Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know the hour is late. I believe this is going to be the last amendment we will take up this evening. I will try to be quick. I hope a few people are up and listening concerning what I do for my labor of love for the Mississippi River. Mr. Chairman, I anticipate entering into a colloquy at the end of my statement with the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and based on an understanding and agreement that we have reached, I will be asking for unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. Let me first say that the CARA bill that is before us today and tomorrow is extremely important for the conservation future of our Nation. For this reason, I am a strong supporter of the bill and voted for its passage as a member of the Committee on Resources. CARA is a remarkable bill that will dramatically increase environmental and conservation efforts in all 50 States. The amendment that I am offering tonight addresses a very pressing conservation need regarding the upper Mississippi River Basin. The upper Mississippi River Basin is one of our Nation's great ecological and recreational treasures. Its rich wetlands and back woods serve as North America's largest migratory route. The region boasts tremendous diversity in animal and plant species. Income from fishing hunting, boating and other recreational activities total roughly $1.2 billion annually and the area's tourist industries, much of which are centered on the river, contribute $6.6 billion to the region's economy. It is also the primary drinking source for 22 million Americans and the upper Mississippi River Refuge has more visitors every year than Yellowstone National Park. Unfortunately, increasing soil erosion threatens this region and the wildlife habitat. For instance, soil erosion reduces the long-term sustainability and income of family farms and sediment is entering the river basin and costing the American taxpayers roughly $100 million each year in dredging costs alone. One of the best ways to reduce sediment and nutrient losses from the landscape is to protect sensitive riparian areas through voluntary program for land purchases, conservation easements, and the implementation of best management practices, all fundamental components of the CARA bill. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to assist conservation planning in the region through the development of a scientific sediment and nutrient monitoring network. The goal of the network is to enable States and other governmental and nongovernmental entities to make better decisions about where to direct resources and to determine which conservation measures are most appropriate in the Mississippi River Basin. The amendment I am proposing tonight is but a single component of a far larger basin initiative that I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 4013, ``The Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act''. We have over 18 cosponsors from eight States. H.R. 4013 establishes the monitoring network contained in my amendment here tonight, as well as a state-of-the-art computer modeling program to identify significant sources of sediments and nutrients. It provides grants and incentives to States and counties to implement best management practices and other innovative voluntary programs. It calls for increases in the USDA highly effective but underfunded land conservation programs. Finally, it contains data protection provisions designed to protect the privacy of individual landowners in the basin, which I know is very important to a lot of property rights advocates in this body. The legislation relies entirely on voluntary programs and creates no new regulations. I believe this approach to watershed management is the wave of the future. It is proactive rather than reactive, seeking to stop harmful nutrients and sediments before they make it into the river basin, rather than relying on expensive cleanup and mitigation efforts after the fact. The approach is basin wide rather than piecemeal, seeking to look at the entire ecosystem and develop management plans appropriate to a large-scale physical system. Finally, this approach relies on interagency and intergovernmental cooperation attempting to coordinate the diverse but sometimes fragmented conservation efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of H.R. 4013 and invite my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation which will better protect ``America's river,'' the Mississippi River, and North America's largest migratory route. Mr. Chairman, at this moment I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of my Committee on Resources.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, H.R. 4013 has bipartisan support. It has also received the endorsement of a number of national and regional conservation outdoor recreation groups, farm, and environmental groups. And I am willing, based on that understanding and discussion that I have had with the gentleman and his staff, to, with unanimous consent, withdraw my amendment here tonight and work with the gentleman to establish a hearing on this important legislation some time prior to the August recess.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, with that assurance, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, and would also like to commend the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for the hard work and effort that they have put in bringing together this wide political coalition that exists, I believe, for the CARA bill. I am a proud supporter of the bill, and I conclude by urging my colleagues to support H.R. 701 in final passage tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I again yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Resources, I rise today in support of the rule. I thank the Committee on Rules and the chairman of the committee for accepting my amendment in the spirit and understanding in which it is offered. I rise in strong support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act will dramatically increase funding for Federal, State, and local conservation efforts in all 50 States. In my home State of Wisconsin, a very proud and progressive history has been established regarding land stewardship. Land conservation programs and the protection of the environment are not a part-time casual interest in Wisconsin. Instead, bipartisan governmental leaders, from former Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson, the father of Earth Day, to former Republican Governor Warren Knowles, have been national leaders in the environmental and conservation movement. Two of the great founders of the conservation movement, Aldo Leopold and John Muir, called Wisconsin their home. It was in Vernon County, in my congressional district, in an effort to preserve and protect precious topsoil on farms, that farmers initiated contour plowing, which provided a wonderful model across the Nation. Throughout our history, the citizens of Wisconsin have been responsible stewards who have sought to conserve and expand on our extensive investments and recreational and environmental resources. While I still hope that this legislation will ultimately provide Wisconsin and some of the other upper Midwest States with a more equitable share of the Title I funding, this bill nevertheless is a good start to help restore imperiled species, conserve wild places, maintain recreational access, and educate our children about the wonders of our natural world. I urge today support of the rule. Depending upon the amendment process as this legislation moves forward over the next couple of days, I also urge passage of H.R. 701.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. It is a very important point. Even schools in my district in western Wisconsin, especially in rural areas, are in need of repairs, and some are emergency repairs. But the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has offered a bit of a solution to this nationwide problem in a tax credit for bond referendums issued for the sake of school modernization and school construction needs. I think it is a very important role the Federal Government can provide by providing tax credits to local school districts, which will save local school districts with the additional expense of having to pay interest on those bonds that are being issued today. And so again, another piece in the puzzle where the Federal Government can partner with the State and local school districts in order to make it affordable for us to be able to provide quality education facilities for our schools. The essence of passing a budget here in Washington is also about establishing priorities. And if we want to be productive and meaningful as far as our children's future is concerned, we should be building Taj Mahals to our kids in the form of school buildings that they are going to be proud to walk in and do the work and feel proud to learn in. It would be a sure sign to our kids that the adults in their lives think enough about them and their education that we are willing to invest the resources that are needed to get this done and to get this accomplished. