Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, when the term milk man is mentioned, it brings back to me the memory of early morning noises such as the low throb of an idling delivery truck's engine and the rattling of milk bottles coming and going from our front porch. This piece of ``Americana'', familiar to so many, will be coming to an end this month in my hometown of La Crosse, Wisconsin. On May 30, 2003 the era and service tradition of ``to-the-door milk delivery'' will come to an end with the retirement of Stuart and Sandy Sletten. It is with great pleasure I wish a happy, healthy and fulfilling retirement to Stuart and Sandy Sletten as they look forward to taking their first vacation since 1990. This dedicated husband and wife team provided excellent and trusted service for their dairy products route for the past 27 years. For the last 27 of their 42 years of marriage they have worked shoulder to shoulder loading and delivering to their thousands of customers. The life and dedication of this couple represents the positive work ethic and values that Wisconsin citizens deeply respect. Thank you Stuart and Sandy for keeping alive for many years a small and beautiful piece of our American way of life.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as we were reminded last week with the triple bombing in Saudi Arabia, international terrorism still threatens our world. Currently we have troops around the world fighting in the global war against terrorism, and it is important that we make sure they have the resources to prevail. The United States has the best trained, best equipped fighting force in the world, and the legislation today seeks to ensure America's military supremacy in the future. It provides for a sizable procurement agenda allowing the United States to stay at the cutting edge of technology. It also provides a 4.1 percent pay increase for our deserving military personnel who sacrifice to ensure the security of America, most recently in dangerous battlegrounds in Afghanistan and Iraq. Further, this bill reduces housing expenses for service members, contains new benefits for reservists, and authorizes $35 million for the Impact Aid program that serves school districts with high numbers of military children. H.R. 1588 also moves forward new weapons programs critical to meet 21st century challenges, as well as funds important for non-proliferation and weapons of mass destruction security activities in Russia and other nations. In past years, defense authorization bills have generally been approved with wide bipartisan support. And while most provisions of the legislation in front of us today are necessary and widely supported, the majority party and the administration have decided to include a few highly controversial riders that need to be addressed. Under the rules of debate set up by the majority party, however, we will not have an opportunity to debate and attempt to amend provisions that strip civil services protections for 700,000 Federal employees, unnecessarily discard environmental regulations and hinder nuclear nonproliferation efforts. These provisions do not serve to enhance the security of our Nation, and at the very least, deserve to be thoroughly considered by Congress with input from the public. In the name of transformation, the administration has proposed eliminating civil service protections of the 700,000 civilians working in the Department of Defense. This unprecedented proposal stabs at the heart of our Federal civil service which has been crafted over decades based on concerns and needs of employees and the federal government to protect federal employees from political pressure and favoritism. Most offensive, however, is the arrogance of the administration in seeking to remove the civil service protections from dedicated employees without consulting with Congress or employee representatives on a replacement plan. In fact, the General Accounting Office (GAO) notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) does not have a good track record on working with employee representatives, raising additional concerns that the needs of employees will not be considered as a new personnel plan is formulated. I was pleased that the Government Reform Committee stepped in to curtail the administration's proposal; however, the language passed by that committee and included in the legislation before us still fails to adequately protect our federal employees in areas such as due process, appeal, and collective bargaining rights. In addition, it grants the Secretary of Defense, and all future Secretaries of Defense, wide latitude in making sweeping, and potentially politically motivated, personnel changes without respect to the needs of the employees. The GAO, does not find adequate justification for these personnel proposals considering the enormous impact they will have on the Federal workforce. The Bush administration has been attacking civil service rights since day one, regardless of whether any new proposal will be good for employees or good for the federal government. While it is important that we update Federal Government personnel systems to ensure our Federal workforce is modeled to meet the challenges of today and the future, this must be done in a systematic and inclusive manner based on sound principles, innovation, and experience. An amendment drafted by Mr. Cooper would have removed these provisions dismantling the civil service system, and allow Congress to thoroughly weigh the need for flexibility in personnel management with the needs of the Federal workforce. However, the majority has refused to allow debate or consideration on this amendment. Another area of concern is the exemption from environmental regulations being sought by the administration and included in this bill. While it is understandable that the Defense Department must have the ability to properly train our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in realistic combat conditions, the necessity of exempting 25 million acres of land at the more than 425 installation nationwide from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Air Act, Superfund, Endangered Species Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act has not been proven. Again, the GAO has found that training readiness remains high at most military installations. DOD currently has the ability to seek national security and military training exemptions in federal environmental law to address encroachment concerns. However, as we debated in the House Resources Committee two weeks ago, DOD has never sought an exemption from the Endangered Species Act or Marine Mammal Protection Act. Exempting the DOD from these proven environmental laws is simply not necessary to ensure the best training of our troops and will harm the tremendous progress made in protecting important species for future generations. An amendment drafted by the ranking member of the House Resources, Mr. Rahall, would have removed this unnecessary exemption. Again, however, the majority has refused to allow consideration of this important amendment. While current times call for increased attention to national security, it is also important that Congress make responsible funding decisions and dedicate limited resources to defense projects needed for our security in the 21st century. I have consistently criticized the hurried efforts of the administration to develop a ballistic missile defense system that is questioned by most experts and will post enormous costs to the taxpayers. Formidable technical challenges plague the proposed missile defense program in which every component is behind schedule, over budget, and unable to perform its mission. Yet, the administration's answer is to exempt the program from accountability requirements and increase funding. The legislation in front of us contains $9.1 billion for the ballistic missile defense program, which is a 17 percent increase over last year's level, and five times the amount spent on proven nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This is a perfect example of how Congress must better prioritize the national security threats, and work to reduce funding for ineffective and obsolete programs. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need to continue to fund a strong national defense to meet the emerging challenges of tomorrow but at the same time highlight the deficiencies in the majority's proposal. We are doing well, but we can do better. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the majority's rule for debate that denies us the opportunity to consider amendments to remove the sweeping personnel and environmental revisions of this bill. Currently our nation is under a ``Code Orange'' homeland security alert, meaning that the risk of a terrorist attack on our nation is high. The tireless work of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, along with other security and intelligence officials, have protected the American people from further devastating terrorist attacks, and we need to make sure they have the resources they need to do their job. If we can remove the detrimental provisions from this legislation, we will certainly be able to pass a truly effective and bipartisan bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to commemorate the accomplishments and the service of a great American, a good friend and a constituent of mine, Mr. Elmo Johnson. In 1945, Elmo Johnson, with trumpet in hand, joined the Army as part of the 285th Army Ground Force Band Unit. While serving in occupied Japan, Elmo began to play Taps for fallen compatriots, and for 58 years he has continued to play that somber requiem meant to honor the troops who have died in war so we can enjoy the freedoms we have today in this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, Taps lasts for only 24 notes, about the time it takes for a tear to travel down a cheek, but it is by no means an easy piece to play. Even its ending is difficult. Over the sounds of clearing throats and the silky whispers of a flying flag, Taps simply fades away into silence. As an active member of the American Legion, Elmo Johnson has played this farewell for his fellow soldiers over 1,400 times. He has never sought payment or even recognition for this service, believing it a solemn honor to deliver the final thank you on behalf of a grateful Nation. At the remarkable age of 87, Elmo continues to play tribute to the veterans who have passed on by playing Taps at their funerals. This Monday, on Memorial Day, the community of Black River Falls in western Wisconsin will officially recognize and thank Elmo Johnson for his service to our country and to our veterans. Mr. Speaker, our Nation loses approximately 1,600 World War II and Korean War veterans every single day. Unfortunately, the combined branches of our military have only about 500 full-time trumpeters and buglers and must honor most deceased veterans by sending a boom box and a tape recording of Taps to graveside services. The Pentagon does have an active program to try to recruit and train for trumpeters, more Elmo Johnsons, so that families, friends, and communities throughout the country can experience the fitting tribute to our veterans that we in western Wisconsin have been so blessed with as a result of Elmo's selfless dedication. