Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to just rise today to associate myself with the remarks of my friend from Oregon whom I think is one of the foremost experts in this body in regards to this issue and a whole host of other environmental issues. That is why I rise as a strong supporter of the Visclosky amendment and would encourage my colleagues to support it in final passage. But I also rise this evening, Mr. Chairman, as one of the cochairs of the bipartisan Upper Mississippi River Task Force that was formed over 3 years ago, a group of Members on both sides of the aisle which is dedicated to get together to bring a little more focus to the importance of the preservation and the protection of one of our national treasures, the Mississippi River. Normally I would be eager to support this bill and I hope I still can if the antienvironmental riders that have been attached are removed, and although there is an agreement to restore some of the funding to the renewable energy program, it is a little disheartening that we could not at least get to level funding as we had last year. This bill, nevertheless, does contain important provisions for the upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program, the LaFarge Dam Project, and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier. I just want to take a couple of moments to talk about a couple of these. In light of the tight budget constraints, I commend the appropriators, especially the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the committee members and committee staff for their recognition of the importance of the Environmental Management Program and for appropriating $18.95 million to the EMP program which is about level funding, where it was last year, but it is $3 million more than what the Senate appropriations level is right now. Of special note is the bipartisan support and the leadership that we have had in this Mississippi River Task Force from my other cochairs, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). The EMP is a great cooperative effort at the Federal, State and local level involving the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Geological Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the five upper Mississippi River basin States that is dedicated to ensure the coordinated development and enhancement of the upper Mississippi River system. The EMP is designed to evaluate, restore and enhance riverine and wetland habitat along a 1200-mile stretch of the upper Mississippi and Illinois River. The EMP program manager, Bob Delaney, has highlighted some of the detrimental effects that would occur to the program if we went with the $3 million less appropriated level on the Senate side than what we have here on the House side. Mr. Chairman, I include Mr. Delaney's letter to me in the Record. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, La Crosse, WI, July 27, 1999. Hon. Ron Kind, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Kind: I thought it appropriate that I communicate to you impacts to the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program (EMP) which will occur under fiscal year 2000 funding levels currently being considered by the House and Senate. As you know the EMP funds have never been cost indexed. Yearly inflation and uncontrollables, such as salary increases have reduced program operations and capabilities even under the fully funded level of $19,455 by nearly half since the EMP was initiated in fiscal year 1987. This has prevented the construction of dozens of habitat projects in the five river states (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin) involved in the EMP. In addition, it has severely curtailed critical science information needed to assist state and federal river managers in balancing the billion dollar industries associated with navigation, recreation, and wildlife conservation. The proposed Senate funding level of $16.1 million, $3.555 million below full funding levels, would reduce the Long Term Resource Monitoring component of the EMP by $1.12 million and result in the following impact: (1) It would be necessary to close two of the six state-operated field stations that have been collecting critical data on the river for over ten years. Disrupting the continuity and spatial distribution of data on water quality, fish, and vegetation would seriously compromise the integrity of the resource monitoring program. (2) It may be necessary to terminate the fish monitoring altogether. Given how important this information is to the federal and state agencies that are responsible for managing the fish populations upon which much of the recreational economy of the region depends, this would also be a serious set-back. (3) It may be necessary to eliminate sediment and river mapping functions at the USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center in Wisconsin. The Senate EMP reductions would reduce habitat project construction by $2.43 million and result in the following: Suspend design of a number of habitat restoration projects, including Lake Odessa (Iowa), Batchtown Phases II and III (Illinois), and Calhoun Point (Illinois). In addition, it may be necessary to cancel the scheduled award of construction contracts for projects such as Spring Lake Islands (Wisconsin), Ambrough Slough (Wisconsin), Harpers Slough (Wisconsin/Iowa), Pool Slough (Minnesota/Iowa), Pool 11 Islands (Wisconsin and Iowa), the Batchtown Phase I (Illinois). Each of the Corps of Engineers districts, which implement habitat projects, will experience these types of impacts. The above funding reduction actions will certainly have crippling effects. The timing could not be worse. The Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, and the five river states have just concluded a very difficult process of restructuring the EMP Long Term Resource Monitoring Program to accommodate inflation-driven budget shortfalls that the program will experience even with full funding. Painful decisions have already been made that reduce personnel levels and curtail data collection efforts. The USGS and other partner agencies have made every effort to reduce costs, maximize efficiency, and still maintain the scientific credibility of the program. Further loss of scientific data will reduce the ability to describe and mitigate impacts of the sue of the system for navigation. Additional funding cutbacks will seriously jeopardize the integrity of the program. The Water Resources Development Act which is currently before Congress reauthorizes the EMP and proposes increased funding levels. Reducing funding for this river management support program at the very time that we are all simultaneously planning for its future seems particularly ill-advised. Sincerely, Robert L. Delaney, LTRMP Program Manager. Mr. Chairman, the EMP is a vital program to the environmental and the economic well-being of the Mississippi River and the entire upper Mississippi River basin. Navigation along the upper Mississippi supports over 400,000 full-time and part-time jobs, which produces about $4 billion in individual income. Recreation use totals 12 million visitors each year in the upper Mississippi region and results in an economic benefit of roughly $1.2 billion. Maintaining a proper balance between economic growth and environmental protection is essential to maintain the health of the river and the wetlands associated with it. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to mention an issue that has dragged on far too long and needs to be resolved in my district. In 1962, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to construct the LaFarge Dam on the Kickapoo River in western Wisconsin. In the process, it condemned more than 140 family farms and began construction of the dam and reservoir. The project, however, was halted in 1975 and it was only half completed. Also, under the project, certain State and county highways that were slated for relocation have since fallen into disrepair. Several times throughout the history of the project the Wisconsin DOT has been denied the opportunity to maintain these roads by the Corps. This bill provides the funds to correct this wrong. Now the land is slated to revert back to the people of Wisconsin. Only recently with the passage of WRDA 1996 were additional funds appropriated to finish what the Corps started. This appropriations bill has made provisions to enable the Corps to finish its business so that eventually the land can be returned to the people of Wisconsin. Finally, Mr. Chairman, another important issue to the Mississippi River contained in the bill is the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier funded at $300,000. All this will do is establish an electrical barrier along the Illinois River in order to prevent the migration of nuisance species from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, such as the round gobi and also carp trying to travel from the Mississippi to Lake Michigan. It is long overdue. I think this barrier is going to add to the protection of the river. I would encourage my colleagues again to support the Visclosky amendment to make this a better bill which in all other respects I wholeheartedly endorse.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Millard Nelson. Millard Nelson has distinguished himself by his life-long commitment to his family, his community and the Democratic Party. Millard Nelson has worked as a farmer, substitute mail carrier, and office manager for the Pierce County Agriculture, Stabilization and Conservation Office. Millard has been dedicated to public service throughout his life. He served as the President of the Salem Town Board, a member of the Pierce County Board and the assessor for the Gilmanton Township. Millard has also been active in many conservation programs in his native Pierce County, and it is estimated that throughout his life he has planted more than 500,000 trees in Pierce County. These trees are Millard's lasting gift to future generations of Pierce County citizens. Millard Nelson is perhaps best known for his life-long commitment to the Democratic Party. Millard was involved in the founding of the current Democratic Party in Wisconsin in 1949 and has served the party in a variety of capacities since that time. Millard and his wife Ellen have been pillars of the Democratic Party for over 50 years. Mr. Speaker, this country needs more citizens like Millard Nelson. He has lived his life committed to the principle that we must make this world better for future generations. I rise today in the United States House of Representatives to honor Millard Nelson and thank him for his lifetime of commitment to Pierce County and the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a friend and constituent, Daniel T. Flaherty. This year Dan Flaherty celebrates his 50th Anniversary as a member of the State Bar of Wisconsin. Dan, a native of West Bend, Wisconsin, graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1949. He immediately joined the law firm of Johns, Roraff and Coleman in LaCrosse, Wisconsin. In Dan's early days at the law firm, he worked under contract as an Assistant District Attorney for La Crosse County. Over the years Dan developed a particular expertise doing medical malpractice work for La Crosse's growing medical centers. Today, the law firm that Dan helped build bears his name; Johns, Flaherty and Rice. Dan was also an active member of the La Crosse community and leader in the State of Wisconsin. Dan, a lifelong environmental activist, was appointed in 1975 to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board. He served with distinction on that board until 1981, including a year as Chairman. Dan also served as President of the La Crosse Chamber of Commerce and Chairman of the Third Congressional District Democratic Party. Dan has been happily married to his wife Lorraine for fifty-two years. They are the proud parents of four children and have ten grandchildren. For fifty years, Dan Flaherty has been an outstanding lawyer, partner and community leader. At a time when there are a growing number of people who are uninterested in or feel disconnected from the democratic process, Dan maintains an active interest in public policy matters at the local, state and national levels. The City of La Crosse and the State of Wisconsin are better places to live because of Dan's wisdom, leadership and community service. It is with great pride and admiration that I rise today before the United States House of Representatives to pay tribute to and congratulate, a friend, a great citizen, and a wonderful person, Daniel T. Flaherty.