Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to the program, his leadership on the issue, and look forward to working with the gentleman in the future on this.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this alternative energy amendment. In the past few months, gasoline prices have skyrocketed, with my western Wisconsin constituents paying nearly $1.90 per gallon for conventional gasoline, not the reformulated gasoline, but conventional gasoline. Unfortunately, many elected officials, from both sides of the political aisle, would rather play politics with this issue and blame someone else for the problem rather than work to find answers and fix the problem for the future. Many of my colleagues claim that the current gasoline prices are the result of an inadequate national energy policy. To them, however, increased domestic drilling and greater reliance on oil seems to be the panacea for decreasing the rising prices at the pump. Other Members believe the big oil companies and refiners are gouging consumers with inflated gasoline prices, leading to a 512 percent profit margin for the oil industry in this year alone. While the arguments of both parties may well have some merit, it is undeniable this Nation needs to invest more in renewable and alternative energy technologies that are more environmentally friendly. Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower are important components in our Nation's energy mix. Unfortunately, between fiscal year 1973 and fiscal year 1995, renewable energy technologies accounted for approximately 10 percent of all Federal Government research and development spending. Private sector energy R&D declined 42 percent between 1985 and 1994. In fact, it has continued, this downward decline. Investments in efficient and renewable energy sources deliver value for taxpayers by lowering our energy demand while developing additional domestic energy sources that strengthen our national security, spur new high-tech jobs, boost world economic development, and help protect the environment. My constituents are currently suffering from inordinately high gas prices. And while it is important that we find out the causes for the regional differentials in gas prices as they exist today, especially in the upper Midwest region, we must also use this opportunity to advance a proactive and more sustainable long-term energy policy so we are in more control of our own energy needs in the future. This amendment helps us get there, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), our ranking member, for yielding me this time for purposes of a colloquy. As the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee understand, I have been a strong proponent of the Environmental Management Program for the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This is a program that has habitat restoration and long-term resource monitoring to better preserve and protect the Mississippi River Basin. I had originally intended to offer an amendment with appropriate offsets in order to increase funding for this vitally important program, but out of the respect for the committee and the work that they have done, and the 302(b) allocations that they have had to work within, and the difficulty, frankly, of finding appropriate offsets without impinging upon other vitally important programs in this bill, I decided not to offer the amendment. We do have allies on the Senate side that are also very strong proponents of the Environmental Management Program. As the ranking member and chairman undoubtedly recall, EMP was permanently reauthorized last year; and it was authorized from a $19 million level up to $33 million. This year, the committee I think did a wonderful job of trying to increase funding from $19 million for this fiscal year up to $21 million that is contained in this bill. Mr. Chairman, we were hoping as part of the bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus to get the funding up to around $24 million, $25 million, which we feel would be sufficient for the program to absorb the new cost, yet still be able to accomplish the objectives that exist under the program; and that is still our goal. We are hoping that given the greater flexibility over the allocation numbers as they are in the Senate, we are going to be able to achieve increased funding from that side. Based on conversations I have now had with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee, we are hoping to get a more favorable outcome in conference, if we are more successful on the Senate side for EMP.

Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hulshof amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill. The amendment provides $2 million to the Corps of Engineers so they can begin implementation of The Comprehensive Plan for the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This is something that was already authorized in WRDA 1999; but it has received no funding, so the implementation has yet to take place. The plan calls for the Corps to develop a coordinated basin-wide approach to flood control and flood damage reduction, and as a co-chair of the Upper Mississippi River Task Force, I have consistently worked to develop bipartisan support for Corps plans and projects that take a comprehensive and basin-wide approach and that support the vision of the Mississippi River as a complex, multiple-use resource. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the Corps to investigate the fullest range of flood control and damage reduction measures, including nonstructural approaches to flood control, management plans to reduce runoff from farm fields and city streets, and habitat restoration programs. These nontraditional approaches to flood control are particularly beneficial and cost effective. They protect farmers and city dwellers from floods at the same time that they improve water quality and restore the aquatic wetland and floodplain habitats that are so highly valued by fisherman, hunters, and recreationalists. The comprehensive plan embodies an approach to planning that I think should become the norm for the Corps of Engineers in future years. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and to the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for the work in increasing the funding levels for the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program. The EMP is a cooperative effort among the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Service and five Upper Mississippi River Basin States to ensure the coordinated development and enhancement of the Upper Mississippi River system. The program widely cited as a model for inner-agency and interstate cooperation is designed to evaluate, restore and enhance riverine and wetland habitat along a 1,200 mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. In WRDA 1999, the EMP received permanent reauthorization at an increased funding level of $33.2 million, and while the Upper Mississippi River Task Force had requested $25 million for the EMP for this fiscal year, I recognize that the House's inadequate 302(b) allocations impose considerable restraints on the subcommittee and that the $3 million increase over the administration's request represents a significant, if still insufficient, increase in funding. Maintaining a proper balance between the economic growth and the environmental protection is essential to maintain the health of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers and the communities within its watershed. Achieving this balance requires the innovative and cooperative efforts of the Federal, State, local interests. The comprehensive plan and the EMP program are core programs that embody this spirit. It is important for this Congress to show our support for programs that will work proactively and cooperatively to reduce flood damage, maintain an appropriate navigation infrastructure, and enhance the environmental qualities of the Mississippi River system for generations to