Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again for his participation tonight and also for the work that he is doing for the sake of getting finance reform finally passed and signed and enacted into law in this country. What I would like to do is with the remaining minutes that we have left is to cite a Time Magazine article that came out on February 7, 2000. It was a special investigation Time Magazine and it is titled ``Big Money in Politics: Who Gets Hurt?'' It is very insightful, I think, investigation and review of some of the issues that we have been working on here in Congress and what the authors, at least, the investigators feel is the influence of money with these issues. The article is entitled ``How the Little Guy Gets Crunched'' and they cite specific chapter and verse and list specific instances that they feel has a direct correlation between the large money contributors and the influence or outcome of legislation or access and action in Washington and the impact that it has on smaller people who do not write the big checks throughout the country. The case that they cite, they reviewed, is the issue of the banana wars that is going on between the United States and the European Union right now. I believe it is an important WTO issue, however, where the EU has been found in violation of World Trade Organization rules by prohibiting the importation of bananas from certain areas in Central and South America. But the authors of this article point as one of the underlying causes of why the United States was quick to react and to condemn the European Union and even apply trade sanctions, which we are allowed to do when we have a violation of WTO, is because of the family ownership of the Chiquita company and their role in the political process. In fact, they tracked the amount of contributions that the owner of Chiquita has made in the course of campaigns starting back in 1991 and continuing through 1999, and the amount of sums that have been given, which really are extraordinary from one family in this country. Just to cite a couple of years, in 1996, the owners of Chiquita contributed $736,000 to the Republican Party, $114,000 to the Democrats. 1997, they contributed $460,000 to the Republican Party, $116,000 to Democrats. 1998, they contributed $1.1 million to the Republican Party, $217,000 to the Democratic Party. 1999, $555,000 to the Republican Party and $260,000 to the Democratic Party. Again, I think the point the authors are making in this Time Magazine article is that if this is not buying influence and access to government decision-making, the appearance sure stinks and it is giving this appearance of corruption and that the United States is not moral holy ground when it comes to our dispute with the European Union over this banana fight. And then they cite specific examples of individual entrepreneurs, small business owners in the country who have been adversely affected because of the sanctions that are now applied against the European Union because of their violation of import quotas on bananas. One individual in particular, Timothy Dove, has a small business in Somerset, Wisconsin, Action Battery, whereby he has to import batteries from Germany in order to service his business and to keep him in business. It just so happened that the Trade Representative's designation of certain items now that we are going to be hitting with sanctions because of this banana war applies to those batteries that he needs to import in order to keep his business vibrant and strong and to keep it coming. Now, here is a little guy who is trying to provide for his family with a small business back in Wisconsin, and all of a sudden he gets caught up in this gargantuan trade war between the United States and the European Union over bananas. If he would have woke up one morning and someone said that bananas were going to have a devastating and adverse impact on his health and his life, he would have thought they were crazy. But because of these effects of the sanctions now that are being applied and the designation of items that are being hit with sanctions coming from the European Union, his business now is in jeopardy of surviving. And Mr. Dove is not a big contributor to either of the political parties. The authors, again, in this article insinuate that the reason why he is the one getting hurt in this big banana war more than someone else is because he is not a big contributor to the political parties. This is just a very interesting article that Time magazine reported on that the authors had investigated. Again, it gets back to what the Supreme Court in their decision in Nixon was basically saying, that if there is not reason enough not to prevent corruption from occurring in the political process to justify campaign finance reform, there is certainly enough reason because of the appearance of corruption that other people sitting back in Wisconsin, for instance, the Mr. Doves throughout the country have towards the political process that adds to the cynicism and I think disenchantment and eventually disenfranchisement of their participation in the political process.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, again. Again, coming back to what Justice Souter wrote in his majority opinion Nixon v. Shrink last month, writing for the majority perhaps he said it best, that countering the perception that politicians are being bought is a proper justification for regulating donations. Directly quoting from his opinion, he said, ``Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune would jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic government.'' That, I think, basically summarizes the crux of what the Supreme Court was getting at saying: Congress, hey, you have the ability under the Constitution to limit contributions. And after this recent Supreme Court decision, the chief obstacle to achieving a less corrupt campaign finance system is not the U.S. Constitution but the people hiding behind it and using that Constitution as an excuse for inaction. And that, I think, is our chief obstacle that we face today. A willing Congress can now take action to solve the problem of big money and the influence of money in our political process. The political will, not the constitutional authority, is really the only missing ingredient that we have here today. And I feel in my analysis of the Supreme Court decision, and a lot of constitutional experts who looked at it as well, basically view this recent decision as giving us the green light for the ban on soft money contributions. All the underlying justifications for upholding spending limits in the State of Missouri I feel has the same constitutional application to what we were trying to accomplish in this session of Congress, and that is just an out-and-out ban on soft money contributions before it becomes unmanageable and before, what I think, decent people do indecent things for the sake of the money race that has come to dominate and become all-important in these type of political campaigns. So that, I think, is really the challenge that we face today. I cannot emphasize this enough, that until the American people really start holding their representatives' feet to the fire on this issue and start making it an election issue, until they are going to go out and support people who are in favor of reform who are no longer going to try to defend the status quo, the status quo that I feel is not working the way it should for the average person back home in my district in western Wisconsin, I do not think we are going to see a strong political push then to overcome the resistance that we still encounter in the United States Senate on this issue. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to take a few moments along with a couple of my colleagues to talk about a very important issue that comes and goes in this institution of ours and we are hoping to be able to resurrect it again yes, even during this presidential election year, one that we hope will never go away until Congress gets it right, and that is the issue of campaign finance reform and the necessity to enact common sense reform to get the big money and the influence of money out of our political process. There have been two very important events so far this year, Mr. Speaker, in regards to the campaign finance reform debate that we are having throughout the Nation. One is a very important Supreme Court decision that was just handed down on January 24 of this year whereby the court basically upheld the constitutional authority of State legislatures and this body to be able to place campaign contribution limitations in the political process. This is an important holding that the Supreme Court again resolved after the seminal case of Buckley v. Valeo during the 1970s in which the court upheld the ability of legislators to impose contribution limitations because oftentimes in this body during the course of campaign finance reform debates, one of the chief arguments against doing anything in an attempt to get the big money out, is that we have a free speech concern and a first amendment that we would be infringing upon if we start taking the big money out of the political process. And lo and behold, now the Supreme Court this year basically said no to that argument. I think it gives new life and a breath of fresh air to the whole campaign finance reform debate. Hopefully it will provide more impetus to the cause across the country and more political courage quite frankly here in Washington to do the right thing. The other event in regards to finance reform occurred today, actually on the steps of this Capitol where Granny D finished her long trek across the country in support of campaign finance reform. It is a marvelous story for my colleagues who have not heard about it yet. It is receiving a lot of attention nationally today since she concluded her long walk. I brought with me today a picture that I was able to download off her Web site. It shows a picture of Granny D, a 90-year-old grandmother of eight, I believe, and a great grandmother of 12, someone who has arthritis and emphysema but felt strongly enough about the cause of campaign finance reform that she decided to make it a national issue by dedicating herself to walking across the country, starting out in Pasadena during the Rose Bowl of January 1 of 1999 last year and then traversing over 3,100 miles, traveling through 12 different States, receiving a lot of local media attention along her way, encouraging individuals to contact their representatives at the State and national level to impress upon them the urgency of campaign finance reform. And now today she finally walked into Washington, D.C. and walked right up to the steps of this Capitol and delivered a marvelous, marvelous speech. I think a real inspiration for the cause of citizen advocacy and participation in our democratic process, especially given her own story. I will go into a little bit more detail but recognizing one of my colleagues' time constraints who would like to join in this discussion tonight, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who I came to Congress with. And we helped form a freshman bipartisan task force on campaign finance reform that he took a real leadership role in. And he has been a strong advocate for enacting finance reform with Shays-Meehan that did pass this body last year already and then languished in the United States Senate. I am glad he is here to join us this evening.

