Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to sponsor the ``Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2003,'' which I introduced this afternoon with Representative Isakson from Georgia. I also would like to thank Senator Harkin for introducing the companion bill in the Senate. Today, over 28 million Americans are deaf or hard of hearing. Approximately 90% of these individuals rely on captioning services to participate in mainstream activities. In addition, research has found that many more people can benefit from watching captioning television, such as those learning English as a second language, illiterate adults, young children learning to read, and remedial readers. Today the potential audience for captioned television is estimated at nearly 100 million, including the deaf and hard-of-hearing. There are approximately 30 million learning English as a second language, 27 million illiterate adults, 12 million young children learning to read, and 3.7 million remedial readers. Furthermore, the events of September 11th demonstrate how imperative it is to have more closed captions. The captioning industry was strained to capacity in this effort to ensure that round-the-clock news and information was accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing citizens of our country. Without this service, a segment of our population would have been without critical information during a national crisis. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandated that all television programming be fully captioned by 2006. The mandate is unrealistic, however, given the current number of trained closed captioners. Presently, schools are educating only half as many closed captioners as are needed to provide captioning services, leaving thousands of hours of programming unavailable to the deaf or hard of hearing. Thus, this legislation we are introducing today will provide grants to schools to educate students to become proficient in closed captioning and provide this important service to many people. It is not right for so many of our citizens to be without access to such significant news or be excluded from mainstream activities due to a lack in captioning services. Let us fulfill the promise we made in the Telecommunication Act of 1996 and help the deaf and hard of hearing and many others by increasing the number of qualified closed captioners. This will ensure access to closed captioning television for everyone who requires such services.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), for working to put together what I think is an admirable and quality substitute measure. For whatever reason, the majority party here today has a bill before us deciding to bypass the democratic process here in the House, bypassing the committee work, not giving an opportunity to 54 new Members of the House of Representatives to deal with one of the most important pieces of legislation in the 108th Congress. This bad process has resulted in bad policy. Let me put this in context: The legislation before us today is the single most important piece of legislation dealing with antipoverty programs that this session of Congress will address and that Congress has the opportunity to address for many years to come. But instead of working together to produce a meaningful bill that can empower people with real work opportunities and with empowering tools such as education and job training, they produced a bill which, I am afraid, is doomed to failure. The key to implementation of this bill is getting the States to do it well. We did a survey of the States, and they came back and said they need basically two ingredients: Give us the flexibility, give us the tools, and we will finish the job. But instead of receiving the flexibility, they get a straitjacket. Instead of receiving the tools, they get a $12 billion unfunded mandate in H.R. 4, making it impossible for them to deal with changed economic circumstances, as well as the flexibility to empower people to become true, meaningful participants in our society. Instead of rewarding States to get meaningful employment for recipients on TANF, they are still going to receive credit for merely reducing their caseload. That has worked over the last few years, but many of those no longer on the caseload, we have lost. We have no idea where they went or how well they're doing. If anyone thinks this has a chance of succeeding by underfunding the required child care program, they do not understand that the parent or parents are not going to enter the workforce unless they know their children are taken care of. This is an experiment being offered today, Mr. Chairman, but I am afraid it is doomed to failure. I do not know how a Member of the Wisconsin delegation, which was a pioneer in welfare reform, can support this bill that limits the flexibility of our State and State agencies, and then also provides a $89 million unfunded mandate to our State when we have serious budget difficulties already. Furthermore, the Republican bill strips vocational education as wanting--the work requirements; our substitute allows it because it is the backbone to economic development programs throughout Wisconsin and the rest of the Nation. We can't have meaningful welfare reform without vocational education playing an important role. We have an opportunity to still get this right, to deal with the flexibility issue, to deal with the funding issue, to allow recipients in TANF to get the type of skills and work qualifications that they need to gain meaningful employment and to stay off the welfare rolls forever. But, instead, we are falling back on an outdated program that may have worked during the boom of the 1990s in reducing caseloads, but I am afraid it is doomed to failure with the bad economic performance today.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic substitute to H.R. 4, which reauthorizes welfare reform. H.R. 4 is a step in the wrong direction. It replaces State flexibility with unfunded mandates, it promotes make-work at the expense of wage-paying employment, and does nothing to help families escape poverty when they leave welfare for work. I worked closely, however, with representatives Cardin, and Woolsay, in crafting a Democratic substitute that better assists the States in moving families from welfare to work and I am pleased to be a lead sponsor of this legislation. Furthermore, as co-chair of the New Democratic Coalition, I am satisfied that our substitute incorporated many of the new Democrats' suggestions based on the principle of ``work first.'' The successful welfare legislation passed in 1996 was one of the signature New Democrat initiatives and succeeded where previous attempts to reform welfare failed. Welfare reform, however, now faces its stiffest test since its enactment. The roaring 90's--the decade during which more than 22 million new jobs were created--are long gone. Our economy today is stagnating. The unemployment rate and welfare rolls are up. An estimated 8.6 million Americans are out of work, including 166,000 in my home State Wisconsin. Adding insult to injury, the States, which took responsibility under the 1996 law for administering assistance programs, are in the grips of their worst fiscal crisis in 50 years. They are being forced to cut back services--services that provided critical supports for welfare recipients and the working poor and, as many recipients reach the five- year benefits limit, States increasingly will find themselves providing very basic supports for their citizens through food programs and homeless shelters. Unfortunately, our changing economic fortune has not stopped the House leadership from pushing welfare reform legislation that fails to help those who are struggling to make end meets and imposes even more unfunded mandates on the States. The GOP plan, for example, would drastically increase the number of house that mothers with young children will be required to work, without a corresponding increase in child care funds. In fact, House leadership would freeze funding for welfare and child care at current levels, even though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the new work requirements will cost the States an additional $8 billion to $11 billion over five years. In Wisconsin alone, this would add another $89 million to our State's projected $3.2 billion budget deficit. Thus, the Democratic substitute is a better alternative that places welfare recipients on the path to independence from public assistance by preparing them for good paying, private-sector jobs. Our alternative reform provides the States with flexibility and freedom to be innovative in moving families from welfare to work and empowering individuals to become self-sufficient. Currently, the most promising State programs that help welfare recipients obtain and advance in a job, combine a ``work first'' approach with supplements training and education. Our plan helps these States by providing employment credits and allowing them to count education and training towards their participation rate for up to 24 months. Finally, our plan combines heightened work requirements with an addition $2.2 billion per year in childcare funding to ensure that families transitioning off of welfare can afford to work. In addition to the Democratic Substitute, I offered two amendments during Rules Committee yesterday, which, unfortunately, were not accepted by the House leadership and were kept from being debated on the floor today. The first amendment was an employment credit that I offered with Congressman Levin. Currently, States have the option of taking advantage of the caseload reduction credit that rewards States with credit against its participation rate just for moving people off welfare. Our amendment, however, would have replaced the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit, thus, rewarding States for moving people into jobs, with a bonus for moving them into high paying jobs. Last year, even the Administration's plan eliminated the caseload reduction credit and replaced it with its own employment credit. The second amendment I offered gave States incentives to put fathers to work. It rewarded States with a credit towards its worker participation rate if they worked with fathers to increase their employment and pay child support. While very little research exists about marriage and its direct benefit to children, substantial research shows a working father most effectively improves children's emotional and financial well-being. Again, I am pleased to have sponsored the Democratic substitute with Representatives Cardin and Woolsey. Our alternative is a step forward in the right direction. Today, while facing a stagnant economy coupled with unprecedented budget deficits, our welfare reform legislation ensures that families are strengthened, companies well served, and individual futures improved. By building on our past success, we can continue to help millions of Americans once and for all gain a foothold on the first rung of the career ladder. