Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today I re-introduced the Providing Resources and Education for Kids Act (Pre-K). This legislation would provide a financial incentive to schools to devote resources to establish pre- kindergarten programs. This is a critical step in helping states meet the difficult task of providing early learning services. Pre-kindergarten programs are crucial for preparing young children for the rigors of the classroom as they begin school. The first five years of a child's life are critical for development. Pre-kindergarten programs during those years will contribute to children's long-term success in school achievement, lead to higher earnings as adults, and quite probably decreased involvement with the criminal justice system. Today, however, kindergarten teachers estimate that one in three children are not ready to take on the challenge of classroom learning. Many children simply do not have access to pre-kindergarten programs. It is time for us to assist states in tackling this important issue. Good quality early education helps children develop, improves their learning skills, and prepares them to enter school ready to succeed. In fact, studies of several state pre-kindergarten initiatives offer convincing evidence of the benefits of early education, particularly for children at risk of school failure. These benefits include higher mathematics and reading achievement, increased creativity, better school attendance, improved health and greater parental involvement. Furthermore, pre-kindergarten programs have proven cost-effective over time. The Rand Corporation along with a team of researchers at the University of Wisconsin estimates that the most effective pre- kindergarten programs create savings to the government of $13,000 to $19,000 per child. This savings is realized in higher school achievement, less retention in a grade, a reduced need for special education, and less crime. The Providing Resources and Education for Kids Act will help states meet the challenge of providing quality pre-kindergarten programs. This legislation provides grants to state education agencies to help establish or strengthen pre-kindergarten early learning programs for children age five and under. To encourage states to participate and ensure their long-term investment, the bill creates a sliding scale over five years for the federal-state match. Because of inadequate resources in many states, they cannot offer a pre-kindergarten program for young children. While many states do not have extensive pre-kindergarten initiatives, I have been fortunate that in my own hometown La Crosse, Wisconsin there is an impressive pre-kindergarten program at the Red Balloon Child Care Center. In fact, my two sons are enrolled in this program. Every day my wife Tawni and I see tremendous growth in our sons and we are pleased that we have the opportunity to send our sons to such a wonderful place. Our wish is that every child is able to receive the quality education that this pre-kindergarten program provides for our sons. Rarely have we had such a unique opportunity to push American education to a higher level. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am committed to making the contributions necessary to advance our nation's education. Nationwide, families are demanding more from their schools, and educators, and elected leaders, are responding. That is why I introduced my Pre-K Act. Investing in our young children before they enter kindergarten is the first step in helping students meet their highest potential. We should not deny students this opportunity by denying them a good quality early education. Mr. Speaker, educational preparation is crucial for all young children. I would encourage my colleagues to support the Providing Resources and Education for Kids Act (Pre-K).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, and a very special teacher, Debra Buswell. Debra Buswell was recently named Outstanding Environmental Educator of the Year. Debra, a teacher at Longfellow Middle School from my home town of La Crosse, Wisconsin, is currently the team leader for the School on the River program, housed within Longfellow. This program allows students to work on a variety of environmental projects, including stocking fish with Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources and compiling river information for the U.S. Geological Survey's Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center. It is also with great pleasure that I recognize the School on the River program itself as one of eight recipients to receive a Seaworld/ Busch Gardens 2001 Environmental Excellence Award. This award recognizes the efforts of students to protect and preserve the environment at a local level. In addition to national recognition for its outstanding achievements, the School on the River will receive $15,000 for specialized equipment, 100 T-shirts, trophies and certificates, and all-expense-paid trips for three students and one teacher to attend ceremonies in Florida and Missouri. All of us in the La Crosse area applaud the efforts of Debra Buswell and Principal Glen Jenkins for their outstanding efforts to raise environmental consciousness among Longfellow students, and at the same time, to engage students in non-traditional learning environments. This exposure to critical thinking and higher mathematical skills, management techniques, and team building exercises will benefit them for years to come. With the dedication and support of the school, Principal Jenkins, and Debra Buswell, this ten-year old program is now beginning to receive the national recognition it deserves. I congratulate Principal Jenkins, Debra Buswell, and the students who participate in the program for their hard work and dedication to improving the local environment in their home community. With the continued awareness of the importance to having a healthy environment, I am grateful that students and residents from western Wisconsin remain committed to improving the local environment for the benefit of this generation and the many generations to follow. It is my sincere hope that we can here in Congress take this example back to our own communities to strengthen our own constituents' efforts to raise awareness regarding local environmental issues. Obviously, the teaching going on at Longfellow Middle School is near and dear to my heart. Growing up, I spent a lot of time along the Mississippi River. Now I live right on the Mississippi, and take my two sons down to the River to fish, or just explore, whenever possible. The important role the Mississippi River plays in the lives of my constituents is, in fact, why I helped form the bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus as one of the first things I did when joining Congress. I also continually support initiatives to benefit the river such as the EMP program and the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge. And this year, I will reintroduce my Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act. On behalf of the residents of western Wisconsin, I proudly commend Debra Buswell on her recognition as an Outstanding Environmental Educator. I also commend the School on the River for being recognized for its efforts to improve the local environment in western Wisconsin. The La Crosse School District and local community are better places to live thanks to the efforts of these middle-school students and their dedicated teacher.