Mr. KIND. I wanted to reciprocate that and thank my good friend from Maine for the work and leadership he has brought to this Congress for the cause of campaign finance reform. In fact, the great State of Maine has really led the revolution sweeping across the country right now by passing their own public referendum, going to public financing of State campaigns. It is already being used as a model in the many other State referenda today.

Mr. KIND. It is an exciting development. It is going to be that type of snowball effect, sweeping across the country, with State legislatures each taking their own approach to financial reform, which will hopefully put more pressure to bear on the United States Congress to act. It seems every session of Congress we have a discussion and debate about campaign finance reform, trying to get the big money out of the political process; but for one reason or another it has always come up short, most recently in the United States Senate where we ended up eight votes short of being able to break the filibuster over there. It is almost inconceivable that we have a majority of Members in the House and even in the Senate and a President down Pennsylvania Avenue who is more than willing to sign the legislation if it can pass the Congress, but it is being held up by a small vocal minority in the Senate filibustering it. Of course, we need 60 votes in order to break the filibuster and bring the legislation to the floor. But I am sure my friend from Maine and also my good friend from New Jersey who has joined us for tonight's discussion would concur with me if we dedicated tonight's special order in honor of Doris Haddock, Granny D, given her marvelous triumph and achievement, what she has accomplished and brought to our doorstep here today. I would like to recognize the freshman Member from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who is also serving with me on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, bringing an important perspective on education issues based on his scientific background, but also someone who has taken up the cause and has turned into a real leader in his own right on the need for finance reform.

Mr. KIND. If the gentleman will yield back.

Mr. KIND. I commend the gentleman, again, for the gentleman's work, for the gentleman's contribution to this important issue. I think what we need, and was demonstrated a little bit on the steps of the Capitol, is a Granny D revolution in the country. She started that in no small part by committing herself to a cause that she feels very strongly in. The gentleman is absolutely right, it was not a partisan issue, the Granny D; it was an American issue. It was an issue about the future of her grandchildren and her great-grandchildren and the stake of her democratic government that she loves so well, that she was willing to, even though she has emphysema and is arthritic, walk over 3,100 miles for this cause. It is such a marvelous story. I do not know if the gentleman had an opportunity yet to tap into her Web site, but she put together a very good Web site, a lot of neat pictures. I would like to share the Web site address with any colleagues who are listening here tonight. It is www.GrannyD.com. Could not get any easier than that. I would encourage those who are listening to take a little bit of time, a few minutes, and page through that Web site. It displays the beginning and the end of her journey. What a great story it has been.

Mr. KIND. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. I would encourage the rest of my colleagues to oppose it as well if, for no other reason, than because of the Federal preemption implications over State law and the work that many State legislatures throughout the country have put into this issue. This is another classic example of ``Washington-knows-best'' when it comes to our system of justice in this country. This is not just a concern and a belief that I have, but even the Republican governor from my home State of Wisconsin has expressed this concern in a letter to our ranking member on the committee in which he, along with the chairman of the Council of State Governments, State Senator Kenneth McClintock, expressed their severe reservations to this legislation. In the letter they wrote, ``We are very concerned about the following preemption aspects of this bill: ``The bill establishes new evidentiary tests for punitive damages that would negate State laws for punitive damages, even though every State already requires that a plaintiff prove that a defendant acted in some particularly deliberate or egregious way to receive punitive damages. ``The bill overturns the doctrine utilized in many States of joint and several liability. ``The bill makes a dramatic and unacceptable change that alters the theory of strict product liability that is accepted and practiced in most States. ``The bill only preempts the laws of those States that offer greater protections to consumers, which we challenge from an equity perspective.'' They went on to state, ``Protecting small business in this Nation is a laudable goal. We, as State officials, have a vested interest in the economic growth spawned by small business development, and to this end we are excited to join with you in creating effective and sound legislative solutions. ``We are very concerned with the seeming eagerness of Congress to attempt to preempt State law. We urge you to reconsider your approach to this issue.'' Again, this is a Republican governor from the State of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, in opposition to H.R. 2366. I have another letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures in which Executive Director William Pound wrote that they oppose H.R. 2366 ``because of the damage it would due to our system of constitutional federalism. The tort law and its reform historically and appropriately have been matters within the jurisdiction of States.'' So, Mr. Chairman, I think the attempt here may be laudable, but I hope it is not just an election-year gimmick to try to make some Members appear weak in their support of small businesses when, in fact, we are talking about the very serious issue of Federal preemption over State jurisdiction.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this resolution and commend my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona, for bringing the resolution to the floor today. I also commend the group Childhelp USA for initiating a ``Day of Hope'' to be observed on the first Wednesday of April during Child Abuse Prevention Month. I applaud this effort to focus public awareness on the social ill of child abuse and neglect. Madam Speaker, on June 1, 1996, more than 300,000 Americans gathered at the Lincoln Memorial to express in advance this country's commitment to our children in a rally called ``Stand for Children.'' Marian Wright Edelman, the President of the Children's Defense Fund and organizer of the rally, gave a moving speech which has been memorialized in this illustrated children's book, also named Stand for Children. In the book, Ms. Wright Edelman tells the children of our Nation, ``We stood at the Lincoln Memorial as American families and as an American community to commit ourselves to putting you, our children, first, to building a just America that leaves no child behind, and to ensure all of you a healthy and safe passage to adulthood.'' She goes on to state, ``Everyone agreed on one crucial thing: that no one in America should harm children and that everyone can do more to ensure that you grow up safe, healthy, and educated, in nurturing families and in caring communities.'' Madam Speaker, when I as a member of this great institution think and deliberate about the issues that come before us each day, I ask myself one simple question: How will I vote to make this a better society for my two young sons, Johnny, who is 3, and Matthew, who is 1, who are going to grow, live and learn throughout much of the 21st century? Unfortunately, too many of our Nation's children are not considered when adults make the decisions in their lives. Too often children bear the brunt of poor decisions, poor circumstances, and poor intentions of the adults in their life. It is important that Members of the House, in our positions and with the influence of this institution, call constant attention to this national problem, and work tirelessly to break the cycle of abuse and neglect in the lives of these children. Before being elected to the House of Representatives, I was a prosecutor back in my home State in Wisconsin. While I find western Wisconsin to be an ideal place to live and raise a family, we are not immune from the tragedy of child abuse. In Wisconsin alone, over 15,000 cases of child abuse or neglect are substantiated every year. The most difficult cases I prosecuted were those involving cases of child abuse and child sexual assault. These cases were difficult not just because the victims were vulnerable children, but because all too often the crimes involved a breach of a special trust. Children who are subject to abuse face not only physical torment and scarring, but their very belief in family, in society, and in relationships are altered. These children are frequently victimized by the very people entrusted with their care and upbringing, leaving the children with no one else to turn to. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and I both sit on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the devastating effect of abuse on a child's learning ability cannot go unstated. Studies have shown that language skills are greatly impaired by abuse, both in the child's ability to process information and to express themselves. Academic performance is hampered greatly by abuse, both in language, testing, and mathematics. Equally important is the effect of abuse on a child's sense of self- worth worth and value. Abused children tend to become isolated, and develop few relationships and friendships. As they grow older, they may become more confrontational and even delinquent, ultimately leading to the horrible cycle of becoming abusers themselves. The need to address this cycle points to the importance of this resolution today, and the importance of ongoing efforts here at the Federal level to address the root causes of abuse. I have joined 142 other Members of Congress in the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, which was founded 3 years ago. I commend my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) for showing the initiative and the foresight and recognizing the need to develop that caucus in Congress. One big step we in Congress can take this year is to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Not only does the legislation offer Federal protection and assistance to single women and mothers who are victims of domestic violence, but Title II of the Act is focused on limiting the effects of violence on children. Several sections of the bill address the abuse of children, both in providing a safe haven for children, and in addressing the effects of domestic violence situations on children. If we as legislators want to do more to prevent the abuse of children, we can pass the Violence Against Women's Reauthorization Act this year and support other legislation which actively pursues the safety of children and families. Ultimately, this problem of child abuse and neglect will not be solved by any one action, but by continued vigilance. As Marian Wright Edelman offers in her book, ``It is always the right time to do right for children.'' Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in reading through Marian Wright Edelman's book ``Stand for Children'' on the way over here today, she was offering some I think very helpful recommendations for people back home who may be paying attention to the problem of child abuse in their communities. I just want to reference some of those recommendations that she made toward the back of the book. She said, ``Here are some ordinary things you can do to Stand for Children: Hold a yard sale and donate the proceeds to an after-school program; start a bus token drive at your school for students who cannot afford transportation costs to the school; organize a winter coat and shoe drive for children in need, or go through your toybox and donate some toys to another child or to a shelter; collect used children's books from your neighbors and donate them to children's programs or a child health clinic; ask your church, synagogue, temple, or mosque to open the building at night for children in the community who need tutoring; create a neighborhood garden or container garden on your block; write your State legislators and Governor, your representatives in Congress, and the President to tell them to put children's needs first.'' Today I am wearing a button that the Children's Defense Fund has been handing out to draw attention to the plight of child abuse in our country, and also in commemoration of the resolution here today. It says, ``Pick on someone your own size.'' I think that pretty well says it all. In conclusion, I just want to end with a prayer that Marion Wright Edelman has at the conclusion of her book: ``O God, forgive our rich nation where small babies die of cold quite legally. O God forgive our rich nation, where small children suffer from hunger quite legally. O God, forgive our rich nation where toddlers and schoolchildren die from guns sold quite legally. O God, forgive our rich nation that lets children be the poorest group of citizens quite legally. O God, forgive our rich Nation that lets the rich continue to get more at the expense of the poor quite legally. O God, forgive our rich nation that thinks security relatives in missiles rather than in mothers, and in bombs rather than in babies. O God, forgive our rich nation for not giving You sufficient thanks by giving to others their daily bread. O God, help us never to confuse what is quite legal with what is just and right in Your sight.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the winners in the New Hampshire primary yesterday: Vice President Al Gore and Senator John McCain. Let us be truthful, there are consistencies in their message that the voters are obviously responding to, one of which is the need to clean up the campaign finance mess that exists here in Washington, D.C. The other is their fiscally responsible message that I believe both of these individuals are delivering to sustain economic growth. Mr. Speaker, it is a message that says before we get carried away with these projected budget surpluses, we still have existing obligations that we need to take care of. Obligations such as shoring up Social Security, Medicare, paying down the $5.7 trillion national debt, before we embark on large new tax cuts or large new spending programs. In short, good policy is making good politics in these campaigns. Perhaps it would be wise for us Members in this chamber to wake up and realize what the American people are responding to and embracing, and work in a bipartisan fashion to address these very crucial issues before we embark on irresponsible fiscal policy in the coming year.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, when I returned to Congress for my second term last January, I came with the hope that I could believe the House leadership when it said things would be different in the 106th Congress from the experience of my first term in the 105th. We were told that the appropriations process would follow the rules; 13 separate spending bills brought to the floor for consideration with reasonable time and access for debate. We were told that the bills would be straight-forward, without tricks or gimmicks. We were mislead. The House leadership has continued to play tricks with the budget process. This fall, it did so at the expense of the men and women in our armed forces. I have the utmost respect and admiration for the American men and women who serve in uniform. My brother is currently serving a tour with his Reserve unit in Europe, and I have made two trips to the Balkans to visit our troops there. The young soldiers with whom I spoke were bursting with pride and confidence, and universally voiced their commitment to peace, freedom and their duty. With those men and women in mind, I was pleased to see my colleagues on the defense authorization and appropriations committees provide funding our military personnel with long overdue raises and improved benefits. I was also glad to see readiness issues appropriately addressed. Accordingly, I voted in favor of the Department of Defense Appropriations bill when considered by the House, even though I had some reservations concerning other provisions of legislation. It was my hope that, during the conference committee process, the bill would be strengthened and framed in an honest and responsible manner. Sadly though, I could not vote for the Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report. Instead of making a sincere commitment to our troops and an honest accounting to the taxpayers, the Congressional leadership in both houses resorted to budget tricks and gimmicks to hide the fact that it had failed to make the needed difficult decisions during the entire budget process in order to stick to the 1997 balanced budget agreement. The defense report designated $7.2 billion of routine operation and maintenance appropriations as ``emergency funding'' and exempts an additional $10.5 billion from the federal budget caps. Through that bill, the Congressional leadership tried to convince the public that a $267 billion budget only costs $249 billion. I simply could not support that tactic. The budget caps were set by Congress to keep federal spending in check and to help reach the goal of a balanced federal budget. House Republican leaders, in an attempt to circumvent the budget caps, have repeatedly designated traditional budget items as emergency funding. Any spending in excess of the budget caps threatens our ability to insure the long term solvency of Social Security and Medicare and to pay down the national debt. To call routine operations and maintenance an emergency item is an insult to every American. It is the same kind of budget trick the House leadership used when they say the upcoming 2000 Census is an emergency. The taxpayers should not, and will not, be fooled by this accounting slight-of-hand. Furthermore, pork-barrel projects permeated the bill, including $1.5 billion for a ship to be built in Mississippi that the Navy did not request, and $275 million for F-15 aircraft not requested. As Senator John McCain said on the floor of the Senate: ``I would have liked to have been able to . . . support the defense appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the smoke and mirrors budgeting at the core of this bill is too pervasive, the level of wasteful spending . . . is too irresponsible for me to acquiesce in its passage.'' The House should find the cuts needed to keep spending within the budget caps, rather than using money that should be spent paying down our national debt and preserving Social Security and Medicare for future generations. These budget gimmicks only serve to erode public confidence in the process and threaten the future of Social Security and Medicare. It was fitting that the vote on the defense conference report came just before Halloween. Congressional leaders tried hard to trick the public into believing the government's budget is all treat. Ultimately, I am very glad our troops are getting their pay raises, and I am very glad needed investments were made in the infrastructure which maintains our military readiness. I only wish I could have voted in favor the defense appropriations conference report as a symbol of my support for our troops and our national security interests. But such a symbolic act, when in my heart I believed the American people were being deceived, would have flown in the face of the very ideals for which our men and women in uniform carry out their duty.