Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, my friend, for yielding to me. I saw the conversation taking place on the House floor and I wanted to join my friends and also commend my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, the former State superintendent of the school system there, for his leadership and expertise that he has provided us in this Chamber on education issues. I wanted to also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), my good friend, for his energy and tireless effort in promoting educational programs here in Congress during his term. But I, for one, was very, very happy during the last campaign that there was so much discussion and focus on education issues whether it was Vice President Gore or Governor Bush. I think it elevated the sense of urgency that many of us feel in regards to our education investments as a Nation, but I just wanted to add during this conversation tonight a very important piece of the puzzle as we move forward on reauthorizing the elementary and secondary education bill in the Committee on Education and Workforce this year, and that is virtually every school district throughout the Nation is facing a common challenge, and that is the rising costs of providing a quality education to students with special needs, special education costs. We have a bill at the Federal level called Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and when it was passed back in the 1970s, there was a commitment on the Federal level that we would at least provide 40 percent of the expenses to local school districts and educating these children with special needs. We have not done a very good job of living up to that obligation, that responsibility at the Federal level. I am sure every representative in this House could go home and find stories that they can share with us in regards to the rising costs of special education. Let us face it, with the advancement of medical technology and health care today, we are putting our children on a collision course with school funding at the local level, because many of the kids now who normally would not have survived and lived to join the public education system are doing so, and with that brings added costs and expense. If we can get one thing right during this education debate this year, it is fully funding IDEA, providing the 40 percent cost share back to local school districts, so they have more flexibility, more resources in order to educate these children, but also to do and implement the type of reforms that we are demanding of them, to improve student performance in the classroom. This is more than just good policy, this is a civil rights issue. These children deserve to have access to a quality education, like any other child in this country. So we have a special obligation, I feel, in this session of Congress to try to get to that 40 percent level. Even though we had a 27 percent increase last year in the last budget in regards to IDEA funding, it still only puts us at roughly 14 percent or 15 percent of the 40 percent level where we really should be. It would require an additional $11 billion or so to get the full funding this year, but it is a question of budgetary priorities, where we feel investments need to be made as a Nation. I could not think of any better place to start than with our children in the education system, helping local school districts, increasing their flexibility by providing them these resources that the Federal Government has promised throughout the years but has failed to deliver upon. Hopefully we will be able to get that aspect of education done in a bipartisan fashion during this year in Congress. The litmus test, quite frankly, will be the administration's first budget request that they are going to send out and where they place special education funding on their list of priorities, from there, then, hopefully, we will be able to establish the broad-based political coalition that I know exists in the House based on previous debates and votes that we have had in order to get this piece of the puzzle done for education.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise to share my support for H.R. 333--the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. This measure, though not perfect, ensures debtors who can afford to repay their debt do so, while at the same time protecting consumers. Bankruptcies negatively affect people in the form of higher prices and tightened credit access for lower-and middle-income taxpayers. It is estimated that over $40 billion was discharged through bankruptcies last years. As we all know, money lost to bankruptcies is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services. H.R. 333 also ensures that those individuals with the ability to repay their debts do so while protecting those truly in need. This legislation creates a needs based system and assures that those who can afford to pay are required to do so. A recent study determined that 15 percent of Chapter 7 filers could repay an average of 64 percent of their debt. Most importantly, H.R. 333 makes all marital and parental obligations to children the first priority for payment in bankruptcy proceedings. It is for this reason a number legal and child support enforcement organizations strongly support the bill. While H.R. 333 is a good bill that could get better. It is my hope that House and Senate negotiators, during conference committee discussion, will work to eliminate current homestead exemption loopholes and seek to protect families from abusive reaffirmation practices of creditors.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to say a few words about our guest chaplain today. I am proud that the inspiring words heard this morning came from one of my constituents, Chaplain Steven Colwell. He serves as staff minister at the Army Reserve Readiness Training Center at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. At Fort McCoy, Chaplain Colwell is the primary instructor on ethics and Army values training. In addition, he provides spiritual guidance and counseling to the more than 100,000 soldiers who come to Fort McCoy to train every year. The support that Chaplain Colwell provides to the military personnel and their families is invaluable. Chaplain Colwell has received numerous military honors, including the Army Commendation Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Kuwait Liberation Medal, and the South West Asia Service Medal with three Bronze Stars. Chaplain Colwell has provided tremendous service to his community as well as our country. I am fortunate to have him as a constituent and pleased that he could share his inspiring words with us today. I thank Chaplain Colwell for being here today and for his service and dedication to our country.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for yielding me this time and also securing this hour for general discussion about education policy. As my friend from Indiana pointed out, there is a convergence of energy and interests and anticipation really in doing something good in this session of Congress in regards to reforming the education system in this country. I am a proud sponsor, as a member of the new Democratic Coalition, of the RRRs program that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) has just laid out for us. I think it is a realistic proposal. It is credible, and it is long overdue. The consolidation aspect is much needed. It will increase flexibility to local school districts so that the decision-makers, those who are intimately involved in reforming the education system, will have an opportunity to implement the reforms that they know will succeed at the local level; but it also recognizes importantly enough that we have to be committed to making a major investment if we are going to see the results that we are demanding now from our school districts and the administrators. This is a very exciting proposal. It is a very good starting point. Many of the features that we have in this RRR proposal are very similar to what the new administration and President Bush just announced last week. In fact, last Thursday I had the opportunity to go to the White House and sit down and have a good conversation with the President, along with a few other members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, in regards to the proposals that he released last week. There are a lot of good proposals that President Bush is bringing to the table on education reform, not least of which is his philosophy that there is a Federal role in the education system, in the education of our children. It was a philosophy that in recent years, at least, we were fighting on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Many of our colleagues in this Chamber were actually advocating shutting down the Department of Education, claiming that there was no Federal role at all to help with local school districts and the resources that they need in order to make the improvements that we would like to see. President Bush is saying, no, that is wrong. There is a role. We have a responsibility, and there is a way for us to work together in a bipartisan fashion to assist these local school districts in making these reforms. There are also some points of contention, issues that we are going to seriously debate and get into as we get into the formulation of education policy, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that we have to get accomplished this year in committee; not least of which is the whole idea of accountability, and what people mean by that, because it has various definitions. It has various meanings. I think what we have with the RRR proposal from the new Democratic Coalition is a requirement that we want to see student performance measured so that we can take corrective action, take remedial action for students who are detected as falling behind, so that they are not left behind as they progress through the education system. I would hate for us in this Congress, though, to work on a system of accountability which merely establishes a regime of sanctions and penalties, and I am afraid that with the private voucher proposal in the President's plan that we could very easily get to that step where we would be draining precious and limited resources from the public education system that we want to support and put it into the private sphere, where there are, granted, a lot of good private schools doing wonderful things throughout the country. But let us face it, the private school system does not have the same type of system of accountability that the public school systems currently have. Nor would we necessarily want to attach strings and a lot of accountability with the funds that go into private, and especially parochial, education. I am very concerned about the separation of church-and-state issues if accountability follows the Federal dollars, which is an issue that really has not been aired all that much when one