John B. Todd's house in Madison, the site of some of the busiest Underground Railroad activity in the state, was a well-known safe haven for escapees. There were an estimated 600 to 800 successful escapees through Kentucky and Indiana each year due to these brave efforts. Mr. Speaker, I salute both the Hoosiers who helped the fugitive slaves through the Underground Railroad and the slaves whose love for freedom motivated them to risk their lives by escaping to the North. The Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, will facilitate a greater understanding of our nation's history and honor those who risked their own freedom to stand by their conviction that no person should be slave to another.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4442, the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act. H.R. 4442 would establish a commission to promote awareness of the National Wildlife Refuge System among the American public as the System celebrates its centennial anniversary in 2003. For many years, my family and I have enjoyed hiking at the Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge near my home in Seymour, Indiana. And now a major new refuge has been established on Army property at the former Jefferson Proving Ground. Just last weekend, I attended the dedication of the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge at the former military facility. The new refuge encompasses more than 50,000 acres of grasslands, woodlands and forests and is home to white-tailed deer, wild turkey, river otters and coyotes. The refuge also provides managed habitat for 40 species of fish, 120 species of breeding birds, and the federally endangered Indiana bat. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has identified 46 rare species of plants on the site. Mr. Speaker, the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge is the latest addition to more than 500 national wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I urge all Americans to come and enjoy the beauty and recreation opportunities at Big Oaks. And while they are in the area, they should also spend some time at the Muscatatuck refuge. These and many other refuges are often the best kept secrets in town. H.R. 4442 rightly commemorates the centennial of the refuge system and will help make Americans more aware of the tremendous assets available to them through the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

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

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3084 which authorizes funds for the establishment of a new interpretative center in Springfield, IL honoring President Abraham Lincoln. As we celebrate the life and contributions of this great man, I would like to point out that no commemoration is complete without mentioning southern Indiana's part in the Abraham Lincoln story. Many people do not realize President Lincoln spent 14 years of his life on a small farm in Lincoln City, Indiana. It was at his boyhood home in southern Indiana where he helped his father work the land, cultivated his love of reading, and developed a curious and inquisitive nature. Sadly, he also lost his mother there, Nancy Hanks Lincoln, when he was just nine years old. The time he spent in Indiana during his formative years undoubtedly contributed to the development of President Lincoln's extraordinary character--from an honest, hardworking boy to one of our country's finest leaders. Mr. Speaker, the residents of Indiana are proud of this heritage. I encourage all Americans wishing to learn more about this American hero to visit Lincoln City, Indiana and the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial located just off the Lincoln Heritage Trail.

Mr. HILL of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue. When I ran for Congress back in 1998, my emphasis was on debt reduction; and it is an important issue because, since 1980, we have gone from approximately $750 billion in debt to over $3 trillion in debt and we are spending approximately $230 billion a year in interest payments on this national debt. It is absurd that we are paying this kind of interest on our national debt. Now, this amendment does not go a long way to retiring that debt, but it is a symbolic gesture of what we should be doing, and that is practicing fiscal discipline. Last year my office turned over $50,000 back to the Treasury. If every Member of Congress would do the same thing, then it would go to some extent at least of retiring some of our debt. $50,000 here and $50,000 there, sooner or later it adds up to real money; and if we practice fiscal discipline, which I think this amendment is attempting to do, we can get about the business of actually retiring our Nation's debt and serving the people of this Nation in a positive way. So I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is the right thing to do, not only in terms of policy, but in terms of a symbolic gesture, that we are really committed to retiring our Nation's debt, so we are not spending this God-awful $230 billion in interest payments on our national debt and interest.