Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to honor the many flood relief volunteers who have worked tirelessly these past few weeks throughout my home congressional district along the Mississippi River in western Wisconsin. Through their many acts of selfless dedication, they rose as one to meet the challenges of adversity brought on by the flooding waters. In fact, Madam Speaker, Tawni and I are kind of redefining the term ``feel your pain,'' because on Easter morning, Tawni and I and our two little boys, Johnny and Matt, woke up to discover that the Mississippi River was to the east of us rather than to the west of us. We thought now may be a good time to load the boys in a canoe and paddle to high ground to seek safe shelter elsewhere. In fact, many of the church bulletins on Easter morning read ``He has risen and so has the river.'' While some of us had to temporarily leave our houses and others lost possessions, I believe all of us gained something very valuable being witness to the extraordinary efforts made by friends, neighbors and strangers alike, all helping each other in a shared time of need. Madam Speaker, I would like to specifically commend both the American Red Cross, who provided over 10,000 meals to residents, emergency workers, and volunteers, as well as providing much-needed temporary shelter for those displaced from their homes, as well as the Salvation Army, who provided additional assistance by preparing meals for weary workers and residents. In addition, I wish to recognize the men and women of Wisconsin's fire departments, police departments, the National Guard, and all other emergency personnel who worked unceasingly to pump the water out and man the barriers to stem the force of the flooding. Madam Speaker, lastly, the faith I have always had in our Nation's youth proved to be well founded when the students from the Challenge Academy at Fort McCoy, Fountain City High School, Winona High School, Boscobel and Prairie du Chien High School, as well as students at the University of Wisconsin La-Crosse, Winona State University, and a number of other schools spent their time and, for some, their spring breaks to help fill and stack sandbags and man the dikes and levees during this time of need. Madam Speaker, the multitude of ways residents of western Wisconsin found to help each other was truly inspiring. It is at times like these when one better appreciates what Wisconsin people are all about. There is still work to be done to recover from this year's flooding and to assure that we are well prepared if such events occur in the future, but we know that the community spirit fostered by the acts of generosity and the selflessness by people of Wisconsin's Third Congressional District will be long remembered long after the mighty Mississippi returns to its gentle and peaceful pace. I wish to also extend thanks to community leaders who reacted quickly and effectively to control the flooding and provide aid to those directly affected by it. Special thanks need to go out to the mayors of these water communities, as well as county emergency government officials, who made advanced flood preparation and coordinated relief efforts as possible. I especially want to recognize a few individuals by name: Crawford County Emergency Government Director Roger Martin; Grant County Emergency Director Steve Braum; La Crosse County Emergency Director Al Spalding; La Crosse Public Works Director Pat Caffrey; Trempealeau County Emergency Government Director William Zagorski, who had just started the job 2 weeks prior to the flooding. Talk about getting your feet wet in a new position. Buffalo County Emergency Director Monica Herman, Pierce County Emergency Director Myrna Larrabee, Vernon County Management Director Cindy Ackerman, St. Croix Emergency Management Director Jack Colvard, and Pepin Emergency Management Director John Egli. All served the people of western Wisconsin extremely well, and I extend my gratitude to them. Much appreciation and thanks go out to the members of the community and of the region who pulled together during the time of need. It truly was inspiring seeing how people in a particular region can really come together for a common cause.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina for his comments and insight today and for his participation in this discussion. He raises a lot of valid points. Those who are most adversely affected by the increased energy costs, whether it is in the western part of the State or the eastern, are small business owners, operating on the margin and people on fixed incomes. When they see an energy blip, it has a huge impact on their family budgets. It is the farmers who are getting hit with not only increased energy costs, but also increased fertilizer costs, which is a terrible problem for them. That is why we need a comprehensive, long-term solution and not something short term that calls for more drilling, and that is going to take about a decade before we get the increased reserves to the marketplace to make a real difference.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for participating tonight. I think the overall theme in tonight's discussion is we are looking for 21 century solutions to the challenges we are facing in this century and not a throw-back plan that would be better suited for the 19th century or the first part of the 20th century. In fact, what was striking about the Bush administration's energy plan that came out last week was how similar it was to the plan that was actually proposed under the Reagan administration. In fact, former Interior Secretary James Watt was recently quoted in the Denver Post in regards to the similarity of the plans they were pursuing back in the early 1980s compared to what the new administration is talking about today in 2001. This is what former Secretary of the Interior James Watt had to say, and I quote: ``Everything Cheney is saying, everything the President is saying, they are saying exactly what we were saying 20 years ago, precisely. Twenty years later, it sounds like they have just dusted off the old work.'' Yet, there has been a lot of progress that has been made in the advancement of technology and energy efficiency over the last couple of decades, and it is an area, it is a policy area that we, within the new Democratic coalition, want to emphasize more, want to use and rely upon more as we are trying to increase energy efficiency and conservation as a part of the long-term solution. Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who has been sitting patiently for a while, a colleague of mine who serves on the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. KIND. May I ask a question before the gentleman leaves?