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks I have read many news articles and heard many interviews which paint a very grim picture of the political and financial situation in Russia. I have seen economic analysts and political pundits shake their heads and ask in very solemn tones, ``Who lost Russia?'' If I were to believe the most outspoken American leaders and experts, it seems we should just give up on democratic development in Russia and allow the worst-case scenarios to become self-fulfilling prophecies. But while gloomy forecasts cloud this country's media-based perception of Russia's future, I have good reason to hold out hope for a prosperous Russia and for a strong U.S.-Russian relationship. In September, I hosted a delegation of Russians through the auspices of the Library of Congress and the American Foreign Policy Council. After spending an exceptionally enlightening week with these individuals, I believe the real question facing the West is not who lost Russia--as if it were the West's to lose--or even whether Russia is lost. Rather, the question is how can we help enterprising and industrious Russians, like those I met, work to rebuild their nation. The delegation that spent a week in my Congressional district in western Wisconsin came from different regions of Russia and different walks of life. As politicians, scientists and financial advisors, these men and women represented their nation well. They looked around a typical Wisconsin dairy farm, walked in a small town parade, toured a state university campus and strolled along the banks of the Mississippi River. All the while they shared with me, with my constituents and with each other, their thoughts about their homeland, its future, and the future of relations between our countries. I was struck by the energy and optimism of these individuals, and by their sincere desire to see their fledgling democracy flourish. Mr. Sergey Alcksandrovich Klimov is the deputy head of the Votorynets district administration in Nizhney-Novgorod Oblast. Ms. Irina Lovovna Osokina is a deputy of the Moscow City Duma. Mr. Nikolay Mikhaylovich Tarasov is the Mayor of Orsk in the Orenbugh Oblast and a member of the legislative assembly. Mr. Dimitry Valeriyevich Udalov is chairman of the board of the agricultural finance company Russkoye Pole, and deputy of the Saratov regional Duma. Each of these individuals has specific reasons for participating in the delegation to my district, and each had specific interests in comparing the institutions, business ventures and political processes of our two nations. But by the end of their stay, each grew to be friends with the others, as well as with me and my staff, and our shared goals for peace and prosperity outweighed the differences between our respective ways of life. On their way home, the delegation stopped here in Washington. They were not only impressed by our magnificent capital city, but by the fact that the American people have such direct and open access to their elected leaders and their government. I am glad to say that through this exchange program, myself and many other Members of Congress were able to open this Capitol--the People's House--to our World War II allies as a sign of support for their honorable efforts at home. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of Soviet Communism in Russia, the Russian people have strived to reap the fruits of democracy and capitalism. Many in Russia feel that the journey is hopeless and that capitalism will not work for them. I am confident that, based on the four outstanding people I had the honor of hosting, the doubters and naysayers both in Russia and abroad will be proven wrong. Mr. Speaker, I submit that we have a duty, not only as legislators, but as Americans and as citizens of the world, to help our Russian friends at this critical time in their history. Let us extend a hand both in friendship and assistance. Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor-in- Chief of U.S. News & World Report recently wrote: ``Russia is not lost. It is still a much better friend of the West than it was under Communism.'' Mr. Zuckerman went on to say, ``The Russians have, in fact, demonstrated an extraordinary resilience . . . The United States and the West will have to appreciate that Russia can only solve its problems its own way.'' He concluded, ``Humility will serve us well. Not everybody needs to be like us.'' I couldn't agree more. Russia does have a bright future, and the United States has the opportunity to be a friend and partner in that future. We will, of course, continue to encourage democracy and openness not only in Russia, but in all nations of the world. In the aftermath of the Cold War, such participation remains vital to our national interest. America must be active in the world community to help guide the many newly independent nations in their democratic development. Mr. Speaker, I made new friends in September; friends I hope learned at least a little from me and my community, as I learned so much from them. Perhaps the greatest thing I learned is how similar are our goals and dreams for our countries, our communities, and our families. I applaud the members of the Russian delegation that visited my district for their dedication and loyalty to their nation, and I wish them well in their efforts to build stronger communities and homes for their families.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and to the final bill. Where does a promise mean nothing anymore? Right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Where is one of the last remaining vestiges of a Soviet style, state-controlled economic industry? Right here in the blessed United States of America, with a depression-era Federal milk marketing order policy. Unfortunately, because of a last minute deal brokered behind closed doors, the first significant step to reform an antiquated, senseless dairy policy will be blocked by language contained in this bill. Just a couple of months ago, Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with some of the leaders in the Republican Party on the House floor, where they promised me and other representatives that they would not allow any anti-dairy reform legislation to be attached to one of the year-end spending bills. But we wake up this morning and, lo and behold, there it is. Promises made, promises broken. And you would think an administration whose own reform proposals are under attack after three years of exhaustive work would stand a little more firm and fight for it, but that did not happen. Now, it is never fun or pleasant to hold up the business of the House with delay tactics, and it is unfortunate we have had to resort to that tactic today. But I for one am willing to stay here until the cows come home, until we get this budget right, right for the American people, and right for the family farmers across the country. For those of you who believe in budget integrity and fiscal discipline, there are a number of reasons for voting against it. It is $35 billion over the spending caps from the 1997 budget agreement. We are dipping into the Social Security surplus by $17 billion to $18 billion according to our own Congressional Budget Office. We have done absolutely nothing to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare by one day in this budget. To top it all off, we are milking family farmers across the country and consumers and taxpayers with this 11th hour, back-room deal that will prohibit reform of a depression-era national dairy policy. We can do a lot better. I think the American people demand that we do a lot better. I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this budget agreement. Let us start over, let us get it right, and then let us go home.