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see why we in Wisconsin are so proud of Elmo Johnson's accomplishments and why he is worthy of recognition on the floor of our Nation's democratic body. Thank you, Elmo, for your years of dedicated service to our Nation, and may God bless him and all of our veterans who have served our country so well this Memorial Day.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and in favor of the Miller substitute. Mr. Chairman, there are few things more heartbreaking than to tune into the evening news and watch as wildfires once again bring devastation and loss to our neighborhoods in the West. In Wisconsin, we have been relatively lucky: It has been over 130 years since Wisconsin experienced the magnitude of destruction many of today's western fires have wrought. On October 8, 1871, the same day as the Chicago fire, the great Peshtigo fire ravaged 2400 square miles and became known as the Nation's worst forest fire, in terms of lives lost, in history. Mr. Speaker, Democrats agree with our colleagues from across the aisle--that the recent propensity of wildfires are a result of years of forest mismanagement in combination with years of sustained drought have created the undeniable need to develop a sensible hazardous fuels reduction policy on our public lands. Unfortunately, the bill offered by my colleague, Mr. McInnis does not get us there. It fails to target our resources to where they are needed most--the areas surrounding our interface communities and municipal water supply systems. And like so many other policies championed by this administration, the bill does not provide any funding mechanism to provide those interface communities new financial resources to treat non-federal lands within their community protection zones. Mr. Speaker, fire does not recognize a federal tree from a non-federal one and if communities are unable to treat abutting lands the underlying bill will do practically nothing to stop a wildfire's terrible destruction. Furthermore, the underlying bill needlessly undermines the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by eliminating its core requirement, the consideration of alternatives to a planned activity such as logging or thinning. This was the intent of Congress in passing NEPA. But perhaps most troubling to me, as a former prosecutor, are the unprecedented judicial review provisions of the bill. This section is necessary, say its proponents, because ``frivolous appeals'' have hamstrung the forest service's efforts to prevent fires. Unfortunately, a recent GAO report refutes that argument and found that 95 percent of thinning projects have proceeded in a timely manner, even when challenged in court. The judicial review section of this bill requires challenges to Forest Service's action be filed within 15 days--A time limit very few communities would be able to meet. Furthermore, this provision forces courts to make changes to their docket--regardless of the volume or nature of pending cases--to force a decision within an arbitrary 100- day deadline. Finally, this section establishes a new standard for injunctive relief by directing courts to give deference to the agencies when deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction against an activity even when that activity has already proven to be illegal. Mr. Speaker, in contrast, the Miller substitute provides federal resources where it will do the most good. Unlike the underlying bill, it authorizes $4 billion for hazardous fuel reduction and dedicates 85 percent of the available funds to communities that are most at risk. The substitute also provides $500 million in funds to communities to address fuel buildup on adjacent private lands. Furthermore, the substitute expedites fuel reduction programs around communities and watersheds without gutting NEPA or imposing dangerous judicial review provisions that are opposed by all of the major civil rights groups. Mr. Speaker, I join my Republican and Democrat colleagues today in calling for a sensible hazardous fuels reduction policy on our public lands--one that will actually protect our citizens and reduce the occurences of these devastating fires. It is my hope, that the result of the policy we make today will allow the citizens of the western states, like the citizens of Wisconsin, to go 130+ years without knowing firsthand the awful loss wildfires often bring. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the Miller substitute.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, the Education and Workforce Committee, of which I am a member, recently passed H.R. 1000, legislation to protect workers hard earned pensions as well as expanding their retirement savings. While the bill will not necessarily end all corruption and abuse in our Nation's pension system, I feel that it is a step in the right direction. As we all know over the past year, thousands of Enron, Global Crossing and WorldCom employees, stockholders, and their families saw their life savings disappear. While their nest eggs were being crushed, top executives were selling stock at top dollar and the auditors were shredding documents. These recent scandals shook the foundation of our country's private pension system and caused many people to wonder if the same thing could happen to them. Today, 46 million Americans participate in 401(k) and other pension programs with more then $4 trillion invested in the private pension system. Congress has a responsibility to improve retirement security and restore confidence in the pension system for millions of Americans. In 1974, Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to provide protection of pension benefits for America's private sector employees. While ERISA made great strides, the growth of 401(k) plans and increased participation in the securities markets call for improved safeguards to protect these individually controlled pension accounts. Our Democratic substitute includes important provisions that should be included in the underlying bill. For example, the Miller bill seeks parity of benefits for executives and rank-in-file workers by closing a current loophole that gives special treatment for executive pension plans. In addition, the substitute requires that executive compensation packages, including pensions, are approved by the board of directors and that shareholders and employees are notified of any new benefits awarded to executives 100 days before their adoption. While I would prefer that the legislation on the floor today contain some of the provisions included in the Miller substitute, H.R. 1000 ultimately provides employees more control and decisionmaking over their 401(k) plans. Pension reform must be carefully done so as not to impose such onerous new restrictions that employers would be unwilling to offer pension plans, or might be encouraged to discontinue the plans they already offer. Specifically H.R. 3762 would allow employees to sell their company- contributed stock after three years; ensures that corporate executives are held to the same restrictions as average American workers during ``lockdown'' periods, provide workers quarterly statements about their investments and their rights to diversify them, makes certain that employers assume full fiduciary responsibility during ``lockdown'' periods; and expand workers' access to investment advice. These are common sense reforms that will help employees make better, more informed investment choices to prepare for their golden years. The recent corporate scandals exposed weaknesses in our pension laws that could jeopardize many workers retirement savings. Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans should not lose all of their retirement savings due to the wrong-doing of corporate executives and loopholes in our pension laws. This legislation, while not perfect, will bring much needed improvements to our private pension system and help millions of American workers save for a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the legislative follow-up to the majority's irresponsible budget resolution narrowly passed earlier this year. It is another chance to ask ourselves if what we are doing is the right choice for America, and the right choice for future generations. I can only hope that this House reflects on past performance, and switches course away from the path toward fiscal oblivion that the majority is leading our nation. Based on the policies promoted by the President and the majority, the Federal Government will be running deficits as far as the eye can see, with a record $400 billion deficit in 2004 alone. Just to keep things in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2000 that by 2010, we would have a $5.6 trillion budget surplus. That projected surplus has turned into a projected $2 trillion deficit over ten years--a reverse of $8 trillion since President Bush took office. Now, it is understandable that in a time of economic slowdown, increased terrorist threats, and military action in Iraq, government spending priorities change, and we may have to run some short-term budget deficits to meet new challenges. However, the most disturbing thing about the majority's fiscal policy is that they make no effort to stem this deficit trend. This is an important problem because deficits do matter. Contrary to what the President and the congressional leadership are claiming to the American people that deficits somehow, some way, magically do not matter anymore in regards to economic performance, history, and leading economists, tell us different. In an opinion article printed in the New York Times on April 9, 2003, titled ``No New Tax Cuts,'' members of the nonpartisan and widely respected Concord Coalition, including former Senators Bob Kerrey, Sam Nunn, and Warren B. Rudman, former cabinet secretaries Peter G. Peterson and Robert E. Rubin, and former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, outlined their opposition to the majority's plan because of its long-term fiscal impacts. In the article, they state that ``Congress cannot simply conclude that deficits don't matter. Over the long term, deficits matter a great deal. They lower future economic growth by reducing the level of national savings that can be devoted to productive investments. They raise interest rates higher than they would be otherwise. They raise interest payments on the national debt. They reduce the fiscal flexibility to deal with unexpected developments. If we forget these economic consequences, we risk creating an insupportable tax burden for the next generation.'' We cannot in good conscience pass along an unconquerable debt to future generations. Further, we should not be enacting unbalanced tax cuts that will fail to stimulate the economy. For example, the Republican tax package is heavily weighted toward the top 0.1 percent of income earners (those making over $1 million annually) with approximately 25 percent of the $550 billion package going to this top 0.1 percent. This amount is equal to what 90 percent of the rest of all taxpayers will see from the proposal. This imbalance is highlighted in the most talked about portions of this legislation, the dividend and capital gains tax cuts. These cuts will do little if anything to stimulate the economy and will be of very little benefit to most Americans. In fact, nearly 80 percent of Americans making less than $100,000 per year report no dividend income. Further, the Republicans attempt to mask the total cost of their proposal by sunseting many of their cuts after five years. With a plan that excludes the vast majority of Americans, it is not surprising that economic experts from across the political spectrum have stated clearly that the Republican plan makes little sense at this time. A statement issued by ten Nobel prize winning economists on February 10, 2003, supports this point. It reads ``regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term. The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as short-term stimulus. As tax reform, the dividend tax cut is misdirected in that it targets individuals rather than corporations, is overly complex, and could be, but is not, part of a revenue-neutral tax reform effort.'' What makes the least sense is that the Republicans are moving this ineffective tax cut package at exactly the worst moment in our Nation's history, when we have 80 million baby boomers rapidly approaching retirement age and starting to enter the Social Security and Medicare systems. Instead of the irresponsible budget before us, we should be practicing fiscal discipline to get the Nation on sound fiscal footing in anticipation of that demographic time bomb going off. We have an alternative proposal ready that offers real and responsible economic stimulus, while ensuring the viability of Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, the majority has refused to allow debate on this Democratic alternative. The alternative focuses on the middle class by permanently increasing the child tax credit, ending the marriage penalty tax, and providing $32 billion to small businesses so they can expand and create jobs. Most importantly, however, the Democratic plan is fast acting, will create more jobs than the Republican plan, and is fully paid for so our children and grandchildren are not left holding a bag full of I.O.U.s and debt. The Democratic plan also extends unemployment benefits to some of the 2.7 million workers who have lost their jobs, mostly in manufacturing, since President Bush took office. This is particularly important for my home state of Wisconsin, which had the third highest rate of new unemployment filings in March. Economists estimate this investment in our workforce will yield $1.73 in economic growth for every $1 invested, compared to $0.09 for every dollar spent in the majority's plan. The President has gotten everything he has requested for the economy from Congress, and the results show the worst economic performance under any President in the last 50 years. Now is the time to stop the bleeding, and start making responsible fiscal decisions. It is time to start investing in our children, instead of borrowing against their future. I urge my colleagues to reject the majority's irresponsible tax package and pass the motion to recommit so that we can bring forward the Democratic alternative.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise not in opposition to the technical amendment, but I do oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I, along with other members on the committee, have worked hard to try to work in a bipartisan fashion in the committee to produce bills that we feel comfortable that both sides of the aisle can support. Unfortunately, I cannot say that that is true with this legislation before us today. I think it is a significant step in the wrong direction in regards to the workforce investment legislation to where we need to go. Just last month, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor revised their unemployment rate to 6 percent. We lost approximately 48,000 jobs in the last month alone, which is approximately the size of my hometown, La Crosse, Wisconsin. Over the last 2 years we have lost 2.7 million jobs in this economy, and I think the American people are going to have to ask at some point whether this administration is capable of producing one new job during the 4 years in which they are in charge. Right now they are working from a 2.7 million job loss hole, and I think that question is very seriously in doubt right now. This would have provided a perfect vehicle, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) tried to accomplish in the committee, for the extension of unemployment benefits which will soon expire and Congressional Budget Office shows that for every dollar spent for the extension of these unemployment benefits, it provides a $1.74 return on economic stimulus in the economy, unlike the tax exemption on corporate dividends that the President is proposing, which will only return 9 cents on the dollar in economic stimulus for our economy. There are very few tools at our disposal that can actually have an impact on economic growth and job creation in this country. This is one of them, and that is why it is so essential that we work hard in a bipartisan fashion to structure a piece of legislation that is going to make sense for the 2.7 million who are currently out of work and for the changing needs of the workforce in this century. Unfortunately, this bill actually reduces preventative in-school youth training programs targeted at students before they may drop out of school, and it consolidates adult employment and training programs into one block grant, removing many of the Federal performance and accountability measures that make the Workforce Investment Act a quality workforce program. In addition, H.R. 1261 requires participating partners, and this is significant because this is what's going to lead to the reduction of program funding; it requires participating partners to contribute an unlimited amount towards infrastructure costs for these one-stop centers. This sets the stage for reducing job training programs by taking money away from the participating partners of this act such as veterans employment programs, Perkins vocational education program, and the vocational rehabilitation program. These programs have already been severely slashed because of the current state of State budgets, and the provision will only further jeopardize these valuable funding streams. Specifically, I am concerned that the rerouting of funding could have a devastating impact on the Wisconsin technical college system's abilities to provide training and education for students. Over 8,000 dislocated workers alone looked to Wisconsin technical colleges in just recent months for education and job retraining. I foresee it also having a negative impact on our State's economy because it will not be able to provide students with the academic foundation and technical skills that will make them workforce ready. We have made significant progress under the Workforce Investment Act in recent years in regards to the direction of job training opportunities in our community. We are very proud of the one-stop job centers, the workforce investment boards, the public-private partnerships that have been established back in the State of Wisconsin in regards to these programs and the tremendous amount of good it has done to so many of our citizens during a particularly tough run of our Nation's economy. I believe we can do much better with this underlying piece of legislation, and hopefully as we move forward with the process in working with the Senate that we are going to be able to refine some of these points I have highlighted here today to produce a job training and workforce development bill that is going to add to our economic growth and help create more jobs in our economy at a time when we desperately need it. I thank my friend again from Michigan for the leadership that he has shown on this issue, the experience that he is providing and also for yielding me this time.