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that our colleagues here in this body would support the school modernization legislation that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has proposed. Let me just conclude by ending where I started and that is commending the teachers for the hard work that they put in throughout the Nation, and also commending the Vice President who had the courage to finally, at the Federal level, to speak up and say if we are going to get the teacher component of education right, we have got to talk about compensation. We cannot be afraid about talking about adequately compensating our teachers so that we can recruit the best and the brightest in the teaching profession, so that we can retain good quality teachers and not lose them to the private sector. And he has, I think, a very reasonable realistic proposal in awarding teachers who are going on and developing their professional skills with professional development classes, receiving higher degrees of education, providing bonuses to students who go into this subject area and obtaining their higher level certifications that are now being implemented on a State- by-State basis. This is something that, for too long, we have been afraid to talk about, yet we see the wholesale abandonment in the teaching profession by a lot of good teachers who would love nothing more than to stay in the classroom and work with our kids, but who are being enticed in the private sector with more lucrative job offers. Again, it becomes a question of priorities with our budgets and as a Nation of whether or not we are going to do right by the teachers and award them and provide them with an adequate compensation level so that they can make a decent living and take care of their own family while doing something that they love and want to do, and that is, teach in the classroom. It has been said that good teachers have a form of immortality. That is because their influence and radiance keeps on shining. I have had a few very, very good teachers that touched my life as a kid growing up on the north side of La Crosse, whether it was Mrs. Heillesheim or Mrs. Stoker or Mrs. Mulroy or Mr. Trumain in the elementary school at Roosevelt in La Crosse, or whether it was Mr. Knutson or Mr. Kroner, Gary Corbiser, Mrs. Bee Small in the middle school at Logan. In high school, there were so many good teachers who I had the privilege to have teach me, whether it was Ernie Eggett, who taught me advanced algebra or calculus; or Joe Thienes who made physics and chemistry interesting for this student; Mr. Anderson, Mr. Markus, and Diane Gephardt who taught me how to write; Ron Johnson who sparked my love and interest in history that I carry with me even today. I just want to conclude by thanking them, in particular, for the role that they had in bringing me up because it did not necessarily have to end up here in the Chamber of the people's House, the House of Representatives. But for their influence and their concern about the future and my life, as well as a couple of loving parents that I had growing up under, it could have been a lot different for this kid on the north side of La Crosse. So tonight I just want to pay special tribute to those teachers who had a major impact and influence in, and influenced my life.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for yielding to me. I commend her for giving us an opportunity this evening to have a general discussion of the state of education policy in the United States Congress and the all-important work that we are trying to accomplish in reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that is the Federal programs affecting preschool and K through 12 and even afterschool activities that have been reauthorized every 5 years, and this year it is up. I hope we get it right. Earlier today we did pass a resolution in this House in regards to commemorating and honoring the teachers that serve our children throughout the country. And I am very glad that we took a few minutes this afternoon in order to do that, because, obviously, the studies show that outside of the active, caring, loving, involvement of parents in their own children's lives and especially the education, the next important determinant of how well a child is going to succeed in the classroom is the quality of the teacher actually working with our children, and that is why I feel we cannot do enough in order to support the teachers, provide them with the resources that they need in order to accomplish the job and the tasks and the objectives that we are calling upon them ever more so today to do. Unfortunately, I am afraid that the turn of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has not been a happy one. I mean the Federal involvement in K through 12 education funding is roughly 6 percent to 7 percent. It is not a large chunk of the pool of money that is provided to our public school systems throughout the country, but I feel it is a very important piece of the pie, because it goes to targeted, high need, disadvantaged students who are otherwise slipping through the cracks, and through the history of ESEA, there was a consensus developed throughout the Nation and in this Congress that the Federal Government can be involved in a targeted fashion, filling in some of those cracks, providing resources to the poor and disadvantaged high need children in the country. Also, our involvement kind of sets the tone as well and develops themes and develops priority that is we as a Nation really should be working on; issues such as class size reduction, one that hopefully is starting to pick up more momentum State by State, school district by school district. Even in my own home State of Wisconsin, we have had a very successful SAGE program that has been in place for quite a few years. Last year, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee just did a comprehensive study and analysis of the SAGE program, which is a pilot program throughout the State, and the results were really stunning, as far as student achievement and the benefits of class size reduction. Mr. Speaker, as we speak to the administrators and the parents and the teachers, those involved in the public education system, there are certain things that they are calling upon from the Federal Government, for State governments, even the local school boards to step in and to assist them on, one of which is providing resources needed in order to reduce class sizes so that we do have a better student-teacher ratio in the classroom, which will help with individualized attention then to students, so that the teachers can focus on a high-need students and devote the attention that they need. But it also adds to increased discipline and safety in our schools. It should be a shared goal throughout the Nation. It should not be a partisan issue. But, unfortunately, it has not become a major part of the elementary and secondary education reauthorization bill, and I think that is a little unfortunate. But hopefully we will have a chance to correct that. Another important piece of the ESEA reauthorization was something that was passed by the House of Representatives last year, it is still pending action in the Senate, but it was the Teacher Empowerment Act, and that is the resources that we provide back to local school districts in order to provide training and professional development to teachers so they can enhance their skills so that a new generation of teachers, who will hopefully be very well qualified and talented, will be entering the classroom. Lord knows that we see the real challenge that lies before this Nation over the next 10 years. We are projecting about a 2.2 million teacher turnover within the next 10 years, and this presents not only a challenge but an opportunity. An opportunity to increase our involvement and effort in improving the quality of teachers, attracting young, bright, talented students into the teaching professions, asking them to meet certain certification requirements so that we are getting the best and the brightest into the classrooms dealing with our children. Mr. Speaker, we could have a new generation of teachers stepping in who are very capable of meeting the needs of an ever-changing global marketplace and a new economy that our kids have to find themselves in. So we need to do what we can within the ESEA