gets into the private voucher plan, and one that we really need to be more careful about in our discussions as we go forward. There are some very attractive features in what the President is calling for, what we are calling for in our education plan, the emphasis on professional development programs so we have the quality teachers in the classroom, which is perhaps the second most important determinant of how well our students are going to perform, right after parental involvement. I hope we do not lose sight of the necessity of investing in professional development of the school leaders, principals, superintendents, the administrators. Everyone who has been involved in the school system realizes how important it is to have quality people in those positions to quarterback the education system and to provide guidance and implement the reforms that are necessary. The President, too, is emphasizing, as President Clinton before him, early childhood literacy programs which, again, received fierce resistance in this House over the last 4 years, the Reading Excellence Act. President Bush is now asking for a ramp up in early childhood literacy programs, and I applaud him for that, but there is one area that hopefully we can embrace and form bipartisan consensus around, and that is for this United States Congress to live up to the Federal responsibility and obligation to fully fund special education costs throughout the country. Our obligation is roughly 40 percent of the special education costs that school districts have to incur in order to educate these children. These children deserve to be educated. They deserve to get a good education, but it requires an investment because of the special needs that they bring to the classroom. We have only been funding it at roughly 12, 13 percent. If we can get to that 40 percent level, which will require a substantial investment in special education, IDEA is the program's name, that would free up a lot of resources then by its very nature at the local school districts. That would provide them with increased flexibility in order to make reforms that they want to make at the local school districts, and all that it requires is an act of Congress, with the cooperation of the appropriators and the administration, to be committed to this concept of fully funding our obligation to special education needs across the country. Not only is it the right thing to do, I think it is good policy if we really want to see the results that many of us have a passion for in the public school system. It is an issue that I personally raised with the President as they are beginning to formulate their budget proposal which will be submitted shortly to Congress for our consideration. Just to close on a point that my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), made, there is a lot of euphoria in Washington these days in regards to the latest CBO projected budget surpluses, $5.6 trillion, which was announced today; but I think we need to be careful because I think the greatest challenge we are going to face this year in Congress is to lose fiscal discipline. By that I mean if we look at the actual numbers and how they play out, first of all, two-thirds of even that projection does not occur until the second 5 years, which means we cannot front-load a lot of that tax cut which a lot of people want to do because of the slowdown of economic times. We do not have the money to do that. Secondly, if we take the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund out of that equation, and hopefully we are going to have consensus on that this year, that $5.6 trillion is suddenly reduced to $2.6 trillion. If we are starting with a premise of a $2 trillion-plus tax cut, that leaves very little for all the other domestic policy items which will be receiving attention, increasing defense spending, farm relief again because the farmers are suffering, the education investment that many of us would like to see; but also I think we are hopeful and hedging our bets on whether or not the economy is going to continue to perform and produce these surpluses that these tax figures are being based upon right now. So we face some challenges. I think we have a lot of area of common ground and some good common agreement in which to start from. There are going to be some contentious issues. I think the RRR proposal that we are introducing today is very comparable, in fact, to what a lot of moderate Republicans in Congress have been advocating for some time as well. I feel a political coalition can be formed quite easily, as long as we deal up front with some of the more contentious issues and not allow that to bring down what could be a very good education year here in the United States Congress. I commend again my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for the hard work that he has put in over the last couple of years in being able to put an education proposal of this nature together. There have been a lot of people involved and hopefully good things will emanate from it.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on December 4, 2000, 1 and my good friend from California, Representative Sam Farr, had the honor and privilege of visiting the Ardennes American Cemetery and Memorial, near the village of Neupre in Belgium. The visit was an extremely moving experience, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity not only to view the beautifully maintained cemetery and memorial, but to lay a wreath in honor of the Americans who gave their lives in protection of their nation and the liberation of Europe. The Ardennes American Cemetery is one of 14 permanent American World War 11 military cemeteries constructed on foreign soil by the American Battle Monuments Commission. It lies among the battlefields of the Ardennes plateau, across which American and Allied forces courageously fought their way first to the German frontier, then to the Rhine River, and eventually into the very heart of Nazi Germany. On December 16, 1944, a major German counteroffensive stalled the Allied advancement across the Ardennes. The ``Battle of the Bulge,'' as the Ardennes- Alsace Campaign has come to be known, proved to be a furious struggle in bitter cold and harsh conditions, and in the first days of 1945, all attacks ground to a halt. On February 2, 1945, the First U.S. Army struck out to the Roer River. Six days later, the Canadian First Army advanced to the southeast, followed by a converging attack in the northeast by the Ninth U.S. Army. In the following weeks, the Allies found success and continued their march eastward toward the Rhine River. By the end of March, Allied armies, including French forces, advanced into Germany across a broad front. Allied forces liberated the site of the Ardennes American Cemetery in September 1944, and a temporary cemetery was established on February 8, 1945. After the war, the remains of American military personnel buried in temporary cemeteries were moved to the new permanent foreign cemeteries upon the request of next of kin. Many of those interred at the Ardennes American Cemetery died during the Battle of the Bulge and the subsequent offenses and counter-offenses in the region. The beauty and grandeur of the cemetery and memorial at Ardennes quietly convey the courage and sacrifice of the Americans who lost their lives on foreign soil while fighting for the highest principles on which their nation was established. The grounds and visitor center are wonderfully maintained by a diligent and knowledgeable staff. In particular, I would like to thank the Cemetery Superintendent, Hans Hooker, and his wife Virginia, for the wonderful treatment our delegation received on our visit. I would also like to recognize Vincent Joris for his valuable contribution in the upkeep of cemetery. One of the more interesting and heartwarming aspects of the Ardennes cemetery is the support and commitment shown to it by the people of Belgium. In fact, 85 percent of the soidiers' graves at Ardennes are ``sponsored'' by a Belgian family, who watch over the site, ensure that it is in a good state of repair, and even place flowers or other memorials at the grave on special occasions. All Americans should be very grateful for this outpouring of fellowship and allegiance by the people of Belgium. Representative Farr and I were honored to be the first members of Congress to visit the Ardennes Cemetery and Memorial in its 55 year history. As we laid a wreath for those who perished during World War 11, and gazed upon the crisp rows of white crosses, I was struck by a sense of awe, pride and humility. Over 5,000 men are buried at Ardennes, more than 100 of which hailed from my home state of Wisconsin. Men from almost every state are buried there, as well soldiers from 11 countries. The unity of effort to defeat Nazism and fascism is reflected in the solemnity of the individual grave markers creating the greater unit of a single, expansive cross. I encourage all Americans to take advantage of the enriching experience of visiting U.S. battle memorials and cemeteries when traveling overseas. Such excursions give individuals and families an opportunity to reunite with their past--to find and touch the graves of friends and loved ones lost in the great battles of the 20th Century, or simply to study a chapter of American history in surroundings that inspire both pride and reflection. In fact, in Fiscal Year 1999, over 10 million visitors were hosted by the American Battle Monument Commission, at 24 permanent cemeteries and 27 memorials located in 15 countries around the globe. I also commend the Commission and their staff worldwide for their dedication to the preservation of American graves, American history, and American principles. As the battles of the World Wars begin to fade into history, it is important that we, as a nation, recognize and reflect on our past involvements across the oceans. These experiences shaped the course of our Nation's greatness in the years since, and neither those events, nor the men and women who perished in their making, should ever be forgotten.