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced legislation that will provide elementary and secondary school teachers with a $500 refundable tax credit when they purchase books, supplies, and equipment out of their own pockets. With limited resources being stretched to the limit in many public schools, teachers have been incurring out-of-pocket expenses averaging $448 to $1,000 a year. According to the National School Supply and Equipment Association, more than half the money teachers spend in this manner is on instructional materials such as flashcards and workbooks, while the remainder is spent on supplies such as chalk, paper, and pens. Although current law allows teachers a tax deduction for the school supplies they purchase but for which are not reimbursed by their schools, this provision can be very complicated and does not serve the majority of teachers. To receive the tax benefit, teachers need to file a Schedule A for itemized deductions, and they must have incurred expenses that exceed a full 2 percent of their adjusted gross income. For example, let's say a teacher earned $50,000 in adjusted gross income, and spent $1,100 on out-of-pocket expenses; with the current formula, the actual deduction would only be $100. Under my proposal, teachers who incur out-of-pocket expenses but do not meet the current income stipulations would still receive a tax credit. A tax credit is more beneficial than the current deduction because it will allow teachers to utilize the benefit, particularly teachers with low salaries and those in disadvantaged schools. My Congressional district in western Wisconsin is home to no less than 75 public school districts. I find it unconscionable that teachers must supplement school needs with their own hard earned income to ensure every student receives the same quality education. This bill represents much needed short-term relief, but also renews our long-term commitment to maintaining America's excellence in education. By supporting our teachers in their efforts to provide a quality education to all of our children, we support the very future of our country. Without a doubt, education is the cornerstone of a healthy, productive society, and today's investment represents tomorrow's future success. As we continue the federal government's role in guaranteeing affordable educational opportunities, our commitment to our teachers is one step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this measure and the scores of dedicated teachers across the nation who spend their own money on classroom materials needed to educate our children. Their sacrifices to alleviate a problem in the structure of education funding should not go without some benefit. I would encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and give our nation's teachers the credit they deserve.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for estate tax relief. The estate tax should be modified to protect family-owned small businesses and family farms from the threat of having to be sold just to pay the tax. It should also be updated to reflect the economic growth many Americans experienced in recent years, but any reform of the estate tax should be fair and fiscally responsible, taking into consideration the impending baby boom generation early next decade and their retirement and not based on highly speculative budget surpluses 11 years from now. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8, however, is a weather forecast. I do not believe, it is a fair or fiscally responsible way to go. It is asking the American people to plan their picnics 10 years from now because the economic skies are going to be clear, sunny and bright. Yet in order to pay for it, it is based on projected budget surpluses that may or may not be there 8, 9, 10 years from now. It has been said that God created economists in order to make weather forecasters look good, and if any family would bet their economic prosperity on surpluses or what will be happening 8, 9 years from now, I would like to meet them. The other thing that it does not take into consideration is something that we do know today, and that is the majority of the surpluses over the next 10 years are coming out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. But no one is talking about the second decade, when the baby boom generation starts to retire. What this graph illustrates is what happens in that second decade. Over the next 10 years, we are running some surpluses in the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but in the second 10 years we have unfunded liabilities that are going to come due; and by backloading these tax cuts as we are doing with the estate tax, which will not be fully repealed for 10 more years, as we did with the marriage penalty relief, as we did with marginal tax rate relief, we are setting up the next generation of leadership in this body, and we are setting up our children for failure, because they will not be able to have the fiscal resources in order to deal with an aging population and their retirement in the next decade. The point is this: we could afford as a Nation in 1981 to take the chance with large tax cuts that led to annual structural deficits because back then we only had a trillion dollars worth of debt instead of $5.7 trillion today, and we also back then were not faced with a crisis with the aging population and the impending retirement of baby boomers in the second decade. I am afraid if we embark upon this course of action today with the overall tax plan in this body, we are setting up the next generation of leadership for failure and taking a huge gamble with our children's future by making it impossible for them to deal with the fiscal realities that we know today we have to contend with tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 would fully repeal the estate tax and that I believe is simply unaffordable given the need for debt reduction and all of the competing tax relief and investment priorities that exist and the uncertain surpluses available to pay for them. It is fiscally irresponsible and is so back-loaded that its full repeal cost would not show up until after 2011. It reduces the rates on the largest estates first, while providing no tax relief to the smaller estates, so that estates of less than $2.5 million get no relief until 2004. And once the estate tax is fully repealed, more than half of the benefits would go to the largest 5 percent of estates. Furthermore, H.R. 8 would cost $192 billion over 10 years. Combined with the first two tax cuts passed by the House this bill raises the total tax cut to $1.55 trillion over 10 years. And including debt service costs, the total budget cost is nearly $2 trillion. I am concerned, however, that the alternative offered by Representative Rangel does not go far enough. The alternative would increase the current exclusion to $4 million per couple as of January 1, 2002 and gradually increase the exclusion to reach $5 million at a lower cost of $40 billion over 10 years. While I strongly support the increased exemption effective immediately, I believe that we must go further and lower the estate tax rates, which the alternative bill does not address. This would restore fairness to this area of the tax code in a fiscally responsible manner and it would ensure that those who are most affected by the estate tax are given immediate relief and do not have to wait for a phase-in of benefits that is lengthy and complicated. While, I am in favor of addressing negative effects of the estate tax, as evidenced by my past votes, I believe that we should also concentrate on using the emerging budget surplus to address our existing obligations, such as investing in education and defense, providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors, shoring up Social Security and Medicare, and paying down the $5.7 trillion national debt. In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified before the Senate Budget Committee and confirmed that the rosy budget projections are ``subject to a wide range of error.'' He also noted that when considering the emerging budget surplus, ``debt reduction is the best use for the added revenue.'' Nonetheless, the administration and House leadership are still pushing large tax cuts above debt reduction. Mr. Speaker, reform of the estate tax is a bipartisan issue. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize that the estate tax needs to be reformed and updated. H.R. 8, unfortunately, is not the result of bipartisanship. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to reach a compromise in the conference report that will better address estate tax reform by increasing the exemption to at least $5 million and decreasing the estate tax rates.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of marriage penalty tax relief. I strongly believe that we should reduce the marriage tax penalty that couples incur and relieve millions of married couples from an unfair tax burden. Reducing the marriage penalty is the right thing to do. It must be part of a tax plan, however, that is fair and fiscally responsible. We must consider it as part of a responsible budget framework that would give priority to using the emerging budget surplus to address our existing obligations, such as investing in education and defense, providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors, shoring up Social Security and Medicare, and paying down the $5.7 trillion national debt. That is why I support the measure to eliminate the marriage tax penalty offered today by representative Rangel. It would do a better job of fixing the marriage penalty and cost significantly less than H.R. 6. H.R. 6, if passed, would bring the total cost of the Republican tax cut to $1.4 trillion and even though the President claims to spend only $1.6 trillion on tax cuts. The remaining Republican tax promises and the increased payment on the national debt could easily reach $2.9 trillion. More importantly, the surplus projections on which these tax cuts are based are already outdated given the recent slowdown in the economy. Furthermore, the tax cuts are so backloaded that families will not benefit, if at all, for at least 3 years. In fact, 74 percent of the tax relief wouldn't occur until 2007 or beyond under H.R. 6, and its based on projected budget surpluses that may not occur in that time. The Republican numbers just don't add up, and the surplus estimates they are using are completely unreliable. There is no way the House Leadership can keep all of its remaining tax cut promises without putting the Social Security and Medicare trust funds at risk. The bulk of the tax relief provided in the Republican bill is not marriage penalty relief, but instead, is a widening of tax brackets that benefit higher income individuals. In fact, half of the relief goes to those who do not pay any marriage penalty today; instead those couples receive a marriage ``bonus.'' Another concern of mine is that H.R. 6 discriminates against single taxpayers. It provides tax relief for those who choose to marry, but does nothing for those who are and remain single. I find the Rangel substitute to be more responsible and fair. The substitute, like the bill, would reduce the marriage tax penalty by increasing the basic standard deduction for a married couple filling a joint income tax return to twice the basic standard for an unmarried individual. The substitute would also reduce the marriage penalty by modifying the Tax Code in order to make more married couples eligible for the earned income tax credit (EITC). It would increase the income level at which the credit begins to phase out by $2,500. A family with one child will get $272 and a family with two or more children will get $320 beginning in 2002. H.R. 6 does not provide the same relief for those working families with children as the alternative does. I realize H.R. 6 proposes an increase in the current $500 per child tax credit to $1,000 per child. This credit, however, is only refundable for a family with three of more children. Therefore, a family who has two children and income less than $27,000 would get no tax relief from the child credit at all. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do what is right for the American people and support marriage tax penalty relief offered by Representative Rangel. This substitute provides genuine relief for citizens who are truly penalized by the current tax structure. I know this kind of tax relief is supported by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I was sincerely looking forward to have the opportunity to vote today on a bipartisan tax relief bill. But given the backwarding of tax relief in H.R. 6 or the speculative notion of budget surpluses occurring 8, 9, or 10 years from now. I cannot in good conscience gamble with my two young boys' future and risk embarking on an economic course that could return us to the days of budget deficits.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments tonight. He makes a very valid point, one that will just take a second to emphasize again, and that is that Chairman Greenspan, whether he deserves it or not, has received a lot of credit in regards to the economic circumstances in the country. A lot of people listen to what he has to say; and he has consistently since day one, when he comes before the Committee on the Budget or the Committee on Financial Services testifying, emphasizes debt reduction, talking about the merits of debt reduction, how it will help the Federal Reserve interest rates, which is really the true economic stimulus in the economy; by making it cheaper for businesses to invest capital in their business, create more jobs, increase worker productivity. Then the average worker is going to see financial relief through lower interest rates, lower mortgage payments, car payments, credit card payments and, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, student loan payments will be cheaper to do. That is real money in real people's pockets as well, so there is a lot of value to continuing to emphasize debt reduction. If the gentleman will yield, the Democrats would retire all redeemable public debt by 2008. The Republicans' budget would not.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, that is a very important point, a very important difference between the competing budget resolutions. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), one of the true authority figures when it comes to budgetary matters here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. KIND. I appreciate the gentleman's insight in this matter. Obviously, he has been directly involved in the creation of many budgets, and analyzing them as a member of the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations. I think that is one of the great differences between the Democratic alternative and what the majority is offering this week, is that we are taking a more balanced approach on projected surpluses. First of all, we are hedging our bets a little bit. We are saying a lot of the surplus is speculative. Let us be honest, over two-thirds of the projected surplus will not even happen, if at all, until 6, 7, 8 years from now, so there is not a lot of wiggle room right now.