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues who will be joining us this evening will continue our discussion that we had last week in regards to our national energy policy. Mr. Speaker, most of the Nation and the world realizes that the Bush administration has come out with a detailed plan that they announced last week. The Members of the new Democratic Coalition in the House have an energy plan that we announced last week, announcing principles, values, and policy statements that we want to work on as we move forward in this session of Congress to try to find some long-term solutions to our 21st century energy challenges. We do face challenges as we start this new century; and hopefully we will find some solutions to these challenges. That is why we in the Democratic Coalition believe that the best approach is one that calls for balance. We are not going to turn our short-term energy needs and dependence on fossil fuel and the burning of fossil fuels, turn that around overnight, but any sensible and reasonable long-term energy policy, and hopefully we will enact in legislation later this year, is going to be looking at the development and use of modern technology, the use and greater reliance on alternative and renewable energy sources, the importance of investing in the current energy infrastructure that we have in this country which has become very outdated, and trying to figure out how we can move energy more efficiently and cost effectively in areas of surplus to areas of deficits. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the areas that we hope to elevate in the national debate and engage the American people on. I also want to take exception to a couple of proposals that the Bush administration announced last week. They said all of the right words, and there is a lot of good statements in the energy plan that they sent up to the Hill in book form, National Energy Policy. A couple of concerns that I personally have is that they are relying a tremendous amount in their energy solution on the development of more exploration and more drilling in one of the last pristine places in the United States, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. I am ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources in the Committee on Resources here in Congress. We have had eight hearings already on energy resources on public lands. Many Members in this Chamber would be surprised to learn that roughly 95 percent of our public lands are already open and available for energy exploration. In fact, we had one of the largest expansions of public land access over the last 8 years in the Clinton administration. Instead of trying to develop those resources that are already available and that the infrastructure needs to be developed in order to extract, the new administration wants more, more drilling and more drilling in one of the most protected and pristine places in the United States, the ANWR. In the energy plan, the administration also says the right things in regard to the need to develop alternative renewable energy sources. When you look at the details of the energy proposal, that investment would only occur after oil is drilled and extracted from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, it is from the oil royalties collected from the drilling of oil in ANWR that would then be used, at least partially, in order to fund the alternative and renewable energy research and development that needs to take place in this country. I find that a little disheartening. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are trying to convince the American people that we are for this, too; but only after we have more reliance on the fossil fuel development, more reliance on the drilling of oil up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, rather than treating it as a stand- alone part of the puzzle that it deserves to be. In fact, if you were to match the administration's record on their energy proposal with the priority that they established in the budget that they submitted to the Congress earlier this year, the rhetoric, quite frankly, does not match the action. In fact, when one looks at the energy efficiency program at the Department of Energy, the new administration is proposing a $20 million cutback from the previous year's level. On the R&D programs at the DOE, there is roughly $41 million or a 23 percent cutback on the R&D programs at the DOE. These R&D cuts include a $48 million cut in buildings, research and standards programs; a $12 million cut in the Federal energy management programs; a $61 million cut in the industry programs; a $16 million cut in transportation programs; over $3 million in policy and management of alternative and renewables. When you look at the energy program that exists, the administration is calling for roughly a 36 to 50 percent cut across the board in most of these programs: 48 percent less with the wind-power program; 48 percent less with the geothermal power program; 48 percent less in the development of hydrogen energy sources; 86 percent less for concentrating solar power. Obviously there is a mismatch between the rhetoric and the administration's energy plan and what they submitted in the course of their budget proposal this year in Congress. We are hoping to work with them. Mr. Speaker, energy should not be a partisan issue. We need to find a bipartisan solution to an issue that affects all regions of the country, whether East Coast or West Coast or middle of America which I represent. This is having an impact on people with fixed incomes and on economic growth in this country. California, if they were a stand-alone country, would be the fourth largest economy in the entire world; and yet that State is experiencing rolling blackouts. It is going to take a concentrated effort at the local, State, and Federal level to find some long-term solutions. That is why we in the Democratic Coalition are advocating both balance in our energy approach but also greater reliance on the technology that is available and being developed today and the potential of increased energy efficiency, whether in our homes, businesses or cars that we use to get around this country. That is the type of bipartisan, balanced approach that we are hoping to be able to work with our colleagues across the aisle in this session of Congress, with the new administration. The energy plan that they submitted last week, albeit a starting document, has a lot of good features in it, but also a lot of features which require more scrutiny and closer debate, not the least of which is giving the FERC eminent domain power to force States in where they are going to locate their transmission lines. I personally am reluctant to give that eminent domain authority to a Federal agency, basically dictating the States and localities where their energy lines are going to have to run. That is going to require extensive debate at the local level to find the best route for many of these transmission lines that most of us agree are needed to meet the long-term energy needs. We are hoping during the course of the next hour to get varying viewpoints and different ideas. Mr. Speaker, let me recognize the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), one of the foremost thinkers when it comes to fuel cell potential in this country, someone who has been working in a bipartisan fashion with a very good piece of legislation.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), my friend, for his comments tonight and for joining us in this important discussion. Obviously, this is the beginning of a long discussion and a much needed debate in this country trying to develop a 21st century energy policy to meet the challenges that exist today. Again, if we can bring balance, if we can utilize the technology that is available, increase energy, efficiency and conservation, I think that is going to be the best long-term solution.