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4 and support the Democratic substitute offered by Representatives Cardin, Woolsey and myself. Finally, I regret that this legislation was pushed through the House so quickly without any consideration from the committees of jurisdiction. Acting with such haste completely ignored the process and shut out all our new Members. Such an important issue should have received more thought and consideration.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Obey motion to recommit because this massive piece of legislation falls short in some issues critical to our nation, and includes certain controversial provisions that need to be debated and considered through the legislative process, not in closed conference. I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin that there are homeland security priorities that we can and must fund that are not adequately addressed in this 1,100 page bill. For example, this legislation funds only one-fifth of what the U.S. Customs Commissioner says is needed to effectively inspect the thousands of cargo containers that enter our nation everyday. This presents our nation with an unfortunate vulnerability to terrorism and Congress must fund this priority. In addition, as a member of the House Resources Committee, I feel provisions included in this legislation, such as a rider potentially allowing significant commercial logging in some of our most ecologically sensitive areas, and the funding of preliminary work for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, are uncalled for. These important and controversial issues should be fully debated and open to amendment through the normal legislative process. In addition, the cutting of important conservation program funding by $200 million dollars will set our nation further back in protecting our most important resources. These programs are supported by the states, and especially important to my home state of Wisconsin. Further, thanks to an 11th hour provision inserted into the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, consumers of some organic food products may not know if their food is truly organic. This provision seriously undermines both consumer confidence in organic food labels and the USDA standards. The provision will permit some livestock to be labeled ``organic'' even though the livestock products do not meet the strict criteria established by USDA. Most significantly, producers of select livestock (chicken and other poultry products) would not have to meet the requirement that the animals be fed organically grown feed. The recently enacted organic standard was the result of many years of careful deliberation and public input. Overwhelmingly, organic producers and consumers have supported the new standards. Due to this outrageous omnibus provision, organic producers and consumers will no longer have confidence in the organic labeling process. Such a massive omnibus bill incorporating 11 spending bills and totaling nearly $400 billion, also lends itself to abuse through the inclusion of numerous pet projects that are not based on necessity and would not be justifiable to the public if considered in the light of day. Mr. Speaker, we must have priorities in our funding. We must confront the threats facing our land while ensuring our children have access to quality education and our most needy have access to healthcare. This legislation does meet many of the obligations of our government, and on their own merits, I would have supported them. However, the inclusion of funding for countless projects and programs that were never debated or considered on the House floor makes this bill unsupportable in its current form. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can address some of the most damaging aspects of this bill.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against a provision in the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill that weakens the organic label standards related to livestock production. This 11th hour provision weakens national organic standards by no longer requiring organic poultry producers to feed their birds only organically raised feed grains. This language, hidden in the Congressional Appropriations Bill, is contrary to the intent of organic livestock production and would severely undermine the organic standards that we currently have in place. Organic foods have been one of the fastest growing components of the agriculture consumer marketplace, a market that is built upon trust. Millions of American consumers have growth to trust the quality, wholesomeness and integrity of organically labeled meats and vegetables. Should this provision prevail, the American consumers will no longer be able to trust organic labeled meat as truly organic. This provision will undermine both consumer confidence in organic labeling and the existing USDA standards. Select livestock producers, specifically chicken and poultry product farmers in Georgia, would be able to market their products as organic without raising the birds on organically grown feeds. This provision is inconsistent with organic consumers perceptions of the origin of organic poultry and the intent and regulations of organic producers. The recently enacted organic standards was the result of many years of careful deliberation and public input. Overwhelmingly, organic producers and consumers have supported the new standards. Due to this outrageous omnibus provision, organic producers and consumers will no longer have confidence in the organic labeling process. I strongly urge you to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I commend the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and thank him for his leadership on a whole host of foreign policy issues. I also thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee, and especially the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for the gentleman's help in offering this resolution, doing a Dear Colleague letter, and trying to inform the other Members of Congress of Mr. Havel's retirement. Mr. Speaker, a silly person once said that only silly people have heroes today. If that is true, this silly person is not afraid to admit that Vaclav Havel is one of my heroes. Today we honor Vaclav Havel who provided the moral force behind the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989, and who stepped down as President of the Czech Republic just 1 week ago. If proof is needed that the pen is mightier than the sword, then Vaclav Havel is a veritable smoking gun. It is a magnificent irony that one of the most oppressive communist regimes in Eastern Europe would one day be led by a poet and playwright. But there is a tradition in this part of the world that intellectual integrity and independent art translate into raw political power. Mr. Havel provided the leadership through raw moral force that gave rise to the incredible and peaceful revolutionary movement which we now refer to as the Velvet Revolution. As uncompromising in his resistance to the totalitarian state as he is in his ironic plays, President Havel withstood censure, numerous imprisonments, and the muzzle to become the premier symbol of Czechoslovakian dissidence in the years after the Soviet Union crushed Prague back in 1968. He helped found the Charter 77 dissident movement, the moral blueprint for the revolution, and then formed the Civic Forum, the main opposition party in Czechoslovakia against the communist regime. Through his clashes with the authority, he was repeatedly sent to prison. His essays setting out his ideas on national resurgence in a totalitarian state, ``The Power of the Powerless,'' was widely studied inside and outside of Czechoslovakia. In it, he argued that citizens living ``in truth'' could successfully confront and overturn dictatorial rulers. For his views, the regime forced him in 1979 to choose between exile or 5 years in prison. He chose prison and his enduring stature is partly a result of that choice. He later collected the letters he wrote from prison to his wife in a widely read volume, ``Letters to Olga.'' Mr. Speaker, as a recent graduate of law school back in 1990, I was in one of my short disillusioned states in regards to our own democracy at the time, but was watching with rapt attention the incredible frenzy of events in Eastern Europe leading to the collapse of the communist regimes and ultimately the collapse of the Berlin Wall. I had the opportunity to travel throughout Eastern Europe shortly after these revolutions took place. I spent a little time in Czechoslovakia where I was part of an international student group restoring some of the old castles in Czechoslovakia. It was during that time, Mr. Speaker, when I also met other political heroes of mine. These were students approximately my age who were, just a few months previously, literally on the front lines of these demonstrations, literally staring down the guns of the Communist forces, knowing their history, but also not knowing whether this would be a repeat of the Prague Spring in 1968, which resulted in a bloody massacre. I met and stayed with many of these students and I asked them what they were thinking during that time, those fateful couple of weeks in November of 1989. They responded that two things stood out in their minds: one, how bitterly cold it was during those nights during the candlelight vigils, standing out in Wenceslas Square, snow coming down and they were all shivering; and, secondly, how terribly frightened they were. History now shows that by a vote of 5 to 4, the Communist Politburo decided not to order the troops to open fire on these demonstrators. It was a lot of these same students who would during the day go out into the countryside and into the homes and villages and town squares throughout Czechoslovakia, bringing news of the demonstrations and the movement building against the Communist regime. They understood that it required the support of the working families, the workers of Czechoslovakia, before the regime could ultimately be brought down. In the midst of all of this was their guiding force, Vaclav Havel, whom