Mr. KIND. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman wholeheartedly, even in the State of Wisconsin, where we are following on the heels of a big tax cut that was just enacted, and now we are looking at a revenue shortfall of over 600 million to $1 billion in the next biennium. This is a consistent theme now from State to State to State from perhaps ill-considered economic gains in the coming years. In just looking at the Republican budget resolution, to be honest, there are some smoke and mirrors being played here. If anyone believes they are only going to go with a 2 percent defense increase in this budget, take the fact that they are not allocating any money at all to a missile defense program, when we know the Bush administration has made this one of their top priorities, and missile defense can be extremely costly; or calling for an 8 percent real budget cut in agriculture programs when we know we are in the middle of an agriculture depression right now. We have seen the farm relief packages that have passed this Congress with bipartisan support in the last few years. It is just not realistic with the American people or honest with the American people on what their true spending costs are going to be in the budget. The point I was making earlier is that back in 1981, we could afford to make a mistake. We could afford to take a gamble on passing a large tax cut plan that President Reagan was advocating. He was also advocating a large increase in defense spending. That is, in fact, what happened. So if we couple a large tax cut with a large increase in spending, that is what occurred within the 1981 economic plan. It led to a decade of annual deficits, which led to the $5.7 trillion of national debt that we now have and that we are wrestling with and trying to dig ourselves out from under. Back then we could have an opportunity to recover from that type of fiscal mistake that was made. I am not confident at all that if we go down the same road, that we can recover in time for the baby-boom generation's retirement. President Bush was here in the well not too long ago quoting Yogi Berra saying, ``When you come to a fork in the road, take it.'' Yogi Berra was also famous for saying, ``This is deja vu all over again.'' What they are offering in their budget resolution, with the large tax cut plus what will inevitably lead to a large increase in spending, especially in the defense area, and there will be bipartisan support for defense modernization, is a redo of the 1981 economic plan that led to the $5.7 trillion of national debt that we are trying to recover from, which resulted in the 1990s, in the Clinton administration, of putting together budget packages that would get us the balance, and then start running these surpluses. So I hope we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, and we learn from what happened then so we can better prepare for the challenges of the future.

Mr. KIND. I could not agree with the gentleman more. Interestingly enough, that is the feedback I constantly hear from my constituents in western Wisconsin. They look at me and say, ``What are you guys doing out in Washington?'' Because they kind of view these Federal budget terms the same way they look at their own family finances. If there is debt they are responsible for, they understand they have a responsibility for taking care of that first before they embark on new spending programs or large new tax cuts. That seems to be the overwhelming, clear preference for the people living back home in Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), a good friend and someone who has some very strong opinions with regard to this budget resolution.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for the leadership that he has provided this House in regards to getting this Congress to live up to the Federal Government's responsibility for funding special education costs. The gentleman mentioned the 40 percent level where we should be, but I do not think too many people back home realize we are only funding it at slightly less than 15 percent of that 40 percent share. This is a challenge that is not going to go away. We have a collision course with school budgets and modern medicine, where we are seeing more and more children who in the past normally would not have survived to live to school age entering the school systems, bringing the special needs with them and the increased costs. That is what IDEA is; that is what special education is all about. If we can get one thing right in the education component of this budget, it is getting to our full share, that 40 percent level, of special education, which would provide tremendous relief to local school districts so they can use resources to implement the reforms that they would like to make; but they cannot because so much of their resources are being diverted to cover for our shortfall in IDEA and special education. The gentleman and I have been working together on a task force to elevate this issue and to highlight it and we are going to continue doing it, reaching across the aisle trying to gather bipartisan support, because it is more than just funding IDEA. It is really a civil rights issue as well. These children bring special needs to the classroom. They deserve to have access to a quality education like any other children in this country, but we are selling them short. We are not living up to our responsibility, our commitment to them to get the job done. We can very easily do that if we make it a budget priority, and that is what this budget resolution is all about. It is a reflection of our priorities and our values as a country and what we are willing to invest in or not invest in. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my friend.

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for his comments and a point well made. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for all of the work and the effort that he has and his staff has put in during the course of the last couple of months in putting together a solid Democratic alternative, one that recognizes that we need to maintain balance, that there is strong support within the Democratic party to provide responsible and fair tax relief to all Americans, that there is support within the Democratic party and recognizing the need to modernize our defense capability, which is going to costs some investments. It is going to require investments over the next 10 years to get there, someone who is recognized in the alternative budget proposal that he has offered and the need to invest in scientific and medical research, and the importance of investing in education for our children and access to education for the higher-education programs that we support, so that the financial aid will be there for our students to go on to college or to technical school. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a solid proposal. It is well balanced. One third being devoted to debt relief, one third being devoted to tax relief, and one third recognizing the individual responsibilities that we have existing right now. I commend the gentleman for all of his work that he has put in and his staff has put in. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), our leader on the Committee on the Budget, the ranking member.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), as the ranking member, is obviously much more familiar with the numbers of the budget resolution than I. I have a question for the gentleman. There is a lot of talk about this $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. But what is that reduced by if we do, in fact, take the Social Security and Medicare trust funds out of the equation? Where does that leave the surplus total at that point?