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, as well as co-chair of National Charter School Week, I strongly support the H. Res. 204, legislation honoring National Charter Schools Week. Public schools are America's commitment to providing a high quality education for every child. I am dedicated to ensuring that all children have the opportunity to receive a quality education regardless of what public school they attend. This includes charter schools, which are models of successful education reform and one of the fastest growing education innovations working to improve our public education. As a National Co-Chair of Charter Schools, I would like to take a minute to celebrate the first decade of Charter Schools in the United States. Traditionally, charter schools are independent public schools, designed and operated by educators, parents, community members and others. Since the first charter school began operation in 1992 in St. Paul, Minnesota, the number of charter schools has grown to nearly 2,700, serving 500,000 students around the country. I am proud to say that we currently have 128 charter schools operating across the state of Wisconsin. In my congressional district alone, we have 20 charter schools presently and that number grows each year. Just last week, I took the opportunity to visit the LaCrosseroads Charter School in my hometown of La Crosse, Wisconsin, and was impressed by all of the wonderful things that have been accomplished there in just the past several years. The interests, involvement and stewardship of these charter school students extend well beyond La Crosse and reach out beyond the borders of this country with their active participation in the Red Cross School Chest Program. For this program, LaCrosseroads students have been collecting school supplies for Red Cross distribution to children in other countries, who are unable to attend school because of war or natural disasters. Charter schools have consistently been at the forefront of my priority list, and I am pleased that Wisconsin is one of seven states with over 100 exceptional charter schools. I have consistently advocated for increased funding for Charter Schools and supported the Charter School Facilities Financing Demonstration Program during consideration of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that charter schools give parents options when determining the best public school in which to enroll their children. Thus, we must ensure that all our students reach their highest academic potential, which may require attending a charter school that provides a model better suited towards an individual student's needs.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my friend and the ranking member of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time and also for the work that she has put in with this important legislation. It has been invaluable. I also want to commend the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, with the way he has conducted the process leading up to today's legislation, the outreach he has provided across the aisle and throughout the Nation looking for input on what I think is the most important piece of education legislation that we will be dealing with in this session of Congress. I do support the technical amendment before us right now. This, Mr. Chairman, is an important piece of education legislation. It is about allowing children with special needs in our country to have access to quality education that the rest of our children now have. I think there was room for improvement on a variety of provisions. I think in a lot of respects this bill moves in the right direction to improving it: streamlining the IEP process, trying to reduce the paperwork burden, trying to increase some flexibility with regard to the disciplinary issues at the local level, and emphasizing the importance of professional development. I especially appreciate the acceptance of a few amendments that I offered in committee during markup, one that does emphasize professional development and distance learning opportunities for our teachers and administrators, and one that calls for a GAO study that would encompass the entire country to determine what online materials are currently available for our teachers and administrators so that they can upgrade their skills. But I especially appreciate a new provision that was accepted in committee that I offered that permits States to establish and implement costs and risk-sharing funds, consortiums and cooperatives to assist students with severe disabilities. This is an area that is the fastest-growing area of education funding at the local level. Children who normally would not have survived to school age are surviving today because of the miracle of the advancement of medical research and technologies. But they are also bringing with them some exceptionally high costs that school districts have borne. The amendment I put forward allows school districts to address these high-risk and exceptionally expensive students. We do have to work much harder in this Congress, this year and the years ahead, to try to achieve the full funding which virtually every Member of this body is on record of supporting. I appreciate the fact that the majority party has a 7-year trend line to get to full funding on that. I am a little bit skeptical in regards to the institutional willingness and the willingness of the administration to make sure we achieve full funding. This is the granddaddy of unfunded mandates that our local school districts have been wrestling with since the creation of this bill back in the 1970s. We must do a better job so that we can stop pitting student against student in the classroom and end this controversy where it is merely a matter of political and institutional will to do what I think we all recognize must be done, and that is make sure the resources follow the rhetoric after today's debate. I am confident, in working again with the chairman of the subcommittee and others who are like-minded on this issue, that we are going to focus very closely in regard to the appropriation process and hold people to their word. Because if No Child Left Behind is any indication, I am skeptical that we are going to get there.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, over a quarter century ago, President Ford signed historic legislation seeking to ensure educational equity for children with disabilities and special needs. This legislation, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was a major milestone in the quest to end the chronic exclusion of students with exceptional needs. It helped open the door to fairness and access for millions of such youngsters and paved the way to greater educational success for many students with disabilities. IDEA is both a grants statute and a civil rights statute. It mandates that all disabled students be provided a free appropriated public education in the least restrictive environment. Over six million children with disabilities are no longer limited by their families' ability to afford private education; they are no longer forced to attend costly state institutions, or worse, stay home and miss out entirely on the benefits of an education. IDEA ensures that children with disabilities may attend public school alongside their peers. There is no question about it: students, schools, communities are enriched when all children have a right to a free, appropriate public education. As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee since 1997, I have worked hard to improve the quality of education for our children. Consistently, I have called on the federal government to fully fund IDEA. In fact, during reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act I offered an amendment to fully fund IDEA. Unfortunately the House leadership prevented the amendment from being debated on the House floor. Again, during committee consideration of H.R. 1350, I supported an amendment for mandatory full funding offered by Representative Woolsey. I am disappointed by the Committee's failure to adopt this important amendment. This is not the time to withhold necessary funds from out states. In the end, it is all our students nationwide, with an without disabilities, who suffer from the lack of federal funds for special education. While I realize that H.R. 1350 is not a perfect bill, I feel that it resolves some significant issues that are problematic in Wisconsin, such as increasing instructional time with students through paperwork reduction, improving early intervention strategies, reducing overidentification and working to resolve conflicts between schools and parents early and with less litigation. I hope, that as we move forward we can continue to improve the bill and work with the Senate to produce the best bill possible. Specicially, I am pleased that H.R. 1350 includes several amendments I offered during committee that focus on professional development. Frequently, during my visits with special education personnel in Wisconsin I heard how difficult it is to access professional development, this being more pronounced in those rural school systems in my district. For example, in Wisconsin a special education teacher is required to obtain six credit hours of professional development training every five years. Thus, my amendment encourages the use and development of state-of- the-art strategies to deliver professional development training for school personnel working with special education students through the use of technology, peer networks, and distance learning. The training will include special and regular education teachers, principals, superintendents, and other related services personnel. Furthermore, to better assist states in encouraging the development and use of distance learning and technology for