come. Mr. Chairman, I for too long now have felt that the Mississippi River, America's river, has been the great natural resource cutting right through the heart of our country that has gone neglected as a national priority in this Congress. And working within the task force in a bipartisan fashion, we have been trying to coordinate our efforts between the north and south ends of the river to develop programs and to offer the support and resources we need to protect this very important natural resource. Why is this important? It is important because it is North America's largest migratory route. It is also the primary drinking source for 22 million Americans, and for the Upper Mississippi region alone it has a $1.6 billion recreation impact as well as a $6.6 billion tourism impact for local communities. In fact, we have more visitors that come every year to visit the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge than who visit the entire Yellowstone National Park system. So this is a very valuable resource that we need to do, as a body, a better job of providing resources. The comprehensive plan that my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), is trying to fund with this amendment is a step in the right direction, along with other efforts that we have taken on the task force to draw more attention to programs that affect the Mississippi River Basin. So I would call upon my colleagues to look at this amendment and support it. I think the offset is something that is reasonable in working with the Corps of Engineers coming out of administrative expenses, and this is a step, a very important step, to developing the comprehensive plan on a basin-wide approach which is long overdue for the Mississippi River. I thank the gentleman again for offering the amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the McGovern amendment which will expand funding for the Women's Business Center program and the National Business Council. I support this amendment because the Women's Business Center program works. By providing business assistance to women, particularly financially disadvantaged women, these programs help them become full partners in economic development through small business ownership. This program works nationally, and I have seen it work in my home State of Wisconsin, specifically at the Western Dairyland Women's Business Center in the Third Congressional District in Western Wisconsin. We know that women-owned businesses are growing at twice the rate of all other businesses. Not only does the Women's Business Center program help women to take a great idea and turn it into a business, but these centers provide the tools needed to make that investment a sound one. With business training, marketing classes, and counseling on the pressures of running a business, their clients are more prepared than most to have a successful start. In Wisconsin, women-owned businesses employ over 5,000 people and generate nearly $70 billion in sales. Statewide, women are gaining the knowledge and the tools to enter into fields that until now have been dominated just by men. Thanks to programs like the Women's Business Center, in less than 10 years, we have seen more than a 60 percent increase of women in agriculture. Over the same period, there has been more than 75 percent increase of women-owned construction companies and nearly 60 percent increase in manufacturing firms owned by women. Specifically, in the Third Congressional District of Wisconsin, I have seen firsthand the positive results of the Women's Business Center. Appropriately, the Center is located in rural Independence, Wisconsin, and independence is just what the Center provides for many women in Western Wisconsin by providing microloan programs, marketing assistance, Internet training, and much more. Women are realizing their goals by starting and expanding their own businesses. I would like to share with my colleagues a letter that was sent to the Western Dairyland's Women's Business Center in Independence, Wisconsin. I quote, ``Just a quick note to express my gratitude for all that you have done and continue to do in working with me to establish a sound business plan. I can't express to you how much this has helped me, not only getting the financial situation in order, but the mental support as well. ``You have lifted my spirits 100 percent. One year ago, I was probably one of the most depressed single parents out there, but with setting my mind to what I know I can do, and the support of the organization aspects you have provided, I feel so much stronger and secure with myself and with what I intended to accomplish. ``Whenever I tell people about this program, I speak very highly of it and how I think it is very beneficial to anyone who may be engaged in entrepreneurship. Thanks again for all the hard work and encouragement.'' Success stories like this are not the exception but the rule for the Women's Business Centers across the Nation. Despite all of these successes, however, many of the Centers, including the one in my district, are facing serious cutbacks in funding. As a result, reductions in staff and resources are happening nationwide. The $4.5 million would bring the Women's Business Center program to its authorized level of $13 million and increased business opportunities for women across the units. I believe it is a worthy program, and that is why I am urging my colleagues today to support the McGovern amendment.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my friend from Indiana's amendment. It is time for this Congress to finally realize that previous Congresses have simply made a bad investment decision. But let me preface my remarks by saying that there is no bigger cheerleader for NASA at the space program in this Congress than myself who has the privilege of representing the hometown area of Deke Slaton, one of the original Mercury astronauts, and one of the current Shuttle astronauts, Mark Lee. But what started out as an $8 billion commitment from the American taxpayer to the international space station has now ballooned to over $100 billion and the cost is increasing. It is time for this Congress to at least take action to save the American taxpayer additional billions of dollars. I like what the Roemer amendment does by dedicating a large portion of the savings to national debt reduction which we know is going to pay back economic dividends to the American people as well as makes a healthy investment in the National Science Foundation. I do not think it is too bold to predict that over the next couple of decades, we are probably going to see more scientific discoveries than we have seen in the last 300 years. This Congress has an obligation as the representatives of this democracy to invest heavily in science so that we make these breakthroughs first rather then a dictatorial power who might see these scientific discoveries for nefarious purposes. That's why increased support for the National Science Foundation is so important. I, like many Americans, am very supportive of NASA's efforts to explore the universe and expand our knowledge of space, but I do not support such efforts at any price. What must be questioned is the tremendous cost that the American taxpayers are facing today to perpetuate a space station that many in the scientific community believe has limited value. That is why I support canceling the International Space Station. The space program has exceeded all spending predictions and failed to achieve its intended mission. In 1993, NASA said construction of the space station would be finished in June 2002 and the entire program would cost $72.3 billion. Recent estimates, however, place the cost at nearly $100 billion and we are still years away from completion. In fact, NASA had to launch a shuttle mission last month to apply boosters to the station because it was falling from its orbit by 1.5 miles each week. Additional problems have occurred recently, such as those in Huntsville, Alabama, where two parts of the space station, valued at $750,000 were mistakenly discarded in a land fill. These tanks were never found and had to be replaced at an additional expense. Yet, knowing that the space station has become a budgetary black hole, Congress continues to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars year after year to fund such an expensive program. How can we justify the space station when our country is being forced to make tough decisions about how to fund Social Security for seniors, how to ensure that our children have a quality education system, how to shore up Medicare, and how to reduce our $5.7 trillion national debt? We must stop this annual waste of money and better prioritize our investment decisions. It is essential that we continue to scrutinize the projects upon which our Government spends taxpayer money and I commend my colleagues who support this amendment and continue to speak out against the Budgetary Black Hole known as the International Space Station. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to terminate this failed program and do what is right for our citizens.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be an original sponsor of this amendment that will expand funding for the low-income weatherization program, the State energy program, and other critical energy conservation and research measures. I commend my colleagues from both Vermont and New York, and others who have been supporting this amendment this year and in previous fiscal years, in trying to work in a bipartisan fashion to advance the cause of energy efficiency. I think my friend from New York stated it so well and so eloquently, that we as a country, especially with the bad weather conditions we experienced last winter and the terribly high gas prices that are sweeping the Nation but especially in the upper Midwest today, need to start developing a long-term energy efficiency program that makes sense for the consumers in this country and lessens our dependence on fossil fuel energy consumption and foreign oil production. Just to respond to my friend from Pennsylvania, I understand his concern in regards to a system of the offsets in the program that affects his local area, but this is, I believe, the right policy direction that we should be moving in, because these energy programs are not a luxury but a necessity to many, many families across the country who cannot afford their own weatherization preparations. I do have a parochial interest in this as well, Mr. Chairman, because the first weatherization assistance program that was set up in the Nation was established right in my congressional district in western Wisconsin back in 1974. Since that time, over half the States have developed their own weatherization or energy efficient programs, and what a marvelous result we are seeing coming from these programs. The average family who has been able to weatherize their home under this program is realizing a 23 percent efficiency upgrade with their energy consumption needs. What that means in a nutshell is more money for these low-income families for other purposes rather than for escalating energy costs, money that could be spent on food, for instance. In fact, just recently there was a constituent back in my hometown of La Crosse that wrote a letter in regards to the weatherization program. It was a single mother who was trying to make it on her own and trying to make ends meet and she was informed by some friends about the existence of this program. She applied and was qualified. In the letter that she wrote and I quote ``I had no insulation, drafty windows, a poor chimney lining and a list of real energy zappers, much of which I was unaware. My bedroom wall had frost on the interior and my blanket would stick. Not any more. I am so fortunate to live in an area with these kinds of resources. Thank you so much for helping me and my family enjoy the American dream.'' I am also pleased that this program is fiscally responsible and environmentally advanced. By diverting money from the fossil fuel energy research and development program, we are looking to the future in developing new technologies. These programs will make us less dependent on fossil fuels and foreign oil supplies at exactly the time when we need to be less dependent on them. If erratic temperature variations that we have recently seen were not enough, we are now seeing what comes from our reliance on overseas oil, with gas prices reaching the upper Midwest beyond $2.00 a gallon. Currently, 70 percent of our energy supply comes from fossil fuels which are nonrenewable and environmentally detrimental. With cleaner, more efficient energy supplies we boost the economy and become a leader in cleaner energy. Our Nation continues to thrive in an era of economic growth but not every American family is fortunate enough to participate in this prosperity. The weatherization program, LIHEAP, Energy Star and State energy programs are ideal tools to help our Nation's citizens who are most in need. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which would expand funding these vital programs.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Wu-Smith-Udall amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill. The purpose of this amendment is to restore adequate funding to an important forest service program designed to protect and manage fish and wildlife habitat within the national forest system. Specifically, this bipartisan and fiscally responsible amendment calls for a transfer of $14.7 million from the consistently overfunded Forest Service forest products program to the chronically underfunded fish and wildlife habitat management account. The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is to provide for the multiple uses of our Nation's great forests. Traditionally, timber management and extraction has been the principal goal of the Forest Service. In recent decades, with the rise of recreational uses of our national forests and environmental regulations that require careful assessment of natural resources impacted by timber cutting and road-building activities, the Forest Service has been called upon to survey and monitor fish and wildlife populations and to protect and restore important fish and wildlife habitat. The problem is that Congress has not appropriated adequate funds to the Forest Service for this important habitat protection work which is demanded by the public and required by law. It makes no sense to boost funding for the Forest Service forest products program by $25 million over the administration's request at the expense of the fish and wildlife habitat management program. To ensure the future health of our Nation's forests and to make sustainable forestry a reality instead of a mere promise, the Forest Service must be given the resources it needs to fulfill its complex and changing mission. At this time I would also like to point out that this bill fails to adequately fund crucial habitat protection and restoration activities conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The pressing needs of region 3, especially of the upper Mississippi River and Mark Twain National Refuge Systems--which serve as the migratory pathway for over 40% of North America's waterfowl and which receive more visitors annually than Yellowstone National Park--continue to go unrecognized in this bill. As a co-chairman of the bipartisan upper Mississippi River congressional task force, I have worked hard with other members within the region to draw attention to the underfunding of region 3 Fish and Wildlife Service programs relative to other regions in the country. For three years running now, we have requested that approximately $6 million of additional funds be appropriated for region 3 programs. These funds would be used to address the huge backlog of operations and maintenance work within the refuge system, to address increasingly serious invasive species problems, and to assist in the recovery and restoration of