Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. These are not insignificant differences, a percentage point here, a percentage point there on projected economic growth. When you project it out over 4, 5, 10 years, these numbers explode on you. And so it is important that we deal with an accurate projection and description of what the economy is doing and forecasting. When you see the OMB starting to manipulate these numbers, have these gimmicks within the bookkeeping system that have never been tried before in the last 40 years, it undermines the confidence that many of us have in the numbers that the administration is using in order to justify their budget requests. And it makes it a much more difficult proposition then to work in a bipartisan fashion to reach agreement on these important issues. That is why many of us earlier in the year when we were discussing the merits of a tax cut of this size were using more conservative numbers. Many of us supported an alternative tax proposal, one that was based on more conservative economic figures because we felt it was prudent and made fiscal sense to hedge our bets a little bit because as quickly as the surplus can appear, many of us knew it could disappear. Given the incredible size of our Nation's economy, a slight change in growth one way or the other was going to have a huge impact on budgetary decisions before this Congress. So many of us supported an alternative tax relief plan that would provide meaningful tax relief to working families, dealt with the marriage penalty, dealt with estate tax relief or family-owned businesses and family farms but within a more fiscally responsible framework, not of the magnitude of the tax cut that was ultimately passed and which is now having the most important impact on dipping into the Social Security trust fund again. The reason why many of us felt it was important to be somewhat conservative was because of the obligations our Nation faced, of Social Security, Medicare, trying to come up with a bipartisan prescription drug plan that was going to provide meaningful relief to our seniors who are suffering under this burden of escalating drug prices that they need to have, our obligations to a strong national defense, just quality of life with our military personnel. This was not going to come cheap. In fact, the President is still calling for a 9 percent increase in defense spending, roughly $20 billion that does not exist right now. It puts a lot of us in a tough position that supported many of these policy proposals but because of the slowdown because of the magnitude of the tax cut, it is going to make it very difficult for us to meet these obligations for our Nation.

Mr. KIND. I do not want to speak on behalf of my friend from Maine, but for me really the crux of the issue is what decisions can we make in this body that will set up our younger generation, the next generation, for success later on in life, so that they can meet the obligations that they are going to face when the reins of leadership turn over to them. I fear that if we make it impossible by not reducing national debt, by not shoring up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, it is going to be impossible for that next generation to meet those obligations and we will see a fiscal crisis never before witnessed in this Nation. It is almost deja vu all over again as far as economic policy. We have seen this. It is really the repeat of Reaganomics back in the early 1980s where they ushered through this huge tax cut but also simultaneously tried paying for a huge increase in defense spending which led to year after year, a whole decade's worth of deficit financing which left us in a position of dealing with a $5.7 trillion national debt. The difference between that then and what we are facing today is back then the country could afford to make that mistake, because we had time to recover. We do not have that luxury anymore. We have this aging population staring us in the face. They are going to start retiring in the next decade. We do not have the luxury of being able to deal with a fiscal mistake that was made and trying to dig ourselves out of that hole in time to prepare for this aging population. That is really the big difference between the economic policies of the early eighties and the same type of economic policy being pursued today. We do not have that margin of error in order to correct the mistakes, to dig ourselves out of debt, as we were starting to succeed in doing throughout the decades of the 1990s. Instead, we apparently have now reversed track and have jeopardized the good work being done just a few short years ago.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for organizing this Special Order and commend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for the leadership that she has shown on important issues affecting Americans across the country, the Social Security and Medicare programs which are vitally important, the passion that she has for instituting a real prescription drug plan, which was on everyone's agenda in last year's campaign. Vice President Gore, virtually every Member of Congress, when we were running for Congress last year, were talking about the need to deal with the rising cost of prescription drugs, but no one has highlighted this issue more than the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who organized this Special Order. He saw this problem quite awhile ago, and saw the impact that this was having on seniors on fixed incomes. He has been providing leadership in this Congress in trying to institute a bipartisan prescription drug plan, as well as talking about the importance of maintaining the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. That is really what this discussion is about tonight. That is why I commend the gentleman from Maine for talking about it. Mr. Speaker, it is all about how do we, given the current situation, the economic slowdown and the budget numbers that we are facing, maintain fiscal discipline in this Congress so we can maintain the solvency and protect the sanctity of the Social Security and Medicare programs. The way I see it, the greatest fiscal challenge our country is facing today is the fact that we have an aging population, a population that is getting older, and a baby boom generation who will all start to retire at basically the same time, 2015, 2020, thereabouts, and they will all be bigger, these programs, Social Security and Medicare, at about the same time. So what can we do today in order to deal with that advent we know is going to come and is going to hit our country but especially affect our children and our grandchildren that is going to make sense? One of the areas is maintaining fiscal discipline. That is why it took so long in order to turn the corner and be able to start walling off both the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. It is a pledge that virtually every Member on this floor has made over the last few years. It is a pledge that the current administration and the President in the White House now made in last year's campaign, and it is a pledge that is in serious jeopardy today in light of the new Congressional Budget Office numbers. These numbers are important, because the issue is one that is very simple, and that is being able to protect these trust funds and keep its dedicated purpose for reducing the publicly held national debt. Why is this so important? The question before us is will it be easier for us to deal with the advent