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, the average family in my Congressional District in western Wisconsin will get roughly, well, less than 1 buck, $1 a day, under this tax cut proposal. And that is why it is not difficult for me to rise at 1 a.m. here in the morning, Washington time, and strongly oppose the most fiscally irresponsible and reckless piece of legislation that I have encountered here in Congress. This is the wrong tax cut, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason. It is the wrong tax cut, because it relies on projected future surpluses that may never materialize, and it would give us the double economic whammy of higher inflation in the short-term, because of over stimulation of the economy, and higher interest rates in the long term because of the Federal Reserve's response to that stimulation. It is also the wrong time for a tax cut. There is a lot of focus and talk about this $100 billion tax cut over the next 10 years, but what the supporters of the bill do not want the rest of us to know is that that tax cut explodes to $3 trillion during the years 2010 and 2020, the peak retirement years for the baby boom generation. The fiscally prudent decision is to do what families in western Wisconsin do when they run into some good times, and that is to take care of existing obligations first. That means shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and paying down the $5.7 trillion debt first. This tax cut plan makes it more difficult rather than easier to reduce the debt burden for our children. Finally, it is the wrong reason for a tax cut. This is just Washington doing it again in the middle of the night, taking the easy path for short-term political gain instead of making tough decisions for future generations. Not me. Not tonight. My vote is for the future of my two little boys. One would think, with the current excitement about projected surpluses, that the end of our fiscal problems is at hand. But this is not the case--it is only the beginning of the hard work ahead given the impending baby boomer retirement. For thirty years, our Nation has spent beyond its means, both in good times and bad. We were able to cover this spending by going into debt, constantly reaching for the `national credit card'. But now the circumstances have changed. We are now enjoying the longest peacetime expansion in our history, and our goal of balancing the budget is becoming a reality. But our thirty years of deficit spending has left us with an enormous debt burden of 5.7 trillion dollars. During that time, we borrowed $1.76 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund. We have a tremendous opportunity to begin correcting this situation. Knowing the financial hole you dug in the past, how would you handle an increase in your family income? Would you immediately promise large gifts to other family members? Would you commit yourself to a large, expensive project? That's the approach this bill takes. Or would you take care of existing obligations and pay off old debts? How about saving for your retirement? Or investing in your children's education? Or setting aside money for the cost of health care? That's the approach this bill ignores. These are the tough choices we face. Any budget plan that does not take these into account abrogates our responsibility to our national family and our children. I urge my colleagues to vote against this tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this reckless tax cut bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member, for yielding to me. I rise today in support of the Goodling amendment. I think many of the provisions that are included in this amendment make a good bill even better. Many of the provisions that are in the manager's amendment were actually contained in the Martinez substitute during committee debate, one that I was happy to support and I will support again today. I especially like those provisions that deal with the hold harmless with funding for the States, the public accountability which requires a report to the community and to the parents in regards to the progress of educational improvement contained in the bill, and the quality language that is now contained in the manager's mark, something that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has been striving and pushing for for many, many months during the course of the evolution of this bill. I want to just take a moment to thank both the ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for the full cooperation and the support that I have received in regards to a provision that I feel is incredibly important to the overall integrity of this bill. That is the recognition that not only should this legislation be striving to improve the quality of teacher training and the quality of teachers in the classroom, but also recognizes the particular importance that principals, administrators and superintendents have in improving the quality of education for our children. We all recognize that it is tough for a football team to make it to the Super Bowl without a good quarterback--the same is true in the public school system. If we do not have quality principals, quality administrators or superintendents of the school districts who recognize the need for reform in the school district and can provide the crucial leadership, it is going to be very hard to get the teachers and the parents in the community to buy into the programs that are vitally necessary to make those changes. That is why I have worked on drafting an amendment at the committee level that has now been accepted in the chair's amendment that recognizes the particular challenge that we face in regards to principals and administrators across the country. The language that I have drafted is designed to specifically identify the needs of principals and administrators and superintendents as leaders in the education at schools, and recognize that these people as individual leaders of the school do not have a peer network, so professional development programs should create such networks. It also provides a competitive grant to the partnership to provide professional development to principals and other school administrators to enable them to be effective school leaders and prepare students to achieve challenging performance standards. The partnerships are to be made of an institution of higher education which provides professional development to principals and administrators, along with one or more school districts or schools, and any other entity, agency or organization such as the State Department of Education and professional associations. Mr. Chairman, this came out of recognition and feedback that I received from people back in my congressional district in western Wisconsin. I have witnessed that some school districts go through 2 or 3 different interviewing rounds just to find a good, qualified principal for a vacancy, or a good, qualified superintendent. As I spoke to many of the superintendents and principals around the school districts, they felt the need for this amendment. I want to again express my appreciation to the chair of the subcommittee and to the chair of the full committee as well as the leadership on the democratic side for the recognition of this provision contained in the bill. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this bill addresses a very real and serious issue. As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I have been struck by the sincere concern expressed by education professionals and leaders nationwide regarding a pending crisis in the quality of education in America. A common theme we heard during committee hearings is that the nation is on the verge of a serious shortage of teachers--a shortage already experienced in some areas--generally due to baby-boomer retirements. Further, many states have been hiring teachers on an emergency basis, so that while classrooms may have new instructors, the level of quality may differ dramatically school-to-school and district-to-district. The Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, have worked hard to address this problem by encouraging professional development and high standards in hiring, training, and retaining well-qualified teachers. Witnesses and studies testify to the fact that teachers are far more confident in the classroom when they receive good, ongoing professional development opportunities. I must admit, I have not been enthusiastic about the Chairman's decision to split the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA, into it's component titles for separate votes on the House floor. I am encouraged, however, by the commitment Mr. McKeon has made to professional development through his work in drafting this title. Congress must be willing to support all aspects of education, including professional development, if we all are as serious as we say we are about the issue. The bill goes a long way to assist states and school districts to hire and train high quality teachers and administrators, with a focus on standards and achievement. Class Size I'm pleased to see that Mr. McKeon recognizes the success that class size reduction programs have had nationwide, and decided to include class size reduction as a priority in this bill. In my home state of Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program, or SAGE, has been very effective in improving scores for students in high- need schools. The program focuses on class size reduction, but also incorporates challenging curriculum, extended hours, staff development, and professional accountability into its package. This targeted yet comprehensive approach works in Wisconsin, and will likely be expanded in scope in the coming years. Wisconsin is not alone in working to reduce class size in order to improve student scores. In Tennessee, the STAR and Challenge projects have produced good data indicating a general educational advantage for students in smaller classes. Similar programs in North Carolina, Indiana, Texas, Nevada and Virginia, as well as initiatives either started or planned in at least 20 