Mr. KIND. On that point, this is actually a perfect segue into a map that I brought with me this evening talking about the potential of the renewable and alternative energy sources that already exist within our own country. In the upper left corner here we show the potential for biomass and biofuel resources throughout the country, albeit more predominant in the eastern part of this country and also the West Coast, but nevertheless, a tremendous potential. It is one of the farm industry criticisms of the Bush energy plan is how little attention or interest they have in developing the biomass and biofuel resources that we have in the country. It could be a win for the consumer; it could also be a win for the farm producers that exist throughout the country. Lord knows, they are looking for a win at this point. But also there could be solar energy potential, too. In some regions the potential is much greater than other regions, but virtually every region of this country can certainly develop solar power potential to a much greater extent than we have today. Geothermal resources, the Bureau of Land Management released this map showing the geothermal potential that exists in the country. There are a lot of uses of it already in Nevada, Utah, California, Hawaii, in particular, but there is also potential in the middle States of the country. The small country of Kenya in Africa is moving aggressively with this geothermal power, and they are anticipating 35 percent of their energy needs over the next decade will be generated by geothermal power. Then finally wind resources, which basically covers the map as well, and there is where we have seen some of the greatest efficiency in recent years. They have gone in the last 3 years from 30 cents per kilowatt hour in producing wind power to roughly 3 cents to 5 cents per kilowatt hour making it very market competitive. These are some of the ideas that many of us are calling for in the development of alternative and renewable energy sources that should be a part of the overall energy solution, rather than increased reliance and dependence on the extraction of fossil fuels and the burning of fossil fuels in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. KIND. Am I correct in stating that the space shuttle is already being fueled by fuel cells?

Mr. KIND. The gentleman mentioned the by-product of fuel cell use is hydrogen and oxygen. Basically, it is water vapor?

Mr. KIND. Reclaiming the time, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), for his insight and the leadership he has shown on this and many other areas of energy policy. Hopefully, we will get enough support with the legislation he has introduced so we will have serious policy enacted in this Congress in the further development of fuel cell, the potential that fuel cell holds for our long-term energy needs.

Mr. KIND. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to be thoughtful and deliberative in regard to increasing access to the public lands. Obviously, we have a lot of access already. I think it would behoove us to spend a little bit of time trying to improve the safety and environmentally-friendly measures of being able to extract some of these resources that already exist, because we also have problems in that. Again, I hate to keep plugging the Anchorage Daily News, but on April 17 this year they reported a huge pipeline leak up in the North Slope of Alaska, which is one of the largest spills to occur in the last 10 years. Some 92,000 gallons of salt water and crude oil leaked from a pipeline at Kuparuk Oil Field in April. The pipeline burst, and this is a problem we have with current infrastructure when it comes to the extraction of gas and oil is we have a very old infrastructure with the eroding and corroding pipes that are leaking. In fact, there have been four major oil spills in the North Slope of Alaska within the last 6 months alone. Yet, I think the administration is trying to sell the American public on the idea that we can go into these public lands and the refuges and the national parks, be able to extract these fossil fuels in an environmentally-friendly manner, when in fact the new stories belie that type of argument, because we know there are problems and oil leaks occurring, which has a devastating environmental impact.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, what is also not stated in this debate on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is even if the authority is given and they start drilling, it is a 10-year period before they bring the product to market, so obviously that is not going to be any short-term answer to the crisis we now have on the West Coast or in other parts of this country in regard to rising prices. Unquestionably, we need to modernize the infrastructure. We need to invest in more refineries. In fact, many of the industry experts in the economy say this is not really a supply problem we are facing. This is not the 1970s, when OPEC decided to turn off the spigots and hold us hostage by reducing oil production or selling oil in the country. We had the lines backing up at the service stations with escalating gas prices in the 1970s. That is not the situation we face now. OPEC has, as a group, been able to keep their per barrel price of oil within the reasonable range of $25 to $30 a barrel, which they said was their target range. They have been staying true to that. It is really an infrastructure challenge we face right now, and refinery capacity. I believe Members on both sides of the aisle recognize that.