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, a large part of that $5.6 trillion in surplus everyone is talking about are the surpluses being run in Social Security and Medicare. There seems to be pretty much a universal agreement, at least in this House, that we should not touch that, that that should be set aside and dedicated in preparing for the baby boomers' retirement. If we did that, that $5.6 trillion number then is immediately reduced to roughly $2.7 trillion of surplus over 10 years, again if the projections prove true. But the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was just mentioning earlier how close they are cutting it with this budget resolution. If we look at the $1.6 trillion tax cut proposal that they have out there, that is not entirely honest with the American people as well because they are not reducing debt as much as we are proposing. There would be an additional half a trillion or $500 billion on debt interest over the next 10 years, so that $1.6 trillion tax cut immediately jumps up to $2.1 trillion that we would have to pay for. If we are going to deal with the alternative minimum tax, and everyone around here understands we need to deal with that so more working families are not included, that is going to be an additional $200 billion, $300 billion over 10 years to fix that problem. If we extend the tax extenders as we do every year in this place, it is an additional $100 billion that is going to be added to the 1.6. So that $1.6 trillion tax cut would actually balloon up to roughly $2.6 trillion. If we only have roughly $2.7 trillion as a margin of error, that does not leave us with a heck of a lot of room to do virtually anything else, let alone reforming Social Security, Medicare, dealing with the prescription medication program, which I think a lot of people believe we need to take action on, or the education investment that we have to make. Are those numbers pretty accurate?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his insight tonight, his expertise, the work product that he has been able to produce in the alternative budget resolution. Hopefully it is opening up a lot of eyes in regards to what the majority party is offering, the promises that they are making, and the lack of details that they are providing right now. I thank the gentleman for his work. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. KIND. Suffice it to say, as a member of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we are waiting with baited breath for the details of the President's higher-education funding priorities because this is all about access to higher education for students. And if we want to slow down economic growth in this country, that is one sure way of doing it is underinvesting and access to postsecondary educational opportunities. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), my friend.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all start my remarks this evening by commending the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), given the collegiality and the civility that they have demonstrated in the course of putting together a budget resolution, whether it was the work that they specifically were involved with on the committee in putting together the package that we started debate on tonight and will finish tomorrow but also the conduct of the debate that we saw here this evening. I think they demonstrated by their leadership that we can have some real differences of opinion on what the best direction is that we should be taking for the sake of the country, have differences of opinion in regards to what the budget resolution should look at but do so in a civil manner. I think that was demonstrated here this evening. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this time, along with a few of my colleagues from the new Democratic Coalition, to continue the discussion that we are having on the budget resolution this evening. This is a very important time in the legislative process of this session of Congress because it is the budget resolution that establishes the broad frameworks that we will be filling in the spaces and the details throughout the course of this legislative year that will set the tone in regards to many of these programs, the size of tax cuts, the commitment to debt reduction, the commitment to trying to preserve and protect Medicare and Social Security for future generations. We want to devote a little bit more time this evening in regards to where we see things going as part of the new Democratic Coalition. It is a coalition that comprises roughly 80 Members now within the Democratic Caucus. We believe in pro growth strategies. We believe in the necessity to reduce the national debt. We believe in tax relief for working families, and we believe that there are also some very crucial investments that we need to make collectively as a nation in order to see the type of economic progress and the expansion of economic opportunities, not just in the coming year but for future years. Many of us have some severe reservations in regards to the Republican budget resolution that has been submitted; not the least of which is that the cornerstone of what they are offering is a very large, very sizable tax cut that is based on economic forecasts not this fiscal year or even next year but over the next 10 years. Many of us believe that if surpluses do, in fact, materialize during the course of future years, and many of us hope that they will, that the economy will remain strong; that the current projections will prove accurate; that this is an excellent time for us to get serious on national debt reduction; to be serious about finding some long-term bipartisan solutions to preserve Medicare, Social Security; deal with the rising crisis that we have in this Nation in regards to the cost of prescription drugs, while also being able to deliver a responsible tax relief package that all Americans will benefit from. That is where our major point of contention is with the Republican proposal. We believe in tax relief like they do, but we would like to see tax relief that is done in a responsible and fair manner. There have been a lot of numbers bandied about during the course of this evening and undoubtedly they will again tomorrow; but basically, the corner of the budget resolution that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and his committee has reported out calls for a $1.6 trillion tax cut over 10 years. To be honest, this is not tax relief that will happen this year or to any great extent next year; but most of the tax relief that they are talking about is backloaded severely to the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th year from now. They have to do that for one simple reason: we do not have the surpluses and no one is predicting that the surpluses will be generated within the next 5 years, at least, in order to pay for a tax cut of that magnitude, so they have to backload it, hoping that the surpluses will, in fact, materialize 8, 9, 10 years from now. Now, the average person in my district knows what is going on with this game. In fact, many of them are highly suspicious of these 10-year forecasts. They know that this is very speculative, these forecasts that are being bandied about right now, that no one can predict with any degree of certainty what the economy is going to be doing next year let alone what it will be doing 8, 9, 10 years from now. In fact, it has been said that God created economists in order to make weather forecasters look good. That is exactly what we are talking about, when we are talking about economic forecasts and projected budget surpluses that may or may not materialize 