they held in high esteem, and still do today based on the correspondence that I have with them. It was an inspiring time for me to meet these young people and to understand that they realized that there were causes greater than themselves worth fighting for and perhaps worth dying for. It was literally their future that was on the line. Through the strength of their collective action, they achieved remarkable change throughout Eastern Europe. In 1989 and after, President Havel's genius was not just to harness popular resistance that peacefully overwhelmed the Communist regime; it was to understand that to take the trappings of leadership did not mean to betray his own humanity. He was not, however, immune to political defeat. He resigned temporarily rather than preside during the bitter separation of Czechoslovakia back in 1993. But internationally he shone. He led his country into NATO in 1999 and he has positioned them now to join the European Union next year, in 2004. When Havel left the presidency after 13 years, he left behind a legacy of individual moral authority. It is hard to find a defined political legacy. Instead, he leaves a sense that in the life of any nation, the character of its leaders do matter. They are still wrestling to find his replacement today in the Czech Republic. A great debate rages, even bickering is taking place, and, of course, the media and the press are more than eager to report on all of this in the Czech Republic. For those freedoms, for his service and his sacrifice and for his shining moral example, it is only right that the United States Congress pause in our normal duties of the day to give thanks and to pay tribute to one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, Vaclav Havel. I am sure all of my colleagues wish him much happiness throughout his retirement.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday our Nation lost seven American heroes. I rise today to offer condolences to the families and friends of the seven astronauts aboard the Columbia on its fateful mission, one of whom was Wisconsin' pride and joy, Laurel Clark, who was a graduate of Racine's William Horlick High School and a UW-Madison graduate. We share the sympathies of all Americans for their dedication and bravery and service to our Nation. This tragedy does remind us, however, that space travel is anything but routine. It really is rocket science. When we work on the cutting edge of science and technology, perfection is never guaranteed and chance is always a factor, no matter how much time, money, or expertise is invested. That is why we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid to those brave men and women involved in our space program for the risks they take to explore our last remaining frontier. Last December, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit Kennedy Space Center. I had a chance to meet with a lot of the scientists, engineers, and some of the astronauts on the shuttle missions. I walked away from that experience with a profound sense of appreciation, given the dedication and professionalism that our team, the NASA team, brings to their job every single day, and a greater appreciation of how terribly dangerous space travel still is yet today. Some may wonder why we need to go to space. I believe we do it because we have no other option. Since our ancestors first inhabited this planet, we have always had a need to explore and know our surroundings. Whether it is hiking the next plain, climbing the next mountain, sailing the next ocean, or conquering the skies, human nature demands that we explore the next frontier. Space is the ultimate frontier, and the shuttle missions NASA undertakes help expand our base of knowledge for the benefit of all humanity. As in past tragedies, we will learn from this one and we will go on. The NASA space program is the most advanced the world has ever seen, and our Nation's leadership in this area brings scientific benefits, opportunity, and hope to future generations. The mystery of space brings unknown possibilities, and the instinct to explore represents the best of human nature and the American spirit. The seven astronauts we lost on February 1 were explorers, and our thoughts and prayers go out to them and their families.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for organizing this very important Special Order talking about the State of health care in our country. And before the gentleman from Ohio leaves the well, I want to commend him too for all the work that he has done in regards to veterans issue and also for highlighting for a few minutes this afternoon before the State of the Union address the current state of affairs in regards to health care funding for our veterans in this country generally. Another very important topic that the gentleman did not address this afternoon is the whole concurrent pay issue, and it is something we have all supported, dealing with veterans benefits and disability payments which are currently offset, and that we are trying to correct; but the administration has refused to fund that. Now, in a few hours, as my colleagues have indicated, the President will be here in the well addressing the Nation, and really the world, in giving us his speech on the State of the Union. We will hear a lot of discussion in regards to Iraq this evening, in regards to probably some of the other international crises which are currently confronting the world and this Nation. Not just Iraq, but the situation in North Korea, the conflict in the Middle East, the situation down in Venezuela, all are very serious. But we have an obligation in this Congress to do all that we possibly can to ensure the safety and the security of our citizens, and we will move forward as a Nation in addressing those concerns. One of the things I continuously hear from folks back home in my Third Congressional District in western Wisconsin is they also expect us to walk and chew gum at the same time; to not just deal with the national security threats that exist against us, but also deal with the domestic challenges that now confront us. As I travel around my congressional district, and I am sure it is true for my friend from New Jersey as well, one of the paramount issues that people want to talk about, because they are so concerned about it, is the State of our health care system and the deficiency that they are currently seeing; the fact we have so many people on the uninsured rolls in this country, close to 44 million this year alone; the fact there is a lot of cost shifting going on by our providers because of the inadequacy of reimbursements rates and the impact that has on double-digit premium increases on insurance policies that large and small employers are offering their employees. This is killing the backbone of our economy, and small business owners in particular. We need to think of bold and creative solutions to the health care crisis that we are facing, not to mention the inadequacy of the current Medicare program and the lack of a prescription drug program, which is long overdue. That is as key and important a part of modern health care today, prescription drugs and access and the affordability of prescription drugs, as hospital beds were back in the mid-1960s when the Medicare program was first created. One of my chief concerns as we move forward in this 108th Congress is really the economic plan being pursued by the administration. It is one being pursued with fiscal reckless abandon. They are currently projecting close to a $300 billion deficit this year, which would set a record, an all-time record, in budget deficits for our country. If the economic plan that is currently being pursued with large new spending increases and large new tax cuts continue to be pursued, we will be looking at massive budget deficits throughout the remainder of this decade and perhaps beyond. This is all occurring at exactly the wrong moment, when we have an aging population, close to 80 million baby boomers all marching in lockstep to their retirement, which is going to start in a few short years. We are not making the type of decisions that we need to make today in order to prepare our country for that inevitability, which is just around the corner. It is kind of the 800-pound gorilla in this Chamber. Everyone knows about it, but nobody really wants to talk about it or address it. I would hope tonight that during the President's State of the Union address he will touch upon the concerns that the health care industry has, that our providers have in regards to the inadequacy of reimbursements rates, but also what plan he has to turn the budget around so we can get back to balance; so we can exercise some fiscal discipline again in our budgetary decisions; so we can prepare the next generation of Americans, our children and grandchildren, to deal with the challenges that they will face in their lifetime. One of my greatest fears, as the father of two little boys who are only 4 and 6, is that we are setting them up for failure. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the future generation of Americans who we are going to leave a legacy of massive debt to, and at the same time ask them to afford the programs for this massive baby boom retirement which is going to start in a few short years. Those are some of the issues that hopefully the President will also delve into given the limited amount of time that he will have in the State of the Union Address. I think these are crucial issues to the people back in my district who are wondering how are we going to deal with the massive budget deficits which jeopardize the long-term economic security of our Nation, while also being able to make the crucial investments that need to be made in the health care system, in our education systems so our kids can stay competitive, and also in preserving and conserving our natural resources in this country. We need to walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to do this together. Hopefully we will have an atmosphere of bipartisanship as we move forward on these important issues in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I believe now is as good a time as any for the baby boom generation, this massive demographic bubble that is working its way through our society and aging ever so gracefully, to step into this political debate. I think the message is being delivered to them that they can have it all, that they can have massive tax cuts today and retirement security tomorrow, when it is really their generation and the challenge that their generation poses that we need to come to grips with. I have to believe that the President is a good son, loyal and dutiful and listens to his mom and dad. I think it would be wise if the President were to listen to what his father said when it was proposed, this type of economic plan was proposed to him back in the early 1980s, where they would have huge increases in spending, coupled with large tax cuts, which would lead to large budget deficits, which did occur during the decade of the 1980s and the early 1990s. The first President Bush called it voodoo economics because he knew what would transpire. It is like deja vu all over again, the economic policies coming out of this White House: Huge increases in spending, although they want to claim to be the party of fiscal constraint. We had a 10 percent growth in government spending last fiscal year alone. On the current track, we are going to be pretty close to that this fiscal year. Double that with the large tax cuts which have been enacted, with the increased spending and the reduction in revenue, we are going to have massive budget deficits forming. That is why the Office of Management and Budget, their own economic analysts are saying $300 billion in projected deficits this year alone without even counting a military obligation in Iraq, which could blow the lid off everything else. I feel there is time to recover. We have not slid too far down that road yet where, without further budgetary discipline, we could not turn this ship of state around in the nick of time. Unlike the decade of the 1980s and the early 1990s when these huge deficits accumulated, we do not have the luxury of a decade of the 1990s to reduce the deficit and start running some surpluses again in time for this massive retirement that is about to begin with the baby boom generation. We have a lot of work cut out for us this year, and hopefully some people are starting to pay attention to the looming economic crisis that budget deficits most assuredly will bring, and we will act accordingly.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today, January 8, due to family considerations, I unfortunately was not able to vote on several rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 5. I also would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 6, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 7, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 8.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this is not some type of rhetorical debating society we are having tonight or some philosophical argument. This is a group of Members who feel it is important enough to stand up in this body tonight to warn the American people about the disastrous fiscal course that this Congress and this administration have embarked upon, which is leading to exploding deficits again and an accumulation of a national debt at exactly the wrong moment in our Nation's mystery, when we have close to 80 million Americans, so-called baby boom generation, all marching lockstep to their retirement in a few short years; and the decisions that we need to make today to prepare the next generation to deal with that challenge are not being made. In fact, one of the fiscal disciplinary rules that has worked well to rein in spending, to maintain balance in our budgetary choices, they are seeking to waive over the next 5 years. I think everyone agrees that this bill before us is a recognition of a failed budgetary policy of large tax cuts that were not paid for and new spending programs were not paid for. To avoid the inevitable across-the-board cuts with Medicare and veterans benefits and farm programs, we have to pass this legislation. But I for the life of me do not understand why we cannot deal with the fiscal mess created this fiscal year, give them a little leeway in the next fiscal year, but then support a motion to recommit that calls upon the President to submit a balanced budget plan that leaves our hands and their hands off from Social Security surpluses in the following years so we have a chance to reverse the fiscal course that we have embarked upon. What is different today than in the past is we do not have the luxury of the 1990s to bring the budget back into balance and to run surpluses to reduce the debt before the baby boomers start their retirement. It is now or never. We can be back next year having another philosophical debate, but at that time we are going to be much deeper in the hole; and I cannot think of anything more morally irresponsible than to leave the next generation with this mountain of debt for them to bail the country out of.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank my friend for yielding. As someone who hails from our neck of the woods and whose family is still sprinkled in many of our congressional districts, it is with special pride that we are here to honor you and to thank you for your many years of service in this great House, Terry. I was just 5 years old when you started your career here. Not to date you, but you have lived through eight administrations and seven separate Speakers of the House of Representatives. So I think it is safe to say that you are a great repository of a lot of the institutional memory that exists in this place. Besides you and Charlie, I think you two are the only two who probably recall the Members whose names we are honoring on courthouses and post offices throughout this country virtually every week out here. But I also want to thank you for what you mean for our government. There is a lot of cynicism in regards to our political system today, and a lot of times that is because the only thing people back home see is the partisan clashes and the heated debates that we have. I feel it is part of our obligation to go home and report to people who do not see what we get to see how well our government functions and the fact that we have thousands of employees, in the Federal agencies, in our offices, in this House who wake up every morning with the sole goal of trying to improve this great country of ours. You do it with honor, you do it with integrity, and you do it with a lot of style and a lot of class. That is why I, after my third term, am even more hopeful and optimistic about this great government of ours, because of people like you. I just have one request before you do leave, and that is to make sure that you download all the information that is in your brain and make sure it is all written so that we do not have to re-create the wheel. I will never forget the story you told me that after one of the late tally votes, which is seldom held around here anymore, someone asked you where the written procedure is for the tally vote, and you looked at them with a blank expression and said, ``There is no written procedure. It's right here.'' Everyone was shocked and horrified that you were going to go home that night being the only one with the knowledge on how to do this type of work. So you sat down before you went home and actually wrote out what the procedure is like. Again, we thank you for your great service. I personally thank you for all the conversations and the advice that you have given me. We wish you and Barbara and the two boys all the best in your retirement. Thank you very much.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We have before us today one of the most important issues that a democracy must decide, whether to potentially go to war against another nation. It is a vote of conscience, and I believe reasonable people can disagree while looking at the same set of facts. September 11, however, has changed the psyche of our Nation forever. We witnessed in horror what a few suicidal terrorists can accomplish in a low-tech operation, and now we shudder to imagine what suicidal terrorists can accomplish if they gain access to high-tech weapons of mass destruction. I believe Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and that he is aggressively seeking to develop nuclear capability. But I also believe that he can be deterred because, as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman puts it, Saddam loves his life more than he hates us. It is, however, irrefutable that Saddam is in blatant violation of numerous U.N. resolutions that call for his disarmament of these weapons. Now the question becomes: How do we enforce these resolutions and accomplish the universal goal of disarming his weapons of mass destruction? I have come to the conclusion that my two sons' futures and the future of all our children across the globe will be made a little safer if Saddam disarms, on his own or with our help; militarily, if necessary. I pray that it is done peacefully. I pray that he blinks. But I have also concluded that we are dealing with a person who will not do the right thing unless, literally, he has a gun pointing at his head. Therefore, I support the resolution before us today. But I also support the Spratt amendment, because how we accomplish our goals and with whom can make all the difference. We need to do this with the help and the support of the international community. I believe that it would be disastrous if we try to accomplish disarmament through unilateral military action. The process we take will determine whether the rest of the world views us as a beacon or as a bully. We could remain a beacon of hope and optimism as the leader of the free world, promoting economic progress for all, respecting human rights, and ensuring democratic values such as freedom, political pluralism, religious tolerance, free speech, and respect for the rule of law; or we could be viewed as the superpower bully, imposing our military power whenever we want and wherever we want. I give the President the benefit of the doubt when he now says that the use of military force will be a last resort, not a first option; that regime change can also mean attitude change of Saddam's; and that we will work hard to gather international support for disarming him before military action is taken. That is what the administration should have been saying from day one, and it is now reflected in the new resolution before us today. We need to do this the right way because U.N. engagement and international support is essential. I subscribe to the Thomas Friedman ``crystal store'' theory of U.S. foreign policy: If you break it, you own it. If we break Iraq, we will have the responsibility to rebuild it, just as we need to rebuild Afghanistan today. This is another vital reason why international support is critical for our action in Iraq, for what happens the day after. We have never been good at nation building. We can