Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, last year we passed a budget that boasted a ten-year unified surplus totaling $5.6 trillion. The leadership claimed that an expensive tax cut plan and other costly initiatives were eminently affordable and would leave enough of the budget surplus to eliminate most or all of the national debt. Thus Congress passed a tax cut costing $1.3 trillion. Unfortunately, since then, most of that surplus has disappeared, due to the war on terrorism, homeland security, the economic downturn in the economy, and most significantly, the large tax cut. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently projected that the budget surplus decreased this year by $4 trillion. Now, the leadership wants to make the $1.3 trillion tax cut, due to expire in 2010, permanent. This extension will cost over $4 trillion and will severely undermine the Social Security and Medicare trust funds just as 77 million baby boomers begin to retire. In fact, it will spend the entire Medicare surplus and 93 percent of the Social Security surplus in the next five years. Given the current forecasts, it appears that permanent tax cuts mean permanent deficits. Furthermore, the House passed legislation five times vowing that every single dollar of the Social Security and Medicare trust fund would be saved. And be put into a ``lockbox''. Now they are going back on their word, and spending the very money that people who are working now are counting on for their retirement security. Rather than shoring up Social Security and Medicare, the leadership intends to pay for this tax cut extension with the payroll taxes, which will raise interest rates and return us to deficit spending for the next ten years. After decades of deficit spending, it is our responsibility to reduce the debt future generations will inherit. We must give them the capability and flexibility to meet whatever problems or needs they face. I cannot, in good faith, support legislation that will put our country further into deficit spending, with a tax cut that will benefit only the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers. Tax relief, however, is a bipartisan issue. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the need for tax relief, but making the $1.3 trillion tax cut percent is not the result of bipartisanship. The tax cut passed last year has already derailed the opportunity we had to reduce our large national debt and prepare for our future obligations to our aging population and children's futures. Making the tax cut permanent will only further exasperate our nation's poor fiscal health. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for the House Leadership to pursue its own individual agenda to score political points in an election year. This is purely a symbolic vote timed as millions of Americans filed their income tax returns. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this fiscally irresponsible tax cut. We must shore up Social Security and Medicare and reduce the national debt before passing such an expensive tax cut that we cannot afford. I did not come to Congress to saddles my two boys with a debt burden they did not create.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4156, the Clergy Allowance Clarification Act. In western Wisconsin, I have personally witnessed the effective and invaluable efforts put forth by religious organizations. Not only do they lead congregations in worship, they also help combat such traumas as drug-addiction and domestic abuse. Our Nation's clergy are worthy of our continual appreciation and praise. But more importantly, our Nation's clergy are worthy of our support. Since the 1920s, Congress has allowed members of the clergy to exclude from taxable income a portion of their church income that is used for housing. This provision in the tax code has helped churches of all faiths expand their community outreach activities and provided clergy members with a much deserved tax break. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4156 will clarify current law to allow our clergy to continue to receive this important tax benefit. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important piece of legislation. Our nation's clergy deserve our continued support.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me this time and the leadership he has shown on this issue, as well as my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), for the courage to bring this motion forward. I along with Representatives Boehlert, Dingell and Gilchrest, helped assemble a coalition last fall, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan coalition, an urban-suburban-rural coalition, offering to do basically what this motion to instruct suggests, and that is taking a look at the current subsidy program, the income support program that exists in this country, and seeing if there was a way of moving some of the subsidy payments from the biggest of the big producers in this country, the upper 2 percent, over 97 percent of the farmers in this country would not have been affected by the conservation title amendment that many of us offered last fall, and see if we can move some of these limited, precious resources into other areas to benefit all family farmers in all regions of the country. It did pull up a little bit short. We had 200 votes. Nevertheless, I think it was a strong showing of the need for this type of new approach in agriculture policy. This motion today is about developing a sensible and sustainable farm policy for all of our family farmers, but also for our communities. This motion is not about attacking family farmers. This motion is not about attacking the women in this country. It is about good economic policy, because right now we are operating under a perverse economic farm policy, one that pays more money to big producers based on how many acres they plant and how much they produce in a certain category of crops. This distorts the marketplace. This encourages production, not based on market price and what the market can bear, but, rather, based on the government paycheck. And we are seeing this across the country throughout all of our districts. I still have roughly 10,500 family farms in my congressional district alone in the State of Wisconsin. We have roughly 60,000 family farms in Wisconsin. This motion to instruct would affect 14 farms in my State; and yet, because of the way the farm bills in the past have been produced, where 90 percent of farm bill funding goes to a few producers, producing the, quote-unquote, ``right commodity crop,'' it distorts the marketplace. It encourages overproduction and oversupply, and then a plummeting of commodity prices as we have seen over the last few years, and then either farmers having to file bankruptcy and forced out of business, or for there to be farm relief bills, multi-billion farm relief bills coming before Congress every year to do something about it. I would submit that a farm policy that only provides income support payment to just 30 percent of the farmers and misses 70 percent of the rest of the producers we have in this country is no safety net at all. This motion really gets to the fairness issue of what we can do with the limited resources we can devote to help our farmers in this country, but in a fair and equitable manner, so all of our family farms in all regions of the country can participate. A great State like California, the largest agriculture-producing State in the Nation, and if it was a separate country would be one of the top producing countries in the world in agriculture, gets 3 cents on the dollar because they are not producing the right crop in California. What would this motion to instruct do? It would take the savings between the 275,000 cap, as we are recommending, from the $550,000 that passed out of the House, and apply those resources in voluntary and incentive-based conservation programs so we can not only provide economic assistance to family farmers who want to participate, but also encourage better watershed management, quality drinking supplies and the protection of wildlife and fish habitat. Anyone who does not think that sound, sustainable conservation practices should not be a major part of farm policy in the 21st century has not been looking at the type of issues I have seen in regards to quality water issues, which is going to be one of the predominant issues facing this Nation in the next 100 years. There is a way for us to be able to assist in that great endeavor, in that great challenge that we all face. The other part of the motion would devote resources to important agriculture research programs so we can talk about value added and creating wealth within the agriculture industry, rather than the proposed 40 percent cut in agriculture research spending that is currently being proposed in the conference committee. So, again, I commend my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith); my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), for offering this motion to instruct; and I would recommend to my colleagues to support this motion and send a message to the conferees that this is the direction we need to move in in farm policy in our Nation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) for not only grabbing this hour for an important conversation and debate that we are going to be having later this week but for the leadership that he has particularly shown on fiscal responsibility, maintaining fiscal discipline. He has been very active in both the Blue Dog and also the coalition of which I am a member, the New Democratic Coalition. We have