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for his participation this evening. I am not sure about my colleague from Washington State, but one of the most surprising facts I learned as ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources this year was the incredible access and availability of these oil and gas companies on most of our public lands already throughout the country. Roughly 95 percent of the public lands they have access to. Granted, there may be things we can streamline in regards to the permitting process and some of the regs that surround those, but 95 percent. In fact, there was a story that broke yesterday in the Anchorage Daily News where Phillips Alaska Company up in Alaska announced that they discovered three oil and gas fields on the North Slope of Alaska that was newly opened, the National Petroleum Reserve up in Alaska. This was a reserve that the Clinton administration actually permitted out to the oil and gas industry. They now have discovered a tremendous oil and gas reserve to the tune of 429 million barrels of oil up in the North Slope, which is the largest energy find, energy resource find, in over the last decade. So obviously there is access already with public lands in the country, some that the Clinton administration worked closely with the industry to gain them access. That is why we have to question the need right now to go into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one that was specifically set aside for the protection of the pristine place and the ecosystem and the animal and bird species that exist up there, when we have discoveries like this being made already on the public lands. As I mentioned earlier, perhaps one of the most cynical aspects of the energy plan is they are saying us, too, when it comes to renewable and energy sources, ``. . . but only after we drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and we are able to collect the oil royalties from these oil companies.'' But we also know in recent months that we have been having difficulty collecting a fair market price for the oil royalties. In fact, U.S. News on May 14 of this year just released a big article titled ``Making Them Pay: How Big Oil Companies Shortchange Taxpayers on Royalties.'' Apparently they have been cooking the books. They have been understating the actual market value of the oil that they are extracting from public lands, and some of the companies actually are storing the oil supplies in the summer, where the prices are lower. They are selling in the winter when the prices are higher. Yet, they are quoting the summer prices, the lower price, in regard to the royalties they are now responsible for. Chevron, Texaco, BP have been forced recently to spend nearly $8 billion to settle underpayment lawsuits with the Federal government and with seven other States, according to a project on government oversight. There is a recent jury verdict in Alabama holding ExxonMobil liable for $88 million of underreported oil royalties, and also assessing a $3.4 billion punitive claim on them because, in the words of one of the jurors, ``We were sending a message: If you cheat, you will be punished.'' Yet, here we have an administration that is going to be relying on financing of alternative and renewable programs through oil royalties, when we know we have a problem in collecting the fair share of oil royalties that these companies agreed to pay in order to have access to the public lands in order to alleviate some of the burden on taxpayers.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his comments. Mr. Speaker, next I would like to recognize another colleague of mine who has been living and been experiencing some of the most difficult energy challenges we face in the country today. Of course I am referring to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), whose State and constituents have been experiencing from time to time the rolling blackouts. In fact, some of our economic development coordinators in the upper Midwest are kind of targeting the businesses in California with the slogan, ``We may experience an occasional whiteout in Wisconsin but never a rolling blackout.'' That is really what is at stake right now is the further economic growth and development in the State of California, and I recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for his comments tonight.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State for his comments this evening, and for the work the gentleman is doing on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources with myself and others here in Congress. This is an important issue. The gentleman mentioned the profits that are currently taking place in the oil and gas industry. It is astounding, seeing the triple-digit increase in profits in the first quarter of this year alone, 350 to 400 percent profit margins. Seven of the ten Fortune 500 companies in the entire world are oil and gas companies. In fact, if we just go through the list of the profit statements over the last fiscal year, we have ExxonMobil, for instance, with a 124 percent profit increase from the previous year; we have Chevron, with a 151 percent increase of profit last year; CONOCO, with a 156 percent increase in profit from the previous year. Yet, in the first quarter of this year alone, ExxonMobil is realizing a $5 billion profit in just the first quarter of this year. BP Amoco, BP now, is at $4 billion profit in the first quarter of this year; Chevron, a $1.6 billion profit in the first quarter of this year; CONOCO, with a $700 million profit already in just the first few months of 2001. So obviously they are making a hefty profit. They are covering their costs. They are laughing to the bank, quite frankly. I think they have to answer to this, why there is such a huge increase over the last year alone in the profit statements of their individual companies, and yet we see the consumers paying a triple-digit increase in the energy costs, primarily on the West Coast right now.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. That is one of the great ironies of the Bush administration's energy plan is they, first of all, came to power this year claiming this was not their responsibility; it was because of a deficient energy policy over the last 8 years; and yet many of the recommendations that are contained now in their energy proposal they released last year are carbon copies of what the Clinton administration was advocating during the 8 years but stymied by the Congress and action was not taken. In fact, when we take a look at the detailed budget proposal that the Bush administration submitted, obviously when one has a 48 percent cut in the photovoltaic area, 48 percent in wind, 48 percent in geothermal, 48 percent in hydrogen, there was not a lot of energy or thought being given into these cuts. Otherwise, one just would not have straight- across-the-board 48 percent reductions in all of these alternative and renewable programs. So it is a little bit troubling. But what I would like to do right now, since I know the gentleman has been waiting and has to leave for another meeting, is recognize the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), my good friend, who is one of the more thoughtful thinkers when it comes to energy policy and our long-term energy needs in this Congress. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in strong support of the underlying core bill, H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act. Let me be clear though, we have a lot of good schools, a lot of good school districts, a lot of good students doing incredibly well in the public education system throughout our country. I am particularly proud of the education system we have in the State of Wisconsin and my district that I represent in western Wisconsin. But there are also a lot of students in need, a lot of schools and school districts in need. That is what this bill is meant to address. The underlying provisions of this bill, I believe, are very good and receiving wide bipartisan support for good reason. It does retain targeting for the most disadvantaged students throughout the country. It increases resources in key programs. It does consolidate a lot of the programs that exist at the Federal level, but consolidates it with added flexibility to local school districts. It has an emphasis on early childhood reading programs. It recognizes the importance of professional development programs for our teachers, but also an area that is of particular concern for me, professional development of the leadership of our schools, principals and superintendents. It recognizes the need for research-based education programming and the important role that technology brings in educating our children today. It also contains measurements, measurements which will hopefully be used for diagnostic purposes with enough remediation resources in order to lift students who are underperforming in our school districts, rather than as a means to just punish schools and our students. But there is still work that needs to be done. There are some glaring absences in this education bill, not least of which is pre-K education programming. There was an excellent study that came out of the University of Wisconsin just a couple of weeks ago that was published in the Journal of American Medical Association that I would reference my colleagues to, talking about the advantages and the benefits of a good focused pre-K education program. We also need to do a better job and a more efficient job of the education research programs that exist right now. But perhaps the most glaring weakness of the bill is that we are not living up to our responsibility for special education funding in this country. The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and I offered an amendment to get the Federal Government to live up to our 40 percent responsibility of special education funding for local school districts. That amendment was not made in order. We hope to be able to work as the appropriation process moves forward this year in getting enough of our colleagues to recognize the importance of the Federal Government to live up to our cost share for special education expenses. If we can do one thing that will free up more resources, increase flexibility to local school districts, it is for us to live up to that 40 percent cost share rather than the slightly less than 15 percent that we currently have today. So we have more work to do this year, but H.R. 1 is a good start.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong proponent for greater flexibility at the local school level and in the course of drafting H.R. 1, working in a bipartisan fashion, for the need for greater consolidation of the Federal programs. H.R. 1 contains that consolidation and flexibility. But with that consolidation comes incredible flexibility already built into the core bill. In fact, between the various titles, excluding title I, the targeted title for disadvantaged students, the rest of the titles on H.R. 1 have 50 percent flexibility in the transfer of funds from title to title. Therefore, I really do not see the need for this amendment. As the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out, I doubt there are going to be many school districts that are in a position to take advantage of it or willing to take advantage, because I believe there are merits to having some specific titles with specific goals and purposes underneath those titles. In an era in which we are facing a 2.2 million teacher shortage over the next 10 years, it does not really make sense to allow flexibility of taking money out of the recruitment and retention and investing it in quality teaching programs when we have such a shortfall. At a time when most of us, especially parents with kids in the school district already who are very concerned about school safety issues and the bullying that is taking place on the school grounds, whether or not schools should be taking money out of school safety programs or after- school programs, for instance, I just do not think this is a judicious use of the amendment process in asking for complete flexibility, even though it is in a limited fashion, even though it is targeted at the local school districts, because we have already built in in the underlying bill an incredible amount of flexibility that we are giving local school districts. I do not think many of us really want to be able to answer back to the constituents who we represent and the taxpayers when it comes to accountability issues. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) did point out a glaring weakness in the amendment, and that is in overriding accountability provisions that are contained in H.R. 1. We are going to deviate from that aspect with this amendment. So I encourage my colleagues to oppose this and vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am a proud supporter of the underlying bill, H.R. 1. I am glad to see we finally have legislation that recognizes the number one issue, the number one priority of the American people: education improvement in this country. I am, however, extremely disappointed in the rule. I think it is shameful that the only amendment that was offered dealing with special education in this country, IDEA, is how we can better punish special education students rather than how we can help them. A couple of days ago I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) that would allow a debate as to how we can increase funding on special education costs so the Federal Government lives up to our 40 percent cost share. We are only at 15 percent today. If there is one issue that is having a devastating financial impact on local school districts from district to district across the country, it is the inability of the Federal Government to live up to our responsibility, our obligation to fund special-education expenses. Our amendment would have at least allowed a discussion of that in the context of the elementary- and secondary-education bill. Because it was not made in order, I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and give us a chance to discuss this important issue.