accomplish military goals with little help, but our democracy does not have the experience or the sustainability for successful nation building. Therefore, we must approach the aftermath of any conflict in the region with the greatest degree of humility. In addition, I am concerned that the administration is developing a blind spot. They are becoming overly intoxicated with the use of our military power. I am glad that we have the world's most powerful military; but this is not just a battle of military might, it is also a battle of values and ideas in the region. Our message to the outside world needs to be better than: You are either for us or you are against us; and if you are against us, we are going to kill you. Instead, we need to send a message through words and deeds that we are interested in being good global citizens as well. Unfortunately, the unilateralist message this administration has sent from day one has now come back to haunt us in our attempt to secure support against Iraq: No to the global climate treaty, no to the biological treaty, no to the land mines treaty, no to the ABM treaty, no to an international crimes tribunal. If the rest of the world does not like it, that is just tough. Instead, the world needs to hear from us that we are concerned about our global environment; we are concerned about their economic progress; we are concerned that 2 billion people must survive on just $1 a day; that 1.5 billion people, most of them children, cannot even get a clean glass of water; and that we want to help eradicate the scourge of AIDS. Furthermore, the world needs to hear that we are truly interested in being honest brokers in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict in the Middle East. We need to recognize that the real battleground for peace throughout the world ultimately lies in education. We cannot just keep looking at the Arab world as a great gas station, indifferent to what happens inside their countries, because the gas now is leaking, and there are people starting to throw matches around. If we have learned anything from September 11, it is that if we do not visit and help in a bad neighborhood, that bad neighborhood can come and visit us. So for the sake of our young military troops, for the sake of the Iraqi people, and for the sake of our Nation as it is perceived by the rest of the world in the 21st century, I pray that we can accomplish Saddam's disarmament peacefully and, if not, then with international support. But today we need to give the President this tool in his diplomatic arsenal, and also pray that he uses it wisely. May God continue to bless these United States of America.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I am passionate about American history. I believe there is an important role for it to play and be taught in our elementary and our secondary schools throughout the country, especially in light of modern times, especially in light of the last year that our Nation has gone through; and I want to thank the leadership, first of all, Madam Speaker, for bringing this resolution to the floor today. I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member and their respective staffs on the committee. But most of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for co-sponsoring this legislation with me, for championing it through the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for being here on the floor today. On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the United States Constitution. Consideration of this resolution, H. Con. Res. 451, recognizes the importance of teaching American history and civics, and it coincides nicely with the 215th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution and with the President's recent announcements supporting new policies and initiatives for teaching American history and civics. I commend the administration's efforts to encourage the teaching of these important issues, and I will continue to work to build support for them in this body. When students have a solid foundation of basic American history and civics, they can better understand their roles and responsibilities as citizens of this great Nation and as a part of our global community. Furthermore, when students study U.S. history, they becoming familiar with the development and the expansion of our own country. This knowledge enables youth to better understand the present relationship between the United States and other countries and to anticipate future international relations. Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, this has become even more imperative. Knowing our Nation's history and our civic duties as citizens of the United States is vital to preventing similar attacks both here and abroad and provides an important knowledge on how to cope with a drastically changed world for us. I believe that one of the most important parts of teaching history and learning civic education is to prepare people for bad times. The question is not whether people will remember the right phrases but whether they will turn words and lessons into practice when they fear for their freedom and their security. The chances for democratic principles to survive such crises depend upon the number of citizens who remember how free societies have responded to crises in the past, how free societies have acted to defend themselves and emerge from the bad times. Why have some societies fallen and others have stood fast? Citizens need to tell one another what struggles have had to be accepted, what sacrifices borne, and comforts given up to preserve freedom and justice. The deep discriminating historical knowledge required to ward off panic, self-pity, and resignation is not always fun to acquire; but it is important. Sadly, results recently revealed, as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) recently indicated, from the 2001 study by the National Assessment of Educational Progress of U.S. History found 89 percent of high school seniors, 84 percent of eighth graders, 82 percent of fourth graders scored below proficient levels in the understanding of their history. In addition, in 1999, the International Civic Education study of 14-year-old students reported the majority of ninth graders typically spent less than 1 hour per week doing history homework. Unfortunately, this is not only true in the elementary and secondary schools. It also appears to be prevalent in our universities. According to the Center for Survey Research and Analysis, fewer than half of the seniors surveyed at top universities across the United States can identify crucial events in our Nation's history. Thus in light of these troubling facts, this resolution before us today recognizes the importance of teaching American history and civics in elementary and secondary schools. Further, it supports efforts that ensure students graduate from high school with significant understanding of these issues. Our elementary and secondary schools are a vital resource to teach, study, and disseminate the information about past and present events. Gaining a sense of history is a gradual and cumulative process. Therefore, history education should begin at the earliest stages of a student's classroom experience and continue to develop through a student's entire educational career and then beyond. I am pleased that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act included the Teaching American History grant program and the Civic Education program. I would like to see American history and civic education remain a fundamental part of our schools' curriculum. The Teaching American History program supports programs to raise student achievement by improving teachers' knowledge of understanding and appreciation of American history. It also prioritizes teaching American history as a separate academic subject. This program received $50 million in the 2002 fiscal year, and it must receive adequate appropriations again for the next fiscal year. Just this last week I was notified by the Department of Education that the Cooperative Education Service Agency District 10 in my congressional district received a grant under this program for nearly $1 million for the next 3 years. This grant will serve 30 school districts, 200 teachers, and 5,205 students. I applaud the school districts for applying and receiving this grant. The Civic Education Program in ESEA is a combination of domestic and international initiatives. The We the People program promotes civic competence and responsibility by educating elementary and secondary students about the institutions of our constitutional democracy. The International Education Initiative provides assistance to ensure that children in emerging democracies throughout the world are exposed to democratic principles. The Civic Education Program received $27 million in this last fiscal year but was zeroed out, unfortunately, in the next fiscal year appropriations bill. I urge the appropriators to fund this initiative, and at its authorization level of $30 million. Now is not the time to eliminate a program that has continually shown that students involved in civic education develop greater commitment to democratic principles and values. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution today. Citizens who lack knowledge of United States history will also lack an understanding and appreciation of the democratic principles that define and sustain the Nation as a free people, such as liberty, justice, government by consent of the governed, and equality under the law.