other states offer a great deal of optimism that a focus on reducing class size will help students, particularly those in areas of higher need, achieve greater performance goals and standards. principal and administrator training As part of the goal of comprehensive education reform, I found an element of traditional professional development to be particularly lacking and on which I have already spoken. While we all have come to recognize the need for better professional development opportunities for teachers in order to recruit them, retain them, and keep them effective in the classroom, we were overlooking key players in the school environment--the principal, the superintendent, and other administrators having an impact on the instruction of our children. Principals and administrators take a vital leadership role in educating our children. I have been told time and again from teachers, administrators, school boards and parents, that if a principal or superintendent is not up to speed on current and successful educational trends, the local educational system will weaken. Likewise, a well prepared and highly trained principal or superintendent will engage and challenge his or her staff and inspire greatness throughout the school and the surrounding community. But, like the teaching profession, there are not enough qualified principals and administrators in the field, and the situation will worsen as these folks retire in the coming years. A telling sign of danger is the fact that the average tenure for a district superintendent is now three years or less. It is obvious to me that we need to address this issue now, in this bill, as part of a comprehensive approach to professional development and training for educational professionals, regardless of their position in the school. Mr. Goodling's amendment does just that, through the creation of a competitive grant specifically designed to address the professional development of principals and other school administrators. I submitted this section because while current law and the chairman's mark may allow states and local districts to consider principal and administrator training programs, neither actually identifies these educational leaders as having specialized, significant needs in order to maintain ``building-wide'' professionalism. By addressing the special needs of these professionals, and providing a setting where principals and administrator--who have no direct peer- group surrounding them daily--can meet other professionals, learn together and from each other, and then go back to their schools to work with their teachers and other staff to provide quality educational services. conclusion Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill does go a long way in helping our schools attract and retain quality teachers, principals and administrators. This amendment takes the measure a big step further by focusing on quality and accountability. I support this amendment and the bill, and am glad to see that Congress can help our schools strengthen their educational systems by hiring and maintaining the highest-quality instructional force possible.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for yielding me this time. I want to commend both him and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) for offering this amendment. I rise as a strong supporter of the Transition to Teaching initiative that is being offered. I think this amendment can only improve the bill that we have been working on all day. Mr. Chairman, schools across this country will need to hire roughly 2 million additional teachers over the next 10 years because of the impending baby boom retirement trend. Currently, over 25 percent of teachers do not have degrees in the subject areas in which they teach. To address these issues, it is imperative that we attract motivated, qualified, well-educated persons to the teaching profession. This country has an endless pool of diverse talent that can be tapped for teaching and help fill the gap that will be created in these future years. More and more individuals in America, from a wide range of fields and with a wide range of ages are looking for ways to contribute to society in positive, meaningful ways. This amendment will help those individuals get started in a career that can give them the personal satisfaction that they seek. Regardless of the career they may be in, we should encourage individuals with real world experience to share their knowledge with our children through actual classroom instruction. This amendment will provide funding to help these people move into a new, challenging and incredibly rewarding career in the teaching profession. Again, I would like to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) for the work and leadership that they have shown on this issue, and I would encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. I also want to commend him for this very important amendment. I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment recognizes the important role that principals play in school districts throughout the country. You ask any teacher, you ask any parent who is at all involved with their schools, and they will tell you the important role that principals play. They establish the theme, the spirit, the energy, the leadership that is crucial to making the vitally important educational reforms that are necessary in order to improve the quality of education for our kids. It was based on that recognition that I worked with the leadership on both sides of the aisle in order to get a special provision included in the bill addressing the importance of training and professional development programs geared towards principals but also for administrators and superintendents, so that they have the ability to upgrade and improve their skills. School districts, when they are out trying to find qualified people to fill these roles, will, hopefully, have an easier and better time in finding the right people to perform this important role. There is nothing more frustrating than for a school board to have to go through multiple interviewing rounds to fill a principal position or a superintendent position because they cannot find the right fit or a qualified person to do the job. That is why I think this amendment is particularly important. There is one principal in my district who I would like to commend and specifically recognize right now. Her name is Heather Grant, and she is the principal of Lincoln Elementary School in Eau Claire, WI. I had the opportunity to visit that school and meet with her, her staff and teachers and discuss at length with them their program for change and the reforms they were implementing to improve the quality of teaching and improve the reading skills of their pupils. Ms. Grant, through her own initiative and energy, went out and obtained a comprehensive school reform grant, an Obey-Porter grant. They are now implementing Success for All at the elementary school with the funds from that grant. I can't describe how much fun it was to walk into those classes and see the sparkle and the energy in the students' eyes, meeting the teachers, listening to how they and the parents have bought into the school reform problem under the leadership of Principal Grant, and witnessing the superintendent and the community working together. That is why I think this is an important amendment. It's meant to benefit the Heather Grants and all future principals across the country. Again, I would encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, after this rule passes, we are going to have a very serious and important debate about improving the quality of teachers, administrators, and superintendents in our school system across the country. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in support of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, as it will hopefully be amended by the chairman's amendment later today. I also have to admit, however, that I have not been the most enthusiastic supporter on the committee to the piecemeal approach to breaking down the ESEA reauthorization this year into component parts. I feel that it was important to do the ESEA reauthorization all together in a comprehensive way recognizing the need of improving teacher, principal, and administrator quality in our schools, placing heavy emphasis on class size reduction, focusing emphasis on accountability and standards, but also recognizing the serious challenge we face in infrastructure needs that exist in our public schools across the country. But if we are going to piecemeal this, I think this bill, the Teacher Empowerment Act, is a very good first start in the area of improving teachers', principals', and administrators' quality in our schools. Based on the hearings that we have had in the committee throughout the course of the year, Mr. Speaker, we face a serious challenge with the impending retirement of the baby boom generation and a roughly 2,000- teacher shortage over the next 10 years. This bill concentrates on quality improvement. The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that is going to be offered later today to expand Troops to Teachers to other qualified individuals who are looking for a career change and who want to contribute their talents to teaching will hopefully help in the area of the shortage problem as well. I encourage my colleagues to support the Roemer amendment. Now there is going to be some controversy in the course of the day in regards to the lack of a separate funding stream to support the President's initiative of hiring 100,000 additional teachers. I believe, given the language of the underlying bill, that that concern is misplaced. The bill does require that class size reduction be given a top priority. This is entirely consistent with the Ed-flex legislation that was passed earlier in the year and that the President signed into law which allows local school districts to have the flexibility to apply for waivers and use the money for other priority needs that they have, such as professional development programs. We could go out and hire an additional 100,000 new teachers, but if they are unqualified, that could do more harm than good. Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I am a big proponent of class size reduction. My own State of Wisconsin has implemented the SAGE program back in 1993 for class size reduction in K through third grades. We have had a recent study coming out of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee showing the drastic improvement of student test scores in those classes that have had reduced class sizes in the State of Wisconsin under SAGE. We had hearings on class reduction in the course of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, one in particular highlighting the successes of the STAR program that was implemented in Tennessee on class size reduction. There are other States across the country implementing class size reduction programs, and I would hope that it would be a collective goal for all school districts to work for class size reduction and a better teacher-pupil ratio. As my colleagues know, this bill recognizes and balances the twin goals of class size reduction and the importance of getting qualified teachers into the classroom. That is why I want to commend the gentleman (Mr. Miller) for his strong teacher quality language that is also contained in the chairman's amendment. This is not a perfect bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very good bill. It is a bill that both Democrats and Republicans can stand up and take credit for and feel good about, including the President of the United States. So I would encourage my colleagues to support the chairman's amendment and also at the end of the day to support the underlying bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. We have been around that block already.