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), for authoring it. This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to democracy, free elections, and human rights in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The Lao People's Democratic Republic is a one-party Communist state ruled by the Lao People's Revolutionary Party. The Lao People's Revolutionary Party exercises absolute control over the state and its institutions. Sadly, the Lao government is intolerant of political diversity and the existence of political and religious groups or organizations with differing viewpoints. Independent human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, have testified before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that the Lao government bars information from flowing out of the country. In fact, foreign journalists are assigned ``minders'' by the Lao government security services to monitor their movements and activities. This type of activity demonstrates the Lao government's complete control over all institutions, including the media. Mr. Speaker, Laos is the homeland of more than 3,000 of my district's constituents. In fact, the State of Wisconsin has the second largest Hmong population in the Nation. The Hmong assisted our Nation in our fight against Communist forces in southeast Asia. Since first coming to the United States in 1975, the Hmong community has contributed to our Nation's economic prosperity and are dependable hard-working members of Wisconsin's work force. The Hmong are now raising a new generation of American citizens. Despite this, Hmong-Americans are concerned about the continued human rights violations that are practiced by the Lao government on Lao Hmong, many of whom are members of their own family. While the Communist Lao government does not allow independent human rights observers in Laos, there are numerous reports of persecution and abuse of the Lao people. Reports indicate that Lao Hmong families are often threatened; and many Hmong are reported to have been in prison, tortured, and even killed. In fact, last April, two Hmong Americans with U.S. passports and appropriate papers disappeared along the Lao-Thailand border. According to American eyewitnesses, men thought to be Laotian security officials abducted the men. After more than 7 months of joint investigation by the U.S. State Department, U.S. Embassies in Laos and Thailand, the Lao and Thai government, not a trace of the men have been found. This is intolerable and unacceptable. It is imperative that all information regarding the disappearance, whereabouts and current circumstances of these two men are expeditiously released and made public to the men's families and to this Congress. Moreover, with the return of approximately 1200 Hmong to their native Laos from the Ban Napho refugee camp in Thailand, we in Congress need to ensure that these people are not subjected to retribution or oppression by the hands of the Lao government. Passage of this resolution will send such a message. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is an important first step toward promoting and implementing better human rights standards and, hopefully, democracy in Laos. The Hmong were America's friends during our time of need, we must not forget their sacrifices today. This body and this Nation has a moral obligation to send a clear message that we are interested in the restoration and the respect of human rights for the people of Laos and we will not tolerate business as usual by the Lao government. I would encourage all my colleagues to support this very important resolution.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow our nation pays tribute to the men and women who served in the armed forces. Veterans Day is an opportunity for everyone to stop and say thanks to those who have given so much to protect our freedom. Since the beginning of our nation, the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines of the Armed Forces have been called on to risk their lives and fight for the ideals that make America great. The level of our support for the Armed Forces has varied throughout history. Yet, regardless of what one thinks about the wars that they fought, or the wisdom of our involvement, we all should agree that those men and women responded to the call of their country and performed with honor and dignity. This year we should take time to especially remember the veterans of World War II, many of whom are well into their 80's. Now more than ever, we need to listen to and preserve their collective wisdom and experience. Their devotion and courage can teach us about the importance of an individual's commitment to a cause greater than oneself. On Veterans Day, in my congressional district, I have arranged to bring some of those veterans together with middle school students in several communities in western Wisconsin. My hope is that our children will learn the true meaning of duty, honor and courage from those veterans who were heroes on battlefields around the globe. It is important that our children learn about the sacrifices made by previous generations. I recently read an excerpt from Senator John McCain's new book Faith of our Fathers. Senator McCain spent more than 5 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, in what was derisively referred to as the ``Hanoi Hilton.'' In his book he talks about the meaning of glory. For I have learned the truth: There are greater pursuits than self-seeking. Glory is not a conceit. It is not decoration for valor. It is not a prize for being the most clever, the strongest, or the boldest. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely, and who rely on you in return. No misfortune, no injury, no humiliation can destroy it. These words are a powerful reminder of the attitude shared by thousands of our veterans, living and dead, when they answered their nation's call. They are good words to remember, not just on Veterans Day, but every day.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), one of the most preeminent defenders of human rights and freedom in this body, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud supporter of this resolution, which commemorates the 10-year anniversary of one of the most astounding historical events of the 20th century, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism throughout Central Europe. What started out as a trickle, Solidarity's victories in Poland during June of 1989, Hungary opening up its border with Austria later that summer, led to a deluge of East Germans flooding across the Berlin Wall. And a few weeks after that, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia took place. And no one could predict these events and no one knew how to react to these events. One of my most cherished possessions that I still keep here in Washington with me on my desk is this chunk of the Berlin Wall. It still has graffiti painted on it. Coincidentally, it is shaped like the State of Wisconsin. But it is a chunk that I personally whacked out of the Berlin Wall on October 3, 1990, during the reunification celebration when I was over there as a student traveling throughout Central Europe. This came at a crucial time in my life, Mr. Speaker. As a third year law student, I was watching these historical events unfold with rapt attention like the rest of the world was, but I was feeling a little bit disillusioned, and a little bit cynical about our own political process here in this country. So I decided a few months after the revolution had taken place to travel through Central Europe to visit the European capitals, live out of a backpack, survive on cheese and bread during that time and see firsthand these remarkable changes taking place. I met when I was traveling through there the real heroes in my mind of the revolutions and the changes that took place. They were students such as myself about my age who had literally, on the front lines of the demonstrations, literally looking down the barrel of communist guns and facing Soviet tanks, not knowing whether they were going to succeed or whether this was going to turn into a massacre. They knew their countries' individual histories. 1968, Prague Spring. 1956, Hungary when the communist authorities did in fact crack down. And as history later showed during the Velvet Revolution, the Politburo voted 5 to 4 not to use force to bring down the demonstrations. One vote could have made all the difference in Prague during that fall of 1989. Mr. Speaker, I asked many of these students what they remembered most about those demonstrations and the events and they said two things: How terribly cold it was as they were maintaining candlelight vigils all night long, and the fear that they felt, again not knowing whether or not the military was going to open fire on them. But perhaps the most important wall that fell in that region to make this all possible was not even visible. It was the wall of fear that fell. And we cannot overestimate the role that fear does play in any totalitarian or authoritarian regime to keep them in power. But this was made possible because Mikhail Gorbachev, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) already indicated, changed the dynamics in the region by denouncing the use of force in order to keep communist governments in power; by pursuing his policies of glasnost and perestroika, the general opening of information and ideas in these regions. It diminished the fear and empowered people to have the courage to demand change. Perhaps it is the greatest magnificent irony that one of the most oppressive communist regimes in that area, Czechoslovakia, would later be led by former poets and playwrights. Vaclav Havel, the first democratically elected President in Czechoslovakia, was a former playwright himself. The first democratically elected president since Masaryk and Edvard Benes just before the Second World War. He was the founder of Charter 77, the moral blueprint for change in the area, and also founded the Civic Forum that gave the people in Czechoslovakia the political alternative to the communist regime, but not before he was imprisoned on four separate occasions. In fact, during one of those imprisonments he was on his deathbed, literally. The communist authorities did not want a martyr on their hands, so they went to him and said, ``Listen, the people who give out the Obie Award will allow you to direct your own play in New York and get proper medical attention.'' And he said, ``I just have one question. If I go, will you allow me back in?'' And they could not give that assurance and so he refused. The rest, as we say, is now history. But in conclusion, I just want to pay a special tribute and wish a special happy 10-year anniversary to those students who really were on the front lines and showed through their courage that there are causes and ideals greater than one's self that are worth risking everything for. So on this day, my thoughts and my memories go to many of those students who I personally had a chance to meet and who inspired me to get involved in public service when I did return to the United States.