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 601, unfortunately, due to an unavoidable weather delay I missed today's rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could rise today and offer my unqualified support for the conference WRDA bill that is before us today. But I want to be clear that the version that came out of the House I thought had a lot of good provisions in it that have been watered down now. Changes were made on the Senate side, however, that I think set us back in two major areas of concern. One is the much needed comprehensive Corps reform that I think is desperately needed for that embattled agency. Earlier this year, I, along with a few other of my colleagues, introduced comprehensive Corps reform, H.R. 4879. This was not an anti- Corps reform bill that we introduced. It merely reflected the need for some change for the embattled agency to lift the cloud that currently hangs over it. The original WRDA coming out of the House contained some pilot projects for important independent peer reviews that I think is needed in order to let the sun shine in on the Corps' water resource projects. Unfortunately, instead of adopting the pilot language in the conference report, they instead stripped it out of the language and, in fact, ordered another couple of studies for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct over the next couple of years, one involving independent peer review mind you. The problem I have with that, however, is that the National Academy of Science has already devoted years of study to this and, in fact, last year already released a comprehensive review and recommendations for Corps reform in the ``New Directions and Water Resources Planning'' for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It was this study that came out last year that provided the basis of much of what was contained in my comprehensive Corps reform bill. I do not think it is necessary for us to be allocating a few million more dollars for the National Academy of Sciences to continue their study on Corps reform when, in fact, they have already done it in depth with great analysis and with a lot of fine recommendations that we need to move forward on. There are, however, some good provisions in this bill regarding Corps reform. One provision requires enhanced public participation in the review of feasibility studies and Corps projects and also one that directs the Secretary to design mitigation projects using contemporary understanding of science and mitigating adverse environmental effects, which was, language that was included in the Corps reform bill that we had introduced earlier this year. So I think we still need to do more work. I do not think now is the time to conduct more studies with the National Academy of Sciences. But the other provision of this, Mr. Speaker, relates to how we can better preserve and protect another vitally important natural resource in this country, the Mississippi River Basin. And with that, we are very pleased that we were able to keep in the conference report a scientific modeling program on sedimentation and nutrient flows for the Mississippi River Basin. Any expert on the river will tell you that problem is the number one danger facing that important ecosystem. In fact, it is North America's largest migratory route, as well as providing incredibly important functions relating to commercial navigation, tourism, and recreation activities. I think having the scientific modelling program in place is an important first step in being able to direct targeted resources in a more cost-effective manner in order to preserve this important natural resource. Unfortunately, again the language on the House was not adopted. The Senate, in fact, included a 50-50 cost share with States, which many of us think is going to put the modeling program in danger. Hopefully, the States will recognize the need to participate. But many of the people who we got feedback from at the State level were concerned about the 50-50 cost-share that is ultimately included in this bill. We are just going to have to wait and see how that plays out. But finally this WRDA bill has good language in regards to a lower Mississippi River resource assessment, basically directing an assessment on information needed for river-related management, habitat needs, the need for river-related recreation and access in the lower part of the Mississippi River Basin. We have a very successful Environmental Management Program that affects the Upper Mississippi River with habitat restoration, and long- term resource monitoring. Now is the time to start treating the Mississippi as the continuous ecosystem that it is and take a holistic approach. I believe this Lower Mississippi River resources assessment is the first step to extend EMP to lower regions of the River so we have a comprehensive and holistic approach to river management. Finally, I want to commend the leadership on the House, the chair and the ranking members of the appropriate committees for the work they have put into this important bill and especially the attention that has been given on the House side in regards to steps we can take for Corps reform and how we can better manage and preserve and protect the Mississippi River Basin.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today, kindergarten teachers estimate that one in three children enters the classroom unprepared to meet the challenges of school. Prekindergarten programs are key to helping these young people be ready to learn when they attend their first day of school. Many children, however, do not have access to pre-k programs. While several states, including Wisconsin, are expanding their prekindergarten programs, only one state in the country, Georgia, currently has a universal pre-k program. To help states meet the challenge of providing quality prekindergarten programs, I introduced the Providing Resources and Education for Kids Act (Pre-K Act) on October 25, 2000. This legislation would provide grants to state education agencies to help establish or strengthen prekindergarten early learning programs that provide full day, full calendar year early learning services 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. Good quality early education helps children develop, enter school ready to succeed and improve their skills. In fact, studies of several state prekindergarten initiatives offer convincing evidence of the benefits of early education for children at risk of school failure such as higher mathematics and reading achievement, increased creativity, better school attendance, improved health and greater parental involvement. Further, prekindergarten programs have proven cost- effective over time. The Rand Corporation and a team of researchers at the University of Wisconsin estimate that the most effective prekindergarten 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. I hope that Congress would consider this important issue before we adjourn for the year. If, however, we are unable to debate the Pre-K Act, I will work to make it a top priority when the 107th Congress considers the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me this time, and I too want to rise in support of H.R. 2498, and I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the chairman and ranking member on the subcommittee, and the bipartisan support that this legislation received and the work product that went into it from the Committee on Commerce. Obviously, this was a work in progress with a lot of input from a lot of areas, and it is nice to be on the floor here tonight with a true bipartisan form of health care legislation. I think many Americans will reap dividends throughout our country in future years. I am happy to support the bill not only because placing automatic external defibrillators, AEDs for short, in Federal buildings will help save lives for those who live in urban areas, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has just pointed out, and I also commend him for the work and the leadership he has provided in recognizing the importance to have access to AEDs for more Americans, but also because this bill includes the language of H.R. 4953, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act, which I along with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) introduced earlier this year. In my home State of Wisconsin, nearly 200,000 people are afflicted with heart disease. It is the number one killer throughout the State, the number one killer in every county throughout the State, taking the lives of nearly 20,000 Wisconsonites every year. New technology, such as AEDs, can improve survival rates, but only if the devices are accessible and available. Unfortunately, in rural areas, the availability of AEDs is limited. Hospitals are often located far from the scene of an emergency, and fewer than half of all ambulances in the United States actually carry AEDs. By giving grants to emergency responders and community partnerships to purchase AEDs and to train people on how to administer CPR, citizens in rural areas especially will benefit and will have a better chance of surviving cardiac arrest. In western Wisconsin, we have seen the benefits of AED access already. Thanks to Scott Wuerch, an American Heart Association volunteer, all Eau Claire County sheriffs are now trained to use and are equipped with AEDs, and it is my hope that with passage of this bill that citizens in rural America will have a better chance of surviving cardiac arrest. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) already indicated the article that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, the two studies showing the benefits in the use of AEDs. Most of the major newspaper publications this week have been printing stories in regard to the effectiveness of AEDs and the need to increase access for it. In fact, this week I hope a lot of my colleagues were able to capture the article in USA Today on Wednesday titled ``The Prescription to Save Lives.'' It provides a condensed, but very good, account of the important role that AEDs are now performing throughout America and increased access to it, but also the work that needs to be done. The gentleman from Florida already indicated that during cardiac arrest every minute of failed treatment results in a 10 percent less chance of survival. Ten minutes usually results in fatality. But what this article also pointed out was how simple the training of AEDs can be. In fact, after a few short minutes, even children can be trained to use it. Most of these devices now have computerized voices that actually walk the people through on how to effectively use AEDs. In fact, recent studies show that 50 percent of even untrained people can successfully use AEDs in emergency situations. So I think the evidence, the studies that have come out now, also the support that we are seeing here tonight on the floor, is indication enough of just how important this legislation is and being able to provide access to automatic external defibrillators for more people in the country, but especially in rural areas, Mr. Speaker. So again I commend the leadership on the committee. I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) for introducing the rural access bill earlier this year, and I would encourage all my colleagues to support this good bipartisan piece of health care legislation before us.