a lot of overlap in the membership between our two groups, and it is because we are basically fiscal soulmates. When it comes to the issues affecting the public purse, the Federal budget, both of our groups, the New Dems and the Blue Dogs, believe very strongly in maintaining fiscal discipline, keeping our eye on taxpayer dollars, trying to promote policies that will best position this Nation to deal with the challenges of the future, which to me seems the looming budget debt and the implosion that is about to occur starting next decade. Of course I am referring to the 77 million Americans who are all marching virtually simultaneously to their retirement, the so-called baby boom generation, who will start entering into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Yet this week we are going to have a very important policy debate in regards to whether or not this Nation will have the resources to deal with the greatest fiscal challenge we face, that is, this aging population and the burden it will place on the Social Security program, the burden it will place with rising health care costs and how do we maintain some common sense and fiscal discipline to deal with that. I am very concerned. It is almost like deja vu all over again, pursuing the policies of the 1980s where we had large tax cuts being proposed and enacted which left us in annual structural deficits year after year, adding to the $5.7 trillion national debt that we now have rather than maintaining the fiscal discipline which was needed. For me, and I believe for a lot of people in this Congress, one of the keys to future economic growth and prosperity, and it is something we hear constantly from Chairman Greenspan when he is testifying, is keep your eyes on the effect fiscal policy has on long-term interest rates. They have consistently testified, and the history of fiscal policy shows, that when you start racking up deficits again, adding to the national debt rather than subtracting from it, having the public sector squeezing the private sector for the limited resources in order to finance ongoing government operations, it has an adverse effect on the bond market and it leads to long-term interest rates going up rather than coming down, which is a hidden tax then on all Americans, whether they are wealthy or middle-income or low-income Americans, because of the additional expense it will take for them to borrow money, whether it is for home payments or car or credit card payments or to invest capital in businesses. It is the long-term interest rates we need to keep an eye on. The best thing we can do as an institution here is to maintain sound fiscal policy, reduce the national debt which will help reduce those long-term interest rates and really set us on the course for long-term economic prosperity. This is a serious issue. One of the concerns I have is that the majority party in the House and the party at the White House right now are pursuing policies that are not enabling our country to best position ourselves for the challenges of the future. That is what has to change. I think people back home are beginning to realize that the tax cut that was enacted last year is being financed now through the collection of payroll taxes, FICA taxes, additional moneys that are supposed to be going in and guarded in the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but which are now being raided in order to finance these tax cuts. If anyone last year would have been told that this would be the reality, that we would be passing tax cuts for some Americans and paying for it through the collection of payroll taxes that are supposed to be going into these trust funds, they would have thought it was crazy economic policy to pursue. But given the economic slowdown, the change of events of last September, that is, in fact, the situation. I think it is time for groups like the Blue Dog Coalition and the New Democratic Coalition to stand up and start making an issue of this. I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) for his leadership and for the time he was able to get this evening to talk about this very important issue.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, this past winter, thousands of ENRON 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. The ENRON debacle 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 than $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 American'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 would provide employees a voice on their pension board where critical decisions about workers' retirement security are made. In addition, the substitute seeks parity of benefits for executives and rank-and-file workers by closing a current loophole that gives special treatment for executive pension plans. While I would prefer that the legislation on the floor today contain some of the provisions included in the Miller substitute, the Pension Security Act, is a step in the right direction to provide employees more control and decision making 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 HR 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. Ensure that employers assume full fiduciary responsibility during ``lockdown'' periods. 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 ENRON scandal exposed weaknesses in our pension laws that could jeopardize these retirement savings. Hardworking Americans should not lose all of their retirement savings due to the wrong doing of corporate executives and loopholes in our pension laws. The 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. What is really interesting is it is almost as if the private sector is way ahead of the curve in regards to the policymakers in Congress and with the administration because they are already starting to invest in a lot of this technology. They are already trying to build more energy-efficient buildings because they know that that is going to be a plus on the bottom line of their businesses. They also know that it is not a healthy situation to be so dependent on foreign energy sources for our needs. The private sector, I think, is leading the charge and looking for comparable leadership by the policymakers of this country. We just need to dovetail into what a lot of companies are already investing in and what they are already encouraging by their own practices.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for the job she has been doing representing her constituents and the leadership she has been providing in this Congress on these very important issues. And I also commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). We serve on the Committee on Resources, and we have teamed up to work on a variety of issues. Now is the time that we should be discussing these issues. Yes, we stand united in the war against terrorism, but there are other issues that demand public debate and scrutiny. That is the essence of our democracy, to have a discussion of these important issues: How can we promote economic growth while still being sensitive to the ecology and the environment? I think it is important that we put together an environmental policy in this country that we can work together on in a bipartisan fashion. We have an opportunity. I also serve on the Committee on Agriculture, and we have been hard at work trying to pass a farm bill that could in fact be implemented over the next 10 years. This is an opportunity to change in a significant way farm policy in the country so perhaps we are not giving as much direct subsidies to a few but very large commodity producers, mainly out West, encouraging them to produce more because they are getting paid by production rather than what the marketplace would buy, and move some of those resources into the conservation title so that the farmers who are looking for additional assistance so they can practice good land stewardship initiatives on their private lands in producing the crops in this country will have the resources to tap into. These are voluntary, incentive-based programs. Right now three out of four farmers that apply for technical assistance in conservation program funding are turned away because of the inadequacy of resources. Yet if we can increase the area of this farm bill with more resources, we will be able to benefit more family farmers in all regions of the country rather than skewing the next farm bill to a few very large producers. This is important because we can also provide economic assistance to our producers through these conservation programs; and through these conservation programs, it will lead to better watershed management, which means better-quality drinking supplies in this country, which is important to farmers and communities. It will also lead to the protection of important wildlife and fish habitat, and ultimately the protection of valuable farmland and topsoil itself. Right now we are losing so much topsoil, affecting the productive nature of agriculture, and we are losing $300 million of applied nitrogen that runs off the farm fields because they do not have the conservation programs to prohibit that from occurring. It is affecting the water quality in the rivers and streams. I am confident in standing here today predicting in the 21st century, quality water supply is going to be a huge issue in our country and throughout the world. We can do this with sensible farm policy that recognizes the value and the value added to these incentive-based conservation programs. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I have been hard at work trying to shape the next energy bill. In the Senate they are debating a variety of provisions on it. We share the common goal that we wish to have seen coming out of the House an energy policy that was going to devote more in investment and resources into developing a more sustainable and self-reliant energy policy for the 21st century. That means being serious in investing in R&D and alternative and renewable energy sources, and the tremendous potential that fuel cell development holds in this country. Yet we feel that the House-passed version of the energy bill fell short and was inadequate in this area. The key to understanding our energy needs in the 21st century is to understand that we cannot produce with fossil fuels alone the energy that we are going to need to consume in this country in this next century. That means we have to look at alternative energy sources: the wind, the power, the geothermal, fuel cell development. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I went on a trip last year to Norway, Denmark, and Iceland to look at their alternative and renewable energy programs. Norway is heavily dependent on hydropower. Denmark has windmills and wind farms generating a lot of their electricity needs. Iceland was interesting. Of course, they have a lot of geothermal, but they have a 10-year plan in place right now and are working hard at being the first hydrogen-powered society in the world. They are converting their auto, bus and fishing fleet, which is huge in Iceland, to fuel cell-powered vehicles. They are getting this technology, in part, from a company located in Middleton, Wisconsin. So we have some local, home-grown company in this country developing the technology and assisting another country to make this conversion and pivot off from fossil fuel consumption and into hydrogen-powered energy, which is really breaking the barriers down and proving to the rest of the world, and especially our country, that if we have the leadership and the political will and the support within the community, we can do this. I think the American people are really looking for this type of leadership right now, understanding that we are not going to produce enough oil in order to meet our energy needs. Right now we are consuming 25 percent of the oil that is being produced throughout the world for our own energy needs; yet we only have 3 percent of the oil reserves, which by its very nature tells you that we are not going to be able to produce enough oil in this country to become self-reliant and to wean ourselves off from the importation of foreign oil supply. We have seen how volatile now the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region really is. I look forward to working with my colleague from Washington State and also my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), as we continue to look at good policy that will sustain our environment; that will protect our valuable natural resources and the ecosystems that we all live in and that our communities would like to see us do a better job of protecting and see if we can put together a long-term, commonsense energy policy that recognizes the potential that exists with alternatives and renewables and with fuel cell and with the technology that is being developed right now in private industry in this country. Hopefully, we will be able to work in partnership with the private sector in order to make this conversion in the 21st century. I thank the gentleman for giving me a little bit of time today to talk about this very important issue. We will look forward to working with both of you in the future.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, this legislation offered today is meant to better preserve and protect one of the great national treasures that exist in this country, the Mississippi River Basin. I would like to thank, first of all, Chairman Hansen of our committee and Chairman Calvert of the subcommittee and their staffs for the assistance and the cooperation we received in putting this legislation together. I also want to thank Ranking Member Rahall and also Ranking Member Smith of the subcommittee and their staff for all the help and assistance that we have received. This is simple legislation, Mr. Speaker. The intent of it is to authorize the U.S. Geological Survey to be able to put together the science and implement the science so we can better track and monitor the nutrients and sediments that flow into the Upper Mississippi River Basin. It would develop for the first time a public-private approach and coordination in order to develop a comprehensive monitoring and a state-of-the-art computer modeling program in order to track the sediment and nutrient flows into the river basin. This legislation has been near and dear to my heart, Mr. Speaker. As a young boy growing up in western Wisconsin, I spent an inordinate amount of my time growing up on the Mississippi River. I guess you could refer to me as the ``Tom Sawyer'' of the United States Congress, but since we already have a Tom Sawyer from Ohio I guess I will just accept the label of Huck Finn. Huck was probably more colorful, anyway. But as a young kid growing up, I spent a lot of my time on the Mississippi enjoying the recreational activities, the swimming, the fishing, the hunting, but I still remember those days during the sixties and during the seventies when I would go down to my favorite swimming beaches and find that they were closed because of high bacteria count, or going down to my favorite fishing holes and finding notices that were posted around these popular fishing areas warning the fishermen not to eat the fish that they were catching because of the contamination and the effect on the quality of the fish supplies. I knew even then as a young boy that something was not quite right. Since those days, a lot of progress has been made in regards to the health, viability and sustainability of the river basin. There is still much work that needs to be done. If you talk to the experts in the river system both in the north and the southern part, the one thing that has really been lacking or missing is a comprehensive scientific program so we can collect the baseline data at sub-basin level in order to understand more the effects of the sediment and nutrient flows going into this valuable ecosystem. Why is this important? It is important on a number of fronts, not least of which is economic. This is a multiple-use river system, from commercial navigation to tourist activity to recreation activity. It has been in the past with the lock and dam system; it is today and it will continue to be so in the future. But there also is the need for balance and balanced use in regards to the river basin. There is a $1.2 billion recreation impact in the Upper Mississippi States alone and a $6.6 billion tourism impact. In fact, we have more visitors every year to the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge than they do in the Yellowstone National Park System. It is also the primary drinking supply source for over 22 million Americans. It is North America's largest migratory route, with over 40 percent of the waterfowl species using the river basin as its main corridor during its migratory pattern every year. It also provides us, as this picture demonstrates, the fertile farmland which makes the Midwest the breadbasket of the United States and the rest of the world. But there are also some challenges with the system. Because of the sediment flows flowing into the river, it is costing us roughly $100 million every year just to maintain a 9-foot navigable channel with the dredging costs in order to keep the commercial navigation flowing along the river system. Our farmers are losing valuable topsoil. In fact, they are losing $300 million worth of applied nitrogen every year that ultimately flows into the rivers and streams and affects the ecosystem adversely. This litigation has received wide bipartisan support, from the original cosponsors when I introduced the legislation to a variety of experts in the Upper Mississippi States. It is consistent with the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force that was formed over the last few years, studying the nutrient problems that are affecting especially the Gulf of Mexico and the dead zone that is being created there. The Upper Mississippi, although it supplies 22 percent of the water that ultimately flows into the Gulf of Mexico, nevertheless it is the source of 32 percent of the nutrients that are flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, and it is consistent with the recommendations that they are making for a public and private coordinated approach with Federal, State, local agencies, private entities and tribes to do a better job of collaborating and to standardize the data that is now being collected. At one point during the research of this legislation, I discovered there were 77 different private entities that were doing some form of water quality testing, but there was very little sharing of information because the data was not standardized. This legislation will address that problem. But it also addresses a very important privacy protection concern that some groups that we worked with raised, and I feel the language that we have in here with regard to the protection of sharing personal data of private landowners meets the test that a lot of these groups were raising. It is also consistent with what a number of States have talked about that is needed in regards to the River Basin and its protection. In fact, a number of States have also weighed in on the need to increase monitoring and modeling efforts throughout the Upper Mississippi River Basin. In October of 2001, in a letter to a Bush