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to commemorate the 10th anniversary this week of one of the most astounding events of the 20th century, the collapse of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, and the collapse of Communism throughout central Europe. What started as a ripple, solidarity's triumph in Poland in June of that summer, Hungary opening its border with Austria that summer, led to a deluge of East Germans streaming across the Berlin border and eventually tearing down the symbol of oppression in Europe, the Wall. A few short weeks later came the Velvet Revolution that changed Czechoslovakia. One of my most cherished possessions that I keep on my desk here in Washington is a chunk of that Berlin Wall with some of the graffiti paint still on it, coincidentally, shaped like Wisconsin. I was able to knock out this piece with a sledgehammer while I was in Berlin on October 3, 1990, celebrating the reunification of both Germanys. Today, the political map of Europe looks completely different. As this map depicts, Mr. Speaker, democracy has been flourishing and sweeping across Europe. The countries shaded in blue are those democratic nations that existed before 1989. The purple-shaded area are those countries that have evolved into democratic nations since the revolutions of 1989. Obviously, we still have some work to do in Belarus and down in the Balkans and Serbia, as represented by the red countries shown on the map. Now, 10 years later, the events seem preordained. But at the time, no one could predict these events or know how to respond to them. Today, many want to claim credit. But the most important wall that fell was not even visible. It was the wall of fear inside people. It is difficult to describe the role that fear plays to maintain a totalitarian state. Mikhail Gorbachev, however, changed the dynamics by sending out messages that his rule would not be sanctioned only by guns and tanks. His policies of Glasnost and Perestroika showed that not only would he not oppose reforms, but actually encourage them. As a third-year law student, I watched with rapt attention, as the rest of the world did, to the unfolding of these events during 1989. It came at a critical point in my life. I was feeling a little disillusioned, a little bit cynical about our own democratic process in this Nation. So I went to central Europe a few months after the resolutions, lived out of a backpack, and traveled throughout the capitals of central Europe to see these changes first hand. While traveling there, I met the real heroes of the revolution. People who restored my hope for the institutions of democracy. They were students about my age who were on the front lines of the demonstrations, literally staring down the barrel of guns and Soviet- made tanks, not knowing if they were going to succeed or suffer another Prague Spring like in 1968 or Budapest in 1956. History later showed that in the case of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, velvet to symbolize the smooth and peaceful transition of power that took place, the Communist Politburo voted just five to four against ordering a massacre. When I spoke to those students, they remembered two distinct things about the demonstrations: how cold they were during the candle light vigils that took place all night, and how scared they were knowing the history of previous reform attempts in their own country. They did not have weapons to fight back with, only their courage. They knew they were risking it all, but they chose to do so for the sake of their own future. And they prevailed. It is a magnificent irony of history today that one of the most oppressive Communist regimes throughout central Europe, Czechoslovakia, would later be led by former poets and playwrights in the country, one of whom was Vaclav Havel. He was one of the key leaders of the Velvet Revolution. He was the first democratically elected leader of Czechoslovakia since Mazaryek and Eduard Benes before the Second World War. He was also one of the founders of Charter 77, the moral blueprint for change in Czechoslovakia. He helped form the Civic Forum, the political alternative to the Communist regime, but not before he was in prison four times as a political dissident. In fact, during one of his stays in prison, he became deathly ill. The Communist authorities, afraid they were going to have a martyr on their hands, went to him and told him that the people in New York who give out the Obey awards were willing to host him so he could direct his own play on Broadway as well as receive proper medical attention and care. He asked them one question, if he went, would he be allowed to return to Czechoslovakia. They could not give that assurance. So he said I will stay instead. The rest, as we now know it, is history. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay a special tribute and wish a special anniversary to a few students who inspired me. To Andreas of Dresden, Peter of Krakow, Jitka, Ladka, Ivana, and Paulina of Prague, happy anniversary and thank you for showing with your courage that there are some causes and ideals greater than oneself worth risking everything for. May freedom and liberty continue to flourish throughout central Europe.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I have read the resolution. I do not view any word in the resolution as threatening in any way to Russia. That is why I can rise in strong support of the resolution today. There is no doubt that America must remain firmly committed to NATO, as it remains firmly committed to ensuring the peace and stability on the European continent and throughout the North Atlantic region. This resolution was drafted in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of NATO held here in Washington last April. For 50 years NATO has stood as the preeminent defense alliance protecting this Nation, its allies, and its vital interests from the threat of aggression and the threat of regional instability. For 50 years NATO has provided this Nation with the invaluable opportunity to remain constantly and actively engaged with its key allies. For 50 years NATO has proven that Nations sharing common ideologies, common values, and common goals can in fact stand stronger together than if alone, and can maintain peace in difficult, dangerous times. Fifty years ago, NATO was created to hedge against the spread of tyranny in a war-ravaged Europe. At the time there were doubters, those who believed, even after the United States found itself drawn into two world wars within 25 years, that we should go it alone and close the gates to fortress America. Thankfully, this country did not adopt such a strategy. Instead, we employed the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe from the ashes of conflict, and we established NATO to provide for the defense against the post-war totalitarianism in the region. Isolationism did not prevail then, and it is very appropriate, 50 years after the creation of that Alliance, to deflect the scattered cries for a new form of isolationism in this country. For 40 years NATO stood not only as a line of defense but as an incredibly effective deterrent. For the last 10 years NATO has stood ready to preserve European stability. It has been successful in its evolving mission. Most recently, and while facing very daunting challenges, NATO has sought to bring peace and stability to the Balkans, the very region that provided the spark that led to the conflagration known as the First World War. Back in 1949, many in the United States claimed that we should not be engaged in Europe because we could not maintain peace in a region naturally drawn to war. It was argued then that the history of Europe was one of nationalism and ethnic extremism, and war among those nations was inevitable. Yet, because of NATO, Western Europe has seen one of the most peaceful and prosperous periods in its history. Throughout the nineties we have heard the same argument regarding any attempts to maintain peace in central Europe. In fact, not many months ago, many in this House insisted that NATO would not remain unified in its action against the tyranny of Milosevic. Yet the Alliance stood firm, and military success was achieved. The peace will be hard fought, but by tapping into the resolve and commitment of exhibited by the members of NATO, which now including members close to the Balkans, peace and stability can be established in the wake of military successes. NATO