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Hope for Children Act and I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation. I have heard from many families back home in western Wisconsin of the need for an increased adoption tax credit. The Hope for Children Act seeks to ease the financial burden on many families who adopt children. It will increase the adoption tax credit from $5,000 to $10,000 for families who adopt children and make this credit permanent, which is due to expire at the end of this year. Furthermore, it will index the credit for inflation and increase the earnings limit, expanding the eligibility for the tax credit. As a father of two sons, I understand how important it is for children to grow up in a loving and stable family environment. We must find a way to help the thousands of children who have no permanent family. I believe extending this tax credit is one of the most important ways to help these children and the families who adopt them. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend all those families who have adopted and cared for so many children that would otherwise never have known the true meaning of a loving, caring family. I hope with this legislation we will ease the high cost of adoption for many families. Mr. Speaker, we must pass this commonsense legislation to give our nation's needy children and loving families hope.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is serious business today. This is a serious debate. That is why today I seriously oppose the majority's tax reconciliation bill before us and strongly support the Democratic substitute which I feel is much more fiscally responsible, long-term in outlook at better enables us to pay down our national debt. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of problems with this tax reconciliation bill, not least of which that this is the single most important act we can do if we are interested in setting up for failure future generations of leadership and our children and grandchildren. The great unspoken truth in this debate is all the focus has been on the next 10 years and projected budget surpluses that may or may not occur, but very little attention has been given to what happens in the second decade with the aging population, the demographic boom, the soon-to-be- retiring baby boom generation. We have serious unfunded liabilities and responsibilities that need to be taken care of. If we want to set up the next generation of leadership and our children for failure, this is the best way of doing it. Just take this chart, for instance. It shows the Social Security surplus in the trust fund and what it looks like over the next 10 years. Half of the projected surplus in the next 10 years is coming out of the Social Security trust fund which no one here wants to touch. But if we look at the second decade and beyond when the boomers start retiring, we see a sea of red of unfunded liabilities. If this tax cut the way it is currently drafted passes, it will gradually phase in over the next 10 years and become fully implemented at exactly the same time the baby boomers start to retire. If that is not a recipe for disaster, I do not know what is. But what else is unspoken is the hidden cost of the budget resolution that is working its way through Congress. Where is AMT relief in this tax bill, the alternative minimum tax? We all know that that is something we are going to have to deal with in the next 10 years. Where are the tax extenders? Where are the projected plus-up in cost for the missile defense shield, for increase in defense spending, for farm relief if the farm economy does not turn around? These are things that we all know we are going to have to deal with and deal with in a fiscally responsible manner. We nor future Congresses are going to meet those obligations and reduce our national debt with this tax reconciliation bill. So I encourage my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute, which is more fiscally responsible and places a priority on debt reduction and to preserving and protecting Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington State for yielding to me and also for organizing this Special Order tonight. I want to commend the gentleman and also our colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), for the initiative and the leadership you have taken within the new Democratic coalition forming a comprehensive long-term energy task force, which is a work in progress but nevertheless long overdue as far as this institution is concerned and, obviously, the American people. But in a lot of ways this is not really a new conversation that is being started amongst many of us, but rather a continuation of a conversation we have been having for quite some time but, quite frankly, have not received any attention or any work on because of the plentiful cheap energy sources that the country has been enjoying for many, many years. In fact, I think, in a lot of ways, former President Jimmy Carter was before his time. He was criticized and even laughed at at times when he was walking around the White House with a sweater on preaching the values of energy conservation. Of course, that happened during the OPEC crisis. But as soon as the crisis abated and oil became cheap again and OPEC start opening up their supply lines, any talk about conservation or energy efficiency went out the window, and we have not had much progress administration after administration. I think the previous administration, the Clinton administration, deserves much more credit than they have received in regard to the energy budgets they submitted time and time again on Capitol Hill. But again it was received with laughter, saying that it was too green, unnecessary and drastic proposals, when actually what they were asking to do was trying to fund and create some incentives to explore alternative and renewable energy sources in the country, realizing that that has got to be a part of any long-term energy policy. But I think we all realized that nothing significant was going to be accomplished on this front until ultimately the American people felt the pain, and we have seen that now in the recent year. We have the crisis on the West Coast, whether it is California and the rolling blackouts, but even the Pacific Northwest, where you two gentlemen are confronting with the low water and the reduced hydroelectric supply that the Northwest relies upon for their energy needs. But this is true from State to State. And if truth be known, even a State like Wisconsin, which is the State I represent, is on the margin as far as delivering the energy capacity and the need that the people back home require. We could be a whisker away from having our own energy crisis because of transmission problems and some of tin fracture problems that have developed in the State of Wisconsin. I am glad the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) brought