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to share my strong support for S. 2773--the Dairy Marketing Enhancement Act of 2000. To our nation's dairy farmers this legislation is commonly referred to as the mandatory price reporting bill. This legislation was passed by the Senate earlier today. Identical legislation, H.R. 5495, was introduced by myself, Congressman Simpson and others. This legislation is urgently needed to restore producer confidence in the dairy market following recent cheese and butter price/inventory reporting fiascoes that sent markets plunging. As my colleagues who represent dairy farmers know, recent reporting errors in cheese and butter stocks have highlighted the need to make reporting of storable dairy products mandatory, verifiable and enforceable. A Chicago Mercantile Exchange warehouse reporting error resulted in a sizable inventory adjustment and caused a 10 cent drop in the double a butter price. This latest inventory reporting error came less than a year after a similar error with the U.S. Department of Agriculture cheese inventory. Following that reporting error cheese prices dropped within a week to their lowest levels in almost a decade. These events have caused a great deal of concern among our nation's dairy producers. Under current law, manufacturers of dairy products voluntarily provide the USDA with the amount and price of dairy commodities (cheese and butter) that the manufacturer has sold during a given month. This information is then used by the USDA to establish the minimum monthly prices under the federal milk marketing order system. This legislation will foster a more accurate price and inventory reporting system for dairy products and enable farmers to base business decisions on the most accurate information. By requiring mandatory reporting, dairy producers will be given more accurate, complete and timely market information. This information will lead to a better price discovery for all dairy products and allow producers and other market participants to make fully informed business decisions with respect to the marketing of raw milk. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the calender year, dairy farmers have experienced excruciating low milk prices. These inhospitable market conditions have resulted in the loss of 3-to-4 family dairy farmers in my home state of Wisconsin each day. With the loss of these farmers, the economies of our rural communities are also placed under extreme financial pressure. While this legislation is no panacea for ailing milk prices, it will go a long way in improving prevailing attitude and restore some much needed optimism. It is for this reason that I ask all of my colleagues to join me in passing this simple but important piece of legislation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oregon for yielding me this time this evening. I saw that he was talking about some very important issues dealing with the environment and conservation measures, and I do appreciate his support on the Corps reform bill that we introduced earlier this year, and we are happy to report that at least on a limited basis, a lot of the provisions that were contained in the reform bill that we offered are now adopted as pilot projects in the recent passage of the Water Resources Development Act. I think it is a very positive step forward in letting the sunshine in on the Corps planning process by having outside expert review panels taking a look at projects up front to determine whether or not there would be a sufficient mitigation for any type of environmental damage that is done involving Corps projects, and whether it is cost- effective. This is not an anti-Corps bill that we introduced; rather one that would hopefully lift the cloud over what has become an embattled agency. Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that I wanted to touch upon briefly this evening, one that I think there is a clear difference on as far as the agenda between Al Gore and George Bush. I represent western Wisconsin. It is a district that is still one of the largest dairy-producing districts in the entire Nation. However, our family farmers are under a crisis right now. There is a crisis in rural America that is sweeping the country, affecting all family farmers, with low commodity prices, low milk prices, and some of us here in Congress have been thinking of ways of what we can do as policymakers to assist our family farmers to survive. I know it is true for the family farmers that I represent in western Wisconsin that they are some of the best land stewards in the entire Nation. They understand the importance of conservation measures, sustainable farming practices, the effect it has on watershed areas. In fact, there are a lot of good land conservation programs coming out of the Department of Agriculture that many of our farmers participate in. They are very popular, and they are a win-win for everyone involved. Farmers get direct cash assistance for participating in the programs which allows them to implement voluntary and incentive- based conservation practices right on their own land. Just to name a few, there is a wetlands reserve program that a lot of outdoor recreationists especially appreciate because of the water fowl and the benefit it brings to the water fowl species. There is Equip and there is also something called CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program. These are very popular programs for the farmers back in Wisconsin, and I know it is true for farmers throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, this is a way to provide some cash flow to what has become a very difficult economic time for our family farmers. They participate in land conservation programs on a voluntary basis, they get cash assistance, and the communities around them benefit with cleaner watershed areas and less runoff that is occurring with sedimentation and nutrients from the farmland. I have had many conversations with Vice President Gore in this regard, because we have another farm bill that is going to be coming up for reauthorization in the next session of Congress, and Vice President Gore is a strong supporter of sound land conservation practices that can benefit farmers, but which will also benefit the communities in which they are operating. This is a huge difference between what Al Gore is proposing in regards to agriculture and farm policy and what Governor Bush is talking about. In fact, it was striking in the last debate when we listened to the question that was raised in St. Louis in regards to agriculture policy; and I, for one, was very happy that it was finally raised as a question during these presidential debates, the striking difference between the answers, between Al Gore and George Bush. Al Gore recognized that there is a crisis right now in rural America, that family farmers are going out in droves because of low commodity prices. We are losing about three or four a day every day in the State of Wisconsin alone, and I know this is true in other parts of the country. Al Gore pledged to open up the farm bill as soon as possible, before it is too late for many, many more family farmers, and get to work on various programs. I have introduced the National Dairy Reform bill that is receiving some support from other representatives in other regions. This has been an area of agriculture policy that has typically pitted farmer against farmer in region against region with no consensus being developed. But I have introduced a bill that representatives in the Northeast and Southeast recognize could be very helpful in order to level the income stream for family farmers and enable them to survive during very tough market conditions. It is countercyclical in nature in that it would offer countercyclical payments to farmers when the market price drops below a certain level. Mr. Speaker, I think this is important, because family farmers do bring diversification in the agriculture sector as well as more sustainable farming operations, which has a direct impact on the environment and conservation practices in which they are operating. George Bush, on the other hand, has already stated as part of his agricultural agenda that he would completely eliminate the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, which is one of the most effective conservation measures that is working for our family farmers today. He would just as soon get rid of the entire program, which I find quite astounding. His only response during the debate when it came to the farmers' question, what will you do to help farmers survive in what are some of the toughest market conditions they have faced in the last 30 years, his only response was, well, I will work hard to open up market access overseas. Well, on a theoretical and conceptual plane, that is fine, and Al Gore too is a big believer in being able to export more of our agricultural products abroad.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I just want to also commend the gentleman from Oregon for the leadership that he has provided this Congress in regards to livable communities. In fact, he established the Livable Communities Caucus, a working group of Representatives who get together and discuss a lot of sustainable development ideas, things that all of our communities are wrestling with day in and day out back home in regards to how they want to see their neighborhoods, their cities, their communities look in the next 20, 30, 50 years from now. There is a lot of planning, development planning taking place back home. But there is also a lot of things that are being done here in the United States Congress, policy being made that can work to the detriment of this planning process back at the local level. The gentleman from Oregon is raising that issue where it has never been raised before in the United States Congress. I appreciate his insight, his expertise on that, the fact that he has been able to reach out, bring in other Representatives from across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion again to have these discussions and to get everyone here thinking about what the implications are and policy that we pass and adopt in this body and how that is going to affect either to the benefit or the detriment of local communities and their planning process, development process of back home. So I commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). I look forward to working with him some more in the future on what is perhaps one of the more important issues that is sweeping the country right now when it comes to sustainable development issues. I thank him.