reauthorization to help with the teacher training and professional development programs. There was a provision that I got included in the Teacher Empowerment Act which also provided resources for the professional development of our principals and superintendents and administrators of school districts, realizing that they play a very important role quarterbacking the school districts, setting the tone and providing the leadership of where a school district is going to go. But I talk to a lot of teachers who feel a little bit discouraged that there are not enough resources being provided for school modernization needs, providing the infrastructure and the technology in the classrooms, making sure that our kids have access to the technology that they need, which can be an incredibly powerful new learning tool at their disposal, but making sure the classrooms are wired, that they are getting access to the software and the hardware and especially, again, that there is professional development funding so that our teachers feel competent and capable of integrating that technology right into the classroom curriculum. In light of that, I, along with other members of the committee, offered an Ed-Tech amendment to a recent piece of the elementary and secondary education bill, one which would provide targeted funding exactly for this technology need in the classroom and exactly for the professional development of teachers and also for the integration of the technology into the classroom instruction and curriculum. Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected in committee. I think it is short-sighted, given the needs of the global marketplace today. In fact, just quickly, I had a very interesting lunch with Jim and Bridgette Jorgensen, who are the cofounders of the AllAdvantage.Com company. They started this company with two others, both of whom were H-1B visa students. They have created 700 jobs in this country alone, and they are expanding by leaps and bounds. But I was asking them about the issue of having to expand the H-1B visa program in the country and why it was necessary. And they said, in the short term it is necessary, because in the short term we are not getting enough of our own kids interested in math and science and engineering and computer science classes so that they can step in and meet the growth needs of a lot of these technology companies that are expanding incredibly fast, and helping to create a 3 percent unemployment level in this country.

Mr. KIND. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am proud to be able to support this resolution recognizing the significance of teachers and the quality of education in our country. I would urge all Americans to use this week as an opportunity to thank their teachers in their own communities. Mr. Speaker, outside of the active involvement of parents in their children's life and the education process, I think it is irrefutable that the best determination of how well a child is going to perform in our school system today is the quality of teachers that are in the classroom. They are doing remarkable work, even though more and more are being asked of them. I feel an important obligation that we as policymakers provide them with the tools and the resources they need to do their job better. Many of the teachers have been contacting us as Members of Congress in light of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, asking for additional funding or resources for ongoing training and professional development programs so that they can enhance their skills in working with our children. They are also calling for resources to reduce class sizes so that there is more individualized attention for the students and better safety in the classrooms and better discipline. So I would encourage the policymakers to support the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and to thank the teachers who have made such a big difference in many of our lives and encourage the continued work that they are doing.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for his resolute stand on this issue. I am proud to be a supporter, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member on the subcommittee, on this issue as well. It is a wise investment of Federal funds to see that schools accommodate students with special needs. It is one that Congress has not taken seriously enough throughout the years. I am concerned, however, that too many of my colleagues, both on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and throughout the rest of the body, use the IDEA funding issue as a tool for divisiveness on education policy. Reasonable minds, I believe, can disagree over whether the statutory language of IDEA created a Federal mandate to fund 40 percent of the excess cost of education for special education students. If it does create that 40 percent obligation, then we have only lived up to, over the years, roughly 12 or 13 percent of that responsibility. Reasonable minds can also disagree over how exactly those educational services should best be provided. But we all should be able to agree that this kind of targeted funding to help schools provide a quality education for students with special needs is exactly the proper role for the Federal Government in education. Accordingly, we should do all we can to fund IDEA at adequate levels. But we should not use IDEA funding to hold the rest of the Federal education program hostage. We should not, as some of my colleagues are quick to do, insist on funding IDEA only or as a prerequisite for any other funding for other important educational goals in this body. This country has the wealth and the public will to do great things on behalf of our children's educational needs. The question remains, does the Congress have the will to make hard choices across the whole of the Federal budget to see that America's commitment to education is supported? Unfortunately, the battles over ESEA in both Houses that seem inevitable in the closing months of the 106th Congress leave many in America doubting our collective will and wisdom. Again, Mr. Speaker, I support the efforts of my colleagues here today in focusing attention on helping to provide quality education to all students. Let us hope that we can continue this effort in a bipartisan fashion when it comes to reauthorizing the whole of the ESEA legislation throughout the remaining months of this session of Congress.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act. H.R. 371, is 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. It would only affect individuals who reside legally in this country and would not grant veteran's status or make the Hmong people who served in the Special Guerrilla Forces eligible for veterans' benefits. This important legislation would impact thousands of people in the United States, including the large Lao-Hmong community in my home district of western Wisconsin. The history of Hmong demonstrates the need for this legislation. The Hmong are not considered veterans by our government even though they participated in covert operations directed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Many served in non-uniformed units, therefore making it uncertain if ``veteran'' status can be proved. The Hmong aided our efforts during the Southeastern Asian conflict at a high personal cost. Between 10,000 and 20,000 Hmong lost their lives. The Hmong population lost their homeland to Communist forces. After the war, more than 100,000 Hmong were forced to either flee or live in refugee camps. Many Hmong were separated from their families. The process of assimilation to the United States has been especially challenging for the Hmong. A major problem for many Hmong is an insufficient command of the English language which prevents them from completing the naturalization process. This is partly due to the fact that the Hmong did not have a written language until the 1950s. Therefore, learning to speak, read, and write the English language has been extremely difficult. The English-learning process has also been stymied by the high rate of illiteracy among the Hmong in this recently acquired written language. The majority of the Hmong who were brought to the United States as political refugees had very little opportunity for education during their war-ravaged years in Laos. 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 and that is why I support H.R. 371.