a few of the letters from constituents and how they are feeling the pain, because I think all of us right now in our respective offices are getting a lot of phone calls and a lot of letters. Back home I can point to many family farmers that are on the margin already because of low commodity and milk prices that are getting pinched and many forced out of the business because of the spike in energy costs right now. But this is true for small business owners; we are seeing the impact on school budgets and the energy needs our schools have. It is true for families on fixed incomes, large and small businesses alike. This has a universal effect throughout the country. It is not just a regional problem, but one that will require a national solution. It is going to require bipartisan cooperation and some creative thinking in this body and throughout the country to come up with a long-term sustainable comprehensive energy policy. All of us are anxious to see where the Bush and Cheney administration goes with their report. I think some of the preliminary indications are a little disheartening, the fact that they are concentrating so much and focused so much on the exploration and production of more fossil fuels. I do not think having greater dependence and reliance on fossil fuels is a sustainable or a sensible long-term energy policy: A, fossil fuels are in finite supply to begin with; but, B, there is a plethora of scientific evidence and the scientific community has rallied around the evidence that exists pointing to global warming and the greenhouse effect, which has been spurred by the increase in consumption and the burning of fossil fuels. So naturally, you would not think that any long-term energy policy would require an increased reliance on fossil fuel consumption. I hope that is not the report that they produce next week, but I was also disheartened by Vice President Cheney's discussion about the role of conservation in this country. He does not think it should be part of the long-term solution. That was surprising given the fact that corporate America has been investing hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their machines and tools that they are using, trying to invest in the latest technology, whether it is heat exchanges or cooling equipment, things which are reducing energy costs and increasing worker productivity. I think the Vice President should talk with corporate America about the role of conservation, because they see the need and they are taking affirmative action. The work product that we have been involved with so far is long- sighted, and it is reasonable. I am talking about the benefits of increased energy efficiency, a new generation of energy resources that will look at the possibility and the potential of renewable and alternative energy sources. I am also talking about the need to upgrade our energy infrastructure in this country so it is efficient and cleaner and it is safer in whatever region that we are talking about. The role of conservation I think many people just intuitively understand and get; otherwise why do we have so many Americans participating in recycling programs, for instance? But also the greater need for industry cooperation and collaboration. These answers are not going to be just found in the public sector by elected representatives, but it requires an integral public and private partnership to pull this off. The United States of America has 4 percent of the world's population, but we are consuming over 25 percent of the fossil fuels produced in the world. We are increasing our energy consumption 20 percent every 5 years in this country. If we do not have a long-term solution with multiple pieces to find the right answers, that obviously is not going to be a sustainable energy policy. I am ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on the Committee on Resources. We have been holding hearings in regards to energy policy and fossil fuels and the role of fossil fuels. Last week we had a very good hearing on the potential of geothermal power in this country; a tremendous potential, especially on the West Coast in Nevada and California. California already is consuming roughly 10 percent of their energy from geothermal power. Other countries are taking a lot of action, a lot of proactive steps. Even a country as small as Kenya is making a major infrastructure investment in geothermal power for their long-term energy needs. It is projected right now in Kenya, over 25 percent of their energy will come from geothermal sources within the next 15 years. This is true whether you talk about South America, some of the countries in Asia, except for the United States. I submit that one of the reasons for that is because we have become complacent and take for granted the cheap energy sources, mainly fossil fuels, which have perpetuated the industry without enough investment and forward-thinking with alternatives and renewables. Wind power, to give you another example, it was a short period ago where it was costing anywhere from 20 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour with wind that is being generated. Today that is down to about 2 to 3 cents, a tremendous increase in efficiency in bringing it into market competition. The same is true for solar and biomass opportunities. The research and development on fuel cells is tremendously exciting. We are starting to see prototype automobiles being developed by these companies at the forefront of fuel cell development. It is already powering our space shuttle on the missions up there. There is no reason why we cannot implement this at home, in our appliances and our machines that we are using to produce goods. All of this needs to be a part of the equation. I do not think anyone standing alone is going to be the answer. Needless to say, we have our work cut out for us in this body, the current administration, the private sector, and the American people. By working together, I think we do have the ingenuity to come up with something that is going to be sustainable for future generations. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) as we move forward in the new Democratic Coalition trying to put together this comprehensive piece, something that makes sense from region to region and is national in scope. Certainly there is enough interest being generated by our folks back home. They are looking for some long-term answers to this energy crisis that they see. Hopefully by working together, and again in a bipartisan fashion, we will be able to come up with a plan that is needed in the future, given our current consumption levels, but also given the incredible potential that exists with technological breakthroughs and the research and development that is already ongoing. I thank the gentleman from Washington for organizing this special order tonight. I am sure that this will not be the last of our conversations on this topic.