special education personnel, it is critical to raise awareness of what is currently available in the area of distance learning for professional development. Therefore, I requested GAO to research the existing and developing distance learning and technology program offered to special education personnel. This knowledge will help better focus resources and time on developing programs where they are needed. I offered an additional professional development amendment that will include principals, superintendents, and administrators in the states personnel preparation programs. As district Special Education Directors leave, retire, or are cut due to budgetary shortfalls, principals, and superintendents are being tapped to fill this void. In the 423 school districts in Wisconsin, less than half, only 185 school districts presently have directors of special education. In the 238 districts without a director of special education, school principals and superintendents provide leadership of special education programs. Yet, few have had training needed to administer these complicated programs. This amendment will allow states to include administrators in special education professional development programs. Finally, H.R. 1350 includes a new provision that permits states to establish and implement cost- and risk-sharing funds, consortiums or cooperatives to assist students with severe disabilities. I offered my amendment, which was accepted, that would allow states to prioritize a certain percentage of funding for school districts to finance these programs. High-cost, low-incidence students have a significant impact on the budgets of the school districts, and this can be very pronounced in rural areas. I am pleased this amendment was accepted and know it will have a positive impact for Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, our educators are doing everything they can to meet the needs of disabled students, despite the federal government's failure to fully-fund IDEA. Congress has gone less than half way in its promise to fund 40 percent of education costs for children with disabilities. Therefore, until it does, we have to provide whatever help we can and I feel that H.R. 1350 is a step forward in helping our local education communities reach the goal of providing the best possible education system for students with disabilities.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, only to say that we have no objection to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the work he has put in in dealing with this rule as well as with the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and a member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families in charge of the reauthorization of this bill. And while I will be supporting legislation at the end of the day, assuming the voucher amendments that will be offered today are not in fact adopted, I have to rise and express my opposition to the rule. I do appreciate most sincerely the effort that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, has put in with the outreach that he has provided to the members of the committee and also throughout the rest of the Nation in regards to the input on this important legislation; but this is really the most important education bill that is going to be appearing before this 108th session of Congress over the next couple of years, and all Members should have an opportunity to offer amendments and to express their concerns and to offer some improvements to the legislation that we have been working on for some time, not least of which the granddaddy of all the unfunded Federal mandates that is affecting our school district, which is full funding of special education. I cannot comment on the remarks of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) in regards to what happened in previous Congresses and why they did not fully fund it, but I do recognize a promise, and a promise that is not being kept, when I see it. We should have the opportunity today to offer an amendment requiring mandatory full funding of special education so we can get away from pitting student against student in our classrooms. This is an important piece of legislation. Children with special needs should have access to quality of education like any other child throughout the country, but this is an unfunded mandate because we have never lived up to the 40 percent cost share that was promised in the mid-1970s when it was first passed. We are on an encouraging trend line, though, to try to increase funding to that level, but excuse some of us on this side of the aisle if we are somewhat cynical or doubtful that this Congress or the administration is truly committed to achieving full funding in the 7 years that they claim they will achieve it under this legislation. It is just a little over a year since No Child Left Behind was passed; and yet, as my colleague before me just recognized, we are $9 billion short in funding that program. This should be an open rule. We should not be closing the debate process. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it and bring back an open rule to have a discussion on this important topic.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Resources, we have put in a lot of time and a lot of energy in trying to produce a bipartisan piece of legislation. However, today I must rise and strongly object to one of the titles that is being offered in the base bill, title II. My amendment would strike title II, the oil and gas title, which would open the door to more drilling with fewer safeguards and less public input while granting giveaways to profitable companies that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 10 years. It is a little surreal that in light of the budget resolution that passed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that calls for an increase in the debt ceiling by $984 billion in the next fiscal year and an increase in the debt ceiling to $12 trillion over the next 10 years, we have a title in this energy bill which is not offset, it is not paid for and which will cost the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars by creating some false economic incentives to do more drilling on public lands. Today, Mr. Chairman, we still have brave U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, in part because of the strategic importance that region has, due to our addiction to their oil. The question before us then today is, what are we going to do about it? The answer is not that we can produce our way out of that dependence. We only possess 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. Yet this bill tries to create the illusion under title II that we can produce our way out. Even if we pass this bill today, we will remain hooked on Middle East oil for two reasons: OPEC skillfully keeps the price low to maintain our addiction, and we lack the political will today to do what is necessary to reduce our dependence on oil. In the last thousand years, Mr. Chairman, we have had a half a degree increase in the world temperature. Today most of the scientists project that over the next 100 years, we will see a 2-degree increase in the world temperature, along with the consequences that it will bring, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels. The rest of the world gets this. Why can we not? The solution I believe is self-evident. We need to change our energy paradigm. I believe we can do it within the context of economic growth by emphasizing more conservation practices, as well as the technologies of the 21st century, alternative and renewable fuels, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and the energy source of the 21st century, hydrogen power. We just lack the political will to do it. My amendment strikes title II because it is based, I believe, on two false premises, that we can produce our way out of our dependence on foreign oil and that we should do it at taxpayers' expense and at our environment's expense. A great deal of attention during this debate has been devoted to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I also oppose that. Why would we take a Monet off the wall and burn it for short-term heating needs? Yet that is what is being proposed in this whole debate to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But there are other sections of title II that, standing alone, make this a bad bill, such as the royalties-in-kind provision that is contained in it, granting broad authority to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior for permitting alternative energy-related uses on the Outer Continental Shelf without specifying the types of places to be avoided; and reimbursing oil and gas companies for doing the environmental impact studies that are required under law. Mr. Chairman, one of the most egregious sections of this bill is what is being called royalty relief for some of our Nation's largest oil companies. This provision waives Federal royalty collections on huge amounts of publicly owned lands. Simply put, title II will put hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money into the already deep pockets of many of our oil companies. Who are some of these beneficiaries? Mr. Chairman, this is the recent Forbes magazine list of the Fortune 500 companies. Coming in at number three, Exxon Mobil with $183 billion of annual revenues and over $1.5 billion in profits last year alone. Chevron Texaco, $92 billion in annual revenues, over $1 billion in profits. These are some of the companies that will be receiving this windfall and subsidy payments from the American taxpayer when we are currently running unprecedented budget deficits and jeopardizing our children's future. Amazingly, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, one of the candidates stood up and adamantly opposed royalty relief. He stated, and I quote, ``Giving major oil companies a huge tax break is not the right thing to do.'' Interestingly, though, this was not Vice President Al Gore. This was then-candidate George W. Bush. If it is good