endangered species. I remain deeply troubled by the shortcomings of the Interior Appropriations bill, especially in relation to Fish and Wildlife Service programs. At the very least, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Wu-Smith-Udall amendment, which deals with the pressing need for fish and wildlife habitat protection and restoration within the National Forest System. Thank you and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, in response to the recent remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, why would we then go from one block grant program that he feels has failed our American children and move to another block grant philosophy with a variety of other programs if they are not, in fact, working? As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in support of the Obey amendment. We know now that, other than the active involvement of parents in their own child's education, the next most important determinant of how well kids are going to perform in the classroom is the quality of the teacher and whether that teacher has a manageable class size in which to work. That is exactly what the Obey amendment addresses, and we know that this is working. In our own State of Wisconsin, we have a very successful SAGE program of class size reduction and teacher training with reports and studies coming out to show student achievement in this area. Down in the State of Tennessee we have the STAR program as well, which is working very effectively. We had hearings in the Committee on Education and the Workforce showing the importance of class size reduction. But over the next 10 years, we are going to have a 2.2 million teacher turnover. That presents both an opportunity and a challenge, a challenge that we can address here today with the Obey amendment to make sure that there are the professional development funds to get quality teachers in the classroom come see students succeed in those classrooms. That is why we need to stress teacher quality when authorizing teacher training and professional development programs. That is why we need to demand accountability to the federal investment in public education. And that is why so many of us here believe in the commitment to class size reduction, which is thwarted by the majorities' bill. And that is why my own State of Wisconsin started a program in 1995 designed specifically to improve the achievement levels of students in grades K- through 3 in disadvantaged schools. The program, known as the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, or S.A.G.E., incorporates four components into a comprehensive effort at raising student performance: class size reduction, teacher professional development, challenging curriculum, and community involvement. In 1998, a study by the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee discovered dramatic improvements in student test scores from those schools participating in the S.A.G.E. program S.A.G.E. has been so successful that it has been expanded statewide and has secured significant funding increases by the state's legislature. This focus on reduced class size and teacher quality not only works, but is extremely popular among participating students, teachers and parents. Wisconsin is not alone in working to reduce class size in order to improve student scores. In Tennessee, the STAR and Challenge projects have produced good data indicating a general educational advantage for students in smaller classes. Similar programs in North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada and Virginia, as well as initiatives either started or planned in at least 20 other states show clear indication that a focus on reducing class size helps students, particularly those in areas of higher need, achieve greater performance goals and standards. I am profoundly disappointed that this underlying bill does not maintain a solid Federal commitment to class size reduction and teacher quality. The Federal role in education is to provide targeted assistance to those students and schools with high economic need, and to identify and address issues of national significance. In terms of class size reduction, this bill is simply another attempt to turn the Federal commitment to education into a new form of general revenue to State Governors. This bill is anything but education friendly. The Majority has squandered a unique opportunity to address the pressing needs of our Nation's schools and leverage wise investments in our children's learning environment. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment. It's time we approach our commitment to education seriously.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I, too, support this bill before us today that was voice voted with unanimous support out of the whole Committee on Education and the Workforce just recently, at the end of May. Just so our colleagues are clear, yes, there are problems at the Department of Education that we need to oversee, and I think this bill will address many of those issues. But the Department of Education is not the only agency that is having problems with audits and getting certified unqualified audits reported. In fact, at last count, we have 10 agencies and probably 11 for fiscal year 1999 alone that have not been able to produce unqualified audit reports. We are not talking about an anomaly here in the Department of Education; but what I think is a whole scale problem that is affecting many, many different agencies within the Federal Government; and, hopefully, through the leadership of our committee and the oversight work that we have done here, it will encourage even greater oversight with many of these additional agencies, so we can get a clean, healthy book of record for all of the agencies that were responsible to the American taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the Department of Education, there has been proof that the Department has been defrauded by some employees or contractors as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has indicated. While indictments and a conviction has been secured, in regards to the investigation at the Department, it is important that we, as the oversight body for the Department and its programs, ensure the security and safety of the Department's finances. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has held several hearings regarding the state of the Department's financial management systems, and we are very aware that the Department has had significant shortcomings in its audits over the last 5 or 6 years. While the Department of Education is just one of several Federal agencies that have been unable to obtain unqualified audit reports in recent years, we, as policymakers and the overseers, cannot take a relativistic attitude toward's Department audit shortcomings. We must set high standards for ourselves and the Department just as we do for the educators we are trying to assist through the Department programs. With that being said, I have been very encouraged by the Department of Education's response to its audit weaknesses in the last year or so especially. New staff at the Inspector General's office and the chief financial officer's office had helped motivate change and a greater degree of responsibility in regards to the books in the Department. The last audit was completed on time and with corrections to previous weaknesses. We on the subcommittee have been assured by the Department's new IG that the financial records will be produced in a timely and adequate manner for future audits. The electronic nightmare, which the Department has been living through with failing and faulty computer and accounting systems, should finally be corrected in the next 2 years, building more security and reliability in the overall financial system at the Department regarding outright fraud. At our last subcommittee hearing on the subject, I was told by both the Inspector General and the outside auditor after a specific question to them on this issue that