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, it was entirely inconsistent with what he was saying during the debate and with what he was actually advocating during the legislative process and what we were actually working on here. But what is even more astounding is that the crisis is real and it is today. When we are losing four or five family farms a day, we cannot sit around waiting for these utopian markets to open up overseas and to be exporting a lot of products. We do not export much dairy products to begin with. I mean there just is not a great export market today for them. So I think the farmers are really looking for a new administration that is willing to roll up their sleeves and work on farm policy that can start having an impact as soon as possible. Otherwise, if we wait around for these theoretical markets to open up overseas, it may be way too late for our farmers. Mr. Speaker, another important part that we will have a chance to look at and discuss and debate and hopefully adopt as a part of the farm bill are these land conservation bills, something that Al Gore has consistently supported in his career in both the House and Senate and now in his career as Vice President of the United States, something he has pledged to support again in the future. I am highly confident that if it is his administration that we are dealing with when we are creating the next farm bill, that land conservation programs that are voluntary and incentive-based, that do provide income assistance to farmers who want to be able to do this, but when they are looking at low commodity prices and it is their very survival that is on the line right now, they do not have the extra cash reserves to implement some of the conservation programs that they know would work and work well on their own land. So it could be a wonderful partnership that is formed with already existing programs, with more creative thinking in regards to conservation measures that will help our farmers; and ultimately, it is going to benefit the water quality and the watershed area all around these producers. I think it is a very important distinction. I think it is a very important difference between what Al Gore has been talking about during the course of the campaign, the type of conservation agenda he would pursue as it relates to family farmers in the country and what Governor Bush either does not support or perhaps just does not realize the importance of these programs that he is advocating to eliminate right now. So I just wanted to come down and share that point in particular, given what we are experiencing back home in Wisconsin, with the plight of our family farmers, and really the difference in vision that is being offered by Al Gore on the one hand, who recognizes the crisis, has pledged to open up the farm bill right away, rather than waiting for another 2 years or maybe 3 years to implement some new farm policy, but also his strong support for land conservation measures that are going to make sense for those individual farmers. I also wanted to just quickly commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and also Senator Harkin from Iowa for taking the initiative in introducing legislation last week called the Conservation Security Act. What this will do is again, in line with the voluntary incentive basis for land conservation programs and cash assistance to farmers who develop and implement a comprehensive conservation plan for their land. What is interesting with this legislative proposal is that it will be unique to each of the individual producers. It will not be: this is the program; now, see if we can fit it into your land. It will be: what do we have to work with, and then with technical assistance that will be provided, those farmers will be able to develop a conservation plan for their particular tract of land that they are producing on. It is a novel approach in that it provides an incredible amount of flexibility for the farmers to really accentuate the positive on their own land, rather than taking some round circle and trying to fit it into a square challenge that might be affecting their particular land. I am hoping that this legislative initiative that I am co-sponsoring with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) on the House side, along with some bipartisan support from the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and others that this, too, will receive very serious attention. But when one looks at farm policy, there are not any easy answers. If there were, they would have been found a long time ago. I think this is one area where we can do a better job of being able to provide an answer to family farmers in the area of environment and conservation measures that many of the farmers are doing, and they do very well but needs some assistance, some financial resources in order to accomplish the commonly shared objective of being good land stewards on the land. So with that point, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for the time this evening.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000 (H.R. 782). It is impressive that during the waning days of Congress, we could reach a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on this important legislation. Since its enactment more than thirty years ago, the Older Americans Act has enabled millions of older persons, especially those with disabilities, to remain independent and productive. Many of these individuals would have been institutionalized were it not for the home and community-based services such as meals and transportation provided by the landmark legislation. The nutrition programs, including Meals on Wheels, provided about 240 million congregate and home-delivered meals last year to more than three million of our nation's senior citizens. Older Americans have also benefited from the Senior Community Service Employment program that provides on-the-job-training for those who needs work. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have worked diligently with my colleagues to reach a consensus on reauthorization, and this legislation before us addresses a number of critical issues. One of the biggest debates during committee consideration was funding for the Senior Community Service Employment program. H.R. 782 ensures that no state will receive less than it received in FY2000 and every state is guaranteed a certain percentage of any new money that is appropriate above the FY2000 level. In addition, no national organization, such as Green Thumb, will receive less than what is needed to match its effort in FY2000. Further, this legislation continues to target resources to the seniors who are most in need and ensures that funds are more equitably distributed between urban and rural areas. The size of the elderly population will begin to dramatically increase in the next decade, putting greater demands on the time and energy of family caregivers. We need to explore ways to support our families when they are called upon to fill these vital roles. I am pleased that H.R. 782 includes the National Family Caregiver Support Program. Modeled after efforts begun in Wisconsin and elsewhere, it would provide grants to states for the following services: (1) information to caregivers about available services; (2) assistance to caregivers in gaining access to services; and (3) counseling and training to help families make decisions and solve problems related to their caregiving roles. I know how important the Older Americans Act is to millions of seniors, particularly those in rural regions such as western Wisconsin. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and demonstrate our continued commitment to our nation's seniors.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I want to thank my ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2796, WRDA 2000. I especially want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) and their entire staffs for taking a step to address the serious issue of reforming the Corps of Engineers in this legislation. Despite its historic reputation for professionalism and integrity, the Corps of Engineers is at present an embattled agency. Frequent litigation and investigations into claims that Corps projects lack sound economic justification or contain inadequate environmental provisions point to deficiencies in the Corps process for planning and approving water resources projects. I am particularly pleased that this legislation takes the first step in providing for an independent review of large or controversial water development projects. The language in the House version of WRDA 2000 is modeled after legislation that I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 4879. The central provision of that legislation was to create an independent panel of water resource experts to review projects that would cost in excess of $25 million or are subject to a substantial degree of public controversy. The House-worded bill creates a 3-year pilot program of the independent review process. It was my hope that stronger provisions than the pilot program would have been included in the bill before the House today. However, due to the closed rule, an amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and myself obviously was not made in order. But the central purpose of the independent review is to lift the cloud currently hanging over the Corps and to enable the Corps to get on with its important work on our Nation's rivers, lakes, coastlines, and harbors. The best way to achieve this goal is to increase the level of transparency and accountability in the Corps planning process and to establish guidelines that strike a genuine balance between economic development and other social and environmental priorities. I cannot help but think if this pilot project or my legislation had been included in the Corps' authorizing language 50 years ago, we may not be here today talking about a big Florida Everglades restoration project. I also want to thank Members and the committee staff for working with me to include in this legislation a scientific modeling program for the Upper Mississippi River Basin, so we can do a better job of protecting and preserving one of America's greatest natural resources, the Mississippi River. It is a small provision, but it is a very important provision if we are to maintain the multiple uses of the Mississippi River, recreation, tourism and commercial. So, again, I want to thank the ranking members on the committee, the staff for the assistance we received; and I would urge my colleagues to support the House version of WRDA, given the important language and the important pilot project that is included to reform the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in honoring the entire crew of the U.S.S. Cole, and in offering my heartfelt condolences to the families of those sailors who gave their lives in service to their country. As often as I can, I offer my sincere appreciation and admiration to the men and women who proudly serve in uniform on behalf of the United States of America. The efforts of these fine Americans, both in peacetime and in war, not only have allowed this nation to achieve its stature as the greatest institution of democracy and liberty the world has ever known, but have ensured the high level of security and prosperity we now know. However, on this day we must sadly confront the harsh reality that national security is not without risk. Today we are reminded that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are, in fact, our front line of defense in an unpredictable and sometimes dangerous world. We realize, as is carved in granite at the National Korean War Memorial, ``peace is not free.'' Sometimes the cost of peace comes at a very high price. The sailors of the U.S.S. Cole, those cruelly snatched from this Earth, those injured in the blast, and those still on board who bravely worked to assist their mates and who continue to struggle to maintain their ship, represent the noblest principles of our nation and of our history. Almost 140 years ago, when consecrating the graves of Americans who gave their lives in the fields of Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln said: ``The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but we must never forget what they did here.'' Few words ring as true through the ages, or as appropriate on this solemn day. Today, my colleagues and I grieve and pray with the families who lost loved ones on board the Cole, and with the sailors recovering from injuries sustained in the vicious attack. Our nation's resolve to find those responsible for this tragedy is strong, and our will to ensure justice is unbending. All Americans, across this nation and at all points of the globe, must never forget the ultimate sacrifice of these men and women and of their families. But, I submit, each of us must also strive to better remember and honor the acts of bravery and sacrifice our men and women in uniform commit each and every day.