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both the Rate Diseases Act (H.R. 4013) and Rare Diseases Orphan Product Development Act (H.R. 4014). A rare disease is defined as one that afficts fewer than 200,000 individuals. Our country has over 6,000 rare diseases that affect more than 25 millions Americans. Both of these measures will provide necessary incentives to find a cure for these ailments. H.R. 4013 establishes an Office of Rare Diseases within the National Institutes of Health director's office. In addition, the bill creates Rare Disease Regional Centers of Excellence to conduct research and training in the diagnosis, prevention, control and treatment of rare diseases. H.R. 4014 would double the funding to $25 million for the successful FDA grant program for research on orphan drugs. Since 1983, the FDAa has approved more than 200 treatments for rare diseases, this additional funding will be critical to increasing the number of treatments available. A wonderful family in my hometown, the Kirches, brought the issue of rare diseases to my attention. I have had the opportunity to meet with Larry, Susan and their daughter Allyson to hear about their struggles and triumphs with Allyson's battle with Mucopolysachharidosis (MPS) III. MPS III is a genetic disorder that results in the body's inability to produce certain enzymes. This lack of enzyme production interrupts the usual breakdown of complex carbohydrates that are stored in almost every cell in the body. Without the breakdown, storage progressively builds in each cell causing damage in multiple systems within the body including respiratory, bones, internal organs, and nervous system. The results of this damage include mental retardation, short stature, cornea damage, loss of mobility, and most importantly a drastically shortened life span. At present there is no cure for MPS III. Allyson's future depends on investment in scientific and biomedical research by the public and private sector and, we owe it to all children with these disorders to make every effort to improve their quality of life and ultimately contribute to efforts in developing effective treatments. I urge my colleagues to support these measures and assist families like the Kirches all across our country.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for yielding me this time. Madam speaker, I want to preface my remarks by stating that today is truly a sad day in the House of Representatives for the people of the second district of Hawaii, for the people of the Nation who may not have seen or appreciated the fine work that Patsy Mink did in representing her constituents in Hawaii. In all my years of public service, Madam Speaker, I never met anyone with a deeper commitment and passion for serving her constituents than Patsy Mink. I believe she was the first woman of color to be elected to the United States Congress, and I have had the pleasure of serving with her for three terms now on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The depth of knowledge that she brought to the committee on issues of education, her fight to ensure that quality of education was a reality for native Hawaiian children was unrivaled; and we will miss her guidance and her leadership and her expertise in these areas. Most of all, we will miss her for what she was, and that was a dynamic personality with unlimited energy and compassion for the issues she felt so deeply about. I hope that the people will in the next week take a little time to read a little bit about Patsy Mink, the stories being written, to better understand her contribution for our great democracy and for the people of the second district in Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5091, the CLASS Act. I think this is an important piece of legislation to be able to attract young, qualified teachers into at-risk school districts where recruitment has proven difficult, where retention of quality teachers in the classroom has proven to be a great challenge. We know that the second most important determinative of how well a child is going to succeed in school is the quality of the teacher in front of them in the classroom. That is why this legislation is long overdue. We had some differences of opinion in the committee in regards to whether this should be a mandatory program as opposed to a discretionary program. I would hope that even though we went the discretionary route, effort would still be given to try to find offsets to make this a mandatory program. I think it is important to be able to offer this type of incentive for young, qualified teachers to enter very difficult school districts and to serve children in need. Madam Speaker, I also want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for her passion in being able to bring loan forgiveness to the victims of September 11. She was there from the very beginning, advocating the importance of doing this. It is a token gesture, but I think an important gesture for those families that carry student loan debts that those be forgiven in recognition of the events of September 11. I also thank the leadership on the committee for accepting my amendment, which is a notification requirement to rural school districts so they too will recognize the existence of this program and will better understand how they can qualify and apply for loan forgiveness. Oftentimes rural school districts are understaffed, underfinanced, and do not have professional grant writers to really take advantage of the various educational programs that exist at the Federal level. This notification requirement is a small way to help get word out to school districts throughout the country that this is available and another tool of recruitment for rural school districts that are facing very difficult challenges in attracting young, qualified bright minds into the school system. Many of my school districts in western Wisconsin have a difficult time finding any AP teachers to teach high school classes. If it were not for certain online opportunities, many of the students would have to go without because of the shortage and great demand for teachers. Hopefully with this notification requirement, more rural school districts will realize the availability of the program and the additional tool that they can now use to attract young teachers into the classroom.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 472, recognizing the 100th anniversary of the 4-H Youth Development Program. As a proud former 4-H member of my hometown La Crosse Wisconsin, I appreciate and recognize what a difference this excellent program makes in our youth's lives. 4-H in Wisconsin. 4-H was founded in 1902, and established in my home state of Wisconsin in 1914. There are currently over 2,000 4-H clubs in my state alone, with more than 150,000 young people as members. 4-H is Wisconsin's largest animal science education program for youth, teaching these thousands of people ethical approaches to animal care for both pets and production animals. 4-H Mission and Vision. Mr. Speaker, 4-H is a dynamic organization whose mission is to foster innovation and shared learning for America's youth, aged 5 to 19. Its vision is to draw upon the combined power of youth and adults, so that we can learn together in order to address the challenges and opportunities critical to youth in our communities. 4-H Pledge. While many people associate 4-H with rural communities and agricultural issues, kids from cities and suburbs and from all backgrounds belong to 4-H clubs. Through 4-H they study citizenship and civics, communications and arts, consumer and family issues, earth and environmental science, technology and personal leadership. 4-H stresses three fundamental values: Treat others with mutual trust and respect and open and honest communication; assume personal leadership and responsibility for our actions; and Celebrate our differences as well as our similarities and always realize that working with youth as partners is the key to our success. Since September 11 of last year our country faces new challenges and responsibilities, which is why it is so important for Congress to recognize an outstanding organization that promotes civic duty and community responsibility. By pledging ``their heads to clearer thinking, their hearts to greater loyalty, their heads to larger services, and their health to better living, our young people do work to strengthen their clubs and their communities, their countries, and their world.'' Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize 4-H for its Centennial Anniversary. This is an exceptional program that lives up to its motto ``To Make the Best Better''. I know from my own personal experience that the skills I learned as a 4-H member remain with me today and I will continue to live up to the program's motto ``To Make the Best Better'' throughout ``my community, my country, and my world.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I too rise to remember the terrible events of September 11, to honor the victims of the attack and their families and to let them know that especially today, they do not stand alone, and to pay tribute to the heroes of that day, the passengers of Flight 93, the rescue efforts at the Pentagon and in New York City, the police officers, the firefighters, the first responders, emergency medical technicians, the health care providers. That day started with great shock and honor, Mr. Speaker; but it ended with incredible unity and a sense of resolve that those responsible would be held accountable. From the ashes of that attack arose a new sense of patriotism and a solemn pledge to never forget and to learn from that terrible day. We became unified in this Nation out of a sense of common values that we share: love of country, love of the freedom and liberties that we hold so dear, a shared sense of common vulnerability now that our splendid isolationism in the world and our sense of innocence was taken from us. That is perhaps what has made me most angry about the events of last September 11, the grief that we have to share with the families who lost loved ones, but the knowledge that my two little boys and all our children in our country will have to grow up in a 21st century with the specter of terrorism and that vulnerability hanging over their heads. I was heartbroken to have read the story of the two little boys who lost a father at the World Trade Center when they were at home, and they got all excited and started jumping up and down when they saw their dad's car being pulled into the driveway. They were screaming, ``Mommy, Mommy, Daddy's home, Daddy's home.'' She knew that could not be the case, and she looked out the window to only see a tow truck dropping off her husband's car in the family driveway and having to explain to her sons why their dad was never coming home again. Or the ``Nightline'' story of the retired firefighters living down in Florida who came back up to Ground Zero to sift through the wreckage in order to find the remains of bodies so they could be identified. They did it out of a sense of honor to their fallen comrades but also because they had lost their own sons, the next generation of firefighters who went into those burning buildings to save lives. One of the firefighters was interviewed by Ted Koppel, and he asked them, ``Why are you doing this day in and day out, from dawn to dusk every day?'' He responded, ``When we signed up to be firefighters and when our sons signed up to be firefighters, we all knew there was a risk in this job, but everyone deserves a decent burial.'' These are the memories that will live with us for the rest of our