there is no systematic fraud or abuse that they have been able to detect at the Department of Education. Obviously, again, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has pointed out, instances of fraud have, nevertheless, occurred at the time of the hearing. We are aware of pending investigations, and it is very distressing that multiple cases of fraud have, in fact, taken place. Mr. Speaker, I also want to just take a moment and commend the subcommittee Chair in his realization in order to save taxpayer dollars that we are taking a more targeted fraud investigation approach to the audit requests contained in this bill today. I think it is a very reasonable and responsible approach to this. Accordingly, it is appropriate for us to demand a more probing audit specifically geared towards fraud detection and vulnerability at the Department. Ultimately, it is this committee's jurisdiction to authorize funding for the education programming that we expect will hopefully benefit the neediest of America's schools and children. We decide programs structure. We set relative priorities, and we are the first to berate the appropriators for underfunding our education authorization levels. Accordingly, we must also be the first to raise the alarm when management issues move from the realm of accounting weaknesses to direct fraud and abuse. I agree that a narrow, selective fraud investigation is warranted and should allow the Department to proceed with its financial management upgrades and security enhancements. Hopefully with this audit and the regular audits our subcommittee has been reviewing, we soon will see the promises of the Department and the Inspector General come to fruition. Hopefully, we will soon be able to focus on education policy with confidence and undivided attention, be able to move beyond just oversight and get to the bottom of some of the problems that exist at the Department of Education and pass important and meaningful education legislation that many of us were hoping to achieve this year. We still have yet to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a vitally important program in order to improve the quality of education, especially for the most vulnerable and needy school children throughout our country. We have an Even Start Family Literacy bill that has passed the committee back in February, I believe, with wide bipartisan support under the leadership of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and that has yet to see the light of day on the House floor. We are hoping to be able to move to that work as soon as possible, as well as some of the other unfinished education issues that are still pending before this Congress. Let's do a responsible job of providing appropriate oversight with the Department of Education but let's not also lose sight on the unfinished job of passing meaningful education legislation that is going to improve the quality of education that our Nation's children deserve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman of the subcommittee for his remarks and would be happy to be able to work with him and others who are drafting this legislation in order to form a stricter, higher standard of audit accountability in the rest of the agencies. I think that that is long overdue and the gentleman is heading in the right direction in drafting legislation for that very requirement. Again, I do not want our colleagues who are listening to this discussion today to be under some false impression that everything is wrong and bad and the Department of Education is breaking down and they are not actually accomplishing some very worthwhile goals and objectives over there, because they are. As I indicated, during the previous hearings that we have had on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, as well as other Education hearings, there is a lot of hope and promise that we are finally starting to turn the corner, as far as the quality of programming, more direction with the resources, emphasizing quality and accountability, rather than just expansion of programs. So I think there are a lot of things you can point to and show definite progress and improvement at the Department of Education. I also feel that when the history books are written on this administration, we are going to be able to look back on the Department of Education and the leadership which has been provided to it by Secretary Riley and realize we have had one of the most effective, brightest, hard-working, and thought-provoking and innovative Secretaries that our Nation has ever seen in Secretary Riley. So I hope people do not view this as a reflection on the work that he has done at the Department of Education. Because under his leadership there have been significant improvements overall at the Department of Education. I just want to highlight a couple of those that we have seen in recent years. The Education Department today has roughly two-thirds of the number of employees administering its programs since 1980, even though the budget has approximately doubled since then. The Education Department has trimmed its regulations by a third and reduced grant application paperwork and aggressively implemented waiver authority to legal roadblocks to State reform. The student loan default rate is now at a record low 8.8 percent after declining for 7 consecutive years. It was 22.4 percent when President Clinton took office, and, as a result, the taxpayers in this country have been saved billions of dollars. Collections on defaulted loans have more than tripled, from $1 billion in fiscal year 1993 to over $3 billion in fiscal year 1999 alone. The Direct Student Loan Program proposed by President Clinton in 1993 and enacted by Congress in 1994 has saved taxpayers over $4 billion over the last 5 years. The creation of the National Student Loan Data System has allowed education officials to identify prior defaulters and thereby prevent the disbursement of as much as $1 billion in new grants and loans to ineligible students. The customer saving rates for ED Pubs, the Education Department's documents and distribution center, exceed those of premier corporations like Federal Express and Nordstrom. There are also signs that the quality of education is starting to turn the corner as well. We have higher academic standards and assessments being put in place throughout the 50 States, improvement in the Nation's reading scores in the three grades tested, and math scores are starting to show some improvement as well. Yes, there are some management problems that we are hopefully going to be able to get to the bottom of, and, with this legislation, sooner rather than later, but there are a lot of achievements and progress being made with the Department of Education and the programs they are responsible for that we shouldn't lose sight of even with the need for this legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. The federal estate tax has come under a great deal of scrutiny because of its economic effect on family farms and small businesses. I support the effort to protect these farms and businesses but, unfortunately, H.R. 8 does not effectively target small businesses and farms. Rather, it would enable the wealthiest 2 percent in our country to pass vast fortunes to their heirs without a penny of tax, while working families are taxed on every dollar they earn. Further, Congress would be passing a greater share of the burden of saving Social Security and Medicare and paying off the $5.7 trillion national debt to all American children. H.R. 8 would initially reduce and then fully repeal the federal estate and gift tax over a 10-year period. This bill would cost $28 billion over five years and $105 billion over ten years. The full repeal, however, does not take effect until 2010. In that year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that estate and gift tax will generate nearly $50 billion. As a result, the revenue loss in the second ten-year period explodes to more than $500 