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a strong supporter and a sponsor of this amendment. First, I would like to thank my colleagues and especially the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), my good friend, for the work that they have done on this measure for continued support of the weatherization assistance program. Mr. Chairman, my district in western Wisconsin experiences some of the coldest winters and some of the hottest summers in our Nation. Oftentimes, the poor, elderly and disabled cannot afford the high home energy costs associated with these conditions. It is critical that we help them withstand the seasons by reducing these costs through various home improvements. The weatherization assistance program does just that. The program is of particular interest to me, since the first weatherization assistance program in the Nation was launched in western Wisconsin back in 1974. Mr. Chairman, 25 years later, between April, 1998, and March, 1999, 505 households in my district, or roughly 13 percent of the entire State's total, were weatherized. To give this issue a human face, this means roughly 1,600 of my constituents no longer have to choose between buying food and buying fuel. To humanize this a little bit further, I would like to read a letter that was sent recently in regards to the weatherization program from a person from Boyd, Wisconsin, a constituent of mine, and I quote: I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you for your part in the wonderful blessings that I received this year. What a change in luck for someone disabled. My heating and cooling bills immediately went down quite noticeably. This in turn made quite an impact on my ability to live on my budget, and a noticeable effect on my health! I am now able to better afford enough warmth to alleviate some of my chronic pain. Also, I think this infusion of goodwill aided me in escaping the grip of serious depression, which I had battled with for many years. Now I have even been able to handle some part-time work. This is what you did for me: Insulated the entire attic to a high R value; installed numerous outdoor vents: Roof vent, a bathroom fan/light and vent, dryer vent, and a cook top vent; replaced my gas furnace and added a fresh air intake for it; insulated the basement box sill and filled the cement block tops with foam. All this was done, and more. And was done with a smile. Now I have a smile, too. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Mr. Chairman, here is another letter that was sent from a 75-year-old woman back in western Wisconsin in which she writes: A million thanks to Roger and the other young fellows who helped snug up our 100 year old house. It was toasty warm last winter and is improved in many other ways, too. This 80 acre farm was given to an 1812 war veteran and the deed was signed by Abraham Lincoln, so we appreciate the history of it and treasure our old house, but it used to be pretty cold in the winter. But now I believe it is good for another hundred years thanks again to Westcap. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply levels funding for the weatherization assistance program at the fiscal year 1999 level. In fact, the Senate appropriation committee has already taken the lead on this matter, reporting $133 million in the weatherization fund for the next fiscal year. Finally, I am pleased that this amendment is fiscally responsible. My colleagues and I have identified an offset that transfers $13 million from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I understand there is some controversy in regards to that reserve program and last year Congress agreed to build our Nation's oil reserve. But this offset would merely slow down the purchase of less than 2 hour's worth of oil supply in that strategic reserve. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment which has been endorsed by the Department of Energy. And I happen to agree with the gentleman from Vermont that without hearings and input from the States in regards to the 25 percent cost share we are going to be taking many of those States by surprise. And, unfortunately, I think the ultimate adverse impact is going to fall on people like the two who just wrote letters expressing their appreciation for the program. I would encourage my colleagues to think seriously before agreeing to this cost share with the States. Without extensive hearings and without more in-depth input from the States on whether to move to a 25 percent cost share, which I am not philosophically opposed to, but doing so with the speed that is being contemplated, may leave some people who need this assistance out in the lurch in the coming fiscal year. So I would ask my colleagues to support both of the amendments offered.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not philosophically opposed to the cost sharing. I am a supporter of SPR as well. If the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) would be willing to help us find other offsets to get the funding up to fiscal year 1999 levels, we would be happy to work with him on that.

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

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 277, unfortunately, due to an unavoidable weather delay I missed today's rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have vote ``yea.'' Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 278, unfortunately, due to an unavoidable weather delay I missed today's rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have vote ``yea.'' Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 279, unfortunately, due to an unavoidable weather delay I missed today's rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have vote ``yea.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with my friend from California. Let us give credit where credit is due. It was because of the strength and perseverance and unity of all 19 democratic nations of NATO that finally got Milosevic to capitulate and end the atrocities in Kosovo. But, ultimately, the credit belongs to those young men and women in American and NATO uniform who were being asked yet again in the 20th century to restore some peace and humanity to the European continent. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to travel to the Balkans and to meet and see firsthand those troops who were carrying out this dangerous mission. I wish all Americans had the opportunity to experience what I did and to feel the patriotism and the pride that I felt in those troops over there. They performed their mission with honor and with great success. Unfortunately, two young officers were not able to return home safely. These were Chief Warrant Officer David Gibbs of Ohio and Chief Warrant Officer Kevin Riechert from a small town in my congressional district in western Wisconsin, Chetek. I am sure that all our thoughts and prayers go out to their families today. I just wanted to recognize and acknowledge their service and the sacrifice they and their families made on behalf of our country.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Madam Speaker, if there is one bright shining star in our constitutional constellation, it is the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. That is the amendment that embodies the very essence upon which our democracy was founded because it stands for the proposition that anyone in this country can stand up and criticize this government and its policies without fear of prosecution. But here we are yet again in the 106th Congress debating an amendment that would seriously weaken the first amendment and freedom of expression in this country. Now I want to be clear. I am going to oppose this amendment, not because I condone or I do not feel repulsed by the senseless act of disrespect that is shown from time to time against one of the most cherished symbols of our country, the American flag, but because I recognize that our Constitution can be a pesky document sometimes. It challenges us, and it reminds us that this democracy of ours requires a lot of hard work. It was never meant to be easy. Our democracy rather is all about advanced citizenship. It is about the rights and liberties embodied in the Constitution that will put up a fight against what we believe and value most in our lives. Our Constitution is going to challenge us, and it is going to say, ``Hey, you believe in freedom of expression or free speech in this country? Let's see how we react when someone steps up on their soap box at high noon and expresses at the top of their lungs ideas and beliefs that are completely contrary to ideas and beliefs that we have fought for and believed in during our entire lives.'' That is what advanced citizenship is about. That is what the challenge in the Constitution is for us. And yes, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the repulsive disrespect and the idiotic act of desecrating the American flag is freedom of expression protected under the first amendment. As former Supreme Court Justice Jackson said in the Barnette decision, and I quote: ``Freedom to differ cannot just be limited to those things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the very heart of the existing order.'' There are few things that evoke more emotion, passion, pride or patriotism than the American flag; I recognize that. But if we pass this amendment today, where do we stop? Do we next try to prohibit the desecration of the Bible? Or the Koran? Or the Torah? Or perhaps even this book that I like to carry around in my pocket to remind me how difficult our democracy is? The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? Or the very Bill of Rights itself? They too are symbols of our country that young men and women have fought for and died for. Let us not go down that path today. We have done pretty well these passed 210 years without having to amend the Constitution to deal with a few individuals' act of senseless desecration. There are other ways of dealing with content neutral acts. If someone steals my flag, they can be prosecuted for theft and trespassing. If they steal my flag and burn it, they can be prosecuted for theft, trespass, criminal damage to property. If they burn it on a crowded subway station, they can also be prosecuted for inciting a riot, reckless endangerment, criminal damage to property and theft. There are other ways that this type of conduct can be prosecuted, but if someone buys a flag, goes down in their basement and because they do not like the government decides to desecrate it or burn it, are we going to obtain search warrants and arrest warrants to go in and arrest that person and prosecute them? We do not need to do that. That is why I encourage my colleagues today, Madam Speaker, to oppose this amendment and not change 210 years of history in this country.