of the baby boom generation going into retirement if we also have to deal simultaneously with paying off all the Federal IOUs that are in our Federal debt today? I submit that that is an impossible proposition to meet, dealing with the aging population, with the huge inflow of the population in Social Security and Medicare, paying off those IOUs that are currently in the trust fund while at the same time we are being asked to pay off the Federal debt and the publicly held Federal debt. That is why it makes such good sense, fiscal sense, to take this opportunity now of preserving this trust fund money, reducing the national debt, so we are on much sounder fiscal footing to deal with the aging population. That is really what this debate is about. Yes, the President is correct in saying that dipping into the trust fund today is not going to affect the current payments going out to current recipients. That is true. Because IOUs are still going to be added to those trust fund accounts. But if the money behind the IOUs is meaningless and spent for other purposes, then why do we not just reduce FICA taxes today, still continue to throw the paper IOUs in these trust funds and deal with it when they come due which is what I am hearing the current administration basically proposing. Mitch Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the administration, is basically saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with using the trust fund for a plus-up in defense spending, for instance, because the country is still going to meet those IOUs that are added to the trust fund. But if we are not taking this opportunity to reduce the national debt today, it is going to make it very difficult to meet those obligations in the future. I think that is such a fundamental point in this entire debate. The difference in these numbers must be important whether we are looking at Congressional Budget Office numbers or Office of Management and Budget, the administration's budget numbers, because, correct me if I am wrong and maybe the gentleman from Maine has a better memory than this, but back in 1995 when the Republican leadership in Congress decided to take on the Clinton budget numbers, it was over the stated purpose that the Clinton administration was relying on their own OMB numbers to justify their budget calculations rather than relying on the Congressional Budget Office numbers. Now we have the same situation today, where many of us are crying foul because of the bookkeeping and the gimmicks that are being played with OMB numbers, I mean some bookkeeping changes that have not been made in the last 35 years in order to pretend as if we are not dipping into these trust funds. I think there is some political rhetoric being used here in what numbers we are using, but the fundamental point is that I am hoping that this Congress and the administration working with us will be able to find a bipartisan solution to continue using the trust fund money to reduce our national debt so we are going to be in the fiscal position to deal with the aging population and the baby boomers when it comes time for them to retire and start entering these very important programs.

Mr. KIND. As the gentleman recalls, the ultimate outcome of that insistence back in 1995 led to the shutdown of the Federal Government. Because the leadership in Congress was insistent that the administration use CBO numbers rather than OMB numbers and it led to the shutdown of the government which as we later found out was not exactly popular with the vast majority of Americans throughout the country.

Mr. KIND. If the gentleman will yield further, with the drastic change in the budget numbers, and there is no sign of immediate economic recovery on the horizon, I think the responsible thing to do, one that really requires real leadership right now and a gut check, is for the administration to submit a new budget proposal, in light of the fact that their own numbers, a 7 percent increase in discretionary spending, is just not affordable right now within the context of the overall budget, unless, again, they are willing to dip into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, which I do not think there is a lot of bipartisan support to do. I think just about everyone in this Chamber now is on record supporting the lockbox proposal, walling off those trust funds, the surpluses being run in those programs for debt reduction; and that is why we are hoping that the administration, the President, will take a look at this and realize that things have changed. That is okay. Mistakes are made from time to time. But we are still in a position of being able to recover. We are not down this road that far yet. These numbers have just come out. We have not passed the next fiscal year's budget, so there is still time to recover. It is going to require, I think, a whole lot of cooperation across the aisle and shared responsibility across the aisle to make this add up, to maintain some fiscal discipline, but also meet our obligations that exist. We have an Elementary and Secondary Education Act we are trying to reauthorize that is going to require resources, bipartisan thinking, in order to solve that dilemma. We have the next farm bill reauthorization to come to the floor here shortly. Lord knows our family farmers are struggling to survive. You talk about a national security issue, food security ranks right up there at the top as well. We have that obligation to meet. We also need to be thinking long term and maintaining the solvency again of these important programs, like Social Security, Medicare, so we are not just punting on this issue, which would be the easiest thing for us to do today. I think that is one of the reasons why the President appointed his Social Security commission, because he realizes we need to take a hard honest look at this and start finding some bipartisan solutions to the challenges we face. We still have time to recover. I guess that is one hopeful note in tonight's discussion. Hopefully, we are going to get enough consensus and enough bipartisan work here in the coming weeks before the ultimate budget is passed to recover from the new economic realities and do the right thing for our kids. I have got two little boys myself. I am a little concerned about the fiscal obligations they are going to be facing. The numbers are not working in their favor right now. With the generational trends with the aging population, more and more will be asked of the next generation to deal with these challenges. We can help by starting today in dealing with accurate economic numbers and making some probably pretty difficult choices in the weeks ahead. I thank the gentleman again for organizing this Special Order and highlighting in such a coherent fashion the dilemma we are in and the challenges we face.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, the debate today is not about the technicalities of a complicated piece of legislation: who has the rebuttal presumption, what the standard of care should be, whether patients are going to be suing in Federal court for this issue or State court for that. This issue boils down to one simple proposition. If someone is in the business of making medical decisions that affect the health, welfare and lives of patients, that individual should be held to the same standard of responsibility as anyone else involved in that process, period. No exceptions. No carve-outs. No special treatments based on political contributions made in this place. That is what is at stake at the end of today's debate. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Norwood special treatment amendment and instead pass a fair Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. This is a missed opportunity today. The American people wanted us to work in a bipartisan fashion and develop a long-term, comprehensive and balanced energy policy. This underlying bill does not get us there. The underlying rule that we are debating now does not get us there. While the rule does make important amendments in order, a discussion whether we should drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, whether we should increase fuel efficiency standards for our cars and trucks, it also denies an amendment that I offered with the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) that would strike the oil royalty give-back program contained in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many of my colleagues had a chance to see the Wall Street Journal article last Tuesday that talked about the hoards of cash that the oil industry is sitting on, over $40 billion of excess cash reserves. They are swimming in it, and we are about to pass legislation that will give a multi-billion dollar royalty kickback for them to drill on the OCS. This is money that would be used to fund the Land and Water Conservation program for conservation programs and national park enhancement in this country. Mr. Speaker, this is not a balanced bill. It is not a balanced rule, and I urge ``no'' on both.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the base bill. The American people know we have a long-term energy crisis and that we need to develop a comprehensive and balanced plan. A plan that finds 21st century slolutions to deal with our 21st century energy needs. They were hoping we could work in a bipartisan fashion to accomplish it, but unfortunately this bill does not get us there. I am glad, however, that there were a couple of amendments made in order. We are going to have an honest debate on whether or not it makes sense to go into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to explore and drill for more oil. I am glad we are going to have an honest debate on increasing the fuel efficiency standards of our cars and our trucks in this country. But there were other important amendments, Mr. Chairman, that were not made in order that also deserve serious discussion. I, along with the ranking member on the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), tried introducing an amendment talking about the oil royalty giveback provision of this bill, a multibillion-dollar giveback provision that we are about to give the oil industry to do what they are already doing. I do not know how many of my colleagues saw the front-page story in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday which is titled: ``Pumping Money, Major Oil Companies Struggle to Spend Huge Hoards of Cash.'' What the report indicates is that there is over $40 billion of cash reserves that the oil industry is sitting on right now trying to figure out a way of investing it and using it. That number is going to explode to multibillion dollars more accordingly to industry analysts. Yet we are on the verge with this energy plan of giving them back billions of dollars in oil royalty relief that even the Bush administration is not asking for. I think we also need to address some of the short-term energy problems that we have. I tried offering an amendment with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that would allow the Department of Interior to recover its costs associated with oil and gas leasing on the 95 percent of the public lands that are currently accessible and available for oil and gas drilling. If we want to deal with the backlog of leasing that is existing in the Department of Interior, let us allow them to recover the costs in order to expedite that process to deal with our short-term energy needs. But that amendment was not made in order. Unfortunately this bill is not balanced. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. This debate is not about condoning slave labor in China, child labor, or religious or political persecution occurring in China. Mr. Speaker, I believe this debate is about empowering the Chinese people to make the improvements, make the positive changes that all of us in this Chamber would like to see made someday. I believe the best way to empower the Chinese people is with information: information from the outside world, information from us. And the best way we can accomplish this is through a policy of engagement, through trade, especially with greater telecommunications and Internet access within China. Just last year I had an opportunity to meet with five Chinese university students who wanted to talk with me since I serve on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I asked them, what is the most exciting thing occurring in Chinese universities? Almost all of them simultaneously said the Internet, because now we have access to outside information and ideas that we have never been exposed to before or were precluded from having. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting looking at this young crowd, thinking this is the next generation of leadership growing up in China, and if we want to see the positive, revolutionary changes occur in China that are long overdue, we need to empower them and the Chinese people. I believe the worst mistake we can make as a Congress in this new century is to pick a new cold war confrontation with the world's most populated nation after we have just concluded a very lengthy and costly cold war with the Soviet Union during most of the 20th century. The Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc nations did not collapse because of military defiance from the West. They collapsed because Gorbachev had the courage to institute perestroika and glasnost and open up their societies to the influence of the outside world, and the people realized that they were living under a failed system and policy. They stood in defiance of those governments, and the governments came down. The same potential holds true in China. Mr. Speaker, Cordell Hull, FDR's Secretary of State, was fond of saying, when goods and products cross borders, armies do not. I believe that is what is at stake here in our debate with NTR with China, getting them included in WTO as a member of the world trading community. I hope that we make that decision correctly for the sake of our children, for the sake of their children, and for the sake of a positive relationship with China and the United States as we embark together on this marvelous journey in the 21st century.