lives and why it is so heartbreaking. After one of our intelligence briefings, I was talking to one of the intelligence officers and commented to him how sophisticated this terrorist operation seemed, and he replied that it was not all that impressive. He said it was a low-tech operation. It is very easy to fly commercial airlines when they are already aflight. The hard part is landing them safely, and they never intended to land safely. That is the challenge that lies before our country today. We not only need to fly the Ship of State safely, but we need to land the Ship of State safely; and that is why I hope that we learn from this terrible event, but do not get too intoxicated with our own military power, which is considerable. I would hope that we realize we must maintain our good citizenship throughout the globe, that we are in this all together. This is not only about enhancing our own security interests in the United States and for our citizens abroad, but for all of the freedom-loving nations throughout the globe who have a common goal in defeating international terrorism. We cannot do this alone. We need the help of the international community. It is easy for our Nation, with the military power that we now possess, to accomplish so-called regime change. The hard part is nation-building that comes after. And that is why it is vitally important, I believe, that we keep our eye on the ball; that we pursue the al Qaeda organization, wherever they have scattered to the four winds, and that we do it with the cooperation and the help of the international community. I am confident with the deliberations in the days ahead that we will be guided with proper decisions. May God bless and may God continue to guide this great Nation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I believe in trade. I believe trade is important for our country. I believe trade is important for the world. I believe that former Secretary of State Cordell Hull had it just about right when he said that when goods and products cross borders, armies do not. I believe that. But tonight's debate is not about whether we believe in trade or are against trade. Tonight's debate is about what the rules of trade are going to be. The trade negotiations of the 21st century will be less about the reduction of tariffs and quotas and more about the establishment of important standards and what those standards are going to be like, not only in this country but globally. Standards such as worker rights, environmental protection, child labor protections, food safety and the sanctity of our own domestic laws. And the question will be whether or not the harmonization of those standards will move upwards, or whether it will result in a race to the bottom. I believe Presidents need trade promotion authority, but it is more than just words in a document. A large part of it is based on trust and confidence in the delegation of this extraordinary power from the Congress to the executive branch. With all due respect, I wish I had more confidence that the trade policy decisions coming out of this White House was based more on principle rather than politics, because the track record thus far does not inspire that type of confidence. We merely have to look at the steel tariff decision or the textiles deals that are being cut, or the lumber decision; but especially the complete 180 degree reversal on the farm bill that the President initially opposed but ultimately signed at the end of the day. A farm bill that I still believe holds the single greatest potential of bringing down the next round of trade talks that we are about to enter into. Mr. Speaker, I was one of the few sounding the alarm about how bad this bill was to our Nation's trade policy. The administration cut my legs and the legs of some of my colleagues out from under us in what they did. Now they ask for our vote of confidence in giving them this authority. I wish I could, but I cannot; and, therefore, I will vote ``no'' this evening.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 3763, the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act. This measure is an important first-step in restoring public trust and consumer confidence in our domestic economy. The measure's passage comes none too soon; as we all know, as investors have become more and more disenchanted with stock equities and the market continues to suffer vicious sell-offs. The NASDAQ and Standard & Poor's 500-stock index are back to 1997 levels, wiping out $7 trillion in value from the market's peak. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped to the lows reached immediately following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The free market system that has made our nation great still works. It is, however, based on trust. That trust is only as reliable as the information that is available to the public. When that information is fraudulent, the trust in our economic system collapses. Until that trust is restored our economy will not grow. Corporate officials have a responsibility to restore that trust but so do Congress and the President. Therefore, as legislators, we must remember that the mere passage of this one bill will not cure the ills that currently plague our economy. Complete reform will also require the cooperation of the corporate community, working with Congress to reverse the resounding effects of the actions of shady executives and unresponsive auditors. However, as I mentioned earlier, this bill is a good beginning, and I am pleased that the measure before us establishes a new, five-member independent oversight board with the power to establish and enforce auditing independence and to establish higher corporate ethical responsibilities. The independent board will have subpoena authority as well as disciplinary and standard-setting authority. The measure also places broad statutory restrictions on auditors, including on the nonauditing or consulting services that accounting firms currently provide to publicly traded companies. Importantly, the bill attempts to improve the ethical standards of top corporate officers. Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers must certify the accuracy of their corporation's financial reports. If executives do not comply, they face stiff criminal penalties, including as many as 20 years in prison. Again, let us remember, this bill is just the first step. In order to restore the public's trust, Congress, upon our return from the August recess, must consider and pass legislation that protects workers' retirement savings and strengthens investor rights. Until we do this, the American public will not be adequately protected. For our capitalist economy to function successfully, corporate responsibility must remain paramount. In its absence, capitalism and the free market system ultimately fail.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Moran-Wolf- Morella amendment that would prohibit the use of arbitrary outsourcing quotas for federal jobs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a requirement that every federal agency open up 15 percent of the federal jobs listed on its Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act inventory to outsourcing by the end of FY 2003. OMB has also stated its ultimate desire to establish a final quota to outsource 50 percent of these inventoried positions, roughly a quarter of the entire federal workforce. This one-size-fits all mandate does not consider the unique need of different agencies and could harm the ability of federal agencies to effectively carry out their mission. Some agencies have more experience with outsourcing than others. At present, the Department of Defense (DOD) is a leader in outsourcing federal jobs. However, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has found that DOD has had difficulty determining the actual costs of contracting out services and these problems call into question the purported savings incurred. Currently, I am experiencing this issue first hand in western Wisconsin where the employees at Ft. McCoy lost a contract bid to provide administrative services at the Fort. This decision threatens over 400 jobs. I, along with other members of the Wisconsin delegation, have asked DOD to review the decision to determine if outsourcing, in this instance, is the best way to optimize Ft. McCoy's mission and achieve real savings. Opponents claim that the Moran-Wolf-Morella amendment would end the contracting out program. This is simply false. The amendment would provide the agencies with the flexibility to outsource as they see fit. It just would prohibit OMB or another agency from using numerical quotas, targets or goals for opening up federal employment jobs to private contractors. Decisions regarding how to best deliver government services at the lowest cost should be driven by unique agency mission requirements, not arbitrary numerical requirements for privatization. I urge my colleagues to support the Moran-Wolf-Morella amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I too want to voice my strong support of the Roemer amendment being offered this evening. I believe it is the right thing to do because this is what great democracies do; they let the sunshine in. It is never easy to air dirty laundry for anyone, or to admit to certain shortcomings or failings, but there are still many unanswered questions that the American people have. A great democracy that derives our power by the consent of the people, that can only function if we have the faith and confidence of the people, need an independent review of what happened to our Nation on September 11. This is not without precedence. Prior Presidents have called for this when great tragedy was visited upon this country. As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) acknowledged, 11 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt called for an independent commission based on the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. President Reagan did the same thing after the Marine barracks incident in Lebanon. Let me also state that this is not an easy amendment for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) to bring. He is a distinguished member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He, as do I, has a great deal of respect for all of our colleagues serving and working on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, along with the very capable and bright staff working on that committee. This is not an indictment or questioning the work that they are doing. Yes, there is a joint review and an investigation