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter of H.R. 3615. I commend my colleagues on the compromise that they reached and worked out in this legislation, especially the two gentlemen from Virginia, the respective chairs and ranking members of the committees. This legislation is vitally important for my constituents because it is vitally important to rural America. My congressional district is predominantly rural, with a population in the largest city of about 55,000 people. Western Wisconsin has numerous small towns, villages, and individual farms nestled in the valleys of its rolling hills and bluffs. Due to poor reception with normal antennas, many constituents purchase satellite dishes for television reception. Unfortunately, these local satellite dishes do not provide local television coverage. Farmers in rural areas rely on their local news to provide weather forecasts, parents rely on local news to alert them to school closings, every constituent relies on local news to warn them of impending weather emergencies. In my district, access to local news through satellite television is not a luxury, it is oftentimes a matter of life and death. Passage of the Home Satellite Viewers Act last year was a big step towards ensuring local access for my constituents who rely on satellite dishes. Unfortunately, it was incomplete. H.R. 3615 creates an 80 percent loan guaranty program that will help satellite or other technology companies build the infrastructure to guarantee local access to rural areas. My colleagues in urban communities are already seeing local access because it is cost-effective to provide it in those areas. It is not, however, cost-effective in rural America. That is why this legislation here today is vitally important to the people I represent. I urge passage of H.R. 3615.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Minnesota for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3039, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act. I want to commend my colleagues for the leadership they provided, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman); the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest); the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin); and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); as well as the leadership on the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski). Mr. Chairman, this bill seeks to reauthorize Federal participation in the Chesapeake Bay Program. It will provide the Environmental Protection Agency with $30 million over 6 years to fund program activities that will prevent harmful nutrients and toxins from flowing into the Chesapeake, where they will degrade water quality and damage valuable fish and wildlife resources. It also mandates other Federal agencies to assist in the development of watershed planning and restoration activities. I strongly support the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act and the Chesapeake Bay Program, because they embody an approach to water quality and watershed management that I believe is truly the wave of the future. This approach is, first of all, proactive, rather than reactive, seeking to stop harmful nutrients and toxins from making it into the Bay in the first place, rather than relying on expensive clean-up and mitigation efforts afterwards. Secondly, this approach is basin-wide, rather than piecemeal, seeking to look at the entire ecosystem and to development management plans appropriate to the large scale physical system that it is. Finally, this approach relies on interagency and intergovernmental cooperation, attempting to coordinate the diverse, but sometimes fragmented, conservation efforts of Federal, State and local agencies, as well as non-governmental agencies. I want to compliment the Members from the Chesapeake Bay Basin States who have fashioned the bill and supported the Chesapeake Bay Program since its inception some 15 years ago. I also want to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to urge my colleagues to take a close look at a bill that I recently introduce, H.R. 4013, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act. Like H.R. 3039, my bill is comprehensive legislation to reduce nutrient and soil sediment losses in a large river basin. The Upper Mississippi River Basin, which encompasses much of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, is a tremendously valuable natural resource. Forty percent of North America's waterfowl use the wetlands and backwaters of the river as a migratory flyway. In fact, it is North America's largest migratory route, with much of the waterfowl such as Tundra Swans ultimately going through the Mississippi corridor and ending up in the Chesapeake Bay area. The Upper Mississippi River provides $1.2 billion annually in recreation income and $6.6 billion to the area's tourism industry. Unfortunately, increasing soil erosion threatens this region and these industries. For instance, soil erosion reduces the long-term sustainability and income of the family farms, with farmers losing more than $300 million annually in applied nitrogen. Additionally, sediment fills the main shipping channel of the Upper Mississippi River, costing roughly $100 million each year for dredging costs alone. Relying on existing Federal, State, and local programs, H.R. 4013 establishes a water quality monitoring network and an integrated computer modeling program. These monitoring and modeling efforts will provide the baseline information needed to make scientifically sound and cost-effective conservation decisions. The bill calls for an expansion of four U.S. Department of Agriculture land conservation programs. In addition, the bill includes language to protect personal data collected in connection with monitoring, modeling and technical and financial assessment activities. In trying to achieve these goals, this bill relies entirely on voluntary participation and already existing conservation programs. The bill will not create any new Federal regulations. The Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act and my bill, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act, are basin-wide, comprehensive efforts to reduce harmful runoff and improve the overall health of these regionally and nationally significant ecosystems. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3039 today and to contact my staff and helping a sure passage of H.R. 3014.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. As a member of the Committee on Resources, I rise in support of H.R. 3671, legislation to improve the financial management and accountability of the Office of Federal Aid within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under current law, the Office of Federal Aid reallocates funds collected through Federal excise taxes on guns, ammunition, and archery equipment to individual States for fish and wildlife restoration projects. Hunters and outdoorsmen as well as recreation and conservation groups in my district in western Wisconsin and throughout America rely on these restoration projects to improve habitat and fishable waters. Unfortunately, recent evidence documented by the GAO indicates that the administration and financial oversight of the Federal aid in the wildlife and sport fish restoration program may be a little lax. This has resulted in the unfair public perception that misallocation and abuse has occurred throughout the Fish and Wildlife Service. To correct this problem, H.R. 3671 caps the amount of administrative dollars available for administration use to implement wildlife and sport fish restoration programs. While I support this legislation, I do share the concern of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that this bill as currently written may go too far and end up restricting the overall effectiveness of the fish and wildlife restoration programs. In fact, there may be some truth in the fact that the rigid budgetary framework that this legislation proposes may ultimately erode the capabilities of the Fish and Wildlife Service to effectively administer the restoration programs. To that end, it is my hope and desire that the Senate can correct some of the flaws that I believe currently exist with this legislation so that the President may ultimately sign it into law.