Mr. KIND

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

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and participation on this issue, and for traveling with me just a few weeks ago. It really was a moving, very emotional experience, I think, for all of us. I have never seen a group of representatives, Mr. Speaker, who were quieter or more chagrined than we were when we boarded that bus at Blace, the refugee camp in northern Macedonia, having met with the families the moment they took their first steps out of Kosovo and talking to them, and hearing firsthand accounts of the atrocities and the terror that they were just put through. Now we read the headlines of the recent days showing that what we feared is in fact materializing; that once NATO troops, the peacekeeping troops, were allowed to go into Kosovo along with the western media, who were specifically excluded during the 78-day air campaign, that the atrocities are even more magnified and even more horrific. In fact, this headline in the papers a couple of days ago reads ``Kosovo Albanians returning in droves,'' which is no surprise. When we talked with the families in the camps, they were very eager that once NATO prevailed, that they wanted to get back to their homes, which was a natural reaction. What was interesting, however, was another reason they gave, for why they felt it was so important to get back to their homes as soon as possible. It was the same that thing that many Albanians and Muslims experienced during the Bosnia conflict just a few short years ago when Serb forces overran their towns. They stripped them of everything that they had, identity, identification papers, documents proving ownership of property. And when they were eventually allowed to come back and resettle, it was very difficult for them to prove up ownership of their properties and of their homes. They were concerned the same thing was going to happen in Kosovo. In fact, they knew when they were expelled that many of the towns and villages were being laid waste and burned to the ground, but they were eager to get back see what did remain, and to lay claim again to their ownership and to their lands. But the other subtitle to this article reads, ``Serb-led Offensive Took 10,000 Lives, According to British Estimates.'' That figure was still higher than what the actual predictions were earlier. In fact, that number is being escalated every day with the revelation of more mass graves and the body counts that are coming with it. It was something that we feared at the time. Since we did not have people inside Kosovo that could give us firsthand accounts, other than the refugees themselves, it was very difficult to predict just the magnitude of the atrocities and the mass executions and mass graves that are now being uncovered. Sure enough, now that the NATO peacekeeping troops are allowed in they are uncovering mass grave after mass grave, and the number is only going up and up and up. Again, I think our worst fears are being realized. I also believe that but for the NATO campaign, the atrocities would have been much more severe than what we are witnessing today. There has been some criticism that because of the NATO campaign, it led to the brutality and to the ethnic cleansing that occurred in Kosovo. I happen to disagree with that, given historical indicators and facts. In fact, the policy of oppression within Kosovo itself and even Bosnia really began shortly after Milosevic came to power in 1989. These were groups, provinces within Yugoslavia that enjoyed a form of self-autonomy during the Tito regime. Tito realized that given the ethnic diversity of the region, it made sense to allow them a form of self-autonomy, to allow them to practice their own religion and culture and have their own language. But Milosevic came to power by nationalizing the issue and by claiming that Kosovo is Serbia. Immediately when he took power in 1989 he started cracking down on the ethnic Albanians within Kosovo, stripping them of their identity, of their culture and history, and even disallowing the use of their own language. But the atrocities really started to be stepped up in the early 1998 period when Serb forces started moving in. That is when the negotiations between the West and Milosevic started. It was later in the year at Rambouillet where we were trying to reach a peaceful resolution to what was occurring in Kosovo. But this is not something that started overnight. This was not a change in NATO policy. In fact, it was a policy that was clearly enunciated back in 1991 and 1992 within the NATO nations themselves, but also within the Bush administration, when President Bush clearly warned Milosevic that if he moved on Kosovo, that NATO would move on him. It was really a continuation of that policy into the Clinton administration and within the NATO alliance that ultimately led to the NATO air strike campaign against Milosevic's forces in Kosovo. But I think we are going to see in the coming days more and more stories of the atrocities and the brutality that was perpetrated on these people within Kosovo. Another article I think demonstrates a little bit of the ambivalence that not only the American people were feeling in the course of this campaign, but some of the troops themselves in the area. It was interesting when I was in Aviano, Italy, talking to a lot of the pilots, asking them their opinion as far as the policy and whether or not this made sense and if it was working, one of the pilots came to me and said, if you could see what we see flying these missions over Kosovo, the lines of refugees streaming out, and you could tell where the line originated from because of the black plumes of smoke coming up from behind them of the burnt villages and burnt cities that they were fleeing from Serb forces, and the bodies strewn along the countryside, if you could see that as we are flying over the countryside it would remove any doubt that this is something we have to do. In fact, in an article last week a couple of the other troops were interviewed. Let me just quote this. This was in USA Today. The headline reads ``Marines Play Hurry Up and Wait.'' ``The moment arrives beneath a trash-strewn overpass in the heart of Skopje. ``Huddled in the shadows are dozens of children, some in underwear, others barefoot, each waving dirty hands formed into peace symbols. ```Nah-toe! Nah-toe!' their cries thunder off the overpass walls. ```Wow,' says Lance Corporal Jon Hager, 23, of Carlisle, Pa., at the wheel of a marine Humvee. . . . ```I'll never forget it,' says Lt. John Marcinek, 28, of Rochester, N.Y., commander of the Marine Combined Anti- armor Team, which will be responsible for securing'' the part of Southeast Kosovo that the United States is responsible for. ``Resting in the sizzling sun near the border with Kosovo, Marcinek searches out a pen and pad. He says, ```I want to write my girlfriend and tell her this was the best experience that has ever happened to me,' says the former Utah ski bum. `It hits you straight in the heart. The tears flowed.''' ``For Sergeant James Loy, the sight does nothing less than change his views on being in the Balkans. He said, ```I'll be honest, until now I didn't really feel like we needed to be here. Until I saw those kids,'' and he has a 10-month-old son himself called Christopher. He went on to say, ```We do have a purpose here, and that's to get those kids back home. Some people in the U.S. think we're just here to kill. But we can help give these people their freedom back.''' And get something monumental in return: ```This is our moment in history,''' he said. ```If people in the United States could see this now, they'd understand.''' What is encouraging in recent days are some of the reports coming out of Serbia itself indicating that internal opposition to Milosevic is rising. This article reads ``Serbian orthodox church urges Milosevic and his cabinet to quit.'' Another article in today's paper, the Washington Post, entitled ``Serbs From Kosovo Assail Government. Pro-Western Politicians Seek Elections.'' Here the article reads ``Last week, a 45-year-old Serbian lawyer named Dragan Antic fled his home in southern Kosovo for fear of ethnic Albanian guerillas who were beginning to pour into town. Today he stood in the center of Belgrade denouncing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevich as the source of his troubles. ```It is Slobodan who is guilty,''' he shouted as police attempted to break up a protest rally by a hundred or so Serbs who had just recently fled Kosovo. ```What was the purpose of fighting this war if we had to give Kosovo away? Before the war we were living in our homes. Now we have nothing more than the clothes you see on our backs.''' ```Milosevic led us in the wrong direction,''' complained another displaced Serb. We should be entering the European Union and cooperating with the rest of the world. Instead, we are completely isolated.''' Adding to the pressure on Milosevic, a pro-Western political opposition group announced plans today for a series of demonstrations to demand early parliamentary elections in Serbia. I think what we are seeing is internal opposition starting to rise up against Milosevic, realizing that it is because of his policies in the region that has cost them their homes as a result, and that they realize that their future cannot any longer be tied into the brutal regime of the butcher of Belgrade. I think he has been so aptly named the butcher of Belgrade. A couple more stories in the paper indicating what has transpired in recent days. ``Framework for peace takes shape. Last Serb soldiers leave Kosovo.'' They had left 12 hours ahead of time, which allowed NATO to formally declare an ending of the NATO air campaign. Then perhaps, most significantly, the KLA signs a peace agreement calling for the demilitarization of the KLA army. That is one of the key linchpins to a successful peaceful resolution and stability in the region, is that the KLA, the guerillas that were fighting against Milosevic's armies in Kosovo, are agreeing to disarm and to allow democratic reforms to take place in the country. Here is one that really gives me a lot of hope: ``KLA Chief Appeals to Serbs to Return. Political Leader Says Rebels Support `Democratic Kosovo.''' The political leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army said today that the ethnic Albanian rebel group is committed to building ``a modern civil society'' in the Serbian province, and appealed to fleeing Serbs to return to live in a democratic Kosovo, as long as they have not committed any crimes against their people. I