taking place between the Senate and the House looking into the events of September 11. We should be doing that, and it is being done. But what is a little bit sad in the course of this debate this evening is that we are having to have this discussion at 12:30 in the morning within the House of Representatives when the President of the United States himself should have been calling for the establishment of a nonpartisan, outside independent commission looking into the events of September 11. That is the type of leadership that we need right now in this country, and it can only be provided by the President of the United States. I appreciate the concerns of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) regarding the wording of this amendment and certain restrictions that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) had to meet in order to make this amendment germane so we could at least have a discussion of this important topic this evening; but if the President were to move forward by calling for a commission, certain accommodations can be made so that the commission can be comprised of a distinguished group of individuals, and we all have a list of who those people could be serving on it, that could approach this subject in a cool, dispassionate, and nonpartisan fashion. They could conduct their work without interfering with the ongoing duties and responsibilities taking place in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. They could also conduct their work so that it protects the basic operation and methods of intelligence gathering so we do not air to the rest of the world, especially our enemies and future terrorists, how we gather this type of information. These things can be done because they have been done in the past. That is why I think this amendment has merit. I think ultimately the American people will not be satisfied unless they get an objective answer by a distinguished panel of outside experts that can come in, take a look at this, take the time that they need to analyze what happened on September 11, not with the purpose to assess blame or point fingers, but to find answers so the changes that we have to make will be made. In the next 24 hours we may be debating the greatest single change of the Federal Government in the last 55 years. The President is requesting $40 billion for a new homeland security agency. I agree with that. We need to restructure the government to deal with current threats; but all of this will not matter if we do not get the intelligence aspect of defending our Nation and preventing future terrorist attacks right. That has to be done. I think there is a great deal of wisdom in calling upon a group of outside experts, those who have served in the Congress, those who have devoted a lifetime of study and analysis of intelligence gathering, to give them the authority on a parallel track along with the investigation, the review that is currently taking place between the Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence, and working with the administration to learn from the mistakes of the past and then recommend the policy changes, the structural changes that we have to make and move forward on in order to enhance our intelligence-gathering capabilities in order to prevent another tragedy from occurring against the United States of America. I encourage my colleagues to support the Roemer amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I do rise in support of the resolution today. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for holding a hearing on this important program, for offering this resolution which recognizes the wonderful accomplishments of the First Tee program, as well as character education generally, which is part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act recently passed earlier this year, signed by the President, No Child Left Behind. The First Tee program provides young people of all backgrounds an opportunity to develop life-enhancing values such as honor, integrity, sportsmanship through golf, and character education generally. Teaching character education through golf plays a significant role in many adolescents' lives. Specifically, the First Tee helps keep our children out of the rough and on the fairway towards a successful future. I like to play a little golf myself, although not very well. I have two little boys, Johnny and Matthew, who are just six and four right now and I am introducing the sport to them. It is not only a lot of fun but it is a great sport. We are able to spend a lot of quality time together. A father and two little boys, chipping a little bit in the back yard. I set up a driving net where they hit the ball into. It is a lot of fun watching them develop not only their physical skills, but also the certain values that I hope they will carry through with them in life, the values of discipline and hard work, playing by the rules, getting along, sharing clubs, things of this nature that golf introduces to our youth and that the First Tee program is really all about. I am pleased that through the First Tee program many children will have the same opportunity to participate in golf and reap the benefits that, unfortunately, just a few children receive today. The National Golf Foundation, for instance, revealed that only 2 percent of children age 12 to 17 ever tried golf and that only 5 percent of this Nation's golfers are minorities. Studies show that the major barrier to attracting more children, and especially economically disadvantaged children, to the sport was the lack of places that welcomed them, places they could physically get to and places that they could afford. The First Tee program was created to address these access and affordability issues. The First Tee is implemented through a partnership of parents, civic and corporate leaders, State and local governments, youth-serving agencies, schools and the golfing community itself. As my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), just pointed out, the Professional Golfers Association has been very involved, playing a leadership role in expanding the First Tee program across the country. The program provides young people of all backgrounds an opportunity to develop through golf and character education life-enhancing values beyond building just physical skills. Students learn life skills and the importance of maintaining a positive attitude, considering the consequences of their decisions, setting and achieving objectives, holding themselves to high standards, and applying to their everyday lives the values such as responsibility, honesty, integrity, respect, confidence, and sportsmanship. The strong values the First Tee teaches the youths will positively impact their lives, their education and their experiences in school. The Committee on Education and the Workforce did hold a hearing on this on June 25 to highlight the success of this program, and the greatest golfer of the 20th century, Jack Nicklaus, came and testified. He testified about what the PGA and he personally have done involving the First Tee program, but also about what golf has meant in his life, but especially in those early formative stages of his life and the impact it had on him, the time he spent with his father, the time he spent developing the skills and the discipline and the value system that has made him one of the truly exemplary members of the golf profession today. We also had another witness, Mr. Speaker, Amber Davis, a 15-year-old junior golfer who was a charter member of the First Tee program in Atlanta who testified before the committee. In her testimony she stated very clearly what a difference the First Tee program has made in her life. In fact, she stated during the testimony, ``Golf has played a big role in my development. It has taught me to be the very best I can be, not just at golf, but to excel at everything I attempt. I think that if you are able to successfully master the game of golf, and I do not mean that you have to be a Renee Powell, a Lee Elder or a Tiger Woods, but if you apply all the qualities that it takes to be good at golf, dedication, discipline, honesty, integrity, a high regard for others and yourself, you will be successful at life. Beyond the game of golf, however, incorporating character education into the school day is important for many children who may not learn basic life skills elsewhere. Strong character development is essential to our children's growth, and I strongly support programs that work towards this goal. That is why so many of us were pleased to include character education under title V of ESEA reauthorization last year. I would hope that appropriators view title V and that bill favorably as we work forward with the appropriation process during the remainder of the year. The school district in my home town of La Crosse, Wisconsin, exemplifies a model that could be replicated across the Nation. It is unique in that the school board and community members developed core values of character education and included them as part of its school district's vision statement. Now, these values of character education are worked through an entire school system of three high schools, three middle schools, 11 elementary schools and four charter schools. One exceptional school within the school district is Lacrossroads High School, a charter school for at-risk adolescents. My good friend, Karen Schoenfeld, teaches character education at this high school and has been working with at-risk adolescents since 1989 as a school counselor and charter school teacher. In June, she was also called to testify before the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I commend the work she does in the field of education and the important emphasis she places on including character education in the school's curriculum. She has truly made a difference in her students' lives. All of our Nation's youths need teachers like Ms. Schoenfeld in their lives to help guide them down the road to success and opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House today is considering this important resolution. The strong values the First Tee teaches to youths will positively impact their lives, their education, and their experiences in school. These lessons will remain with participants for a lifetime, regardless of whether they play golf professionally or as a hobby. I commend the chairman for his leadership and the hearing and bringing this resolution forward. I would encourage all of our colleagues to support the resolution today. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.