billion at a time when our country can least afford it as baby boomers will be retiring and Social Security shifts from cash surplus to a deficit. It is important to recognize when considering this full repeal of the estate tax relief that only 2 percent of decedents have enough wealth to be subject to the estate tax at all under current law. Further, of the 2 percent of Americans subject to the estate tax, only 3 percent are small business people or farmers. Additionally, only 6 in 10,000 American estates are farms or small businesses subject to estate tax. I believe that we must provide relief to family farms and small businesses and that is why I support the substitute offered by Representative Rangel. This substitute would provide fiscally responsible estate tax relief to small business and farm owners. Specifically, it would immediately raise the special exclusion from the estate tax from $675,000 to $4 million for a couple owning a farm or small business and would lower the estate tax rates by 20 percent across the board. Our current strong economy has begun producing surplus federal revenues, and, as you might imagine, there is no shortage of ideas for ``using'' the surplus. I am in favor of addressing negative effects of the estate tax, as evidenced by my past votes, but I also believe we should give priority to using these surplus funds to save Social Security and Medicare and pay down the $5.7 trillion National Debt. Surplus funds allow us to pay down the principal on this burdensome debt, thus reducing the annual interest payments which amount to approximately $250 billion annually. In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated, ``Saving the surpluses--if politically feasible--is, in my judgement, the most important fiscal measure we can take at this time to foster continued improvements in productivity.'' A lower national debt would help reduce interest rates, resulting in tremendous cost savings for all American families who make credit card, car, mortgage, and loan payments. Lower interest rates will also reduce the cost of capital for businesses, allowing for more investment and, therefore, more job creation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 8. Any tax cut must be done in a fiscally responsible manner, and not derail the opportunity we have to reduce our large national debt and prepare for our future obligations to our aging population. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately due to a family obligation, I missed today's roll call votes. On roll call vote number 252, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On roll call vote number 253, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On roll call vote number 254, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and also in opposition to the majority estate tax repeal bill that will be debated on the floor here tomorrow and in support of the Democratic substitute. I do not understand why the rule did not make in order the Stenholm amendment which merely demands some accountability to ensure that a $500 billion 10-year tax cut that is going to benefit the wealthiest 2 percent individuals in our country does not jeopardize our chances for meaningful national debt reduction and the long-term solvency of the Social Security program. It is something that was demanded during the CARA bill just a couple of weeks ago when it came to conservation and environmental programs that will benefit the entire Nation and it should apply as equally well to a large tax cut bill which is going to be a boom to the wealthiest Americans in this Nation. The Democratic substitute on the other hand, will take care of the family farmers and small business owners but in a fiscally responsible manner. I want to, however, take a few moments to also speak about the latest scourge in the campaign finance system and that is the creation of the 527 corporations that we are seeing in modern American politics. These are the unregulated, unlimited, unaccountable corporations that are being formed for the sole purpose of influencing the outcome of campaigns. They are unaccountable in the fact that no one knows where these large contributions are coming from. In fact, they could be coming from foreign sources and it would be legal for foreign contributors make contributions to the 527s in order to influence the American political process. And that is wrong and it should be changed. For too long in this Chamber, the opponents of finance reform have always claimed that the only thing we need to demand is more disclosure in the system. The Moore-Doggett bill does exactly that. All it requires is accountability through disclosure to apply to 527s so we have an idea of where all this money is coming from. It is an outrage what is going on. It is unacceptable. If we are to live up to the words and the rhetoric that has been permeating these halls for too long, we should at least take this very sensible and practical approach. If we cannot pass comprehensive finance reform or even incremental reform with Shays-Meehan or the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate, let us at least do the right thing and demand disclosure in the 527s.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4241, legislation designating the United States Post Office in Janesville, Wisconsin as the ``Les Aspin Post Office Building.'' Les Aspin was a larger-than-life political icon who represented Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1971 to 1993. After being successfully reelected in 1992, Les was appointed by President Bill Clinton to become this nation's 18th Secretary of Defense, a position he held until February 3, 1994. Les accomplished much in his nearly 57 years. Born in Milwaukee, Les received a B.A. from Yale University in 1960, an M.A. from Oxford University in 1962 where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and earned a Ph.D. in economics from MIT in 1965. As an officer in the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1968, Les served as a systems analyst in the Pentagon under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. In 1970, after first contemplating running for other state offices, Les was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served for the next 22 years. Once in the House, Les soon developed a special interest and expertise in defense matters. In 1985, as a junior member of the House Committee on Armed Services, Les leap-frogged Members much more senior to become chair of this powerful committee. As chair, Les proved to be a straight shooter, not one to always toe his party's political line. Les was a strong early supporter of the Persian Gulf War, predicting in advance that the U.S.'s military force would drive the Iraqis from Kuwait. In a paper written prior to the war, Les stated that the United States could win a quick military victory with light casualties. The accuracy of his prediction lent credence to his already strong reputation. As chair, Les' sentinel work on reshaping the Armed Forces after the demise of the Soviet Union was instrumental in the formation of post-Cold War strategies and policies for this nation. In turn, Presidential candidate Bill Clinton relied on Les for his wisdom and once elected named him as his first defense secretary. During his tenure at the Pentagon, Les dealt with such weighty issues as base closures, a shrinking Pentagon budget, and the growing threat of regional conflicts. As Secretary, Les will always be remembered for instituting the ``bottom-up'' review which took the first hard look at the organizational structure of the military in a post-Cold War world. After leaving the Pentagon in early 1994, Les joined the faculty of Marquette University's international affairs program in Washington, D.C. In March 1995, be became a member of the Commission on Roles and Missions. In May, President Clinton chose him as chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. In March 1995, he began work as chairman of still another study group, this on the Roles and Capabilities of the Intelligence Community. Shortly thereafter, on May 21, 1995, he died of a stroke. Les was a brilliant man who, through his tremendous energy and work ethic, worked tirelessly to shape this nation's vision for defense policy and armed forces to meet the changing demands of the 21st century. His intellect and perspective are sorely missed. Wisconsin has sent a number of nationally known historical leaders to represent them in Washington. Robert LaFollette, Melvin Laird, Bill Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson to name just a few. Without question, Les Aspin's name must be certainly added to this list. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in paying tribute to former Congressman, Les Aspin.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed in H.R. 2559, the conference report on the Agriculture Risk Protection Act. While originally intended as a simple crop insurance measure, H.R. 2559 instead is a sad commentary of the state of our nation's current dysfunctional farm policy. The crop insurance reform bill that this body is set to vote upon codifies some of the basic principles that many of us have been advocating--affordability, and buy-up coverage. I am happy that the measure authorizes an increase in the number of counties that can participate in the dairy options pilot program (DOPP), authorizes the creation of livestock insurance program, and improved coverage of specialty crops--including cranberries, apples, and vegetable crops grown in Wisconsin. Unfortunately, the conference committee has unnecessarily included $7.1 billion in emergency farm payments in the bill. This legislation is not the proper vehicle for such outlays. Instead, the House should deal with these matters separately, in a more thorough and thoughtful manner. The emergency farm assistance fails the American farmer and rural communities in a number of ways. Specifically, it fails to target the assistance to those producers and commodities that need it most. By distributing these funds through the inequitable Agriculture Marketing Transition Act (AMTA) formula, this legislation places a priority on wheat and feed grains grown on large operations in the Great Plains and fails to address the needs of family-sized operations. According to a recent computer investigation by the Environmental Working Group, ``taxpayers have provided $22.9 billion in emergency subsidies (payments above normal farm bill receipts) during the first three years of the `Freedom to Farm' law, but 10 percent of the recipients (144,000 participants) collected 61 percent of the money.'' Even President Clinton's Agriculture Secretary opposes this delivery mechanism, claiming that AMTA payments treat ``the farm economy as monolith, failing to consider the varying degree of market weakness across commodities.'' Sadly, this bill fails to correct this economic injustice. In addition, the AMTA payments do not increase farm conservation programs. In a period when a growing segment of the American population is calling for improvements in clean water and air, as well as more sustainable agriculture practices in general, it is irresponsible not to allocate adequate funds to programs that address the growing concentrated animal agriculture industry and its related phosphorous and nutrient management problems as well as hazards associated with crop fertilizer use. American farmers deserve more than this short-sighted, inequitable, shot-gun approach to farm policy. This nation, and this body, needs to have a thoughtful discussion of the commodity price problems facing rural America. H.R. 2559 short-circuits the deliberative process that is the great hallmark of democracy. Hopefully, rural America will see through this half-hearted approach and call on Congress to act in a more responsible manner.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the telephone excise tax repeal, but I also rise to speak in favor of the motion to recommit. It is really a sad day here when we have to bring up our only serious discussion about campaign finance reform this way in this manner as a motion to recommit. It is because of the latest abomination that has crept into our political process, the so-called 527 corporations that can accept unlimited contributions and spend it for political purposes without disclosing at all where the money is coming from. For too long opponents of campaign finance reform have claimed that the only thing we need to do to reform campaign finances is to require full disclosure. Well, here is their opportunity. What is it going to take to enact long overdue campaign finance reform in this Congress, illegalities of the magnitude not seen since the Nixon administration, when the last wave of campaign finance reform measures were finally enacted. I hope not. Support the motion to recommit and let us shut down the 527 loophole, as we are the excise tax today.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 371, the Hmong Veteran's Naturalization Act, and I am pleased to see that this bill will be sent to the President's desk for his signature. This bill will allow the Hmong veterans who fought with the United States against the communist forces in Southeast Asia and their families to be naturalized. The measure will speed up the process by waiving the usual English proficiency and civics test requirements. Passage of this legislation ensures that we as a nation will never forget the toll the Vietnam War took on our allies and friends in Southeast Asia. Tremendous sacrifices were made by the Hmong people, with nearly 20,000 Hmong killed and over 100,000 fleeing to refugee camps in other nations to survive. Thankfully, due to the generosity, strength of will and compassion of the American people, approximately 49,000 Hmong-Americans reside in Wisconsin today, of which, approximately 9,000 live in my district in western Wisconsin. Therefore, it is with immense gratitude, I commend the Hmong for their loyalty and faithfulness to the United States and thank them for the sacrifices they made to fight for democracy and justice. For this, we owe them a large debt of gratitude that can never be adequately repaid.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we are here today to begin debate on the most important piece of legislation pending before this Congress in this session, and probably for many years to come, whether to grant PNTR to China and pave the way for their entry into the World Trade Organization. I am supportive of PNTR because I believe its passage is crucial to our long-term economic prosperity, as well as our strategic and national security interests in the 21st century. I also believe in what former Secretary of State Cordell Hull was famous for saying, and that is, ``When goods and products cross borders, armies do not.'' But I do not want to stand up here and oversell the merits of PNTR. I think the rhetoric on both sides has been overblown on this issue from time to time. But I do believe that the passage is vitally important to our long- term relationship with the world's most populated nation. And I also believe that we are at the crossroads of our relationship with China. We can go one of two directions. We can either continue to isolate and demonize and pursue a failed trade policy, a policy that is failing our American workers and American farmers today, and even failing the people in China themselves; or we could pursue a new policy through enhanced trade and, through strategic engagement with China, offer what I view is the best hope for peace and prosperity and hopefully greater stability in this world for our children. But there are more notable and expert people than I on China that have weighed in on this. Former President Jimmy Carter made this statement in regards to PNTR, ``When I became President, one of the greatest challenges that I had to face was whether I should normalize diplomatic relations with China. There is no doubt in my mind