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as with many of the colleagues from both sides of the aisle, I strongly support the community services provided by religious organizations throughout the Nation. We are all proud of the faith we hold and believe in the principles of selfless service encouraged by religious organizations. As I have personally witnessed in western Wisconsin, the effective and invaluable efforts put forth by religious organizations to combat such traumas as drug-addiction, and child and domestic abuse, are worthy of our continual appreciation and praise. I am, however, concerned that this legislation would undermine the successes and integrity of such programs through the introduction of more government. I am therefore unable to support this flawed legislation which, while it may be well intentioned, seeks to provide funds to religious organizations by violating our constitution and without regard to State's rights. The establishment of religion clause in the first amendment to the constitution was drafted in the recognition that state activity must be separate from church activity if people are to be free from Government interference. The Founders did not intend this provision as anti- religious, but instead realized this is the way to protect religion while simultaneously protecting the people's rights to worship freely. America was founded by people seeking freedom from religious persecution by fleeing lands that contained religious strife and even warfare. To infringe on the separation of church and state is to infringe on the miracle and fundamental principles of American democracy. It is this principle that not only allows our government to operate by the will of the people, but also allows religious entities to conduct themselves without Government regulation and intrusion. When the line between church and state is an issue in policy, the highest scrutiny must be applied to ensure that principle prevails. I do not believe this legislation would pass such constitutional scrutiny. The Founders also recognized the dangers of State sponsored favoritism toward any religion. This bill will not only pit secular agencies against religious organizations, it will pit religion against religion for the competition of limited public funds. Under current law, there are Federal tax incentives for individuals to donate to charitable organizations, including the religious organizations of their choice. In addition, religious groups have always had the ability to apply and receive federal funding for the purpose of providing welfare related programs and services after they form 501(c)(3) organizations. Entities including Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Service have a long history of participation in publicly funded social service programs. The conditions associated with the provision of these services, however, require the religious organizations to be secular in nature-- in accordance with the establishment of religion clause in the first amendment to the Constitution, as well as adhere to federal, state or local civil rights laws. H.R. 7 would remove these preconditions, allowing for public funding to go toward discriminatory and exclusionary practices that violate the intentions of hard fought civil rights. In addition to the constitutionality of the legislation, we must also question how the provisions contained in the bill would be implemented and enforced. Supporters of H.R. 7 claim the bill contains safeguards that would prohibit public funding from going to proselytization and other strictly religious activities. Even if these safeguards existed, which they do not, how do we police these organizations to ensure compliance? If we find violations do we then fine the churches or prosecute Catholic priests, Methodist ministers or Lutheran pastors? The road we are taking with this legislation leads to these serious questions about regulations imposed on organizations that receive Federal funds. The strings attached to entities receiving federal funds are there to ensure applicable laws are obeyed and accountability exists. It is precisely these types of provisions that will inhibit religious organizations from maintaining their character, and it would be negligent of us as public servants to waive these provisions. This situation serves to illustrate why this bill should be opposed. The substitute to this bill, offered by Mr. Rangel, guards against the possibility of publicly funded discrimination by not overriding State and local civil rights laws, as well as offsetting the costs associated with this legislation. In addition to being unconditional, H.R. 7 is indeed expensive. While it is not as expensive as the President had originally envisioned, it will cost over $13 billion with no offsets. With passage of the President's tax cut, there is simply no money to pay for this bill without taking from the Medicare and Social Security Trust funds. A problem that will not go away as we mark up the rest of next year's budget. With all the problems associated with this bill, I ask my colleagues to vote against H.R. 7, and support the Rangel substitute.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of the motion to go to conference on H.R. 1. I want to commend the leadership first of all on the committee, the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for working hard and trying to produce a good bipartisan product which we could report out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and bring to the House floor and receive overwhelming bipartisan support. I think this is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill. It calls for greater consolidation of a lot of Federal programs with increased flexibility back to local school districts on how best to utilize those resources that will be provided to them. It calls for greater investment in professional development programs of our teachers, given a 2.2 million teacher retirement over the next 10 years, as well as an investment in the leadership of our school districts, with principals and superintendents. It also calls for money to better integrate the use of technology in classroom curriculum, so our students graduating are going to be prepared to compete in the 21st century new economy. It is a bill that calls for reform with results. It also holds school districts responsible with accountability, mandatory testing programs, so we can measure the students' progress. I am hoping that in conference, attention will be paid to providing enough resources for the remediation of students who are being measured and who are falling behind at their skills level, so we can bring them back up to the rest of their classmates so they, too, can succeed. There were some features of this bill I think that we missed the call on. I think it is time for this Congress to take action to provide some matching grant money back to local school districts to put in place pre-K schooling opportunities. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin just did the most long-term, 15-year comprehensive study of the pre-K program in the Chicago public school district and found that those students who are participating are less likely to commit juvenile offenses, more likely to stay in school, and perform better on tests than their classmates, and are more likely to graduate and go on to postsecondary education. I also think that this Congress is not living up to our promise to fully fund special education opportunities for students with special needs. The promise was made 25 years ago that we would fund 40 percent of the expense of special education costs. Today we are slightly less than 15 percent. If there is one piece of work that this Congress can do this year that will alleviate the pressures and the financial burdens that school districts throughout the country feel, it is to live up to our promise to fully fund special education. I hope that, too, is a source of conversation with the conferees.