administration official, six Governors of the States bordering the Mississippi wrote that, ``A monitoring effort conducted jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the States is required within the Basin to determine the water quality effects of the actions taken and to measure the success of efforts on a sub-basin and project level.'' H.R. 3480 does exactly what the Governors of those States were recommending, bringing in a variety of groups in order to have a more comprehensive monitoring and computer modeling system so that the science will be able to demonstrate where the hot spots exist, where the problem areas are, so we are in a better position then of making policy choices of how better to direct the limited resources to get the optimal effect of the investment in land stewardship through , voluntary and incentive-based land conservation programs, and the benefit that is going to bring to the entire river basin area. My district, Mr. Speaker, has more miles that border the Mississippi River than any other congressional district in the Nation, and therefore I felt a certain personal responsibility to keep an eye on the river and to promote good policy and legislation that will enhance the long-term sustainability of this great natural resource. It is one of the reasons I was motivated to help form a bipartisan Mississippi River Task Force so that we can start working more effectively together between the upper Mississippi region and the southern Mississippi River region on issues of common ground and to better educate ourselves in regard to the different uses of this valuable river system. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank a few individuals who have been very helpful in support of this legislation. I want to, of course, thank the original cosponsors of this legislation, including the other cochairs of the Upper Mississippi River Task Force, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). I also want to thank the congressional cochairs of the entire Mississippi River Caucus, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) for their support and their staff's support for this legislation. In addition, I want to thank Ms. Holly Stoerker of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, Mr. Doug Daigle of the Mississippi River Basin Alliance, Dr. Jerry Schnoor of the University of Iowa, and Dr. Barry Drazkowski and the administration and staff at St. Mary's University in Minnesota for a lot of the ideas that are contained within this legislation. Their expertise and testimony during the hearings that we have had on this legislation was essential in crafting the bipartisan approach that this legislation takes. Also greatly appreciated is the tireless work of a few individuals in my office, former Sea Grant fellow Allen Hance, who is now with the Northeast Midwest Institute, along with other Sea Grant fellows, Laura Cimo, Jeff Stein and Ed Buckner, who have worked in my office, worked specifically on this legislation dealing with a lot of the shareholders and groups interested in this legislation, as well as other issues affecting the Mississippi River Basin area. I also want to thank a couple permanent members on my staff, Ben Proctor, who is with us on the floor today, and also Brad Pfaff, who has carried a lot of the weight with this legislation during the period of time we have been working on it. Their help has been greatly appreciated. H.R. 3480 represents a commonsense move toward building the scientific foundation necessary to remedy nutrient and sediment problems throughout the Mississippi River Basin. I believe this is a needed, cost-effective step in preserving the Upper Mississippi River and its multiple-use heritage for future generations, and I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and I want to thank him for his leadership on the Committee on the Budget. He has been actively involved in trying to shape bipartisan budget agreements, and his knowledge and insight on the subject is invaluable to the institution, and his leadership is appreciated; and I thank him for all his hard work. Today, anyone tuning into the deliberations on the House floor probably witnessed one of the most important debates we could have in this session of Congress. It sets the terms of the budget for the rest of the year. And not just for this year, but for many years to come. The budget resolution, although nonbinding, establishes the parameters of where spending is going to occur and how we are going to pay for these budget priorities. That is why the debate we had, I felt, was very important and very constructive, because it not only affects the Nation in the coming fiscal year, but it will affect our seniors who are currently in the Social Security and Medicare programs, the baby boomers, 77 million of whom are rapidly approaching that retirement age in just a few short years and will start entering some of these very important programs, and also the younger generation, our children and grandchildren, who will be asked to clean up, so to speak, the various mistakes that I feel we are making as a Nation and as a body in the budgets and the economic policies that are then pursued over the next couple of years. Unfortunately, the budget resolution that was before us today was a budget resolution that only Enron could love. It was full of smoke and mirrors, gimmicks, sleight of hand, and deceit, not in the parameters of the budget resolution, but in how we were going to pay for it and what was going to be sacrificed in the course of the coming year and years based on the decisions that we will be making in the months to come. Even though we have been debating 10-year budget plans with 10-year forecasts, the majority party decided to go with the 5-year. Perhaps they realized with the $2 trillion tax cut passed last year the effect of the explosion of tax cuts in the second 5 years of this decade and the tremendous impact it is going to have in creating annual structural deficits again. They also used budget calculations from the OMB within the Bush administration, rather than the established CBO numbers that we have reached bipartisan agreement in using before in scoring all pieces of legislation, not just budget resolutions, but for obvious reasons, because the OMB numbers coming out of the administration are much more rosy and optimistic than what the CBO numbers show. The Director of the CBO is appointed by the majority party. Why they would reject their CBO numbers can only be explained from the fact that the numbers are based on more realistic economic growth scenarios and the impact of the policy decisions contained in the budget resolution. Interesting enough, it was in 1995 when the Republicans came into the majority for the first time in a while that they shut the country down by demanding that the Clinton administration use Congressional Budget Office numbers rather than their own OMB numbers. A few years later, they flip-flopped on that issue out of political expedience. Medicare spending in the next decade, they are underestimating the true impact of Medicare costs. Yogi Berra was fond of saying this is deja vu all over again. The budget resolution that we just debated is really a throwback to the economic policies and the budgets that were passed back in the 1980s and the first part of the 1990s. My constituents are surprised to learn when I tell them that the $7.5 trillion national debt that we now hold as a Nation, that 86 percent of that national debt was accumulated during the 1980s and early 1990s. So this large debt that we have outstanding already is a relatively recent phenomenon attributed to the policies that were pursued in the 1980s and the first part of the 1990s which led the country down the road of annual structural deficits, and using the money that is contained in the Social Security and Medicare trust fund for other measures. Unfortunately, the budget that passed today, even after 1 year when virtually every Member of the House of Representatives is on record as saying we will not touch those trust fund monies, in fact, dips into those trust funds for other government expenditures. Just to remind Members who voted for that budget resolution today what they said as recently as last year in regards to the sanctity of the trust fund, which I happen to agree with, and as a member of the New Democratic Coalition, we have been working hard to establish fiscal responsibility and keeping hands off these trust funds, realizing this demographic retirement boom is around the corner. Last June the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) was on the floor stating, ``I was very pleased today that the House passed the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act. This important legislation will protect every penny of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. American workers deserve to know that these important programs will be there for them when they retire.'' The budget resolution passed by the Speaker and his party pillages and raids the lockbox proposal that passed last year. House majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), again during last year's debate, ``Trust must be put back into the Social Security Trust Fund. The Republican lockbox legislation locks away the entire Social Security surplus and prevents the funds from being spent on other government programs.'' House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), during last year's debate, ``I think it is very important for us to remember that the first thing this Congress did was to continue to keep a firewall between our Social Security and our