think these are all indications of what is transpiring in recent days that could give us a lot of hope to be optimistic regarding the success of our mission in Kosovo. What I would like to do right now is to yield some time to one of our leaders in the Democratic Caucus, someone who has been at the forefront of this issue, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, before I get into tonight's discussion, I want to first compliment my good friend from Florida (Mr. Mica) for his weekly reminder to this body and to the Nation about the evils of drugs and the drug war and the challenges that we still face as a Nation. As a former prosecutor in western Wisconsin and special prosecutor in the State of Wisconsin, I saw up front and close and personal the evil effects that drugs have, not only in our society, but with individuals and the families and the communities in which the problem persists. And I look forward to working in the coming weeks and for the rest of this session with my friend from Florida to develop a comprehensive and commonsense policy in order to tackle this scourge in American society. But I do compliment him for all the wonderful work that he has done in committee and for this body for the sake of the Nation. Mr. Speaker, what I like to do right now is kind of change gears a little bit. I rise today along with a few other colleagues who I anticipate will be joining me in a little bit to talk for a while about the events in the Balkans and, more specifically, our involvement in Kosovo. The events have been progressing quite rapidly over the last week and a half or so after Milosevic had finally agreed to capitulate. Now I think now is a good opportunity for us to kind of stand back and take a look at the past, present conditions in the Balkans area and also the vision of the future in that area, as tenuous as it may be. There is no question that, thus far, things seem to be progressing according to plan, knock on wood, but it is going to be a very difficult task of implementing the peace, of securing it. Now that we have won the conflict, it is vitally important that we do everything possible not to lose the war, and that is the next great challenge that we face as a Nation, as the leader of the NATO alliance for the sake of the European continent. But let us give credit where credit is due tonight, Mr. Speaker, starting with the troops in the area. I had the opportunity, the privilege really, a few short weeks ago to be a part of a small congressional delegation of 10 other Members who headed over to the Balkans on a fact-finding mission. It was really a threefold purpose for going over there. One was to meet with military command, the leadership there, and get an assessment from them. Another reason for going was to meet with the troops in the field, make sure that everything that they needed in order to carry out their mission as safely and efficiently as possible was being delivered to them. Finally, a chance to get into the refugee camps, meet with the Kosovar refugees, families, hear from them firsthand what terror and horror they had just been put through in Kosovo, the fortunate ones that were able to successfully leave the country. It was a fascinating trip, it was incredibly emotional and very moving listening to the firsthand accounts of the innocent civilians who were forced out of the country and what had just taken place inside their villages and cities. All of them had their own horror story to tell. Each of them explained in their own terms the terror that they had just survived. I did not encounter one person in those refugee camps, Mr. Speaker, who was not affected by the loss of a loved one, either someone who they had personally witnessed executed before their very eyes or who had fled, many of them up into the mountains to avoid the Serb forces. And you cannot help but go to a region and experience what I think we did as a delegation and not be moved and profoundly affected by what has taken place in the Balkans. But I do believe that was the right policy for the right reason at the right time, the NATO campaign against Milosevic. I also believe that credit should go to the 19 democratic nations of NATO who stood united and through their perseverance finally prevailed in getting Milosevic to capitulate and to end the atrocities in Kosovo. I think it was a real show of determination and the very credibility of NATO and the U.S. leadership on the European continent, and as the leader of NATO was very much on the line. But this policy has been difficult to explain to the folks back home in Wisconsin. I think by and large the people who I have had the opportunity to talk to about this and to elicit their opinions have felt very conflicted about our role in the Balkans and with the NATO air campaign. They see, as everyone else does in the country, the horror image that has been reported on TV, and they have heard the stories, the plight of the Kosovar families, the ethnic cleansing and the atrocities that have taken place in Kosovo, and I think the natural reaction for most Americans is to try to do something to prevent that. But on the other hand there was also the tug, the concern, that this could turn into a quagmire. It may be our next Vietnam in areas so far away that we knew very little about as far as the history and the peoples and the origins of the conflicts, the politics of the situation, the socioeconomic conditions in the Balkans, that people also felt conflicted about our active and leadership role in this campaign. And so you get a lot of conflicting advice, as you can imagine, from folks back home. I have been certainly severely criticized in the press, letters to the editor, people on the street who come up to me who vehemently disagree with my support for the NATO campaign and my belief that it was in the United States' interests to be involved on the European continent again. But hopefully what we have today is the dawn of the new era of peace, a lasting peace in the region, a peace that is going to finally see the removal of Slobodan Milosevic from power in Serbia, a peace that will see real democratic reform take place within the Balkan countries and a peace that will see the eventual inclusion of these Balkan nations into the community of nations in Europe as full-fledged partners in the European Union and perhaps even some day members of the NATO alliance itself. Is this an illusion or a pipe dream? I really do not think so. But I think first and foremost the credit really does belong to those young men and women in American uniform who are being asked yet again in the 20th century to try to restore some peace and stability on a conflict- torn region called the European continent and to try to restore some humanity to the European continent. I think the concern was as the 20th century entered in very bloody internecine warfare primarily in this region. The beginning of the 20th century that we were going to exit the 20th century under the same type of conditions, and I think today is a day where Americans can stand tall and feel proud about the role that the United States of America played in trying to help innocent civilians to end the atrocities that were being committed in Kosovo by Milosevic's forces and to try to bring some peace and stability to this continent, a continent that we have paid dearly with our own blood during the first half of the 20th century. It was, after all, even though the United States was the first half of the century pursuing a policy of disengagement from Europe of isolationism, it was a single shot that rang out on the streets of Sarajevo, the capital of Yugoslavia, back in 1914 that provided the spark that led to the blaze that eventually engulfed all of Europe and ultimately drew the United States, reluctantly albeit, into the First World War at a tremendous cost and sacrifice to our Nation with the loss of young lives that were spilled on the continent of Europe. And then in the shadow of the First World War and all of the conditions that were created in trying to form a lasting peace, we ultimately saw a Second World War just two short decades after the first one on the continent. But again, between the inter-war periods, the United States and the people in this country felt that it was not in our interest to be actively involved in Europe, that we can retreat across the ocean again, pursue a policy of splendid isolationism, hope that the countries in Europe can settle their differences themselves and that things would just work out on their own, but unfortunately the efforts of Europe proved otherwise. In fact, public opinion polling before the bombing of Pearl Harbor; yes, they did do some polling back then, too; revealed that the overwhelming majority of Americans felt that the problems on the European continent were not our problems, that it was something we should avoid at all costs, that we had our own issues and concerns to deal with within the continental United States and that the last thing we wanted to do was get dragged into the European conflict again. And we tried pursuing that policy of splendid isolationism while at the same time FDR was trying to move the country into the realization that, no, we do have vital interests at stake regarding the stability and the peace in Europe. But it did take the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, to arouse this Nation into action and again draw us into the Second World War as reluctant participants. And the cost of those two world wars were tremendous. Over 500,000 young American lives lost during those two conflicts, over a million casualties we suffered. And at the end of the Second World War we made a policy change in the country, that never again should it be viewed in our interests to stand back and to let events go unheeded in Europe, that it was in our interests to remain engaged and to pursue a policy of peace and stability and promoting democratic reforms throughout the continent. That is what gave rise, after all, to the Marshall Plan. We literally rebuilt Europe and Japan from the ashes of conflict from the Second World War, and it ultimately gave rise to the NATO alliance that has had U.S. leadership for the past 50 or so years. And who can argue with the success of NATO? The last 50 years in Europe have been some of the most peaceful years that the continent has ever experienced, and I would submit it is in a large measure due to the United States participation, active involvement, with not only economic conditions in Europe, but the NATO military alliance, to provide some stability and to give these countries a