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, again we are brought together to debate the rights of a free people against the honor and meaning of our national flag--to debate the necessity of providing legal protection to the most honored and recognized symbol of freedom in the world. This is not a matter to be approached carelessly, and I appreciate this opportunity to reaffirm my faith in the Constitution and the Wisdom of our Nation's founders. If there is one bright shining star in our Constitutional constellation, it is the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. That is the amendment that embodies the very essence upon which our democracy was founded because it stands for the proposition that anyone in this country can stand up and criticize this government and its policies without fear of prosecution. But here we are yet again in the 107th Congress debating an amendment that would seriously weaken the First Amendment and Freedom of expression in this country. There are few things that evoke more emotion, passion, pride or patriotism than the American flag; I recognize that. But I am forced to question the need for a Constitutional amendment to remedy a problem that doesn't seem to exist, or provide legal protection to something that doesn't seem endangered. As a matter of occurrence, the recorded incidence of public flag desecration is extremely rare. While this explanation, on its face, is not sufficient to oppose to this amendment, it illustrates an inherent respect for the flag and a recognition of what it means to American history and the individuals who gave their life in protection of the freedoms and way of life we cherish everyday. To attempt to enforce this understanding through legal means serves to undermine this self-realization and only encourage the proliferation of such acts because of the attention some people crave. Now I want to be clear. I am going to oppose this amendment, not because I condone or I do not feel repulsed by the senseless act of disrespect that is shown from time to time against one of the most cherished symbols of our country, the American flag. But because I recognize that our constitution can be a pesky document sometimes. It challenges us, and it reminds us that this democracy of ours requires a lot of hard work. It was never meant to be easy. Our democracy, rather, is all about advanced citizenship. It is about the rights and liberties embodied in the Constitution that will put up a fight against what we believe and value most in our lives. We have to recognize that free speech means exactly that, free speech. It is the right of anyone in this nation to peaceably express his or her beliefs about the government directly to the government without fear of tyrannical retaliation. As stated by Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war James H. Warner on this matter, ``rejecting this amendment would . . . tell the world that freedom of expression means freedom, even for those expressions we find repugnant.'' This protection of freedom is what advanced citizenship is about. This is the challenge of the Constitution, and yes, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the repulsive disrespect and the idiotic act of desecrating the American flag is freedom of expression protected under the First Amendment. As former Supreme Court Justice Jackson said in the Barnette decision, and I quote: ``Freedom to differ cannot just be limited to those things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the very heart of the existing order.'' On this matter, I also agree with the statements of former General and current Secretary of State Colin Powell. When asked for his views on the amendment before us, Secretary Powell stated, ``. . . the First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. This flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away. . . .'' In another opinion I urge my colleagues to hear, former Senator, and American hero, John Glenn stated in his opposition to this amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 106th Congress, ``That commitment to freedom is encapsulated and encoded in our Bill of Rights, perhaps the most envied and imitated document anywhere in this world. The Bill of Rights is what makes our country unique. It is what has made us a shining beacon of hope, liberty, of inspiration to oppressed peoples around the world for over 200 years . . .'' We must cherish the history and meaning of bill of rights and realize the impact of our actions here today. Are a few acts of senseless desecration the motivation for passing this amendment to the Constitution? There are other ways of dealing with content neutral acts. If someone steals my flag, they can be prosecuted for theft and trespassing. If they steal my flag and burn it, they can be prosecuted for theft, trespass, and criminal damage to property. If they burn it on a crowded subway station, they can also be prosecuted for inciting a riot, reckless endangerment, criminal damage to property and theft. There are other ways that this type of conduct can be prosecuted, but if someone buys a flag, goes down in their basement and, because they do not like the government, decides to desecrate it or burn it, are we going to obtain search warrants and arrest warrants to go in and arrest that person and prosecute them? We do not need to do that. Make no doubt about it, this amendment will do nothing less than amend the First Amendment of the Bill of rights for the first time in our Nation's history. And it sets a precedent that the fundamental protections afforded to the American people, the freedoms that portray what America is, do not really protect all that is claimed. It is for these reasons that I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment and not change 212 years of history in this country.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this amendment and urge my colleagues to support the amendment which would preserve funding for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I also want to extend my gratitude to my colleagues for introducing this important amendment. The Heritage Rivers Initiative is entirely voluntary and locally- driven. This program is composed of local river pilots who work for a federal agency. These pilots help communities locate the resources they need to improve water quality, reduce flood losses, and promote environmental and riverfront development along some of the nation's significant waterways, including the Upper Mississippi River. This program has been extremely successful in the designated areas along the Upper Mississippi River that include 58 communities in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri. Along the Upper Mississippi River, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative has been instrumental in bringing communities together to link existing trails and greenways, establish and improve interpretive centers, restore habitat and promote riverfront revitalization. I fully support this program, and I also support the proposed designations of Alma and Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak in support of this amendment and the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, today the House is considering funding for the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture appropriations bill. This bill provides funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. As a Member of Congress from a large agricultural district who is also concerned about this Nation's long-term fiscal health, I am concerned that this measure is yet another repeat of past agriculture spending packages--where Congress is providing fewer-and-fewer farmers with financial assistance. The failure of this Congress to make fundamental changes to existing agriculture policy, which had led to many farmers being driven off their land due to the perverse financial incentives, is beyond reasonable belief. It is my hope that future agriculture policy will be equitable, providing federal assistance--when needed--to all producers. It is my hope that future agriculture policy respects the broad diversity of rural America. It is my hope that future agriculture policy provides for clean and safe drinking water, along with improved soil and air quality. Mr. Chairman, this measure obviously covers more than just financial assistance to American farmers. In addition, it provides important funding for nutrition programs, food inspection, and safety. For these reasons, it is very important that this measure is passed.