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to congratulate the terrific representative from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) and her Michigan State University team for their wonderful win in the NCAA double championship, along with my other friend from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who actually had three of the players who were born and raised in Flint, Michigan, a city in his district. They are worthy champions, but the gentlewoman is correct, they had to go through my Wisconsin Badgers in the Final Four in order to get there, and that is the reason why I am rising here tonight. I want to rise to pay tribute to my home State University, the University of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin athletic program has had an extraordinary run of success over the past years. A level of success that has made all of Wisconsin residents very proud. On January 1, the Wisconsin football team defeated Stanford University to become the first Big 10 school to win back to back Rose Bowl games. Shortly after that victory, Wisconsin running back Ron Dayne, who earlier in the season became the NCAA all-time career rushing yardage leader was awarded the Heisman trophy, the highest award for a college football player. The success of our football team was followed by the Badger men's hockey team which won the Western Collegiate Hockey Association League title this year and was ranked as the number one hockey team in the Nation throughout most of the season. Unfortunately, the hockey team fell one game short of reaching the NCAA hockey Frozen Four, nevertheless, our hockey team continued its tradition of being one of the elite hockey programs in the entire country. More recently, the Wisconsin men and women's basketball programs reached unprecedented heights. Last week the women's basketball team was crowned women's national invitational tournament champions, a team that included a player which is the pride of my hometown of LaCross, Kelly Paulus. On Saturday, the men's basketball team capped their Cinderella run through the NCAA tournament with an appearance in the Final Four eventually losing to the NCAA champs, Michigan State University. The men's Final Four appearance was the first by a Wisconsin team since 1941, a 59-year drought; and we are hoping that will not be repeated soon. The success of the Wisconsin athletic programs reflects the values that all Wisconsin residents hold dear. The Wisconsin teams are not flashy, and they are not loaded up with superstar recruits from across the country. Instead, Wisconsin teams are successful because they work hard, played as a team and believed in themselves. The Wisconsin players are almost all born and raised in Wisconsin. They were not the most heavily recruited players. They chose instead to attend their home State school because they wanted a quality education along with the experience of playing with the Badgers. By sticking to the Wisconsin values, hard work, team work and a dedication to getting an education, the young men and women who played for the University of Wisconsin were winners before they ever put on a Badger uniform. This year, however, they took their winning ways to the national stage and showed the Nation that Wisconsin can succeed at more than just making good cheese. I want to congratulate football coach Barry Alverez, hockey coach, Jeff Sauer; women's basketball coach, Jane Albright; and the men's basketball coach, Dick Bennett. They are all outstanding role models for their athletes and for all of Wisconsin students. I want to congratulate the Wisconsin marching band and the cheerleaders and the Wisconsin fans, the Badger pride followed our team from Pasadena to Indianapolis and they helped spread the word about the great people of Wisconsin. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to the men and women athletes at the University of Wisconsin. The success that they achieved on the court and the class with which they conducted themselves off the court, has made the great State of Wisconsin very proud. They are what is good with collegiate athletics today, and they are wonderful role models for the children who cheer for them and who try to emulate them.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, as this Nation forges ahead into the 21st century, our children's education must keep pace with the rigors and demands of the information age and the new economy. In recent years, our Nation's schools have been doing a good job of acquiring technology like computers, information technology networks, and the Internet access. Now as schools continue their efforts in acquiring and updating technology this allows time to focus on the result of these efforts, student education and achievement. To help schools teach with technology, I, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) and 17 other members of the new Democratic coalition, have introduced H.R. 4081, the Education Technology Enhances Classrooms Act, or EdTEC for short. EdTEC updates and reauthorizes the very successful and popular Technology Literacy Challenge Fund contained in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. EdTEC maintains the core elements of the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund but focuses new attention on integrating technology and classroom curriculum and also addresses a growing and troublesome trend: the digital divide. EdTEC provides valuable framework for States and school districts to create and update their plans for education technology purchases, self- training and development, and, now, student learning. Teachers will be given more tools and guidance to actually use technology to teach core academic subjects. Computers, networks, and Internet connections will not be used merely as research tools or for demonstrations. In the 21st century, students must learn with technology and do homework with technology just as they have always used encyclopedias, dictionaries, periodicals, and textbooks. Access and use of technology today is as important as the blackboard and chalk were to teaching in the past. EdTEC also works toward closing the digital divide by targeting Federal dollars to schools most in need. For example, even with Federal and State resources dedicated to technology acquisition, in 1998, only 39 percent of classrooms in high poverty schools had Internet access. In contrast, 62 percent of classrooms in low poverty schools had Internet access. EdTEC focuses funds first on disadvantaged schools in cities, small towns, and rural communities according to poverty and high need. Our Nation's schools have been working hard to provide their students with access to technology. The Federal Government, through the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, has been instrumental in leveraging the resources of local communities to acquire that technology. In fact, since the inception of the Fund, the computer-to- student ratio has been reduced from 27 to 1 down to 14 to 1. Nevertheless, we are at a point where most teachers report that they do not feel sufficiently trained on the use of technology in the classroom, and they do not have enough knowledge about what is available to them for teaching with technology. According to recent studies, only 20 percent of teachers report feeling very well prepared to use technology education as part of their teaching method. That is just way too low. Students, in many instances, are more comfortable with the use of technology than their teachers and parents, but they do not always have access to technology resources at school which will actually capture their attention and enhance their learning. According to a recent survey conducted by the National School Boards Foundation and Children's Television Workshop, 53 percent of parents in households connected to the Internet report their children primarily use their home Net connection for school work. Forty-three percent of kids between the ages of 9 and 17 say their outlook about school has improved with access to the Internet. This is important because education experts and children alike tell us that we must continue to find ways to challenge our children, to engage their creativity, to expand their interests, and, frankly, to simply fight off boredom in the classroom. The use of technology helps do that. Our bill, EdTEC, will continue the important Federal investment in education technology. It provides States and schools with important funds and guidance in formulating technology education plans while focusing on the integration of technology and curriculum and closing the digital divide. This new century and our new economy demands our children are experienced and equipped to use the technology that is all around us. EdTEC will help our schools continue to move in that direction and ensure that our children can learn at the speed of change in the 21st century. Madam Speaker, I want to call upon my colleagues to take a close and serious look at this legislation as we move forward with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in this session of Congress.