chance to experience real democracy, real freedom, and liberties that we unfortunately at times take for granted in the United States. But none of this could have been done without the tremendous commitment and professionalism exhibited by our U.S. troops throughout Europe, but especially in this conflict. It is truly amazing for me to have gone over there and to have met with many of the troops who are involved in carrying out their mission whether it was the logistical support base at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. And we met with the troops there providing assistance to the campaign or meeting with the pilots in Aviano, Italy, the F-15, the F-16 pilots carrying out the sortie missions over Kosovo, even spending half a day in Tirana, Albania, with Task Force Hawk, the Apache helicopter task force that was deployed, and they were ultimately employed in the Kosovo conflict. But just meeting with these young men and women was truly inspiring, seeing their professionalism, the dedication, the commitment that they exhibited. No other Nation in the world, Mr. Speaker, could have done what the United States did do in this situation within a very short period of time, being able to deploy a force of that magnitude, deployed even in Albania in a short time period in which it was deployed and still dealing with the humanitarian catastrophe, the likes of which the continent has not seen since the Second World War. It was truly an amazing feat that I think America can be proud of given our logistical capabilities that do exist on the European continent. And I just wish all Americans had the opportunity that I and the rest of my colleagues who went on that mission over to the Balkans to see and to meet these troops as I did. These are the young men and women who are day and night guarding the fence of freedom, protecting our security and maintaining our interests across the globe. They are the best trained, the best capable military that the world has ever seen. I think they proved that in the Kosovo conflict. But it has been a difficult policy to explain and to justify U.S. interests in the Balkans. However, I believe it was the right policy for the right reasons. If we are going to learn any lessons from the Second World War, it is that the United States should not stand idly by when we do have the capability to do something about it and watch the innocent slaughter of civilians in Europe, and in the Balkans in this instance. It was not my first trip to the Balkans. I went over about a year ago and visited the NATO peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, a policy I believe has been extremely successful since the end of the hostilities in that country back in 1996. I also had a chance to visit the former Yugoslavian Republic back in 1990 as a student, Mr. Speaker, with a backpack on my back, traveling by myself throughout the region, when I, as a student of history, who loved to read a lot about European history in particular, saw the war clouds on the horizon after Milosevic came to power in 1989. I wanted to take that opportunity to get into that country quickly and meet the people throughout Yugoslavia, and other students, and get their reaction and their impression as to whether war was imminent and inevitable. It was striking back then that those who I met were not convinced that this was necessarily and inevitably going to lead to warfare. In fact, many of them believed that it would have been catastrophic for those different ethnic groups to turn on one another. They were working incredibly hard back then to make economic progress, to have an integrated Yugoslavian area that could eventually be included into the European Union and the rest of the Western European continent for the benefits of trade and the economy. And they felt that it was senseless for them to turn on one another and to begin a conflict and to subject the region to war. But 6 short months after my visit to the region, sure enough, that is when the first fighting broke loose. I think all too often when we get involved in these types of military conflicts across the globe, but here in particular, we tend to focus on the short term and on the specifics of the immediate situation. I think it is helpful from time to time to step back and get a historical perspective as far as what is happening around the countries and where all of this is leading. I think with that historical perspective, we have a lot of reason to be optimistic that we can see a lasting peace in the Balkans, a peace that will lead to democratic reforms and to economic integration into that region. Let me just go down to the well in order to illustrate a point of what I am trying to get at. It is really a remarkable phenomenon that we have seen take place across Europe in the last decade or so. I think the historical trends that have been sweeping across Europe over the last 10 years are working in our favor when it comes to managing a lasting peace and an optimistic vision for the Balkans. With that, let me descend into the well. Mr. Speaker, what I put up here a little bit earlier is a map of Europe. The title of it is European Transition to Democratic Government, 1989-1999. Why is 1989 a significant date? Well, that is when the Berlin Wall fell, and that is when the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union occurred. That is when the Communist nations throughout Europe started to fall one right after another. I had a chance to visit Central Europe a few short months after the collapse of the Communist governments. But what this map depicts, the blue area showing the countries in Western Europe show what nations had democratic governments before 1989, before the collapse of communism. We recognize the boot-shaped Italy, Spain, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, but we can see how limited this map is before 1989 when it came to democratic governments that were already existing on the continent of Europe. But after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Communist regimes, the purple area demonstrates how democracy has since swept Europe and what countries now have been included into the fold of democratic nations. All of central Europe, including East Germany which is now a part of Germany; all of the former Soviet Union. What the red portions of this map demonstrate are those nations that are still lagging behind in this great historical sweep of Europe, that are still dominated by authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, one of which is still right here in the heart of central Europe, Belarus; and the other happens to be the Yugoslav Republic under the Milosevic regime down here in the Balkans. I think what this demonstrates all too well is that Milosevic in this situation is isolated. He is an island. He is surrounded by emerging democracies. I mean, who amongst us could have predicted that in 10 short years some of the most repressive Communist regimes in central Europe would today be flourishing democracies and full members of the European Union, and even members of the NATO Alliance itself, within 10 short years. That was unimaginable pre-1989. But, in fact, that has been the historical trend right now. It is only so long when one Communist dictator can withstand the force of historical events. What we see here is a Serbia that is completely surrounded and isolated by emerging democracies; some that are full-fledged democracies, others that are well on the road to democratic reforms and democratic institutions. I think that, more than anything, gives us hope that it is going to be a matter of time, I think, in my own opinion, a matter of a very short time when Serbia and these Balkan nations are going to institute democratic reforms, when they are going to reject the authoritarian and criminal policies of Slobodan Milosevic and move to democratic institutions, have democratic elections, and then ultimately change the conditions which would allow their acceptance into the rest of Europe and into the European Union. That, for me, gives me a lot of hope, a lot of promise, really, that what we did in the Balkans, albeit very difficult in the short term, is going to be the right policy in the long term by giving these people a chance of realizing true peace and stability and allowing democratic reform to take place. I think that is a message that we have not heard all that much of during the course of this conflict in the Balkans, during the NATO air campaign, is that we certainly have time on our side, and that Milosevic is facing irresistible forces throughout the continent of Europe, and that as long as we can continue to maintain the policy in the international community of isolating him, as has been accomplished now through the NATO air campaign, through the International War Crimes Tribunal issuing an indictment against Milosevic as a war criminal, the first time any sitting President of a nation has been indicted for war crimes, and also given the significant event of Russia coming over and accepting the NATO objectives during this campaign and further isolating Milosevic, he is basically left with no friends anymore in the international community. That is what gives me a lot of hope that what we can see happen in this region is a very successful policy of engagement, leading to democratic reforms and leading to a Balkans area that will be included within the rest of the European community as far as democracy and economic integration is concerned. So I think certainly we have that possibility, we certainly have that capability right now, but the reports, the news stories coming out, at least right now, appears to show that things are working according to plan. What I would like to do now is yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Chicago, Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who is one of my colleagues who was able to join us on the trip over to the Balkans just a few short weeks ago.