Medicare Trust Funds and the rest of the American budget so no dime's worth of Social Security or Medicare money will be spent on anything other than Social Security and Medicare.'' Here we are today dipping heavily into those trust funds. Finally, the House Committee on the Budget chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), again last year, ``This Congress will protect 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, period. No speculation, no supposition, no projections.'' That is why many of us during the course of the debate were raising alarms in regard to the path which we are embarking upon with the budget resolution. But we were reminded by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, that we also need to maintain some fiscal discipline and not think about the next election or the next election cycle 3 years from now, but start thinking about the next generation. Our own ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), is quoted as saying during the context of last year's budget debate that set us on the course of these annual structure deficits, ``Today I have one priority, one overriding objective, and it is simply this: To make sure that we do not backslide into the hole we just dug ourselves out of. That is my overriding objective, and that is why I have a problem with the Republican resolution, because it leaves so little room for error.'' Madam Speaker, 1 year later we have seen how wrong that budget resolution was. There was no built in flexibility for a September 11, for an economic slowdown, and some of these other national emergencies that we must deal with, and hopefully deal with in the short term and get back on fiscal footing again. What is different today that did not exist in the 1980s and 1990s is we no longer have the luxury of time. We could run some structural deficits during the 1980s and 1990s contributing to the $5.7 in national debt because we had the rest of the 1990s to recover from that. Through the budgets that were passed in 1993 and 1997, it put us back onto a road of fiscal sanity. We were actually able to run budget surpluses in the last 4 years, wall off the Social Security and Medicare trust fund, use the surplus to download our national debt and put us on a firmer financial position to deal with the impending baby boom generation's retirement. We do not have that luxury today. If we continued down that road that existed in the 1980s and first part of the 1990s, we will not have time to recover. This is not a debate about the baby boom retirement, this is a debate fundamentally about the future of my two little boys, Johnny and Matthew, who are 5 and 3. It is their generation that is going to be asked to clean up the fiscal mess that is being created in today's Congress, by postponing these long-term decisions, by dipping into these trust funds, placing IOUs that will have to be paid back virtually simultaneously when the IOUs with the rest of the national debt have to be paid back. Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any fiscal possibility or way for them to do it when it is time for them to assume the reins of leadership in this country, for their generation to deal with the aging population, and this massive population that will be existing there drawing from the Social Security and Medicare programs for many years to come. This is really a generational argument that we are having. Whether we are going to be thinking long term, thinking about the future of our children and grandchildren, helping them to be able to assume the leadership and make the policy decisions that they will be asked to make in the years to come, rather than continuing this black hole of fiscal irresponsibility and adding to their obligations and their burdens when they reach the age of responsibility. Those are just a couple of issues that I wanted to raise here tonight with my colleagues. I think they are important for us to emphasize and talk about. I think it is important for the American people to tune in for this debate and weigh in to this debate. This is not about whether Democrats support the war against terrorism. We are united on that front. This is about how we can still do that and maintain fiscal discipline and the promises for our aging population, but also the promises we should be making to our children and to future generations. On that front we are failing them miserably unless we can engage the administration on a budget summit which has been proposed by the leadership of our party, getting the President to the table in order to negotiate a bipartisan agreement of how we can turn this down and get back onto the road to fiscal solvency, walling off the trust fund monies, and downloading the national debt, because we still have time before this massive retirement boom begins to hit our country, which is the greatest fiscal challenge which the country will face for many years to come.

Mr. KIND. If the gentleman will yield further, I am always interested in listening to Chairman Greenspan when he testifies before our various committees, in the Committee on the Budget, for instance. He is always explaining to us such inherent positive features of debt reduction, not the least of which is the impact on long-term interest rates which can be a hidden tax relief. By keeping debt reduction in check and reducing it will have the beneficial effect of reducing long-term interest rates, making it cheaper for businesses to borrow money, to invest in capital, to create jobs and to hire more people working, making it cheaper for people to afford car payments and home payments and student loan payments and credit card payments. To them, at the Federal Reserve, whether it is Chairman Greenspan, Chairman Volcker before him, the real key to a lot of economic stimulation and growth in the country is what happens with long-term rates. Through increase in debt and deficits, we have raised those long-term rates because of the reaction from the bond market and financial markets. By maintaining fiscal discipline and reducing our debt burden, it enables those financial markets to reduce the long-term interest rate burden that all working families and all businesses have to confront with.

Mr. KIND. The gentleman has talked about debt reduction, our plan for debt reduction. Obviously during the course of the debate today and also last year, the Republican majority talked about the merits of tax relief and how it could theoretically stimulate the economy, generate more revenues and encourage more growth. They truly believe that. I understand their argument. Could the gentleman explain to us a little bit about the merits of debt reduction and the fiscal reasons for that and the type of economic benefit that that could bring for the Nation.

Mr. KIND. If the gentleman will yield, I just picked up on a very important issue that the gentleman raised this evening and, that is, who is ultimately paying for the increase in spending or for the tax relief that just passed last year. The gentleman talks about the young men and women who are serving our country now in harm's way overseas and we are blessed that we have such gifted and talented and dedicated individuals looking out after our liberties and our freedoms across the globe in this battle against terrorism. But someone ultimately pays. Unfortunately, while at the same time the majority party delivered tax relief for the most wealthy last year, they are asking to pay for that along with the spending increases in defense and in homeland security through FICA taxes, which we all know is the most regressive form of tax in the Nation, because it is working families, it is low-income working families who have to pay 100 percent of their obligation in FICA taxes to the treasury every year. Those FICA taxes are what goes into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. So by raiding those trust funds, we are basically saying that we are going to be delivering tax relief to the Bill Gates and the Warren Buffets of this country while at the same time we are going to continue collecting these FICA taxes from hard-working families who, by the way, are the ones offering their young sons and daughters to fight this battle overseas and they are also being asked to shoulder a disproportionate burden, financial burden, in paying for all this stuff. I could not think of anything more inequitable, anything more unfair that we can do to these working families today than the type of economic policies that have been pursued. I thought that that was an important point that the gentleman raised this evening.