7, 8, 9 years from now. There was a lot of talk earlier this evening that this tax cut they are offering does not even compare to the size of the tax relief that President Kennedy introduced back in 1960, that Ronald Reagan had introduced with his economic plan back in 1981, and perhaps in real dollar terms, the size of it does not compare. However, there is one very important significant difference, and that is the context in which these tax cut proposals were offered back in 1960, 1981, and today. Because I submit that back in 1960 and 1981, they were looking at an entirely different economic and demographic situation than we are today. We could afford to take a chance back in 1960 and 1981 to pass large tax cuts because of two very important reasons. One was that we did not at that time have a $5.7 trillion national debt staring us in the face that is draining precious resources from the Federal budget every year just on the interest payments that we are making on our national debt, which totaled over $220 billion alone in the last fiscal year. That money is money that could be better spent for tax relief, for instance, for investments in education, in math and science programs and basic scientific and medical research in this country, but it is not. It is not because there is a large $5.7 trillion national debt that we have to make interest payments on, which comprises roughly the third largest spending program in the entire Federal budget. But back in 1960, they were still keeping the budget in relative balance. In fact, during the decade of the 1960s, they were exercising fiscal discipline and responsibility by maintaining budgets that were within balance. In fact, the last time before the 1990s that we had a balanced budget in this country was 1969, LBJ's last budget that he submitted in his last year in office. Also, back in 1981 we were not looking at a $5.7 trillion national debt. I believe back then the national debt was roughly $1 trillion as opposed to what we are facing today. So there is a significant difference between what we are calling for today and what the circumstances that existed back then were. The other significant difference too is that they were not at that time facing a demographic time bomb waiting to explode. By that I mean the aging population that we have in this country, the baby boomers who are all going to start to retire at approximately the same time early next decade entering the Medicare and the Social Security programs, bringing incredible fiscal pressure to bear if we cannot find long-term reforms for those programs, and that is something that I feel is getting lost in this debate. There is so much focus on the next 10 years which do look relatively optimistic when we look at budget situations, economic forecasts; but what is missing in the debate is what the second 10 years are going to look like in this century, and that is where I am afraid things are going to come home to roost. Mr. Speaker, if we make bad decisions today, if we gamble on these projected surpluses today, lock in on large tax cuts that do not materialize, finding ourselves in a position of not being able to afford them, going back to a series of years as we just came out of during the 1980s and early 1990s of annual structural deficits, adding to, rather than reducing, our national debt, I am very concerned then about our children's capacity and our grandchildren's capacity to deal with that type of fiscal situation that they will be asked to have to deal with. That is a significant difference. Just to tell my colleagues briefly how tenuous these forecasts really are, even according to the Congressional Budget Office that is offering these numbers that a lot of people are basing the tax cuts upon, they are telling us that if we are off by just one-tenth of 1 percent of GDP growth over the next 10 years, that translates into $250 billion of surplus that we will be off. So if we are off by even a half a percentage point on GDP growth in 10 years, that is roughly $1.5 trillion that we will be off with our surplus calculations, which I think is very speculative and very risky at this time. The demographic aspect of what is happening I think is equally compelling. Let me show this graph briefly. Everyone in the House realizes that over half of the projected surplus is surplus that is generated by the surpluses in both the Social Security and the Medicare trust fund. We are collecting more than what is needed to go out in Social Security and Medicare. This is a great time in order to download the national debt so we are in a better position to deal with the baby boom generation's retirement. This graph illustrates what the next 10, 20, 30 years are going to look like in regards to those surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund. Over the next 10 years, we are running some surpluses; and to a large extent, this budget resolution is based on those surpluses. But what has not been discussed in any great detail is what the second 10 years and beyond look like in the Social Security Trust Fund. We are going to have some unfunded liabilities that are going to come due starting early next decade with the baby boomers starting to retire. That black ink, red on this chart, suddenly turns into a sea of red ink that we need to come to grips with. Mr. Speaker, this is as good a time as any for us to start looking in generational terms when we start making some of these budget decisions that we now have. Most of the decisions that I make when it comes to the budget and the fiscal policies that we pass, I try to make through the eyes of my two little boys who are just 4 and 2. I could not think of anything more patently unfair to do to them and their economic future than to saddle them with a large national debt because we did not have the courage to do something about it when we had a chance, or to make it more difficult for them to deal with an aging population in this country, when we have an opportunity with economic forecasts and surpluses that hopefully will materialize, to make the reforms that are needed to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, to make sure that we pass a prescription-medication component in this year's budget, to download the national debt as much as we can humanly do so that we are in a better position next decade of dealing with some of these other fiscal challenges that we are going to face, as well as making the crucial investments that need to be made in education programs, job training programs, research into medicine and the sciences, and a greater emphasis on math and science in the country generally. So this is hopefully something that will be discussed in greater detail in the coming weeks as we develop the budget, in the coming months as we work on the budget details, because way too much emphasis, I am afraid, is being placed on economic forecasts that are so far out into the future that I would venture to guess that no one really, in all honesty, would be willing to bet their own personal finances on the realization of those forecasts today, when there is so much uncertainty in the air. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my good friend, who I serve with on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, one of the foremost leaders on emphasizing the importance of math and science and scientific research on budget issues.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for joining us here this evening.