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I commend him and the rest of the Minnesota delegation for organizing this special order to pay tribute to a dear friend, Bruce Vento. Bruce Vento was a dear friend and a dear colleague of mine, who I greatly respected and admired. Even though I have had the privilege of serving with him for the past 4 years in the United States Congress, I knew of Bruce Vento as an admirer from afar, given his work on conservation and environmental measures and as a resident of western Wisconsin just across the river from his congressional district. Since coming to Congress, I had the privilege of serving with him on the Committee on Resources and the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands; and he was a natural leader on the Committee on Resources, unquestionably, given his profound interest and depth of knowledge and expertise on these issues of 24 years serving on the Committee on Resources; 10 of those years as Chair of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, to which the Nation owes him a debt of gratitude. His strong leadership on the Committee on Resources resulted in protecting hundreds of thousands of acreage and the enactment of over 300 laws preserving the environment, from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Area, a place that holds special meaning to me since I try to get up there for a week every summer with some brothers and friends to spend time in the Boundary Waters Area canoeing and camping; to the Minnesota National Wildlife Refuge; to the new parks and wilderness that were created in Alaska and even in American Samoa, as our good friend just stated earlier. What especially impressed me about Bruce Vento was his concern about some of the most disenfranchised and politically powerless people that exist in our country, from the homeless to his concern for housing issues but especially his tireless advocacy for the Hmong population in this country. Both Bruce Vento and I share a sizable Hmong population in our respective congressional districts. That is why I was especially proud to be able to join forces with Bruce on a number of issues that affected Hmong rights, but most particularly the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act that Bruce championed for quite a few years and which ultimately was passed into law this year, that recognizes the tremendous contribution that Hmong veterans and their families gave U.S. armed services personnel during the war in Southeast Asia. These were people who fought side by side with our veterans of the Vietnam conflict. They were there building the landing strips for our air personnel. They were there rescuing downed pilots during the Vietnam War, and they were the ones who were most persecuted after the war, many of whom were able to seek refuge and safety in the United States. But these were not a very politically powerful or a large political constituency, and they were a group of people who were in search of a leader to represent their views and to bring fairness and decency to their cause, and that is what Bruce Vento provided them. This was not a political issue for him, but it was an issue of doing right by our friends and allies and recognizing their contribution. Perhaps there are going to be many living legacies that Bruce Vento has given us in this Nation, but I could not think of one more important or more lasting than providing a home in a country for the Hmong population who live with us today. The people in Minnesota and Wisconsin and the entire United States will sorely miss Congressman Bruce Vento. I am proud to have served with him and to have called him my friend, but I especially appreciated the moments we shared together on our numerous flights to and from the Twin Cities and out here to Washington. He and I would oftentimes be sitting next to each other, which gave me a wonderful opportunity to pick his brain and talk about legislation and policy issues. I enjoyed listening to his stories of his recent bike trips that he enjoyed doing time and time again, but I especially liked listening to his stories about his family. For a guy who was as busy and as committed as Bruce Vento was on the great public policy issues of our day and the work that he did in the United States Congress, he always kept family first. He was so proud of his children, but especially proud of his grandchildren. You could just see his face light up with joy and excitement talking about his latest discovery of a grandchild, or of seeing the world anew through his grandchildren. That, for a young Member of Congress, that drove home a very important point and lesson that I have committed to my own service here. That was to not lose focus or proper perspective on the role and the importance of family life and spending enough time with our own children, and hopefully someday for myself, even my grandchildren. He will be missed. He will never be replaced. But I can honestly say that this country is definitely a better place due to his efforts. I thank him for his advice and guidance, and may he rest in peace.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank my friend and colleague from Utah for agreeing to call up this legislation tonight and sticking around, even though we are approaching the debate hour in this town. But I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and his majority staff of the Committee on House Administration, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and his staff, for all the help and cooperation and support they have shown in regards to this legislation that my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and I introduced just a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very simple, but I believe it is very important; important if this country has an interest in preserving our history. What this legislation basically does is directs the Library of Congress to establish a national archives for the collection and preservation of the oral history through videotape testimony of our veterans who are still with us today. Now that we have the technology to do it, I believe this Nation should make every conceivable effort to try to preserve this very important piece of American oral history before it is too late, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) already indicated. Time is of the essence. We have roughly 19 million veterans who are still with us today. Of that number, slightly more than 6 million are from the Second World War generation. They are passing away at roughly 1,500 a day, and with them go their memories. Recently, I have encountered a lot of veterans of the Second World War and the Korean generation who have been more willing to speak about their experiences in the twilight of their years. I have also encountered many family members who regret today the fact that they did not take time to videotape their loved ones, their father or mother or grandparents, in regards to their experience during these great conflicts that shaped the 20th century. Earlier this year, in April, this Congress declared the American GI as the Person of the Century because of the profound influence and impact they had on the course of human events in the 20th century. I do not think we can honor them any better than by trying to preserve their memories. What I envision ultimately once this project gets established and implemented is that children in the 22nd, 23rd, or even the 24th century, will be able to access through the Internet the videotaped statements of their great-great-great-grandfather or grandmother who served during the Second World War or Korean War or the Viet Nam War or the Gulf War. What an incredibly powerful history lesson that would be, and for future historians being able to research this part of history by using firsthand accounts from the videotape testimony we are going to be able to collect and preserve for future generations. The Library of Congress is uniquely situated to handle this project. They have an American Folk Life Center which is already taking videotape testimony of community leaders across the country asking them how they would like their communities to be remembered 100 or 200 years from now. So they have the expertise, and they have the technology. They are moving to digitize virtually everything contained at the Library of Congress now, and once we are able to start collecting these videotapes, they are going to be able to index it, digitize it, and make it available over the Internet for anyone interested in learning this part of our Nation's history. I also envision the help of a lot of family members and encourage their support in videotaping their loved ones, veterans who served in foreign conflicts, members of the VFW, American Legion Halls, who can set up videotaping places within their halls, encouraging veterans to come in and share their story. Class projects, students going out and actually videotaping and interviewing these veterans on tape for educational benefit, and these videotape collections being saved for the family archives purposes for community libraries, or historical societies, but ultimately a copy being sent out to the Library of Congress so we can index it, digitize it and make it available for future generations. I think this is a worthwhile project, one that will require the cooperation of countless people across the country, but especially from our veterans, who can leave an incredible gift, a gift that will keep on giving to generation after generation, by stepping forward and talking about their experiences in these conflicts that made this Nation the great Nation that it is today. So I want to again thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for all of his work and efforts put into this project. Unfortunately, he had a death in the family tonight, so he is not here to speak in person in favor of the bill. But I want to thank him for being the lead cosponsor on the Veterans Oral History Project. We have worked together on several pieces of good bipartisan legislation, and I am pleased to have joined forces with him yet again today. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) himself is a veteran of the Second World War. He served as a private first class in the United States Marine Corps; and, with any luck, we are going to be able to encourage him and the other veterans in this place to also participate in this important project. But it is going to require a collective effort to do so, and to do it well. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the author Stephen Ambrose for the support he has shown on the recommendations that he has made in support of the veterans oral history project. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank a few other people who have been instrumental in the creation of this legislation. Senators Max Cleland and Chuck Hagel have introduced this bill on the Senate side, and we are hoping towards the tail-end of their session we will be able to bring this up under unanimous consent and see it moved through the United States Senate. They have been instrumental in being able to move this on the Senate side. I also want to thank, in particular, Steve Kelly and Winston Tabb at the Library of Congress for providing invaluable assistance in the development of the project and for their enthusiasm they have shown for this project. I want to thank the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion for their support so far in what we anticipate to be a great partnership with those key and important organizations. I also want to thank Jeff Mazur on my staff, who has sat through countless numbers of meetings and countless number of drafts of this legislation in order to shape it and get it to a point where we were successful in speaking to our colleagues and obtaining close to 250 original cosponsors for this legislation. But, most of all, I want to thank the veterans of this Nation, those who I personally spoke to and who inspired me and those who I am sure the rest of my colleagues have had an opportunity to meet with and talk to and listen to them tell their stories. Without them, obviously, we would not be enjoying the freedoms and the liberties that we enjoy today. Again, with their support we can make this project what it was intended to be, a living legacy of their service to our country and a gift to future generations.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I also rise to pay tribute to an individual that is clearly one of the most dedicated champions of education policy in this country, our departing chairman, Bill Goodling. As a relatively new member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I can honestly say that Chairman Goodling has been the best chairman it has been my pleasure to serve with, but also the worse because he has been the only chairman that I have had the chance to work with on the Committee. Mr. Speaker, what has impressed me over the last 4 years, is an opportunity to sit there in front of him, to watch, listen, to learn, but also to watch how he runs the committee with such decency and fairness. Even though we had some heated discussions, disagreements at times over the best policy to pursue in regards to education, he was always eminently fair and decent in allowing Members to make their arguments during the course of debate. But what also impressed me about the Chairman was that in the final analysis, everyone knew that for the chairman it always came down to one thing, and that was the kids. And for the chairman, it was really one word that we heard repeatedly during the course of committee work, and that was ``quality, quality, quality.'' I especially appreciated, that emphasis given the fact that I sat right in front of him during committee, so I would be bombarded with quality, quality, quality, every day during the course of debates. Granted, some of that may have gone over my head, but a lot of it did sink in. I appreciated the chance to work with the gentleman on a few very important education initiatives: the Education Flexibility Act, which will provide local school districts greater flexibility in the use of Federal funds for programs that are working for them at the local level. The hard work that we put in on the Teacher Empowerment Act, again emphasizing quality. He knew that it does not matter what else goes on, but if we do not have quality teachers in the classroom, we are not going to see the type of student performance that all of us hope to see in the course of education reform. And the chairman has been one of the strongest earliest proponents of early childhood literacy and family literacy programs. That is why a lot of Members have already paid tribute to him for the work he did with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) on the Even Start program and now the LIFT Act that recently passed in this session of Congress. These are things that I think we have a lot of hope and promise of building upon, realizing that ultimately it is going to take quality educational instruction to see the type of student achievement that all of us would like to see achieved in this country. I do not know what the outcome of the November elections are going to be, and I do not know if I would hold much sway in a possible Bush administration if it comes to that, but I for one would be one of the first to recommend under a Bush administration for Secretary of Education, a person of the integrity and fairness and knowledge that Chairman Goodling would bring to that postition. I wish him well in retirement and I hope he realizes his leadership will be missed on the committee and in this House. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, in April, as a matter of fact, this Congress declared the American GI the Person of the Century. I believe it was entirely proper and fitting that we did so. But I also believe it is appropriate that those men and women whose contributions were recognized as the single-most significant force affecting the course of the 20th century have an opportunity to share their unique experience so that future generations might better understand the sacrifices made for the cause of democracy. Now, we have the technology to do so, Mr. Speaker. That is why I, along with my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), introduced a couple of weeks ago H.R. 5212, the Veterans Oral History Project. What the bill would do is direct the Library of Congress to establish a national archives for the collection and preservation of videotaped oral histories of our veterans, as well as the copying of letters that they wrote during their time in service, diaries that they may have kept, so there is a national repository of this very important part of our Nation's history. We also believe that time is of the essence with this oral history project, given that we have roughly 19 million veterans still with us in this country today, 6 million of whom fought during the Second World War, roughly 3,500 still exist from the First World War, but we are losing approximately 1,500 of those veterans a day. With them go their memories. That is why we feel this project and this legislation has a sense of urgency attached to it. Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg Address I think underestimated his oratorical skills when he stated, ``The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but we must never forget what they did here.'' That is exactly the concept behind this oral history project. It will require the cooperation of people across the country, not only the veterans to come forward to offer their videotaped stories, but also their family members to do the videotaping, or friends or neighbors, with VFW and American Legion halls across the country participating in it. I envision class projects centering on students going out and interviewing these veterans and preserving those videotapes for local history purposes, but to send a copy to the Library of Congress so that the library can digitize it, index it, and make it available, not only for today's historians and generation, but for future generations. I envision students, young people in the 22nd, even the 23rd century, being able to pop up on the Internet the videotaped testimonies of their great-great-great-great-grandfather or grandmother and learn firsthand from their grandparents' own words what it was like to serve during the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf War. What an incredibly powerful learning opportunity that will be for future generations. Every year I organize, on Veterans' Day, kind of a class field trip. I bring student groups into the VFW and American Legion halls, and I connect them to the veterans in our local communities and the veterans share their stories of the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, for instance, and the students are silent with attention, absorbing every last syllable that these veterans enunciate during that time. It is an incredible event that goes on, not only the veterans sharing of the stories, many of them for the very first time since they served their country, but for the students to learn on this firsthand account what it was like with the sacrifice and the courage that our men and women in uniform provided our country at the time of need. That is what is behind this Veterans Oral History Project. Last year we had some veterans that went into the American Legion Post 52 back in La Crosse that remind me of the purpose of this legislation. Ed Wojahn, a veteran of the Second World War; Jim Millin, also a veteran of the Second World War; Ralph Busler, who served three different tours of duty in Vietnam, all of whom came out and spoke to these student groups at the American Legion in La Crosse, Wisconsin, in my congressional district. I can recall as if it happened yesterday, Ed Wojahn telling his story and breaking down as he recounted visiting last summer in Belgium the grave site of a World War II comrade in arms who fell during the opening days of the Battle of the Bulge. Mr. Wojahn is 77 years old, and he told the students he was a 22- year-old Army combat engineer when he was captured by German forces in Belgium on his birthday, on December 18, 1944. His unit was without food, without ammunition, and was surrounded by German soldiers for 2 days before his captain finally surrendered. He stated, ``There was no way to go. You went forward, you went backwards, sideways, there were Germans everywhere.'' It was an incredible story that he told along with the other veterans on that day. Mr. Speaker, that is why I ask my colleagues, 250 of whom are original cosponsors, to move this legislation forward as quickly as possible since time is of the essence.