enough to stand on policy in order to convince the people to elect you, it should be good policy then when you are elected to pursue it and to see it enforced. Unfortunately, that is not what is being done with this energy bill. I know those who support this provision will say that we need to continue to encourage the development of domestic oil and gas resources from our public lands so our Nation can become more energy independent. I agree. But we do not need to create more generous subsidies to get them to do so. I submit that these companies would continue to develop these sources without being subsidized because it is in their economic interest to do so. A couple of years ago when this was being proposed, it was being sold because of the low oil prices in order to get them to do it. Now we have high oil prices, and it is being sold to do it because of the high prices. I am beginning to wonder whether there is any economic rationale at all, or whether this is merely taking care of friends in this energy bill. Another problem with the royalty holiday proposal is that the royalties the Federal Government does not collect will starve the Land and Water Conservation Fund of critical financial resources. The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides special protection for some of our most precious habitats and national parks. It has been doing it for nearly 40 years. Title II would significantly diminish funding for these conservation measures on our public lands for water resources, wildlife and fish habitat, scenic landscapes. That is why a number of sporting and fishing groups such as the National Rifle Association, Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League have opposed similar types of provisions in the past. Mr. Chairman, title II in this energy bill really does beg the question, Where are our priorities? We have historically high budget deficits today and a budget resolution that passed last night that will raise the national debt ceiling to $12 trillion over the next 10 years. Yet we are going to offer these royalty-in-kind and royalty relief provisions, giving some of the most profitable companies in our Nation hundreds of millions of dollars of windfall subsidies at the taxpayers' expense on the public lands. I think we can do better. I would encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking member on the Committee on Resources, for yielding me this time; and I rise in strong support of his amendment here today. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a necessary step in order to restore the competitive bidding process in the coal industry. I mean, that is what our free economy is all about, after all. I think the provisions that have been included in this energy bill are a serious rollback in that competitive process. But no one has to sit here today and listen to the ranking member on the Committee on Resources or the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources to believe what we are saying. A few out outside organizations have weighed in on this very important issue, not the least of which is the Western Organization of Resource Councils. Mr. Chairman, this is not an anti-mining group or an anti-development group or a group that fights for further development on our public lands for mining purposes. They have been supportive of that. But they are also supportive of what the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) is trying to accomplish today. In a letter in regards to this issue, they state, and I quote, ``The Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 2003,'' that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) here would like to strike with this amendment, ``would grant unjustified gifts to the western coal industry at the expense of the U.S. Treasury and diligent development of the people's coal resource. This title would eliminate existing statutory protections that require timely development and limit speculative purchase and holding of Federal coal leases, promote competitive bidding for Federal coal leases, and provide a fair return to the U.S. Treasury for the Federal coal they are taking.'' They also state this is a bad deal for the States who are virtually all under severe financial difficulties today. They go on to state that ``since half of all bonus bids and royalties actually go to the States, any reductions in the Federal coal production, the royalties or bonus bid payments, will adversely have an effect on these coal-producing States.'' Finally, Mr. Chairman, the President of the United Mine Workers of America, Mr. Cecil Roberts, has weighed in in support of this amendment in opposition to the title in the energy bill. And let me just quote the concluding paragraph in which he wrote, ``In closing, this title is nothing more than a wish list for a few selected coal companies. By eliminating competition for Federal coal leases, consolidating more Federal coal resources in the hands of a few select companies, and allowing leases to be held indefinitely without production, it constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and coal community families.'' I think, Mr. Chairman, that says it all. I encourage my colleagues to support the Rahall amendment. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the letter from the United Mine Workers of America. United Mine Workers of America, Fairfax, VA, March 18, 2003. Hon. Richard W. Pombo, Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Nick J. Rahall, Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Sirs: As President of the United Mine Workers of America, I am writing to notify you of the UMWA's opposition to H.R. 794, the Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 2003. H.R. 794 would adversely revise or eliminate long standing federal coal leasing policies that were designed to encourage competition and new investment in coal mines on federal lands and ensure that the federal government on behalf of the American taxpayer maximizes its return from this resource. In particular, H.R. 794, would enable coal companies to consolidate even larger amounts of public lands into a few active mining operations without competing for additional acreage by repealing the 160 acre lease modification limitation. The bill would also allow large coal companies to hold federal leases for indefinite periods of time without the benefit of production by giving the Secretary of the Interior the authority to forgive the payment of ``advance royalties,'' payments made when mines close down for extended periods of time. In addition, H.R. 794 would also prevent the Bureau of Land Management from requiring coal lessees to post a surety bond, a bond that guarantees payment of coal company's bonus bid for a coal lease, thereby transferring the risk of nonpayment to the American taxpayer and putting at risk millions of dollars due in deferred bonus payments. In closing, H.R. 794 is nothing more than a wish list for a few selected coal companies. By eliminating competition for federal coal leases, consolidating more federal coal resources into the hands of a select few companies, and allowing leases to be held indefinitely without production, H.R. 794 constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and coal community families. If enacted, H.R. 794 would provide a huge windfall to a few while shifting significant costs and risks to the American public. H.R. 794 should be rejected. Sincerely, Cecil E. Roberts, International President.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy that has jurisdiction over this provision. I rise in support of the amendment. With all due respect to our friend, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we on this side also believe in accumulating information and free speech and making informed decisions, but we also believe in the democratic process; and it has been clearly stated in a bipartisan fashion that the will of the people in these areas do not want leasing off their shore. Referencing former Interior Secretary Watt for being the savior for the moratoriums a while back is a little revisionist history. It was mainly because of his zeal and his aggressiveness to increase leasing potential off the coasts of California and down in Florida that led to a political backlash, a bipartisan backlash which led to the moratoriums. So what we are doing is basically respecting the process and the will of our democracy, because people in these States have determined that they do not want to see the drilling offshore. So why would we then use their tax dollars to do a study for the same drilling that has already been prohibited? I commend my friend for this amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding time to me, and I would also commend my ranking member on the Committee on Resources for the leadership that he has shown in regards to this issue. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on the Committee on Resources, and stand here in great disappointment because I feel that this energy bill, which is so very important for the future of our growth needs and for our Nation as a whole, is a missed opportunity. Rather than coming forward with a very bold and innovative vision in regards to putting our Nation on track for true energy independence, this bill is more same-old, same-old. In fact, it is better suited for the challenges of a mid-20th century rather than the opportunities and the technological development that will present itself here in the 21st century. If anyone has any doubt in regards to the necessity of establishing this type of energy vision of greater energy independence for our Nation, we need only look at the conflict that is taking place in the Middle East right now and our overreliance on the importation of those oil supplies from the Middle East; and if we could do one thing that would benefit the people in the Middle East and their society, it is to require them to start drilling the human capital for economic growth in their own nations rather than drilling their own natural resources for their wealth because of the great demand for oil from other nations, primarily from us. Yet instead of putting forward an energy plan that calls on greater investment and reliance on alternative renewable energy supplies from wind, solar, geothermal, as my colleague just mentioned, and biofuels as well as the energy source of the future, hydrogen power, we are basically presenting a plan here which is to ``drill at taxpayer expense,'' increasing our reliance on oil consumption in our economy, rather than weaning ourselves off of it. We only hold 2 percent of the oil reserves in the entire world within our borders. Clearly, if we continue to puesue an increased reliance on this energy source, we are not going to achieve the independence that we need. Instead, we need a bolder vision, an Apollo energy plan, so to speak, similar to Kennedy's call to put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. At the time when he said that in 1962, most of the best minds and scientists at the time looked at him and thought he was crazy. As we were launching the Saturn 2 and Jupiter missiles, we were lucky if they were not exploding on the launch pads. If they did get into the air, they did not last very long before they exploded into the ocean, let alone putting a human on top of one of those things, landing them on the Moon and safely returning them to the Earth. And yet that was achieved because the President presented a vision and the leadership and he marshalled the collective intellect and resources in our country to do it. We can do the same thing today with a bold energy policy by investing in the alternatives and renewables and a quicker development of hydrogen power. Yes, there are some programs in this bill that would point in that direction, but it is not anywhere near enough of where we need to go to wean ourselves off fossil fuels while also addressing the global consequences of global warming. Title II in particular, by granting royalty-in-kind and royalty holidays to the oil company, is nothing but a big subsidy, a big tax cut to these very companies at taxpayer expense. Something that then candidate Bush even opposed during his 2nd Presidential campaign. We can do better, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' so we have a chance to do better.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, it is approximately 1:20 a.m. in the morning here on the east coast; and pinch me if I am dreaming, but the Republican majority is about to pass a budget resolution that calls for an increase in our national debt by $984 billion in this next fiscal year and close to $6 trillion over the next 10 years, and this is using their own numbers. That is using their own scorekeepers. This budget is disastrous for our economic future, but do not believe me. Believe a few reputable souls, namely, Bob Kerry, Sam Nunn, Pete Peterson, Bob Ruben, Warren Rudman and Paul Volker who wrote yesterday together, ``Congress cannot simply conclude that deficits don't matter. They raise interest rates higher than they would be otherwise. They raise interest payments on the national debt. They reduce the fiscal flexibility to deal with unexpected developments. If we forget these economic consequences we risk creating an insupportable tax burden for the next generation.'' Mr. Speaker, I am the father of two little boys. I did not come to this Congress to leave a tremendous legacy of debt for them and their generation. This is morally irresponsible. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me before we yield back the remainder of our time. I think the gentleman has touched upon a very important point and we need to just restate it. And that is the essence of budgeting is all about decision making, but it should also be about taking responsibility for what is taking place today. And the easiest thing for a politician to be able to say to people back home or to run on the campaign is, You can have it all. You can have all these programs that you care about. We can fight this war in Iraq and do the rebuilding, and you can have large tax cuts on top of it and you can have it all. But you cannot because decisions have to be made. And if you pursue that type of economic policy, if you pursue that type of political message, what you leave the American people then are these massive budget deficits because the current generation of Americans are not stepping forward and taking responsibility for the decisions that are being made today. And what this, in essence, constitutes then is taxation without representation because it will be our children and it will be our grandchildren that will have to be the ones to clean up the fiscal mess that is being created today. And it is not fair to them because they too often are the neglected voices, the future of this country, when, in order to sell a certain type of philosophy or economic policy, you try convincing the American people that they can have it all. They can have this huge increase in defense spending that we are seeing right now and they can have a large tax cut at the same time which was exactly the same economic policy that was pursued in the 1980's and first part of the 1990's. It has been said that what we are debating today is deja voodoo economics all over again. And I believe that because this is history repeating itself. Where we saw with the decisions made in the early 1980's led to a quadrupling of the national debt and the detrimental economic effect it had on our Nation, and now we are back in that same type of scenario. And it is not too late. And hopefully we will be able to engage in a bipartisan conversation in this Congress and get the President and his people back involved in this. And let us come up with a long term plan recognizing the short term demands on the Treasury that we currently have, the obligations to fight international terrorism, to do Iraq right, not only winning the war but winning the peace. But let us also have a long term plan in order to set up future Congresses and our kids for a chance to succeed with this aging population which we all know is going to happen and which everyone does not really want to talk too much about. But this is the time for us to make these decisions, not when we have 80 million Americans suddenly retiring and entering these very important programs. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. KIND. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. KIND. I think one of the crucial differences between now and what occurred during the 1980s with the economic policies that were pursued was that we had the decade of the 1990s to reverse course, and fortunately we did. With the Clinton administration and the tough budgetary decisions that they had to make in 1993, it set the Nation back on a course of declining deficits through the nineties; and then actually a few years when we were running real budget surpluses, which led to the protection of the Social Security and Medicare trust fund and a downloading of the national debt, thereby reducing the interest burden on that national debt. It was an incredible economic dynamic made by past Congresses making tough decisions in order to reverse course of the huge budget deficits that were created during the 1980s and the first part of the 1990s. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of time anymore. We are rapidly running out of time with the boomers' retirement just around the corner. That is why it is all the more important that we do not waste this opportunity with the budget resolution that may be before us later this week; and that we get together, again in a bipartisan fashion and with the President at the table, as well, to figure out what we need to do to reverse course with these truly frightening budget scenarios looking at $400 billion-plus deficits for many, many years, which will only hurt long-term economic growth by driving up long-term interest rates because of the squeeze on the available capital that is available in the marketplace. So time is of the essence. This really is not an academic debate. We can punt for the next year or a couple of years down the line, but these are decisions that I feel have to be made right now. Someone has to stand up and talk about this. I am glad the gentleman decided to take some time tonight to do it.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State, my friend, for taking a little bit of time this evening to discuss one of the paramount issues facing the United States Congress tonight, and that is the budget resolution and trying to put together the frameworks of the budget for the next fiscal year and for the next 10 years. This is important. At a time when our young men and women in uniform are fighting so well and so bravely in Iraq and our thoughts and prayers are obviously with them tonight, the Nation's business, nevertheless, continues here. And even though most of the media and most of the attention has been rightly focused on the military campaign in Iraq, this debate that is coming up later this week and which will be with us for many weeks to come is very crucial, because it is about fiscal responsibility and the long-term economic outlook for our Nation. As the gentleman indicated, we happen to be privileged to be cochairs of the New Democratic Coalition. It is a large group on the democratic side of pro-growth, moderate and centrist Democrats believing in making crucial investments for growth opportunities in our Nation and in the people so we can expand the boundaries of opportunity for all of our citizens, so they can be full participants in the global economy and in the new economy that is before us. We also work very hard in maintaining fiscal discipline in our decisions. Something that was very much on people's minds in the mid 1990s when the gentleman and I got elected for the first time to the United States Congress, a lot of the talk and a lot of the concern on both sides of the aisle then was really about budget deficits and what we need to do, working together and as a Nation to reign that in, to start making