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution brought by my good friend from Maryland. Last year, Mr. Hoyer and former Chairman Thomas helped move a bill of mine through their committee and onto the floor which authorized the preservation of veterans' war memories through an interactive archive at the Library of Congress. I was pleased that my colleagues here in the House, as well as those in the Senate, approved the Veterans Oral History Project unanimously. The bill was signed into law last October; a fitting tribute to the contributions and sacrifices of our war veterans. We are now here to authorize a measure to acknowledge the special contributions of Members of our own body. Many of the African-American Representatives elected to this House over the decades have been pioneers in their own times, and updating the book that recognizes this unique group of elected leaders is a wise and worthy investment on our part. History must accurately reflect the efforts of African-American leaders elected to national office, efforts which, at various times and locations in this country, were heroic in the face of both quiet and overt racism and bigotry. This bill will assist historians and students of history to understand the who and what of African-Americans running and winning national office, so that each American can reflect on the how and why. Again, I applaud my good friend from Maryland for this effort at preserving this body's and this Nation's valuable history. And I look forward to the updated copy of this valuable book.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I was delighted to see in last year's campaign all the attention that candidates, whether it was for Congressional or Senate offices, but especially at the Presidential level, devote so much time and attention and substance to education policy. In fact, this is a reflection of the concerns that the American people have genuinely, certainly the constituents who I represent in western Wisconsin. I am continuously reminded by them of the importance of education. They recognize, as I think we all do in this Chamber, that education must be a local responsibility, that there is a strong State interest, but it should be a national priority. That is why I am hopeful that as we are beginning work on the Committee on Education and the Workforce in this session of Congress, especially trying to reauthorize the elementary and secondary education bill, that there can be a lot of ground for bipartisan agreement, providing needed resources back to the local school districts with flexibility on how best to use those resources, but along with some accountability, so we see the desired results in student achievement in the classroom. However, one area of education policy that previous Congresses have woefully fell short on has been our responsibility to fully fund our share, our obligation, to special education needs throughout the country. In the last couple of sessions of Congress, there was a recognition that we were underfunding the IDEA, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, and we were not living up to the promises that we made to so many children across the country. In the last session of Congress, we, in fact, increased the appropriation level by 27 percent for special education needs. But nevertheless, we have a responsibility to fund that at 40 percent of the per pupil expenditure throughout the country. Even with that 27 percent increase last year, we are still only funding our share at slightly less than 15 percent of the 40 percent that we should be doing for local school districts. This is the number one issue I hear about back home from teachers and administrators and parents, that if we can do one thing right in this session of Congress, that is to live up to our responsibility and fully fund IDEA. But the fact that we are not funding it at the appropriate level has a dramatic impact on countless students across the country. Just some quick numbers. Roughly 6.4 million disabled children in America receive special education services. There are 116,000 of these students in my home State of Wisconsin alone identified as needing special education services. By 2010, it is expected that there will be an additional half a million students served by special education nationwide. With the advancement of medical technology and medical breakthroughs, school funding is on a collision course with modern medicine. Children who normally would not have survived to school age are now entering the public school system, increasing the responsibility of providing a quality education for these kids, along with the incumbent expense that comes along with it. I believe that this is more than just an education issue, it is a civil rights issue, that we make good by these students who, through particular needs, require more attention and more resources to meet their educational potential. As elected officials here in Congress, I believe it is our obligation to ensure that funding for programs assisting students with special needs meets the needs of the schools struggling to be fair and inclusive for these students in the school system. In fact, it is one of the fastest growing areas of virtually every school district budget throughout the country, and will continue to be so. Special education services will require a greater responsibility for us here in Washington and to live up to the commitment and the promises that we have made in the past. First, with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, and then with the act which was renamed the Individuals With Disabilities Act back in 1990. Now, recently, 40 of my new Democratic colleagues here in Congress wrote to President Bush calling for the administration to commit greater resources to the IDEA mission. We are striving to see that that 40 percent Federal responsibility in special education funding as required by law is, in fact, honored. We believe it is a matter of budgetary priorities, and we hope that the administration, when they finally submit a detailed budget plan, will show that commitment to IDEA funding. But, at the very least, we hope it will show the continued commitment that we have established now over the last couple of years in Congress for increasing Federal appropriations so we can finally achieve full funding at 40 percent. We also advocate increasing the Federal appropriations for part D of IDEA, which is used to provide professional development opportunities to special education instructors and staff. Again, it is a constant refrain that we hear from the school officials back in our school districts. It is imperative, however, that we do not embrace full funding of IDEA in exchange for reduced Federal funding for other ESEA-related programs. In this era of unprecedented budget surpluses, we have a unique opportunity to provide effective government support that is most sought after by American families and we should not squander this opportunity by shortchanging any of our children's educational potential.