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his comments and for the leadership that he has shown on this issue. What a long ways we have come in a short period of time when, just a few short weeks ago, this Chamber by a 213-213 vote tied on whether or not to even continue to support the NATO air campaign in the region. Now we are on the precipice of peace breaking out in the region. A while back, I had a chance to have a conversation with Elie Wiesel, one of the Nazi concentration camp survivors, one of the foremost experts on the Holocaust. I asked him what his thoughts were in regards to the NATO air campaign in the Balkans. What he said I thought really crystallized the issue, for me at least, in which he said, ``Listen, the only miserable consolation that those people in the Nazi concentration camps had during the Second World War was the belief that, if the Western democracies of the world knew what was going on, they would do everything possible to try to stop it, bombing the rail lines, bombing the crematoriums.'' But history later showed that the western leaders did know, but they did not do anything to try to stop it. This time is different. This time the Western democracies know, and they are intervening. This time, in his opinion at least, he feels we are on the right side of history in this situation. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) who was also one of my colleagues who joined us on the trip to the Balkans, Albania and Macedonia just a few weeks ago.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude by saying that, in the final analysis, someone had to stop Milosevic in Kosovo. And given the current geopolitical global lineup, that someone was us. I just hope and pray that for the sake of peace in the region, that what has started now will continue and we will see a lasting peace. And that our troops in the region, who are being asked to act as peacekeepers, will be able to do their jobs successfully, efficiently, and as quickly as possible so they can all return to their families safely.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 204, unfortunately, due to an unavoidable weather travel delay. I missed today's rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, we woke up this morning with news reports that the first Serb forces in Kosovo are finally being withdrawn. The policy is working, so let us give credit where credit is due. It was because of the perseverance and unity of all 19 democratic nations of NATO that finally got Milosevic to capitulate and stop the atrocities in Kosovo. Let us hope we are at the dawn of a new era, of peace in the Balkans, a peace that will see the removal of Milosevic from power, true democratic reforms take place, the eventual inclusion of the Balkan countries in the European Union and perhaps even NATO someday. A foolish speculation? An idle dream? I do not think so. Who amongst us could have predicted that within 10 short years some of the most repressive communist regimes in Central Europe would today be flourishing democracies, members of the European Union, and even members of NATO itself? I do believe that the historical trends sweeping across Europe today are on our side in this endeavor. Now comes the difficult task of enforcing the peace. My thoughts and prayers are with our young men and women in American uniform who are being called upon once again in the 20th century to restore the peace and humanity on the Statement of Europe.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Skelton amendment, and would strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose the Fowler and Souder amendments. I believe those are the wrong amendments at the wrong time when we are on the brink of peace in the Balkans. I believe that the NATO policy in Kosovo has been the right policy for the right reasons at the right time. There were two overriding concerns that got the NATO democracies involved in the Balkans. One of these, and not least of which, was the importance of trying to contain the conflict so it did not spread into other countries and ultimately result in much greater cost and greater sacrifice to the western democracies later. But the overriding one, Mr. Chairman, was the humanitarian and moral concerns involved in trying to help the Kosovar families and end the atrocities. We were reminded by Elie Wiesel what this was all about. When he was asked about the NATO air strike campaign in the Balkans, he responded, listen, the only miserable consolation the people in the concentration camps had during the Second World War was the belief that if the western democracies knew what was taking place, they would do everything in their power to try to stop it, bomb the rail lines and the crematoriums. Unfortunately, history later showed that the western leaders did know, but did not take any action. This time it is different. This time the western democracies do know what is going on, they are taking action, they are intervening. This time, he said, we are on the right side of history. Mr. Chairman, we woke up this morning with the news that the first Serb troops are being withdrawn from Kosovo. The policy is working. I think credit should be given where credit is due. It was through the perseverance and unity of all 19 democratic nations of NATO that forced Milosevic to capitulate and end the atrocities in Kosovo. Now we are at the dawn of a new era of peace in the Balkans. Let us hope it is a peace that sees the eventual removal of Milosevic from power, that sees true democratic reforms take place so the Balkan countries can eventually join the European Union, the community of democratic nations, and perhaps even the NATO alliance itself. A pipe dream? An illusion? I do not think so. Who among us could have predicted that within 10 short years, some of the most repressive Communist regimes in all of Europe would be today flourishing democracies, members of the European Union and NATO itself? The same can happen in the Balkans. Let us give this policy of peace in the Balkans a chance.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with this rule. First, I am deeply troubled by the continued, misguided attempt to limit this Nation's ability to execute operation allied force and end the atrocities in the Balkans. In addition, two weeks ago, when this authorization bill was first brought to the House floor, Mr. DeFazio offered an amendment that was ruled out of order. The DeFazio amendment would have increased funding for the youth challenge program by eliminating one corporate-style jet for the military. Youth Challenge is a program that has been funded through the Army National Guard since 1993. Youth Challenge reaches out to young people aged 16 to 18 who have either dropped out of high school or are at risk for dropping out. Youth Challenge combines academics with physical fitness, job skills training, community service, counseling and leadership training. Privileges are earned through hard work, merit and discipline. Through Youth Challenge, over 12,000 young people received a G.E.D. who otherwise, very likely, would not have received any diploma at all. I had the privilege of visiting the Wisconsin National Guard Youth Challenge Program last week at Fort McCoy. I was quite impressed by the dedicated staff of National Guard and civilian employees which includes certified teachers, counselors and nurses. Students attend from across the State, and students, parents and community leaders familiar with the program praise its results. Youth Challenge helps kids who are at the ends of their ropes but who haven't yet fallen. In the wake of recent school shootings, we are all beginning to realize that we must reach out to young people who have become alienated from their peers and estranged from their communities. Youth Challenge works to build self-esteem in its students, and its focus on teamwork, leadership, and public service help reconnect students to their families and communities. However, Youth Challenge programs nationwide receives many more requests for admission than they can accept given current funding levels. The DeFazio amendment would have helped get this program to more kids in more States. Mr. Speaker, I tend to be skeptical of military authorizations and appropriations bills, not because I doubt the needs of our men and women in service, but because I doubt that Congress will sincerely act to meet those needs without loading-in special interest and pork barrel projects. Youth Challenge is the opposite of pork barrel politics. It is a program that could be available nationwide. It enhances the stature and presence of the National Guard in local communities and provides ongoing leadership training to Guard members and gives them a chance to interact with the country's youth. I understand that an agreement may be worked out to fully-fund Youth Challenge between now and the time we debate defense appropriations. I applaud the efforts of Mr. DeFazio, as well as those of Mr. Skelton and Senators Stevens and Inouye in working hard to see that this excellent program is continued. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate planes, ships, bombs and bullets. Youth Challenge is the kind of defense program that truly increases Americans' faith in their government and those entrusted with national security. I hope Members don't lose sight of this in their zeal for political pork and maneuvering.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this resolution today even though I'm not convinced it is needed. Early this morning many of us got up and we had a nice early morning meeting with outgoing Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin. He has been showered in recent weeks with accolades, given his impending retirement, based on his management over the years of our economy and how well it has been going. He gave us one piece of advice that he drove home so clearly today as policymakers. If we do one thing in this United States Congress to ensure long-term prosperity for this country, it is to use the projected budget surpluses to download our $5.6 trillion national debt. We do not need gimmicks and fake legislation like we have here today to do that. What is required is some fiscal discipline and coming together in a bipartisan fashion to maintain fiscal discipline and download the debt, instead of dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund for new spending programs as what happened last week with the supplemental appropriation bill, or by offering fiscally irresponsible, across-the- board tax cuts. That is the same message that Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, delivers to us every day. We do not need legislation like this. What we need is political courage to do it. I have two sons, Mr. Speaker, Johnny and Matthew who are probably going to be living throughout most of the 21st century. If there is anything that we can do to ensure a bright and prosperous economic future for these two little boys, it is by delivering some political courage, practicing some fiscal discipline, making the tough choices that we are capable of making to preserve Social Security, Medicare and pay down our national debt instead of offering legislative gimmicks like the one we are debating here today.