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with the rule, but I do have a problem with the budget resolution offered by the Republican Party today. Yogi Berra should be with us here today, because it is ``deja vu all over again.'' Last year it was a $800 billion risky tax cut scheme, this year it is a $1 trillion 10-year risky tax cut scheme. You would think that the Republican leadership would get it eventually and start listening to the American people about where our priorities should lie. But the problem is not that they do not get it, the problem is that they cannot sell it. They could not sell it last year when it was a $800 billion tax cut, they are not going to be able to sell it this year with a $1 trillion tax cut. They can't sell it because the American people won't buy it. The American people understand if these projected budget surpluses do in fact materialize, although there is no guarantee they will, now is the time to take care of existing obligations, to shore up Social Security, Medicare, and pay down the $5.7 trillion national debt. That is the fiscally responsible and fiscally disciplined approach. It is sad that when the Republican leadership and members on the committee had an opportunity to vote for their presidential nominee's fiscal plan, a $1.5 trillion tax cut scheme, they were all ducking for cover, hiding under their desks and trying to flee the budget room in order to avoid having to vote on that issue. But the saddest commentary of all is that a contemporary American comic strip is more reflective of the values of the American people today than the governing majority party in the House of Representatives. I do not know how many of my colleagues had the opportunity to see the Doonesbury article that appeared about a week ago, but I think it tells the story very, very well. It opens up with a scene of men with one guy saying, ``Heads up, he is coming this way.'' Another gentleman, ``Try not to make eye contact.'' And an empty hat, which I suppose depicts Governor Bush. Then Governor Bush saying, ``Hi, fellows, I'm George Bush and I'm asking for your support. If you vote for me I will give a huge tax cut. How is that for a straight deal, huh?'' ``Well, I'm not sure. I mean, I can see how the wealthy might get excited. They'd be averaging $50,000. But it wouldn't mean much to a guy in my bracket.'' Another gentleman says, ``Besides, I care a lot more about shoring up Social Security and Medicare and paying down the national debt.'' ``Yeah, didn't fiscal responsibility used to be a Republican issue?'' Then Governor Bush: ``But, but, you do not understand. I am offering you something for nothing. Free money. Don't you want free money?'' Then another gentleman: ``Sure, but not until we pay our bills.'' ``Right.'' Governor Bush: ``What is the matter with this country?'' The last gentleman: ``I guess we have grown up a lot as a people. I know I have.'' Now, I am not saying the Doonesbury comic strip should set fiscal policy in this Nation, but I do believe, sadly, this comic strip better reflects the values of the American people and why we should support the Democratic alternative today. I certainly didn't come to this Congress in order to leave a legacy of debt for my two little boys or for future generations.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Minnesota for yielding to me, and I commend his work, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) on the Blue Dog budget. I am not a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, but I have consistently in the past supported Blue Dog budgets when they have been offered as alternatives during these budget resolution debates that we have had, because I feel that when we put these Blue Dog budgets together that they are more in line with where I think the American people are and where our priorities really should exist. Tomorrow we will have a very important day on a budget resolution. This establishes the blueprint of where the Federal budget is going to be heading throughout the duration of this year and for many years to come. We are in a position now with the strength of our economy, with some projected budget surpluses around the corner in the future, that hopefully will materialize, to do some extraordinarily good things for the future of this great Nation of ours. I am afraid, however, that when we start the debate tomorrow it will be, as Yogi Berra once said, ``Deja vu all over again;'' that what the majority governing party in this Congress will be offering on the floor tomorrow will be an emphasis on their first and main priority, which is trying to pass the biggest tax cut that they possibly conceivably can do here in this Congress, as they have now over the last couple of years. Fortunately, we have had a President in the White House who has felt that that has not been the fiscally responsible best approach that we should be taking as a Nation. And yet tomorrow we will be seeing a budget resolution which is very comparable to past years' budget resolutions, ones with a heavy emphasis on large tax cuts. That is also unfortunate because the district I represent in western Wisconsin, I think, brings a lot of common sense to this debate. They tend to view the Federal budget process similar to their own family finances, and that is that if they start running into some good times in their family, what should be the first obligation is taking care of already existing obligations, and that includes already existing family debt, before they give themselves a vacation or spend whatever excess funds that they might have on a new item for the family. I think if this Congress were to operate under the same type of principles and values, we would be a lot better off as far as securing economic opportunity and ensuring a very bright and hopeful future for all of our children. I have two young little boys back home in Wisconsin, Johnny will be 4 in August, Matt will be 2 the end of May. Much of what I do here in Congress in the votes that I cast are done through their eyes and with the hope of a very bright and prosperous future that they have to look forward to. With the advancements of medical science we are seeing today, which is truly mind-boggling, these young kids that are being born today could, in all likelihood, live to see the 22nd century, which is amazing when we think about it. So the decisions that we are making are not just decisions that are going to affect us today and tomorrow and for the next fiscal years but for generations to come. That is why I think it is so important that we make these decisions and get them right. That is why I feel so strongly that a $1 trillion tax cut that will be proposed tomorrow over the next 10 years, one that is anywhere from $150 billion to $200 billion over the next 5 years, which would virtually spend every nickel, every dime of a projected surplus that, hopefully, will materialize, and there is no guaranty that the surpluses will materialize to that magnitude, with the energy crisis we are in today, with a lot of indications out there where this economy could turn south on us, that if we pass large permanent tax cuts today, they could come back to haunt us tomorrow.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, before we conclude with our comments tonight, I again commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) for the outstanding leadership that he has provided on this issue. But I do not want people to be under the impression that we do not believe that we can provide some tax relief in these budgets. I think we can as long as we do it in a fiscally responsible and disciplined manner so we do not lock into some long-term commitment that could come back and haunt us and start adding to rather than detracting from the debt. It is sad tomorrow we are going to have a budget resolution that virtually spends the entire projected surplus that may not even materialize. But what is even sadder is that we have got the Republican candidate for President out there running who is calling for an even larger tax cut plan than what is being proposed in the majority party's budget resolution tomorrow. I just brought with me today what perhaps is the saddest part of this whole debate, and that is that there is a comic strip in this country that is probably more reflective of where the American people are on our responsibilities and Social Security and Medicare and debt reduction than the governing parties in this Congress. I do not know how many of my colleagues saw the Doonesbury cartoon that appeared about a week ago or so, but I thought it was very insightful as far as the feedback I am getting from my constituents back in the district. Just to go through it real quickly, there is a group of men here talking amongst themselves it looks like in a cafe. One guy says, ``Heads up. He's coming this way.'' There is an empty hat that appears that I think is supposed to depict Governor Bush. And one of the other gentlemen says, ``Try not to make eye contact.'' Governor Bush says, ``Hi, fellas. I'm Governor Bush and I am asking for your support. If you vote for me, I will give you a huge tax cut. How is that for a straight deal, huh?'' The gentleman responds, ``Well, I'm not sure. I mean, I can see how the wealthy might get excited. They will be averaging $50,000. But it wouldn't mean much to a guy in my bracket. Besides, I care a lot more about shoring up Social Security and Medicare and paying down our national debt.'' ``Yeah, didn't fiscal responsibility used to be a Republican issue,'' another gentleman says. And then the Governor responds, ``But, but, but, you don't understand. I'm offering you something for nothing, free money. Don't you want free money?'' ``Sure, but not until we pay our bills.'' ``What is the matter with this country,'' Governor Bush says. ``I guess we have grown up a lot as a people. I know I have.'' I thought that comic strip was very insightful of what I think is, by and large, where the American people are on this issue, that if we do have surplus money, let us use it for debt reduction to secure future generations opportunities in the country and let us start taking care of Social Security and Medicare rather than putting ourselves in this box that we have created.