Enlargement This resolution also commemorates the enlargement of NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The success of NATO and its members' drive to contain, and ultimately de-construct, Soviet authori- tarianism, has led to the flourishing of democratic movements throughout Central and Eastern Europe. The inclusion in NATO of three key nations formerly bound by the Iron Curtain speaks volumes for the power of the alliance and its relevance in today's changing geopolitical landscape. New Threats Demands a Commitment to NATO As this nation, its allies, and the alliances to which we belong, face new and unconventional threats from rogue nations, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction, the deterrent effect of NATO remains relevant and vital. If those who would commit atrocities can look to the cohesiveness and determination of a broader reaching NATO, they will be more likely to give pause to any rash acts against alliance members or their interests. The United States must maintain a leadership role in NATO's preparedness against these new threats. Our citizens travel the world. Their government must be there with them-- strong and committed. No alliance, no strategy, and no plan creates certainty in international relations. However, NATO's unparalleled success in protecting Europe and the North Atlantic region proves that, with courage and determination, this Nation can boldly assert the values of democracy and peace. In conclusion, let me just commend today not only the institution of NATO and its member nations but those who actually make the peace possible, our troops stationed abroad with their Alliance colleagues, working together to ensure the mutual security of all our families. I look forward to the future successes of NATO and the ideals it protects.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. It is very appropriate and important for this Congress to encourage the Federal, State and local education policymakers to incorporate course work on personal finance as part of our children's education. There are some worrisome trends that the young people of this country now face, Madam Speaker. It is no secret that the number of bankruptcies filed in this country has skyrocketed in recent years, but a closer look at the trends are truly frightening. Twenty years ago, the total number of bankruptcy filings was just under 332,000 people. According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, the total number of filings for 1998 was a staggering 1.5 million people. Even more startling is the fact that while the number of business filings for 1998 is almost equal to the number filed back in 1980, the number of consumer filings for bankruptcy has increased by almost five-fold. In fact, 97 percent of all bankruptcies are now filed by consumers rather than businesses. In my home State of Wisconsin, 5,000 bankruptcy claims were filed just in the second quarter of 1999. Another trend that supports the call for better K-12 education in personal finance is the use of credit cards among young adults. Just yesterday, the Washington Post carried an article describing the ease at which college freshmen can get credit cards and the extent to which college students amass credit card debt. Fifty-five to 70 percent of college students own at least one credit card, and experts believe that number is growing. Furthermore, the average American household carries four credit cards, with balances of $5,000. Consumer debt in this country tops $1.2 trillion, $540 billion of which is in revolving credit. And as a Nation we have a negative per capita savings rate today. Madam Speaker, there can be no doubt that our children need to know basic finance principles and skills before they become consuming adults. I realize it seems that there are advocates for a wide variety of issues who identify one more subject that must be added to the core requirements of reading, writing and arithmetic but, Madam Speaker, without at least a basic understanding of personal finance and finance principles generally, our young people enter a brave new world as unprepared as they would be without being able to read. In this day and age, people are handling their finances in ways only professionals would just 5 or 10 years ago. We do not use cash to make purchases that much. We pay with credit cards. Or we choose to use a debit card instead of checks. How many workers do not make substantive choices involving how their retirement funds are being invested? Fewer and fewer. In a world of global trade and e-commerce, young people who do not understand the importance of fiscal responsibility and the long- term consequences of reckless spending will suffer deeply for years to come. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am glad to see that this measure addresses the need to provide better, or in some instances basic training and professional development for the teachers. Too many teachers complain that they do not themselves have the background to adequately teach their students about personal money management. We just passed a major teacher training and professional development bill about 3 months ago, and this resolution nicely complements that piece of legislation. We often speak of the need for the government to make tough choices and exercise fiscal responsibility. I submit that each American must also exercise wise judgment in personal finances. Our national debt is the cause of much concern and gut-wrenching debate here on Capitol Hill. Young people must also recognize that personal debt is nothing to take lightly. This is especially true given the need for more and more college students to take out sizeable loans to finance their education. I ask my colleagues to join in support of this resolution today, and in my sincere hope that schools nationwide will be able to offer key personal finance education to all of our students.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3064, the combination District of Columbia appropriations and the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill. This bill makes a mockery of the legislative process and is paid for with numerous budgetary gimmicks. The majority is bypassing the normal legislative process and is asking us to vote on the final version of the Labor/HHS bill. What happened to the amendment process? For every other appropriations bill Members of Congress had the opportunity to present amendments to the Rules Committee and have the amendments debated on the House floor. Why are we skipping this step on one of the most important bills to be discussed each year? The Labor/HHS bill funds crucial domestic programs including: Title 1, for disadvantaged students; Meals on Wheels; National Institutes of Health; Pell grants; and workers health and safety programs. The American people deserve a full debate on this bill. Not only are we denied a full debate, but also we are asked to accept a bill that is paid for with numerous budget tricks. For example, there are some strange emergency designations. The 25-year-old Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is now considered emergency spending. Did the Republicans forget that winter is coming? My constituents in western Wisconsin know that winter is coming. We saw our first snow fall back on October 1. In addition, this bill delays $11 billion in obligations to NIH, Head Start, and other agencies until September 29, 2000. We are giving these important programs desperately needed money, but telling them they cannot spend it until the end of the fiscal year. Further, there is $10 billion in new fiscal year 2001 appropriations, avoiding the problem for this year but creating a deeper hole for next year's budget. Finally, I want to talk about the 1-percent across-the-board cut in discretionary spending. This is a fiscally irresponsible way to budget. By advocating an across-the-board cut, the majority is abdicating its responsibility to make the tough choices. Though a 1-percent cut may sound fair, it penalizes efficient government and wasteful government equally. What is fair about cutting nutrition programs for seniors, health care for veterans, and education programs for children, just because Members of Congress cannot help themselves when it comes to parochial projects? We should be cutting wasteful pork-barrel spending such as a $1.5 billion ship to be built in Senator Trent Lott's home state that the Department of Defense did not ask for and does not even want. Let's cut the true waste and pork first before we cut crucial services to people in need. Some Members today have said that surely we can cut one cent of every dollar out of the budget, just as many families do every day across the country. But, would a family cut spending on a medical operation for their child the same as they would cut spending on a new pair of roller skates? Of course not. Would a senior cut prescription drug purchases and the expense of buying a new T.V. equally? Of course not. The point is, as with family budget decisions, federal budget decisions should be a question of priorities. This 1-percent cut abdicates our responsibility to allocate our limited resources to our most important priorities as a nation. The American people deserve a full and open debate on this important legislation. They deserve more than smoke and mirrors; they deserve a responsible budget. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for you and the gentleman from Georgia and all of my colleagues here this afternoon, and that question is: Are they into it? ``Are they into it'' is the current slogan for the 4-H; ``Are they into it'' is the rallying cry for the 4-H clubs of America as they approach 100 years of service to communities and neighborhoods from coast to coast. ``Are they into it'' is the call that over 6 million young people answered last year in 4-H clubs and organizations across the Nation. ``Are they into it'' is the mantra repeated by over a half a million volunteers who donate an average of $200 per year to keep the 4-H clubs strong and vital in their communities. ``Are they into it'' is the question answered by private sector partners of 4-H, Mr. Speaker, who invest almost $100 million into 4-H youth development programs. I am glad to say that today this body is into it, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) for bringing this resolution forward today. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to be on the floor supporting this important measure introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal). Many people believe we live in an era of unprecedented cynicism and skepticism. That is why it is important for this Congress to take a little time to recognize the outstanding organization like 4-H which brings young people together to do good for their communities and to grow as principled individuals. In fact, research indicates that volunteerism among young Americans has actually been on the increase. America's youth want to participate in the betterment of their communities and their country. The 4-H is uniquely established to provide opportunity to young people nationwide to learn valuable life skills, work with others toward common goals, and developing into community leaders. The 4-H is a dynamic organization whose mission is to foster innovation and shared learning for America's youth, ages 6 to 19. Its vision is to draw upon combined power of youth and adults so that we can learn together in order to address the challenges and opportunities critical to youth in our communities. 4-H stresses three fundamental values: first, Mr. Speaker, we must treat others with mutual trust and respect and open and honest communication; second, we must assume personal leadership and responsibility for our actions; and third, we must celebrate our differences as well as our similarities and always realize that working with youth as partners is the key to our success. Mr. Speaker, last week I met with several young people from my district, from western Wisconsin, who are in Washington on different trips, two of whom were here for the conference Voices Against Violence, and one was here with the National Young Leadership Conference which uses the 4-H facilities here in Washington for mock government sessions throughout the year. What I found striking about these young people is their commitment to their communities and, whether consciously or unconsciously, to the values and ideals fostered by the 4-H. Andy Slind of Boyceville, Wisconsin, told me he plans to continue working in his community during the last 2 years of his high school and would work to participate in some form of public service after college. Mr. Speaker, our young people know they have a stake in their communities and want to help shape their futures. 4-H provides opportunities for such involvement, and it hones the values and skills we all cherish as Americans. I am grateful for the opportunity to commemorate the 4-H today for personal reasons as well. I am a former 4-H club member myself. When I was a boy growing up in western Wisconsin, I loved and appreciated the time that I spent within my 4-H club. 4-H continues to play a central role in communities like mine. In fact, just on Saturday my local paper carried an article describing a man who was being honored for his dedication to 4-H. Bob Fredrick of Viroqua, Wisconsin, has been a 4-H youth development agent for 40 years. He started in 1957 at the age of 25 and decided to make the youth program his sole career. In honor of Bob's lifelong dedication to Vernon County youth, the community is establishing a special fund for youth programs in his name. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, over 6 million young people were involved in 4-H programs last year. In fact, nationwide 1 in 7 Americans have been involved in 4-H at some point during their lives. In fact, in addition to myself, three of my staffers here in Washington were 4-H members in their youth; and I would venture to guess that many others around Capitol Hill have experience with a 4-H club. 4-H was founded in 1902 and established in my home State of Wisconsin in 1914. There are currently over 2,000 4-H clubs in my State alone and almost 190,000 young people from Wisconsin that belong to 4-H clubs. Wisconsin was proud to host the National 4-H Dairy Conference this last September, which drew over 250 young people from around the United States and Canada to learn about new technologies and techniques in dairy farming. While many people associate 4-H with rural communities and agricultural issues, kids from cities and suburbs from all backgrounds belong to 4-H clubs. Through 4-H they study citizenship and civics, communications and arts, consumer and family issues, Earth and environmental science, technology and personal leadership. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here today to commemorate 4-H and its contributions to American communities for the past 98 years. By pledging their heads to clearer thinking, their hearts to greater loyalty, their hands to larger service, and their health to better living, our young people, along with the adult volunteers who teach and help them, do work to strengthen their clubs, their communities, their countries and their world. 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 do not believe I have any more requests for time on this side, so let me just conclude with a couple of personal notes. I do want to sincerely thank the gentleman from Georgia for giving us this opportunity today to honor the 4-H clubs. It brings back a lot of fond memories for myself. I, as I indicated, participated in 4-H when I was 8, 9, and 10 years old growing up on the north side of La Crosse. It was not a rural area. It was an urban area. We had a wonderful program, though, that brings back memories of those who participated in it, not only the other kids in the neighborhoods that I was a member with, but the adults and the volunteers who participated in it, adults such as Mary Lou and John Rochester who are no longer with us today; Mrs. Olsen and Mrs. Severson who took over the program to keep it going when the Rochesters could no longer do so; and the countless number of friends, lifelong friends, that I have today because of an organization like 4-H. Now for those who are familiar with western Wisconsin and La Crosse would know that growing up on the north side of La Crosse was considered growing up on the other side of the railroad tracks. We had some pretty tough neighborhoods back then, and like many youth do today, we were confronted with a lot of choices and a lot of options, some good, some not so good. At that time in my life I was just starting to get involved in another group called the Kane Street Killers, and we were arch rivals with the North Side Jack Rabbits. I guess according to today's terms they would be considered gang or gang affiliates, and we had rumbles. We would elude police officers with our youthful pranks and childish antics. But looking back now at my own childhood, I really was at the crossroads of having to decide which way to go, and but for an organization such as 4-H or the Boys and Girls Club of the greater La Crosse area, I think many of us kids who hung out with the Kane Street Killers could have taken decidedly different routes in our lives. It was because of an organization that offered a structured learning environment like 4-H and many of the community activities that we were involved with, annual food drives during the holiday season to collect some food for the food shelters in the area, a community garden where we would grow food and share with senior centers, a softball team that we participated in that gave a lot of us a good outlet for our pent-up energies, those positive activities in our lives kept many of us out of trouble. I remember participating in the musical ``Oklahoma'' when I was 10 years old. For me that was probably the most frightening moment of my young life, having to stand in front of people and try to carry a tune. It was not a very pretty sight, but, nevertheless, looking back on it now, it was a learning and growing experience for me. Because of that, I can honestly say here today that many of us were channeled into more constructive, more educational-oriented arenas, rather than pursuing different options on the street on the north side of La Crosse. Again, let me conclude by thanking the gentleman from Georgia, and also thanking the thousands of individuals, the adults, the parents and uncles and aunts, grandparents, the neighbors from across the country, the volunteers, who are giving part of their busy lives to 4-H and to the kids participating in 4-H in order to provide this type of alternative option in young people's lives. I think it does perform a very important and vital role in our society as we try to raise our kids in this Nation with the best opportunities possible. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.