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and commend the subcommittee leadership on their very timely and efficient work on this important piece of legislation. I was especially happy to see the committee's recognition of better preserving and protecting the Mississippi River Basin. As co-chair of the bipartisan Mississippi River Task Force, I was happy to see them increase funding by a few million dollars to the important Environmental Management Program above what the Administration requested in their budget. This is a five-State collaboration program that also involves USGS, the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, which involves Habitat Restoration Projects along the Mississippi River and a long- term resource monitoring scientific program to better determine what exactly is happening in that very valuable ecosystem within the Mississippi River Basin. We were hoping as a task force to have the funding increased even more, closer to the full $33 million funding that the program is permanently authorized for right now. We are hoping, as the process moves forward, we will be able to continue to work with the leadership to try to increase the funding to bring the program up to scale where it is needed. I was, however, disappointed that there was zero funding allocated to the Challenge 21 program of the Corps of Engineers. This is a nonstructural approach to flood mitigation in this country. Obviously, we have had some very terrible floods in the upper Mississippi region. I think there are a lot of things that can be done as far as nonstructural flood mitigation that Challenge 21 would specifically target. We are hoping again that, as more information becomes known about this very important program, we are going to be able to finally get some funding to it. Finally, I want to commend the committee for recognizing, I feel, the bipartisan support that exists in Congress for the important investments that need to be made in alternative and renewable energy sources. I believe everyone here recognizes that any realistic, comprehensive, long-term energy plan has to involve the important role of alternative and renewable energy sources in order to meet our long- term energy needs and sustain growth in this country. So I commend the committee for their work. Obviously, I believe that there are some things that we need to stay focused on and continue working hard to try to accomplish.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, but I also want to express some disappointment with the lack of any type of funding for conservation programs within this farm supplemental bill for 2001. While there is no doubt that our Nation's farmers, ranchers and foresters are struggling financially, this measure merely continues the failed economic policies of the current farm bill, directs cash transfers that many of us believe distort the marketplace and drives commodity prices even further down. The next farm bill, which the House is currently considering, must be more inclusive and provide creative new revenue streams to assist our Nation's family farmers. It is my hope that voluntary incentive-based conservation programs which provide landowners with much-needed revenue while also assisting them in meeting soil, air and water environmental compliance is a part of the new farm bill. For instance, programs such as Wetlands Reserve, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Programs and the Farmland Protection Program not only help our farmers to promote preservation of open space, habitat for wildlife and improve water quality, but they also increase farm profitability. Two-thirds of America's farmers do not benefit from any traditional income support programs under the current farm bill. Furthermore, more than 90 percent of USDA payments go to only one-third of America's farmers who produce commodity crops. For example, States such as California and Florida receive less than 3 cents from USDA for every dollar they earn. Conservation payments provide an important source of funding that allows farmers throughout all regions of the country to retain their land while providing benefits to society, including cleaner drinking water and improved recreational opportunities. Currently, funding levels are insufficient to meet the demands of conservation programs. Three out of every four farmers, ranchers and private forest landowners are turned away when they seek to participate and help protect habitat and improve the quality of drinking water supplies through these land conservation programs. Mr. Speaker, I hope the conservation funding aspect becomes a major feature of the next farm bill. I look forward to working with the leadership on that.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. First of all, we appreciate the work that is being done in the Committee on Appropriations between the chairman and the ranking member and the subcommittee chairman and ranking member, but the fight is not here with this amendment. The fight is with an administration that submitted a budget that drastically reduced energy research programs by between 48 and 52 percent across the board, whether it was alternative or renewable energy sources. It is also an administration that claims that they will restore funding to these programs but only after they collect oil royalties from drilling up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If there is a skewing of priorities here, I would submit it is with the administration in their energy plan and the budget that they had submitted. This weatherization program is important to people across the country, not only in my district in western Wisconsin but throughout the United States. In light of the fact that we just passed a large tax cut about a month ago which disproportionately benefits the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country, this weatherization program assists low-income families in order to weatherize their homes and businesses so that they can better deal with the rising energy costs that are sweeping across the country right now. Just a couple of short months after the Vice President's now infamous statement that conservation may be a noble value but it is not any real underpinning of a sensible energy policy, the State of California has reduced their energy consumption by 11 percent, which shows you the value of conservation and increased energy efficiency in this country. That is all this amendment is trying to do, bolster those types of programs in energy conservation, in energy efficiency for low-income families, as well as provide some much needed revenue relief back to local districts with the PILT program who are financing the nontaxable Federal property that exists in their local communities. That is why we feel that this amendment is eminently fair, why we need to make this investment. I appreciate my friend from Vermont highlighting some of the difficulties a lot of analysts have revealed in regard to the coal research program, which I think needs further exploration. Mr. Chairman, much of the focus on our current energy crisis has been the rising price of gasoline. But in my district and throughout the country, the price of heating oil has risen as much as 40 percent in the past year. Conservation efforts such as the Weatherization Assistance Program go a long way to helping us become less dependent on foreign oil. The Weatherization Assistance Program helps correct the disproportionate energy burden faced by low-income Americans. The program has helped make over five million homes more energy efficient and the average home has seen heating savings of 23 percent. With many low-income households spending over $1,100 on energy costs annually, this energy efficiency savings can further help these families afford the basic necessities of life. Mr. Chairman, we do not want any of our citizens having to make the difficult choice between food and fuel. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Resources for yielding me this time. As ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, I rise in strong support of the Rahall amendment that prohibits funding for new leasing for oil and gas exploration in our national monuments. Mr. Chairman, Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling in his grave right now. A great Republican conservationist, he was the first President to use his powers of the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments throughout the country. Now, 100 years later, a Republican President is suggesting opening up these same very precious lands to oil and gas exploration. Our national monuments should be the last place open for energy development, not the first. We should instead be focusing on effectively managing the millions of acres of Federal land that are already available for energy development. In fact, the work we have been doing in the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and I have demonstrated that 95 percent of the available Federal lands are already accessible to oil and gas exploration. We should be keeping our focus on that rather than the remaining 5 percent that is not. Granted, there may be some permitting problems that have come out during the course of these hearings that we need to work through, but there is sufficient Federal lands already for the oil and gas energy needs that this country faces. Rather than opening our national monuments to oil drilling, we should instead bring balance to our national energy policy by developing renewable and alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, and biomass. We should be increasing our funding for those programs instead of cutting them, as the administration now proposes. We should also be encouraging the development of hybrid cars in this country. The big three in this country have fallen behind the competitive scale when it comes to developing these hybrids, which are more energy efficient and more environmentally friendly. We have waiting lines across the country of consumers wanting to buy the foreign-made hybrid cars. So there is a market demand for this, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, the American people would like to see more fuel efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles, not more drilling in the national monuments, and so I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 168, a resolution conveying the sense of the House of Representatives that America's schools should honor the contributions of native Americans to our history, culture, and education. As our Nation enters into the 21st century, it is important that we recognize the elements that have shaped our history and our culture. The contributions made by native Americans represent a significant aspect of American heritage, not only in a cultural sense, but also in the sacrifices, dedication, and patriotism displayed throughout our history. I am a cosponsor of this legislation because our Nation's schools present the most opportune situation for young people to recognize and appreciate the diverse society in which we live, and understand the history that has brought us to where we are. In my home State of Wisconsin, there are 11 federally recognized tribes representing close to 50,000 American citizens. In addition, a large number of Wisconsin cities, counties, lakes, and rivers hold names representative of the strong native American heritage in the area. To strengthen understanding of the issues relating to native American history in the State, Wisconsin passed language in the 1989-91 biennial budget requiring schools teach students about the culture, history, sovereignty, and treaty rights of Wisconsin Indian Tribes, as well as providing training to teachers on these issues. This legislation encourages teachers, administrators, and students around the Nation to lead community efforts honoring native American contributions to our national history and culture. As a member of the native American caucus, I appreciate the focus this resolution puts on accomplishments made by schools in teaching social history lessons that recognize the role of native Americans, and I am hopeful such efforts continue.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. It is a great question. No. One of the more frustrating aspects of the budget resolution debate that we had earlier this year, the context of the tax cut debate that we had earlier this year was that there was in fact no provision, no asked-for appropriation for the ongoing deployment of a missile defense system within the administration. All this has got to add up. It should add up within the context of a balanced budget, one that does not jeopardize the fiscal solvency of the current generation or future generations. That again is more information which is lacking from the administration. Cost estimates that I am hearing from some of the engineers, some of the experts who would be in charge of deploying such a system, range anywhere from $100 billion to $200 billion over a 10-year period. I just had a conversation with former Senator Sam Nunn this afternoon. He said that whatever figure you get, you might as well double or triple that amount because it is going to be inherently difficult to do this in a fiscally responsible manner without the defense contractors opening up and the subcontractors wanting their piece of the deployment pie. But even more fundamentally, we have had test after test after test in trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, that is, the missile defense test. Each time it has failed. Obviously we do not today have the current technological capability to pull it off. I think that is one of the misunderstandings that the general American public might have. They see that we have gone to the Moon, they see all this great technological development around us and how it is transforming our lives and many of them may just assume that we have the technological smarts to do this, to knock the bullet out of the air with another bullet when in fact when all the preconditions and the inputted variables are in the test to begin with, the tests are still failing. That is a fundamental issue that we need to keep asking ourselves, is should we first have the technological means to do it before we deploy or just move forward with deployment regardless of the cost and regardless of the effectiveness of the system?