Mr. KIND. Well, that is what I am hearing back home as well, from Republicans, from wealthy families. They understand we have existing obligations that really need our attention at this time. We have a $5.7 trillion national debt. I am glad the gentleman was able to bring those charts tonight highlighting when this debt was accumulated. By and large 85 percent of that $5.7 trillion was accumulated during the 1980s and 1990s, relatively recently. This is a new phenomenon for this Nation. We have never seen a debt burden of this magnitude, except during time of war, such as the Second World War, and it was accumulated recently, with our generation. If we want to talk about morals and values in Congress and what we do around here, what is more immoral than passing on a huge debt burden on to our children and grandchildren and future generations? That is exactly what we will be doing tomorrow if we pass a budget resolution that places the first and foremost priority on large tax cuts in the future rather than getting serious about debt reduction. There are a lot of merits to debt reduction, a lot of economic benefits to it. And people do not have to take our word for it tonight, they should just listen to what Chairman Greenspan consistently testifies about when he is before our committees here on Capitol Hill. He has consistently, over the recent years, said that if we do anything with projected budget surpluses, we should first see if they materialize and, if they do, use it for debt reduction, because that will mean less Federal borrowing in the private sector. It will enable the Federal Reserve to lower long-term rates in this county, which is going to make it cheaper for people and businesses, farmers, even students to borrow money for their purposes, and create jobs. Invest in the infrastructure. With lower rates, that is really the key, I think, of this extraordinary growth that we have seen in this Nation. I brought with me today just a few quotes from Chairman Greenspan based on his previous testimony before Congress. When asked about the wisdom of passing large tax cuts today, his response was, and I quote, I'm saying hold off on tax cuts for a while. I'm saying that because the timing is not right. What he means by that is if we pass a large tax cut now, which will spur consumption in this country, it has the potential of igniting inflation. And with the increase in inflation, or any type of inflationary indicators out there, the first thing the Fed is going to do is really start raising rates up, as they have been trying to do recently by tapping on the brakes. But with a large tax cut that could spur inflation, they will slam their foot on the brakes, and that is going to stop the growth that we have had in the country. That is why Chairman Greenspan is saying hold off, make sure what we do not do is something that will be inflationary in our economy. He also stated, and I quote, Therefore, as I have said previously, my first priority, if I were given such a priority, is to let the surpluses run. To me, currently, the first best is to allow the surpluses to run and the government debt to run down. Why is this important? Again, no one has to listen to us here tonight, listen to what Chairman Greenspan has had to say, someone that I think has an incredible amount of credibility when it comes to managing the economy in this country. He went on to say, It is precisely that imprecision and the uncertainty that is involved which has led me to conclude that we probably would be better off holding off on a tax cut immediately, largely because of the fact that it is apparent that the surpluses are doing a great deal of positive good to the economy in terms of long-term interest rates, in terms of the cost of capital and the ability effectively of the American government to borrow when it has to. Because as we reduce the amount of debt outstanding, the borrowing capacity of the Federal Government rises, which is a very important long-term issue. That is why I think we are right now at the crossroads of being able to pursue what is a very fiscally responsible and disciplined course. As a member of the New Democratic Coalition, that is our first priority is to maintain fiscal discipline and bring fiscal responsibility into the creation of these budgets and in these budget debates. But it is sad that we are having a rehash of previous year budgets that we are going to have tomorrow morning, an emphasis on large debt reduction, less of an emphasis on the need to reduce the national debt, less of an emphasis as far as taking care of our existing obligations, which means shoring up and saving Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing an important bill aimed at reducing sediment and nutrient losses in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Over the last 6 months, I have worked closely with many of my colleagues here in the House, farmers, the navigation industry, sporting groups, conservation groups, and government agencies, to come up with an effective, basin-wide, and non-regulatory approach to dealing with this increasingly serious problem in our Nation's heartland. Why is this important? Run-off from the land represents one of the greatest environmental threats to the Mississippi River. Huge quantities of sediment and nutrients flow into the river, filling in backwaters, degrading the wetland habitat on the river, and cutting off vital lifelines for a wide variety of wildlife. The Upper Mississippi River Basin is North America's largest migratory route, with more than 40 percent of the waterfowl using this area as a flyway. Ongoing habitat loss and degradation threatens the river's $1.2 billion recreation and $6.6 billion tourism industry, and the river is the primary water drinking source for over 22 million Americans. Impacts on the commercial navigation industry are severe, with barge traffic impeded by sediment buildup and the Corps of Engineers spending over $100 million each year on dredging to maintain a navigable channel in the main stem of the river. Soil erosion reduces the long-term sustainability of family farms with farmers losing more than $300 million annually in applied nitrogen. This affects farm income at a time when we have a crisis in rural America. As lawmakers, we must move beyond our current after-the-fact damage repair efforts and instead pass legislation that targets cost-effective measures to reduce sediment and nutrients from entering the river basin in the first place. In order to reduce sediment and nutrient losses from the landscape, it is imperative that we develop sound scientific information from which to make our conservation decisions. My bill calls for the creation of a basin-wide sediment and nutrient monitoring system and a state-of-the-art computer modeling program to identify hot spots in the basin. Armed with this information, we will be able to better target landowner-friendly financial and technical assistance to areas where it is most needed. My bill calls for an expansion of four highly successful USDA conservation programs; CRP, wetland reserve, EQIP and wildlife habitat incentives program. In addition, the bill includes strong protections for the privacy of personal data collected in connection with monitoring, modeling and technical and financial assessment activities. This legislation calls for a comprehensive consensus approach to reducing sediment and nutrient intake in order to prevent damage from occurring in the river system. This legislation is collaborative and brings together the relevant Federal agencies in a holistic and comprehensive manner. This approach, I believe, will have the greatest positive effect for the environment, for our farmers and for our communities in the Upper Mississippi Basin