sound fiscal choices in order to set up future generations for success. The gentleman may recall as well as I do that at that time, during the early and mid 1990s, when we were first running for office, there was an almost uniform consensus, even on the other side, decrying the fact that there were large budget deficits, claiming that that was horrific and that it stifled economic growth, and there was by and large bipartisan consensus with that viewpoint which was proven through the track record of the previous decade. Back then, when they pursued large spending increases, mainly in the defense area, but also coupled with huge tax relief, it led to unprecedented budget deficits which exploded the national debt. It quadrupled our national debt during the 12 years in the 1980s and the first couple of years of the 1990s, and everyone found that astounding. Now, what we are hearing from the other side is deficits do not matter. In fact, it is not just the leadership in Congress that has been saying that, but it has been the leadership on Pennsylvania Avenue coming out of the White House trying to claim to the American people that deficits somehow, some way, magically do not matter anymore in regards to economic performance. Well, that belies the history and the performance of our economy. As the gentleman indicated tonight and as I firmly believe, deficits do matter, while it may be understandable that in the short term, in the time of an economic slowdown and military action in Iraq, we may have to run some short-term budget deficits in light of these new challenges. What is most disturbing about the Republican budget resolution that will come up later this week is they have no long term plan to reverse the situation. What is being projected right now by their own Office of Management and Budget and their own Congressional Budget Office are deficits for as long as the eye can see. Over $300 billion, the largest in our Nation's history, for the next fiscal year alone, and that does not even include the emergency supplemental request that the President just sent to Congress in order to give the troops the resources they need. That will be another $80 billion plus that will be on top of the $300 billion of deficits. So we will be very quickly and very fast approaching over $400 billion in deficits for the next fiscal year alone. Why is this important? It is important because it is happening at exactly the worst moment in our Nation's history, when we have an aging population, when we have 80 million of the so-called baby boomers rapidly approaching their retirement age and about to begin entry into the Social Security and Medicare system, and at the time when we should be trying to practice fiscal discipline and get the Nation on sound fiscal footing in anticipation of that demographic time bomb going off and protecting the monies in the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, anticipating this aging retirement boom that is rapidly approaching. Just the opposite is being proposed on the other side. In fact, they are proposing large tax cuts on top of the ones that already passed in 2001, and they are going to pay for that, in part, by taking all of the money out of the same Social Security and Medicare trust funds that virtually everyone in this chamber just 2 years ago are on record as saying that we will not do. It is very disturbing that this is going on and there is very little attention being paid to that. But they are also planning on doing it on the backs of some very important people in our Nation, not least of which are our current veterans. It is astounding to me that in their zeal in order to protect the President's proposed tax cuts that they are doing it by masking the true enormity of the budget deficit, but also trying to balance the budget on the backs of some of the most vulnerable and some of those who we owe promises to, such as veterans' health care services, including service-related disability health care. In their budget resolution that was before us just a couple of weeks ago, they were proposing about $16 billion worth of cuts with veterans' health care services, which is astounding when we think of the military campaign and the incredible devotion and sacrifice that so many young men and women in uniform are making on behalf of our Nation in the country of Iraq today. But it is not just us who discovered what was going on, it was all the veterans' organizations throughout the country that quickly recognized what they were trying to pull and submitted letters to Speaker Hastert and to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. Let me just quote from a few of the letters that were submitted, one from the Commander of the Disabled American Veterans in which he stated in his letter, and I quote, ``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, health care and disability compensation, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?'' Here is a letter from the Commander of the Paralyzed Veterans of America in which he stated, ``We do not consider payments to war-disabled veterans, pensions for the poorest disabled veterans, and GI Bill benefits for soldiers returning from Afghanistan to be fraud, waste, and abuse.'' And one from the American Legion: ``This budget defies common sense. There must be a better way to provide tax relief to the American people than to balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans.'' We owe the veterans nothing; they earned it. And here in their attempt to try to protect these huge tax cuts leading to unprecedented budget deficits, setting up future Congresses and future generations of Americans for failure because of the fiscal mess that is being created, they are going to try to bring forward later this week a budget resolution that calls for exactly that. Before I turn back to my friend, the gentleman from Washington, I will draw attention to a very important article that appeared in the New York Times today. It is called ``No New Tax Cuts.'' It was written by some very famous people here in Washington and throughout the country that have spent a good deal of their public careers focusing on budgetary issues. It is a bipartisan group who are highly esteemed and well respected, even here in this Congress, made up of former Senator Bob Kerry; former Senator Sam Nunn; Pete Peterson, one of the co-chairs of the Concord Coalition; former Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin; former Senator from New Hampshire Warren Rudman; and also former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. They are warning the Congress in a letter in the New York Times today about the fiscal course that we are about to embark upon if these large tax cuts go through in light of the current projections. Let me just quote briefly from the article that they coauthored; all of whom, by the way, are members of the Concord Coalition. This is a nonpartisan group that does focus on Federal budgetary policy. In their article they state, and I quote, ``Our children and grandchildren are facing unthinkable payroll tax burdens that could go as high as 33 percent to pay for these promised benefits.'' They are referring to Social Security and Medicare. ``It is neither fiscally nor morally responsible to give ourselves tax cuts and leave future generations with an even higher tax burden.'' I know my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), has a vested interest in it because he has a young child himself. I am the father of two little boys who are only 4 and 6. The last thing that either one of us wanted to do when we came to this Congress 6 years ago was to leave a huge legacy of debt for our children to have to wrestle with. If the programs are important enough today to authorize them and to call for them, then this generation of Americans should have the moral responsibility to figure out a way of paying for them, rather than borrowing and spending, borrowing and spending, and accumulating this huge national debt. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, again, these authors of the article do feel that deficits matter. In their concluding paragraph they state why. I quote again: ``Congress cannot simply conclude that deficits don't matter. Over the long term, deficits matter a great deal. They lower future economic growth by reducing the level of national savings that can be devoted to productive investments. They raise interest rates higher than they would be otherwise. They raise interest payments on the national debt. They reduce the fiscal flexibility to deal with unexpected developments. If we forget these economic consequences, we risk creating an insupportable tax burden for the next generation.'' That, I think, summarizes the very challenge that we face this week, and it is not too late. We can still get together in a bipartisan fashion and come together at the kitchen table like any family would do, dealing with family finances and figuring out what decisions we need to make so we do not pass a tremendous burden on to the children of our family. That is really what is at stake. Budgets are all about priorities, and hopefully this Congress will wake up and realize that our children's future should be one of the first priorities that we keep in mind. Let us pass a sensible, fiscally responsible budget that we can, years from now, look back on and say, yes, we had to make some tough decisions, but they were the right decisions under the right circumstances, and our children are the primary beneficiaries as a consequence. Again, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington, for the leadership he has shown on this very issue and for trying to secure a little time in order to talk about this, which is very important, even in light of the current military campaign in Iraq. Again, we wish the troops there our best. They are constantly in our thoughts and prayers, along with their families and their loved ones. We all, I think, agree that we hope to see a very quick and successful and safe conclusion to the military campaign in Iraq.