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today I sadly join my colleagues in mourning the loss of two young lives in the tragic and senseless act of violence that occurred in San Diego County last week, and in expressing our deepest sympathy to their family and friends of the students who were killed. I also join my colleagues in condemning such acts of violence, and in urging all Americans to search for ways to reach out to our young people in an effort to prevent future tragedies of this nature. All too often in recent years, we've been coming to the floor for resolutions of this nature. While the result remains shocking, unfortunately, the story is no longer new; a child gets his hands on a gun, and in fit of rage, uses it on his classmates and teachers. We all want to find blame. We all want to know why. The questions are endless, but the answers are few. What we know is that no one is immune from these tragedies. They have occurred in big cities, suburbs and small towns. What is obvious is that some of our children feel alienated and estranged from their peers and community, and choose to express their anger and frustration through increasingly violent acts of aggression. And what is perhaps most frightening in this case, is the fact that some students and perhaps adults may have been able to foresee this tragedy, but for a variety of reasons, chose not to believe it possible, not to act, or not to do more to stop it. It is imperative that we, as Americans, do more to communicate with our young people, and know what is going on in their lives. We must, as communities, act to give all children a sense of belonging; in their families, their schools, and their neighborhoods. We must offer young people our friendship and earn their trust, so that they will come forward for help when feeling outcast, or when sensing a friend is slipping into despair or rage. Today, we, as representatives of individuals and families across the Nation, mourn with individuals and families in Santee, California. But we cannot simply express our shock and horror today; we must, each of us, take action in our communities, to connect with our young people, and try with all our might, to prevent tragedy in our hometowns.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about whether there is bipartisanship support for tax relief. There is. It is just a matter of whether it is going to be responsible and fair. President Bush, during his first address to Congress here a couple of weeks ago, quoted Yogi Berra by saying if we come to a fork in the road we should take it. Well, Yogi Berra was also famous for having said ``this is deja vu all over again,'' and it is. When we compare the Reagan economic plan of 1981 with what is being attempted today, it is deja vu all over again. The Reagan plan led to 15 consecutive years of deficit financing. We could get away with that then, with a $1 trillion debt at that time. I am afraid that we will not be able to get away with it again with the baby-boomers about to retire at a $5.7 trillion debt today. I hope we are not merely repeating history by basing large tax cuts on speculative budget surpluses that may never materialize 10 years from now. budget process Notwithstanding the fact that the law requires a budget to be passed before Congress considers tax cuts, the House leadership has decided to rush to the floor a fiscally irresponsible tax plan that gambles with our children's future. This plan is irresponsible because once all of President Bush's campaign tax-cut promises are added up, the total of cost of his plan will easily exceed $2 trillion. 1981 reagan tax cut If this huge tax break plan is adopted, virtually all of the remaining projected surplus funds will be spent. In 1981, a similar tax plan and budget led us down the road of deficit budgeting. It took two decades and several acts of Congress to dig the country out of the deficit hole that was created. This tax cut is even more risky than those of 1981. Today, we have a national debt that is 5 times higher than in 1981. Further, within the next decade we will see the retirement of the baby boomers, in the same years that the tax cuts will be fully phased in. republican tax cut proposal The Bush tax plan also overwhelming benefits the wealthiest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans will get 43 percent of the benefits and their average tax cut will total $46,000 a year. Over 85 percent of American households will receive a tax cut far less than the $1,600 that the President promised. And for the hardest- working Americans who do not pay any income taxes, the President delivers nothing, even though they still pay a disproportionate amount of their income for FICA taxes. budget surplus projections This plan is incredibly risky. Ten-year surplus projections are unreliable. If the budget projections are off by less than one-half of 1 percent, a $1 trillion shortfall will occur, with these massive cuts in place, Congress will be tempted to tap into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to balance the budget. chairman alan greenspan In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified before the Senate Budget Committee and confirmed that the budget projections are ``subject to a wide range of error.'' He also noted that when considering the emerging budget surplus, ``debt reduction is the best use for the added revenue.'' Nonetheless, the administration and leadership are still pushing large tax cuts above debt reduction. budget priorities In the end, the Bush plan will squander all of the funds necessary for critical investments in our nation's future. It is much more prudent to pay down our national debt, invest in education, and defense, shore up Social Security and Medicare, and provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors. With a tax cut of this magnitude, however, the surplus will be wasted, if it is not more fiscally responsible. democratic alternative That is why I support the alternative offered by Representative Rangel, which will be nearly half the cost of the Republican plan. It would provide immediate and fair tax relief for middle-income families and is also fiscally responsible. A new 12 percent tax bracket would be created, thereby giving an across-the-board rate cut for all Americans. In addition, it will give those working families who only have payroll and Federal excise taxes a refund through expansion of the earned income tax credit. Under the alternative, families with children who earn less than $65,000 will receive equal or larger tax breaks than under the Bush proposal. conclusion Mr. Speaker, show me a budget that will meet our domestic needs, and then we can begin serious consideration on a tax cut bill. But don't force a vote on a tax cut bill that is being proposed outside of a budget and is destined to harm our children. I did not come to Congress to saddle my two boys with a debt burden they did not create. Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard over the past four years to balance the budget and pay down the national debt. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 624, the Organ Donation Improvement Act. As we all know, there is a shortage of organ donors across the United States. In fact, the waiting list for organ transplants has grown by over 300 percent in the last decade. I am, however, proud that my state of Wisconsin has an excellent record in organ procurement. Wisconsin's two organ donation agencies, the Wisconsin Donor Network in Milwaukee and the University of Wisconsin Organ Procurement organization, are nationally recognized for their donation rates. Each year in Wisconsin, nearly 150 people give more than 600 citizens the opportunity for a new beginning. In order to decrease the number of individuals on the wait list for organ transplants, we need to increase people's willingness to become donors. Wisconsin has a model intensive education program that works closely with schools, community groups, church groups and the hospitals to allay individuals' questions and concerns related to organ donation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Organ Donation Improvement Act that would provide grants to states to build programs similar to our successful program in Wisconsin. This bill recognizes the critical role that states can play in improving organ donation. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.