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, for yielding me this time, and I commend his leadership and the leadership on the committee for putting together a bipartisan package that is going to be very important to American workers throughout the country and to their retirement security. According to the Social Security Administration, many retirees receive 19 percent of their income from employer-provided pensions. However, half of private sector workers have no pension coverage at all. In addition, only 29 percent of small businesses with 25 or fewer employees offer pension plans to their employees. H.R. 10 expands pension coverage and will help to provide retirement plans for those workers who are currently without such a plan. It increases the amount an individual can contribute to retirement accounts, and it allows individuals 50 years and older to make catch-up contributions to their 401(k) plans beginning in 2002, and in 2005 it will be indexed for inflation. This measure will also require faster vesting of pensions, increase pension portability, and reduce fees for smaller business pension plans. In the next 15 years, Mr. Speaker, 76 million baby boomers will retire. It is time that we pass legislation that helps encourage retirement and pension savings for all workers. With the Social Security trust fund currently expected to be exhausted by 2037, we must act now to ensure the financial security of future generations. I believe H.R. 10 is a step in that direction. I also want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), for working hard to include language in this bill that would require the Department of Labor to conduct a study on the impact of H.R. 10 on low- and moderate-income workers. I believe we need to be fair in providing incentives to these low- and moderate-income workers, as well as for those in the upper income brackets, to participate in their retirement plans. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to support this bipartisan bill. Retirement benefits are critical to ensuring that our aging population has the income to live out their golden years. Again, I commend the leadership, the chairman, and the ranking member on the committee for the fine work they have done with this legislation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize and commend the 4-H Youth Development Program. Today marks the organization's 100th anniversary and it is important for Congress to take the time to recognize this outstanding program. The 4-H is a dynamic group whose mission is to foster innovation and shared learning of America's youth, ages 6 to 19. Its vision is to draw upon combined power of youth and adults so that we can learn together in order to address the challenges and opportunities critical to youth in our communities. The 4-H is uniquely established to provide opportunity to young people nationwide to learn valuable life skills, work with others toward common goals, and develop into community leaders. 4-H stresses three fundamental values: First, Mr. Speaker, we must treat others with mutual trust and respect and open and honest communication. Second, we must assume personal leadership and responsibility for our actions. And third, we must celebrate our differences as well as our similarities, and always realize that working with youth as partners is the key to our success. Over 5.6 million young people are involved in the 4-H clubs, dedicating time and effort to the betterment of their communities and their country. In fact, volunteerism among America's youth has increased over the years, indicating that these fine young people have a sincere interest in helping fellow Americans. On the 100th anniversary of the 4-H club, I am honored to have the opportunity to commemorate the group because I am a former 4-H member myself. Growing up in Wisconsin, I loved and appreciated the time that I spent within my 4-H club. In fact, two of my staffers here in Washington were also 4-H members in their youth. The 4-H Clubs extend their invaluable services throughout the United States and have personally touched many of our lives. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am delighted to speak here today to honor and commemorate the 4-H Youth Development Program and its contributions to American communities for the past century. By pledging their heads to clearer thinking, their hearts to greater loyalty, their hands to larger service, and their health to better living, our young people-- along with the adult volunteers who teach and help them--are working to strengthen the clubs, their communities, and their country.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support and recognition of Charter schools. Charter schools, which are public schools authorized by a designated public body, were established with the goal to enhance school organization and instruction. Charter schools operate on the principles of accountability, parent flexibility, choice, and autonomy. Charter schools provide an invaluable means of improving student achievement for all who are enrolled in them. Charter public schools are held to highest standards and act as a vehicle for stimulating positive change and improvement in all public schools. As a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, I am committed to fighting for improvement in our Nation's education system and charter schools have the ability to enhance the quality of education for all public school students. There are 36 States, along with the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that have passed laws authorizing charter school. My home state of Wisconsin currently supports 95 charter schools, educating 7,210 students. There are over 550,000 students enrolled in 2,150 charter schools nationwide. Not only is education a top priority, but it is the key to a successful future. These schools are providing an excellent education for the American youth. Many charter schools serve significant numbers of students with lower income minority students, and students with disabilities. A charter school does not and cannot discriminate against any student. The contract for the schools is required to explain how the school will achieve a racial and ethnic balance among its pupils that reflects the school district population. Charter schools have the unique ability and freedom of setting up their own governance and administrative structures. Many of the schools create decision-making boards that include some or all of a school's teachers, while others have parent-teacher committees to address various school needs. Some schools have students playing a vital role in their governing bodies. Over the years, charter schools have received significant bipartisan support from the Administration, the Congress, State governors and legislators, educators, and parents throughout the Nation because the schools have been effectively educating their students. A good education is invaluable to any student and we have the responsibility to provide every child with the opportunity to learn. The Nation should take a week to honor the model education system set up by the charter schools.