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, nearly 1.5 million women are the victims of domestic violence and nearly one in every three adult women experience at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. We must not only remain committed to fighting sexual abuse, domestic violence and rape, but also improve our efforts on behalf of these victims. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation H.R. 1248, which would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. This bill would authorize more than $3 billion in funding and add new programs, including a new temporary housing grant that would provide funding to help women move out of shelters, a new grant for legal assistance to women who have been victims of violence, and grants authorizing help for disabled women victims. VAWA has significantly strengthened domestic violence shelters and services to battered women and children throughout my state of Wisconsin and across the United States. The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, through the programs in VAWA, have aided thousands of women in my state and help them cope and survive the tragedies of violence against women. As a former prosecutor in my home state of Wisconsin, responsible for prosecuting domestic violence, child abuse, adult and child sexual assault cases, I've seen first hand the scourge and scars domestic violence creates. We are at an important point in our history, a time when the leaders of our nation have made a commitment to stop violence against women and children. Through the many projects and programs developed through VAWA funding, we have just begun to clearly articulate the impact of sexual assault and domestic violence on our country. This legislation is critical in maintaining the federal commitment to ending this problem in our society. I want to thank Chairman Hyde and Mr. Conyers and a number of other members for their support in bringing this important legislation to the floor.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5234, legislation to amend The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000. I am pleased with the passage of H.R. 5234, the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act, and the president signing it into law. It was a necessary step in assisting the Hmong, a special group of legal immigrants who served with the U.S. Armed Forces and now require help in obtaining U.S. citizenship. It waives the residency requirement for those Hmong and their spouses. Additionally, it waives the English language test and residency requirement for attainment of U.S. citizenship. The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization was an important piece of legislation that will impact thousands of people in the United States, including the large Lao-Hmong community in my home district of western Wisconsin. H.R. 5234, however, extends the applicability of the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act to widows of the veterans covered by that law. They were inadvertently left out under the original legislation. Under this measure, therefore, the widows of those veterans would be exempt from certain citizenship requirements. This bill will help many more Hmong families and that is why I support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Hmong people need our help. It is wrong to abandon these men and women who served as valuable allies to us during the Southeastern Asian conflict. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. And I want to especially commend and thank Representative Bruce Vento for his leadership and hard work on behalf of the Hmong and this legislation. I'm sure all my colleagues join me in wishing him a speedy recovery and a happy retirement.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for yielding me this time and for allowing me to participate during this special order on what really should be the top priority, the top issue for this country of ours. We have had a tremendous run with economic success and growth in recent years. We have heard testimony today from the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, very enlightening and in-depth testimony about the important role of ramping up the quality of education and the implications for maintaining economic growth and expanding the opportunity for economic achievement in this country. We also had a wonderful second panel that testified as well with leaders in the education field who came, Mr. Haseltine, who is CEO of the Human Genome Science project; as well as Mr. Barrett, CEO of Intel Corporation talking about some of the innovative things that the private sector is doing to partner with the public sector to improve the quality of education. There is no question that we face challenges as a Nation in order to meet the growth needs that this economy has, but to expand the opportunities for success for all people and especially for our children in this country as we embark on what appears to be an incredible journey in the 21st century of scientific discoveries and wonders that are hard to imagine at this time. Mr. Haseltine from the Human Genome project, for instance, testified about the implications of not emphasizing enough math and science and engineering and technology in the classroom and the adverse effects that could have, then, on our ability to stay at the forefront of these discoveries. I happen to think that it is, not only good economically to do this to prioritize education in the country, but there are national security implications as well. I do not think it is too bold to predict today that, with the Human Genome project, the mapping of the human body, the possible discovery of water on Mars, and a moon off from Jupiter, and the tremendous amount of biotechnological discoveries, medical breakthroughs, scientific breakthroughs, we are probably going to see more of those discoveries in the next 10, 15, 20 years than we have seen discoveries in the last 300 years in this world. With that comes the challenge that this democracy and other democracies have around the globe that we need to do everything we can to get there first in making these type of scientific and medical breakthroughs, because they will have a profound effect on the course of human events. There are no guarantees that these scientific and medical discoveries will necessarily be used for good purposes to improve the human life. But I have more confidence that the democracies, if we make these discoveries first, will better shape these new discoveries for the betterment of mankind as opposed to some type of authoritarian or dictatorial regimes somewhere else on the globe making these discoveries. So it is kind of a national security issue that we are talking about as well why we need to have a national effort to improve the quality of education for our kids, an effort not unlike what we saw during the challenges posed to this country and to the free world during the Second World War where everyone in this country had a role to play, and the collective energy and resources of a Nation were brought to bear in order to achieve the common objective of defeating Nazism, fascism, the Japanese Empire in the Pacific. It was an incredible event in world history that the democracies were able to rally and accomplish that feat. I think we face the same type of challenge in the education system now where it is not going to just take policymakers or just parents or teachers or principals being involved but every member of this country, everyone in our society should have a role in improving the quality of education. A couple of weeks ago I had a chance to tour a lot of the elementary schools back in my district. At the time, I was releasing a report, a survey, a district-wide survey on the progress of reducing class size, knowing the success that that has reached in areas that have been successful in reducing class size, resulting in enhanced student performance as a result. The survey for western Wisconsin shows that we are doing a pretty good job. There are some holes. Improvements still need to be made. But we are doing a pretty good job of bringing those class sizes down so that the teachers have more individual attention with the kids. There is better discipline with the classroom, more safe school districts as a result, but we need to do more in that area as well. We heard some testimony today about the important role that parents play in the child's education. That is the number one factor to determine how well a child is going to succeed in the education system, how involved parents are going to be in their own children's education. Now, with the advent of technology and e-mail in particular, more and more parents are able to get more directly involved in the school system and what is happening in the individual classroom affecting their child through increased communication with the teachers of their kids and through the principals and superintendents of school districts, being able to communicate in a much more effective and efficient manner through the Internet and e-mail messages back and forth. I think it is a wonderful development. But we also know that, after parental involvement, the next most important determinate is the quality of teachers in the classroom. We heard consistently from Chairman Greenspan and others on the panel today the importance of professional development making to ensure we get the resources to the teachers so that we have the best and the brightest, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) indicated, in the classrooms making the difference that they can. There, too, we face a huge challenge as a Nation, a 2.2 million teacher retirement over the next 10 years. It is both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to fill those vacant spots. The opportunity is to fill it with good quality people that are going to make a difference in the classroom. That is one of the reasons why I and many other Members, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and also the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), introduced the Ed-Tech bill, Education- Technology bill, which will provide more resources back to local school districts for the professional development of teachers of how best to use this new powerful learning tool, the technology and the Internet, and the numbers that that brings to the classroom and how they can better integrate that technology into the classroom. Now, computers and the Internet and all these fancy programs on the computer are not going to replace good teachers. That will never happen. But it can certainly empower the teachers to be much more effective and efficient in connecting with the kids and enhancing student performance in the classroom. So those are just a few of the issues that I wanted to raise today.