that a negative vote on this issue in Congress will be a serious setback and impediment for the further democratization, freedom and human rights in China.'' And perhaps the foremost human rights activist in China today, Martin Lee, had this to say in support of PNTR during a discussion that I personally had with him: ``in short bring China into the international forum and hold her to the agreement rather than exclude her. How can human rights improve by keeping China out? You punish the government, but you punish the people even more.'' In fact, Mr. Lee also talked about the power that the Internet provides by empowering the people within China with the free flow of information and ideas to make the changes that have to be made by them to improve human rights, labor conditions and hopefully for a free and democratic society. Now, those on the other side opposing this, I think, do so for legitimate reasons: job security at home, concern about human rights and political freedoms abroad. I share these same concerns. I think we merely differ over the best strategy on how to achieve these very important objectives. Mr. Chairman, I will vote yes for PNTR for many of the same reasons I vote for most of the issues in this Congress, through the eyes of my two little boys, Johnny who is going to be 4 in August and Matthew who is going to be 2 this Saturday. They both, God willing, will live through and see most if not all of the 21st century. That is why in my heart and with my conscience, I support PNTR. I do so because I believe this legislation today gives us our best opportunity to provide our children for tomorrow the most prosperous, stable, and peaceful world in which to live as they embark upon their marvelous journey through the 21st century. So I urge my colleagues to support passage of PNTR tomorrow, if for nothing else, for the sake of the future of our children in the 21st century. the wto agreement This trade agreement with China is truly historic because it is one- sided. In October of 1999, the United States and China reached a trade agreement that drastically and unilaterally lowers China's trade tariffs to our manufactured goods and farm products. The United States did not lower a single tariff to Chinese goods. China made this agreement in an effort to gain America's support for its admission into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Along with our support for China's entry into the WTO, we must grant the same trade status as we do all other WTO member nations. But let me be clear, this trade agreement will not make it any easier for China to export more products into our country. This agreement will not make it any easier for any company to close a plant here to relocate in China. This trade agreement will, however, make it easier for U.S. firms to sell products in Chinese markets. American Trade The United States is the world's largest exporter, selling over 26% more products abroad than our nearest competitor. International trade has been crucial in maintaining the longest economic expansion in American history. The jobs of millions of American workers and the growth of thousands of American businesses, large and small, are tied to global trading and the accessibility of worldwide markets. wisconsin trade Companies large and small in my home state of Wisconsin benefit from international trade. Companies like Accelerated Genetics in Westby, who have 215 employees and sell $20 million in annual sales, export over 45% of their total business. The Turkey Store in Barron County exports almost 20% of their turkey products. Ashley Furniture in Arcadia sells furniture in 96 different countries around the world. The Trane Company, which has gone so far as to merge its domestic and international administrative units into one unified worldwide operation, exports 30-40% of their total products. Trade is clearly a crucial part of these companies' business, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. farmers and trade The fate of our farmers is also linked to continued exports in world markets. American farmers are the most efficient and productive farmers in the world. At the same time, the United States has less than 4% of the world population, while China has 20%. U.S. agriculture productivity is increasing, but domestic demand for its products is stagnant. We must be able to export more of our agricultural products to relieve the oversupply of products in our nation which is driving prices down. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture projects U.S. farm exports will increase by $2 billion annually by 2005 with passage of the China trade agreement. China has agreed to reduce dairy tariffs from 50% to 12% enabling west coast dairy producers to export more of their products. Those exports should relieve the supply pressure on our own domestic market which is suppressing commodity prices. If Congress fails to pass this legislation, U.S. farmers and other workers will lose out on a vast new market in an economy that has grown about 10% annually over the last 20 years. martin lee In my conversation with Martin Lee, he expressed to me his sincere belief that, given China's almost certain accession to the WTO, it is in the best interest of the Chinese people for Congress to approve PNTR. He believes a vote for PNTR will ensure that the United States remains a full partner in the world community's engagement with China, and will strengthen our position as a leader of reform. The status quo, he said, will have no effect on human rights in China, and in fact, may result in entrenching hard-line, anti-reform positions. Making it easier for U.S. products and services to reach Chinese markets will force the Chinese government to strengthen its legal system and respect the rule of law, which will only serve to protect the political, labor and civil rights of individuals in China. We emphasized that through the power of the Internet and the free flow of information and ideas that increased trade brings, faster progress can be made on human rights, labor conditions and eventually, a free and democratic China. Worker Rights Former United Auto Workers president, Leonard Woodcock, is also urging Congress to pass PNTR and support China's entry into the WTO. He argues that increased access to Chinese markets eventually will improve conditions for Chinese workers. ``American labor has a tremendous interest in China's trading on fair terms with the United States,'' Woodcock said. ``The agreement we signed with China this past November marks the largest single step ever taken toward achieving that goal.'' importance of vote We face an important decision in Congress, a decision that will shape our relationship with the world's most populous nation. If you support greater economic opportunities here at home, as well as the advancement of human rights and labor conditions in China, you should support granting permanent normal trade relation status for China. While I do not want to oversee the merits of this trade agreement. I refuse to support the current policy which is failing American workers and farmers, and in allowing repressive conditions to continue in China. I support passage of the China trade agreement because I believe it gives us the best hope for a more prosperous, safe and secure future for our children as we embark upon our marvelous journey into the 21st century.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 211, unfortunately, due to an unavoidable weather delay I missed today's rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have vote ``yea.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I know as the gentleman understands, I introduced H.R. 4013. It was referred to our Committee on Resources. The legislation authorizes the U.S. Geological Survey, an agency under the jurisdiction of our committee, to oversee a monitoring network and the modeling program in the upper Mississippi River Basin. And I know the gentleman is familiar with the legislation already.