Mr. KIND. It is interesting. The President is abroad right now in Europe trying to sell at least partly on this trip the merits of his missile defense program. It was interesting to read some comments from some of the military experts within France who kind of chuckled at the thought. They are not obviously enthusiastic supporters of the program. They said, well, we kind of tried that, too, after the First World War. It was called the Maginot Line, trying to deal with a perceived threat. Obviously we saw how well that worked during the Second World War. Once the enemy saw what type of defense system was deployed, they figured out a way to get around it. That is the concern really for a lot of our allies, our European allies whom we are going to have to rely on and work with in order to bring greater stability across the globe. That I think is a very, very important issue. I think all of us here in the House have seen the defense reviews from CIA, from the Defense Department, ranking the real threats that we face today, from the greatest threats to the least threat. Missile defense, a launch of a nuclear missile basically airmailed to us because we will know exactly where it was launched from and who sent it, is one of the least likely threats we face right now in our national security basket. More likely it would come from biological terrorism or shipping a nuclear device in a boat up the Hudson or up the Potomac River, for instance, than someone would just airmail a nuclear weapon towards us. Yet what is most troubling with the Bush administration's approach to this is they are defunding a lot of the important nonproliferation programs we have in place at the Department of Energy right now and the nuclear collaboration programs that we need to be pursuing and funding in order to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation or terrorism across the globe. Yet in the budget that they submitted, there were serious funding cutbacks in an area that we should be encouraging and investing wisely in. That I think is another serious issue. Again, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for claiming some time this evening to talk about this very important issue. I have a feeling we have not had the last word on this subject.

Mr. KIND. I think as far as the two initial questions that I have, there are some huge question marks in regards to how expensive this is going to be, whether or not we can in fact deploy a system that is going to work but, finally, is this going to make us more or less secure in the final analysis? My friend from Massachusetts recognized that a lot of the experts working on this system are hoping for maybe an 80 percent effectiveness rate. Well, 80 percent quite frankly does not cut it. If you have got multiple missiles being launched at us, what city are we going to sacrifice? Is that going to be acceptable? I do not think it gives us much more flexibility in foreign policy negotiations with rogue nations if we just have an 80 percent effective system. But perhaps more importantly is what is going to be the response of Russia and China to even a limited missile defense shield? Is this going to encourage increased nuclear proliferation within their country? Because generally the response from countries that feel threatened from such a system is to ramp up their production of more nuclear weapons so they can overwhelm our system. It is not just China we are talking about. This has profound ramifications with India and Pakistani nuclear policy, perhaps one of the most dangerous areas of nuclear proliferation on the globe right now. We need to ask ourselves what will be the response of these other nations. Even though the Bush administration is claiming that such a shield is not meant to better Russia or China but rather the rogue nuclear threat that may exist out there at some point in the future, but I am still not convinced that our handling of foreign policy as it relates to China is the best course of action right now. We are very close to engaging them in a new Cold War atmosphere as we start the 21st century when I feel it can be ultimately avoided.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for the leadership he has shown in raising the education level in this body and hopefully throughout the country in regards to the importance of this debate, and a thorough study and analysis of the various proposals that we are hearing coming out of the Bush administration. I am glad we have with us as a colleague in this Chamber our own solar physicist, a former employee at the Nuclear Fusion Laboratory at Princeton, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), because what we are talking about is rocket science, and it is nice to have his perspective in regard to the technological capability that we currently possess on such an important but expensive program. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to engage in a thorough analysis or conversation or review of what the Bush administration is talking about in regards to a missile defense system because I am not sure they know what this system is going to look like ultimately. How do you get into the details of a policy proposal when the details are lacking?

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for making that point. It is an important point. It is a little bit frustrating as we are trying to get more information from the administration to find out exactly what their vision is in regards to missile defense: Is it going to just be land- based or sea-based, air-based? Is it going to involve a space-based type of missile defense system? Is it going to be a limited defense system? Is it going to be a national missile defense system or a universal application which we will share with our allies or any country in the globe who wants it? Because what kind of moral position would we be taking if we do in fact develop the technical means to deploy a system such as this but not offer it to other nations around the globe when an intentional or an accidental launch of a nuclear weapon could result in tens of thousands or millions of casualties in a particular country? This is what we need to keep asking the administration about. I for one am not sure if it is the right moral position to just come out and oppose any type of system at all. There is a lot of discussion about a rogue madman launching a nuclear missile at the United States, but there is also the possibility of these missiles falling into the wrong hands, a possible terrorist gaining control of some launch capability in Russia, for instance, I think is a real possibility, or even an accidental launch and what kind of position would we be in then if we were not at least going forward on the research and development and exploring the feasibility of this type of system at some point in the future. But for me at least fundamentally there are three overriding questions that I am waiting to get answers for. Firstly, will it work? Do we have the technological capability of pulling it off? Secondly, how much is it going to cost the American taxpayers to deploy such a system? And, thirdly, even if we do find something that works and we can deploy it, is it going to make the United States more or less secure in the final analysis?

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about safety. No one supports a policy that allows a violent or dangerous student to stay in the classroom. This amendment is about having an alternative program for children with special needs. Not having that contained in this amendment is wrong. What is even more wrong is the fact that this was the only amendment made in order dealing with one of the most pressing challenges facing schools districts; how to meet the challenge of educating children with special education needs. The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and I offered an amendment that talked about getting the Federal Government to live up to its 40 percent cost share of special education expenses. Unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order. We should have that debate on the floor as a part of the elementary and secondary education bill because every Member can bring anecdotal evidence to this Chamber that shows the pressing financial costs that school districts are facing because we are only funding our responsibility of special education at slightly less than 15 percent when we promised to fund it at 40 percent. We need to help school districts stop pitting student against student because the limited resources that they have available for one of the fastest growing expenses in school budgets, meeting the needs of special students in the classroom. That's the debate we should be having today instead of an amendment that will make it easier to punish those students.