and will do so without creating new Federal regulations. In 1875, Mr. Speaker, Mark Twain wrote a series of essays that were collected and published under the title Life on the Mississippi. Reflecting on his experiences as a steamboat pilot, Twain penned the following words about his beloved Mississippi River, and I quote, The face of the water in time became a wonderful book, a book that was a dead language to the uneducated passenger but which told its mind to me without reserve, delivering its most cherished secrets as clearly as if it uttered them with a voice. And it was not a book to be read once or thrown aside, for it had a new story to tell every day. Throughout the long 1,200 miles, there was never a page that was void of interest, never one that you could leave unread without loss, never one that you would want to skip thinking you could find higher enjoyment in some other thing. There never was so wonderful a book by a man. The book of the great Mississippi River is one that I have been fortunate enough to read and reread throughout my life based on personal experience growing up on the river. For the sake of our children and for future generations, we must take measures today to ensure that a healthy and beautiful Mississippi River will be there for them to read as well. I ask my colleagues for their support of this important legislation, and I look forward to working in this body and with my friends here to ensure passage as soon as possible.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, with the remaining moments that we have in this special order, I would like to get into a little bit of the teeth, the meat of what the Supreme Court ruled last month in upholding the ability of legislators to impose limitations on the amount of money flowing into the campaigns. It was a 6 to 3 decision, which is a very good, decisive decision. The opinion was written by Justice Souter. I would just like to pull out a few of the quotes that Justice Souter used within his majority opinion. One is getting at the appearance of corruption, in which he wrote, ``The prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption was found to be a constitutionally sufficient justification''. In that he was referring to Buckley v. Valeo, the 1970 Supreme Court decision. He also went on to write, In speaking of improper influence and opportunities for abuse in addition to quid pro quo arrangements, we recognize the concern, not confined to bribery of public officials, but extending to the broader threat from politicians too compliant with the wishes of large contributors. These were the obvious points behind a recognition that the Congress could constitutionally address the power of money to influence governmental action in ways less blatant and specific than bribery. Justice Souter also went on to write, Democracy works only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption. What was also interesting in the decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist joined the majority in the 6-3 decision, but also Justice Stevens' concurring opinion that he wrote. It is relatively short, and I would like to quote liberally from that concurring opinion, because I think what he had to write makes a lot of sense and is the direction that we would like to see the constitutional analysis, at least in finance reform, go in this country. Justice Stevens wrote, ``Justice Kennedy,'' who wrote a dissenting opinion, Suggests that the misuse of soft money tolerated by this Court's misguided decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Commission . . . demonstrates the need for a fresh examination of the constitutional issues raised by Congress' enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Acts of 1971 and 1974 and this Court's resolution of those issues in Buckley v. Valeo. ``In response to his call for a new beginning, therefore, I make one simple point.'' And it is a point I felt was not just simple but really gets to the heart of it, and I decided to blow it up here tonight to emphasize the importance of it in the underlying decision. ``I make one simple point. Money is property; it is not speech.'' Mr. Speaker, that, I think, has been the main crux of the opposition, or at least the opponents' argument to campaign finance reform, is that we cannot do this. We cannot limit the amount of money coming into campaigns. We cannot ban the soft money contributions, the unlimited unregulated millions of dollars that are flooding the parties' campaign coffers every election season, because it would be an infringement on the First Amendment freedom of speech clause. Here we have a Court basically saying, no, that argument does not hold water. Justice Stevens got more direct to the point where he says: Money is property. Let us not fool ourselves. It is not speech. Justice Stevens went on to write in his concurring opinion: ``Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field.'' I think he was referring to Vince Lombardi on that last one. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results. Finally, he wrote, Reliance on the First Amendment to justify the invalidation of campaign finance regulations is the functional equivalent of the Court's candid reliance on the doctrine of substantive due process as articulated in the two first prevailing opinions in Moore versus East Cleveland. The right to use one's own money to hire gladiators or to fund speech by proxy certainly merits significant constitutional protection. These property rights, however, are not entitled to the same protection as the right to say what one pleases. I think it was such a strong concurring opinion that Justice Stevens wrote that I wanted to share that. But Justice Breyer also in a concurring opinion brought up another valid point. He acknowledges that speech is not money, or money is not speech, but he said, ``On the one hand, a decision to contribute money to a campaign is a matter of First Amendment concern. Not because money is speech, it is not, but because it enables speech.'' And that is why the Court in their holding opinion said that so long as the contribution limits do not get so ridiculously low that it inhibits or prevents an individual being able to communicate or get their message out, it will then withstand constitutional scrutiny by our third branch, the highest Court in the land. So, Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a very important Supreme Court decision that hopefully will have reverberations throughout the context of campaign finance reform. And why is this important? Because the lid has just blown off any type of semblance of control or limitations in the amount of money coming into campaigns. I brought with me a chart to illustrate what I am talking about. This chart demonstrates the amount of soft money contributions that have been flowing into the parties' campaigns over the last few presidential election years. Notice in 1987-1988 presidential campaign there was roughly $45 million in soft money contributions. That is when the political parties first started realizing there is a huge gaping loophole that exists in campaign finance reforms, and they started taking advantage of it back in the 1988 presidential campaign. That soon escalated to $86 million in the 1992 campaign. It jumped to $262 million in the 1996 presidential campaign. And according to current estimates of the amount of soft money that is being raised in the current presidential campaign, we are on pace of more than doubling the 1996 soft money contributions; anywhere from $500 million up to $750 million in soft money contributions. Mr. Speaker, that is what I mean by the lid has just been blown off. They are driving truckloads of money through the loophole that exists right now with campaign financing. And if it is not creating the potential for corruption in the political process, it certainly has created already the appearance of corruption in the political process. That, I think, is a compelling reason enough by itself to fight for campaign finance reform so we can restore a little bit of dignity and integrity to our government and hopefully instill a little bit of faith with the American people that there is not this big ``for sale'' sign hanging over the United States Congress and we are going to the largest contributor. That is not what our founders intended this government to mean. It was envisioned to be a process that all Americans could feel they could participate in. But so long as there is the appearance that it is the big money contributors that are gaining access, that are controlling the agenda, and also controlling the outcome of the agenda, I think we are going to only see more and more cynicism growing throughout this country. I yield to the gentleman, again.