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, before I take my 5 minutes, I just want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), for the leadership he has provided on behalf of missing children in our country and the focus that he has given the United States Congress on this very important issue. I know, from observing him work and the passion he brings to the subject, that there would not be half the focus that there is in the United States Congress if it were not for him and the hard work that he is doing in elevating this issue and educating the rest of us, as well as our administration and the rest of the country, with what a serious problem it is. So I thank the gentleman and ask him to continue the good work. I want him to know that there are many of us who are with him every step of the way. Madam Speaker, tonight I rise in honor of Women's History Month. In 1987, Congress passed a resolution designating the month of March as Women's History Month, and a time to honor, and I quote, ``American women of every race, class and ethnic background who have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways.'' For 2002, the theme of Women's History Month has been ``Women Sustaining the American Spirit.'' To celebrate this month, I would like to honor four of the numerous women from Wisconsin's history that have sustained the American spirit. First, I would like to recognize Ada Deer. Ms. Deer, a Native American activist, was born in Keshena, Wisconsin. Nationally known as a social worker, scholar, teacher, and political leader, Ms. Deer was the first female Chair of the Menominee Nation and the first woman to serve as head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. She continues her work today as a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Next, I honor a woman if not well-known to my colleagues is certainly well-known to a lot of our children, Laura Ingalls Wilder. Ms. Wilder was born in a small town on the banks of the Mississippi, Pepin, Wisconsin, which is in my congressional district. Her early years in this area became the basis for her first book, ``Little House in the Big Woods,'' written when she was 65 years old. This was the first of many successful books that comprised the ``Little House'' series, which is still read by many children today. Belle Case LaFollette is another woman whose contributions to Wisconsin's history cannot be overstated. Though it was her husband, Fighting Bob LaFollette, who held office, Belle was a political force in her own right. Born in Juneau County, Wisconsin, she was the first female graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School. Throughout her life she was a tireless advocate on behalf of women's rights and human rights in general. Finally, I would like to highlight the work of Georgia O'Keefe, born in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. Ms. O'Keefe was one of the first nationally recognized female American artists. After attending high school in Edgewood, Wisconsin, she studied in New York City, then left the city to become supervisor of art in the Amarillo, Texas, school system. It was in the natural floral landscapes of the Southwest that she discovered the subjects of her most famous paintings. Each of these women has had an impact not only on Wisconsin's history, but also on the history of our Nation as a whole. Whether in art or literature, activism or teaching, they deserve our remembrance not only during the month of March but throughout the rest of the year as well.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 353, the FY 2003 Congressional Budget Resolution. The budget resolution is fiscally irresponsible. It spends more than 86 percent of the Social Security surplus and uses up the entire Medicare surplus. There are only six years left before the baby-boom generation begins to retire, and now is not the time to deplete the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. Over the past eight years we have had budgets culminating in real debt reduction, and a growing surplus that did not rely on Social Security or Medicare. The budget resolution before us today, quickly creates an on-budget deficit of $974 billion over five years according to the Congressional Budget Office. The tragic attacks on September 11, 2001, the short and shallow recession, and the continuing war on terrorism taken all together did not precipitate the budget deficit. Mr. Chairman, while I support the war on terrorism, and increased homeland security, I did not support the irresponsible tax cut passed last year. The fact is, it consumed approximately 43 percent of the budget surplus and led to our current poor fiscal health. This budget does not lead to debt reduction or Social Security and Medicare solvency and it does not ensure that our other national priorities are met. Last year, the leadership went down the primrose path by enacting a tax cut that cost our country nearly 2 trillion dollars. But before this year is out we must get the budget back on track. Further, for the first time in years, the budget resolution is only a five-year budget instead of a ten-year budget. It remains in deficit throughout the next five years, which leaves us to infer the damage that will result in the second five years. In effect, this budget cloaks the large amount of Social Security and Medicare surpluses that will be spent after FY2007 and it allows the Leadership to avoid deciding whether to sustain the sunset provision of the tax cut passed last spring or extend the tax cuts at an additional cost. This lack of a ten-year plan leads me to believe that either the House Leadership has no long-term plan of recovery or they have a plan that will not stand scrutiny under the public eye. Regardless, this resolution offers no targets, no objectives, and no strategies to return to budget surpluses. In addition, this budget resolution attempts to make the deficit appear smaller by authorizing non-defense, and non-homeland security discretionary spending at almost five percent below the level necessary to maintain current levels of services. Perhaps, even more disappointing, the resolution cuts funding for the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act recently signed into law, as well as other cuts in education, health care, and environmental protection. Mr. Chairman, I am saddened that we are being forced to vote on this irresponsible budget resolution without any opportunity to create a bipartisan fiscally responsible budget. As Members of this great institution, we often deliberate important issues that effect our own and our children's futures. During debates of this nature, I frequently ask myself one simple question; will the vote I am about to cast make the nation and our society better and safer for my two sons, Johnny and Matt, as they live, learn and grow in the 21st Century. For once, lets put their future first, ahead of Washington politics. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the budget resolution for the fiscal year 2003.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and I am opposed to this budget resolution. It is a budget, unfortunately, that only Enron could love. It is using 5-year numbers instead of 10 years, obviously hiding the impact of the tax cuts exploding in the second 5 years and the impact that is going to have with budget deficits. It is using OMB numbers instead of the Congressional Budget Office, when the same Republican party shut down this place in 1995 accusing President Clinton of doing the exact same thing; and it underestimates the true cost of Medicare spending in the years to come. As Yogi Berra once said, it is deja vu all over again. It takes us back to the deficit spending of the eighties and early nineties, using Social Security and Medicare trust fund money for other purposes, rather than taking us forward by maintaining fiscal discipline so we can deal with the greatest fiscal challenge facing us today: the aging population. This is happening at exactly the wrong time, Mr. Speaker, just before the 77 million American baby-boomers start retiring in just a few short years. But this is more than just about the baby-boomers. This is about the future of my 3- and 5-year-old boys, because it will be their generation who will be asked to fix the irresponsibility of what occured last year and what is about to happen today. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose this budget resolution.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tauzin-Dingell Internet Broadband Deployment Act. Rural communities were the last to get paved roads, the last to get electricity, the last to get voice telephone service, and the last to get cable television. Right now the information superhighway is bypassing rural America, leaving it behind in the new economy. Rural Americans do not want to be the last to experience the economic, education, and cultural benefits of Internet broadband technology. Mr. Chairman, Tauzin-Dingell will directly benefit the citizens of my district. Passage of this bill will guarantee high-speed access to almost 90,000 people and over 5,000 businesses in the third Congressional district of Wisconsin alone. The ability of educational institutions, especially in rural areas, to explore all the possibilities the Internet offers depends largely on the availability of broadband technology. With high speed access to the internet, schools will have the ability to supplement classroom teaching in ways currently not available, and to bring cyber-classrooms to everyone, regardless of their physical location. The Internet is just beginning to deliver on the Promise of education on demand. This will be a powerful tool to education not only those traditional students who would like flexibility in their class choices, but it also has the power to offer the highest caliber education to anyone with high speed access to the Internet. Rural students shouldn't have to wait any longer for the tools to succeed in the digital age. Tauzin-Dingell will also bring broadband access to over 60 doctor offices and clinics as well as three additional hospitals in my district. With broadband, rural Americans will be able to have a medical specialist diagnose their illness over the Internet, Instead of having to drive long distances to a faraway hospital. Rural hospitals could become virtual teaching hospitals with the deployment of broadband technology. It's time for Congress to bring broadband Internet access to all Americans. Support Tauzin-Dingell.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, since taking office, I have been a dedicated supporter of campaign finance reform, and I commend my friends--Representatives Shays and Meehan--for their persistence on this issue. During my first term, every day the House was in session, I gave a statement on the floor in support of campaign finance reform. I hope that the House will have the courage to pass true reform measures today. Without question, there is too much money in our current political system. Running for office has become increasingly expensive, forcing candidates to spend unacceptable amounts of time fundraising, and discouraging qualified challengers from running for office because they cannot afford the price of admission. What should be a competition of ideas has become a battle of wealth. In 2000, the national party committees raised $495 million in unregulated soft money, almost twice the amount raised in 1996. At this rate, it will not be long before billion dollar campaigns are commonplace. Though opponents of reform say the public does not care about this issue, the residents of Wisconsin's Third District tell me otherwise. They see where our system is headed and demand reform from Congress, Shays-Meehan heeds their mandate by banning soft money donations to the national parties, and imposing tight limits on the collection and use of soft money by State and local parties. Unfortunately, those of us that would like to see genuine changes in the campaign finance system must contend with the false reform legislation supported by the House leadership. This legislation does not truly change the current system and does nothing to stem the rising tide of soft money that circumvents and erodes it. For example, under the Ney-Wynn substitute, Enron and its executives would still have been able to give 76 percent of the money they gave in 2000 to national parties. Right now we stand on the brink of historic reform. Reform that will put the power of democracy back in the hands of ordinary Americans. Reform that will force politicians and political parties to get back to the grassroots level. Mr. Chairman, the American people have waited long enough. Now is the time for positive bipartisan action on this bill. This bill is not the panacea to what ails our political system; it is not perfect, but it is a significant step in the right direction by banning the largest political contributions that ordinary citizens cannot give. A vote for Shays-Meehan today is a vote to better empower the American people and to begin to level the playing field of access in our political system.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Shays- Meehan bill and in opposition to the Ney substitute. When I entered Congress back in 1997, Mr. Chairman, one of the first things I did was help organize a bipartisan freshman campaign finance reform task force. Even as political neophytes in this institution, we knew then what is true today, that the political system was awash with money; that there were too many powerful special interest groups dominating the agenda in Washington; and that it was wrong and it needed to change. The legislation we came up with called for a ban on the unregulated, unlimited, soft money contributions. That is consistent with the Shays- Meehan bill before us today, soft money, by the way, that reached the level of $500 million in the last election alone. Unfortunately, I believe the Ney substitute today is just a cynical ploy to try to get a bill, or any bill, that is different from the Senate, passed so the opponents of reform can kill it in the conference committee. They are not the only ones who have been very cynical about finance reform. The American people have been cynical, too, and not because they do not believe there is too much money or too much influence of money in the political system, but they do not believe Congress will do anything about it. The day of reckoning has arrived today, and I urge my colleagues to support real finance reform, the Shays-Meehan bill, and vote ``no'' on the Ney substitute.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today, January 24, due to family considerations, I unfortunately was not present for a rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 4, S. 1762, to establish fixed interest rates for student and parent borrowers.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today, January 23, due to family considerations, I unfortunately was not able to vote on three rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present'' on rollcall No. 1. I also would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 2--reauthorizing a conservation program for Asian elephants and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 3--expanding the Tumacacori National Historic Park in Arizona.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill, the second economic stimulus bill to be considered this year. While it is necessary to provide an economic stimulus bill to be considered this year. While it is necessary to provide an economic stimulus package to jump start our currently sagging economy, I do not believe this is the time for Congress to use the economic slump and the war against terrorism as an excuse to revisit a previous tax agenda in a budget- busting frenzy. I am disheartened that the House Leadership has, again this year, chosen to give big corporations a tax break without seriously considering relief for the American workers who need immediate help. The nation's unemployment rate jumped to 5.7 percent last month, the highest level in more than six years. Nearly a half million people joined the ranks of the unemployed in November, bringing the total of 8.2 million. The rapidly increasing unemployment rate is an unfortunate trend. The rise in the number of unemployed has not, however, influenced the House Leadership to bring to the floor a bill providing substantial worker relief. Rather, they have brought an economic stimulus bill to the floor nearly identical to the one passed in October, without appreciating the suffering working families and their need for short-term assistance. They, after all, are the ones who need the money and will spend it thereby stimulating the economy by generating demand. It is critical that an economic stimulus package help those families who have lost their jobs. Furthermore, the bill will cost nearly $250 billion over five years. I cannot, in good conscience, support this reckless piece of legislation that will put our country back into deficit spending just to ensure that the Leadership secures its priority tax cuts. These tax cuts will not have the desired effect of boosting our economy; rather, they will threaten the fiscal discipline that prompted much of the 1990's economic boom. Instead of finding reasonable offsets to pay for the stimulus bill, it will be paid by taking funds out of the Social Security and Medicare surplus, which nearly everyone here in Congress agreed not to touch. In addition, a return to deficit spending will increase long-term interest rates, and will slow down any foreseeable economic recovery. This is not the time to pursue our individual agendas, it is the time to pass a fiscally responsible short-term package that pushes our economy forward and provides relief for families in need. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. This rush to cut corporate taxes to stimulate economic recovery is at best a questionable economic prescription and at worst one that could do far more harm than good.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3061 the FY2002 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations bill. I am pleased that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle came together to provide an increase of $12.5 billion over FY2001 program level. This legislation makes education a priority. It provides an increase of $6.7 billion over last year's education appropriation bill and includes a discretionary education appropriation of $48.9 billion. Furthermore, I am happy with the recent passage of H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. While this bill encompasses many reforms, one issue in which I was actively involved in during committee consideration of ESEA was improving professional development for our teachers, principals, and administrators. This year, the Teacher Quality State Grant received $2.85 billion, a 31% increase over last year's appropriation. I will continue to push for increased funding for professional development; our school leaders are critical to our children's success in the classroom. Educating our youth should be our nation's number one priority. Regarding health issues, I am a strong supporter of doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by fiscal year 2003, and complement the committee for providing an additional $3 billion. Congress' bipartisan support of medical research has led to substantial improvements in the health and well being of every American. We have now entered a new era of science with the mapping of the human genome and the potential in stem cell research. The opportunities for preventing, diagnosing, treating and curing diseases have never been greater. And, with the research and development of new vaccines to combat widespread disease epidemics, the NIH is in the forefront of the war on bioterrorism. Further, I commend the committee for increasing funds to assist rural health care needs including $1.34 billion for community health centers and $40 million for rural hospitals. Further, I am happy that $12.5 million will be provided for the Rural Access to Emergency Devices program administered through the Rural Health Outreach Office. I was the author of the legislation creating this program that gives grants to community partnerships consisting of local emergency responders, police and fire departments, hospitals, and other community organizations to purchase automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and train potential respondents in their use, as well as in basic CPR and first aid. Finally, it is imperative that we continue adequate funding for employment and training activities under the Department of Labor. During this period of economic uncertainty with workers losing their jobs each day, training and employment programs are critical in helping these workers get back on their feet. I am pleased that Congress chose to restore some of the cuts made to the programs in the administration's budget. The Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations bill is often a contentious piece of legislation. I commend my colleagues for working in a bipartisan fashion to address many of our top domestic priorities in education, health care, and training. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in support of the rule and also in support of the reauthorization act before us today. President Lyndon Baines Johnson helped usher the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act through Congress back in 1965, and he was fond of saying that nothing matters more to the future of our country than education. I believe that, and I believe the American people believe that. That is why there is such overwhelming support throughout the country for us to do more to improve the education for all our children. Is this a perfect bill? No. But it is a bill that is the product of a good process. And for that I commend the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); my colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and those who served on the conference committee for helping make the process work in away in which it is intended. This was a product of much compromise and much negotiation. The administration and the President himself injected himself in the process when we needed some logjams to be broken. I commend Sandy Kress in the role he played; Secretary Paige and the role he played; because overall this is a very good bill that advances the cause of education. It has a lot of good features in it: more funding and better targeted assistance to the most disadvantaged students in our country, the consolidation of Federal programs, and greater flexibility to school districts to better target the money in the ways they see fit to work in their own local area. There is a heavy emphasis on professional development and the recognition that we need quality teachers in the classroom. And in an area I did particular work on, an emphasis on professional development of the leadership of our school districts, principals and superintendents. But I also think there are some question marks remaining in regards to the overall bill, and one is the testing element and the accountability; whether we are providing enough resources to allow the school districts to develop and implement these tests for diagnostic purposes, and whether we are providing enough resources for remediation of those students who are falling behind. Another glaring absence is the failure of this Congress to recognize our obligation to fully fund special education. We are supposed to fund it at 40 percent. We are only funding it at 15 percent. And that is the number one most pressing financial issue affecting school districts throughout our country. It is an issue we need to address next year with the reauthorization of IDEA, while also addressing the funding issue for special education. At the beginning of this year, Congress set out to improve the quality of education in America's public schools through the reauthorization of the 35-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I am pleased that I had the opportunity to work on reauthorization of ESEA and I would like to praise my colleagues for the bipartisan effort that was put forth to enact true education reform; it is a victory for America's students. Professional Development This bill will continue the federal government's commitment to assist schools in teaching low-income and low-achieving students by offering more flexibility to schools using federal funds while requiring them to show that their student's learning is improved by the investment. While this bill encompasses many reforms, one issue in which I was actively involved during committee consideration of ESEA was improving professional development for our teachers, principals, and administrators. They are key to our children's success in school and we need to acknowledge their hard work and dedication. That is why I offered two amendments to ESEA that focused on professional development. The first amendment establishes teacher and principal corps, which are designed to recruit, prepare, and support college graduates or mid-career professionals as they begin a teaching career or pursue further professional development to become a principal. The second amendment I offered develops leadership academies, which will train the best and brightest candidates to become effective educators. The academies will focus their efforts on training current principals and superintendents to become outstanding managers and educational leaders. I am pleased that my colleagues recognize our country's need for strong leadership for our students. It is not only important to have the best principals, but recent reports estimate that 40% of today's principals are eligible to retire in the next five years, and 50% of school districts nationwide are already experiencing a principal shortage. Education Technology Technology is another tool that is critical in educating our youth in the 21st century. Technology, when used effectively, can stimulate learning, enrich lives, and create greater opportunity for our students. All students, regardless of the socioeconomic conditions of their communities or families, should be able to access and use the technology that is driving the New Economy. It is also very important to ensure that our teachers are equipped with the necessary tools and skills to use technology effectively in the classroom. I am pleased that after the initial proposed cuts in funding for technology is ESEA, that the final agreement authorized the education technology program at one billion dollars. Rural Education Initiative During committee consideration of ESEA, I also worked with several of my colleagues to ensure that ESEA included the Rural Education Initiative. This program authorizes new funding and increased flexibility for rural school districts. Across the nation, many of our rural schools cannot compete for federal education grants because they do not have adequate resources. As a result, many of our students' academic performance suffers. Furthermore, due to the fact that rural school districts do not lie near population or commercial centers and generally have small staffs, their schools have a harder time attracting personnel and taking advantage of training and technical assistance. Rural schools also frequently face higher costs associated with building infrastructure and upgrading technology. individuals with disabilities in education act (idea) Although I am pleased with the ESEA conference report, I am concerned that the government continues to impose federal mandates on the states in the area for special education, while not providing the necessary resources. In addition, these mandates are occurring when many of these states are already facing budget shortfalls. Since 1975, when IDEA was enacted, Congress told the states they must educate all children with disabilities, regardless of costs. Yet, because educating students with disabilities is typically twice as expensive as educating non-disabled students, Congress made a commitment to the states that the federal government would pay 40% of the cost of educating disabled children. But 26 years later, we have not kept that promise. Congress funds only 15% of the cost of special education. The financial burden of meeting the costs of this important program falls directly on states and local communities in every congressional district. We have an obligation to ensure that a fundamental and fair educational opportunity exists for all our students, regardless of physical or developmental ability. The lack of adequate funding for special education misses the opportunity to truly leave no child behind. mandatory testing Futhermore, I fear that this lack of funding for IDEA will ultimately result in inadequate resources for states to being implementing the mandatory annual tests. This bill imposes significant new demands on schools to annually test 3rd-8th grade students in reading and math. Although there are assurances that the Federal Government will pay its required share of the costs for the new tests if the government fails to pay its share, then the state will not be required to implement the annual tests. This is troublesome because in the end if there is not enough money to ensure accountability, then it will be the students whole will suffer. conclusion Nonetheless, I am pleased with the overall outcome of the conference report and I commend the conference committee for the hard work and dedication over the past couple of months. I am honored to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the past year on this piece of legislation, which is guaranteed to make a difference in the nation's public schools. I find satisfaction in knowing that it is within those public schools back in western Wisconsin and throughout the nation where we will find our future leaders.