Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a local hero from western Wisconsin. I want to honor Angela M. Barthen who took courageous action to aid another citizen. For the past three years the Eau Claire Fire Fighters Local Union 487, in conjunction with the Eau Claire Fire Department, have recognized area residents who acted bravely in emergency situations. The recipients of the Citizen Community Involvement Awards are citizens who put the safety and well being of their neighbors ahead of other concerns in a time of need. Angela M. Barthen is one of those extraordinary citizens. It was about 6:50 a.m. on November 17, when Angela Barthen awoke to a man outside her window yelling for help. She looked outside and across the street she saw that the first floor of her neighbor Terry Olevson's house was on fire. Terry and his two sons, Ryan 11 and Tyler 9 were trapped on the second floor of the burning house. Angela quickly grabbed her cellular phone to call for help and then proceeded downstairs to her garage where she had an extension ladder. She grabbed the ladder and went across the street and extended it to reach the second floor. Terry Olevson helped his sons out of the window and on to the ladder to safety. Terry followed his sons down the ladder. Angela without hesitation was able to respond quickly to her neighbors' needs and as a result was able to assist in saving their lives. On behalf of all the citizens of western Wisconsin I ask that the United States House of Representatives recognize Angela M. Barthen for her courage and thank her for being a concerned and giving community citizen.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, let us be certain we are speaking with sincerity today, because there is no doubt that what we say here will be heard across the oceans and will be acted upon, one way or the other. Our leadership for freedom and democracy in the world is at stake, our leadership in the NATO alliance is very much at stake. In fact, I would submit, that the very credibility and the justification for the existence of NATO is at stake on how well we negotiate peace agreements in this very important historical region in the Balkans. I hope and pray our message here today encourages action that is positive and peaceful and brings a tormented region to the brink of freedom, rather than to the brink of war once again.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of the base resolution as well as the Gejdenson amendment and in opposition to the Fowler amendment. Our debate today and this evening centers on one of the most serious and fundamental responsibilities that we hold as elected representatives of a free and open democracy, the recommendation to commit our military forces to a hostile or potentially hostile environment. I respect the fact that we as Members of this body should debate this issue fully. I am, however, concerned that the timing of this debate is suspect and, in fact, is very dangerous and can undermine the peace process that the administration has been engaged in in the Balkan region for some time. Former Senate majority leader Bob Dole, who recently returned from the peace negotiations in the Kosovo region, testified yesterday that Congress should wait to debate the deployment of American troops there until an agreement between the parties in the region has first, in fact, been reached. In fact, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has said the same exact thing. Delicate negotiations continue to take place in Europe, even as we debate this today. There is a plan to have the sides meet in 1 week to try to work out an agreement. And over the last few days hopes have been raised that such an agreement may be possible, even as heavy weapons pour into the area and shelling wracks the countryside. I would hope that this body would give those negotiators every opportunity to develop a working peace plan. I am concerned our actions may, instead, give the impression to warmongers in former Yugoslavia that American leadership is divided and its resolve is weak. Such an impression, I am afraid, will only encourage fanatical opportunists to continue their violence and terrorize the innocent noncombatant residents of Kosovo. I hope our debate today is truly based, as has been stated numerous times today, on the desire to have an open discussion of American foreign policy. It has been said in the past that politics should stop at water's edge, and I would hope that in the context of this debate that that statement is more true today than even in the past. During my first term in office, Mr. Chairman, in fact, last spring I had the honor to go over to Bosnia and to visit our troops and the military leaders, and even the residents of a war torn region. I wish every American in this country had the opportunity to go over there and experience the pride that I felt in meeting with the young men and women in American uniforms who are carrying out a very dangerous and a very difficult policy in a distant land. They are proud of their work and show great professionalism and integrity. They are committed to carrying out the tasks that we have asked them to with honor and pride. In fact, the killing has stopped, and peace does have a chance now. Democratic institutions are being created when, just a few short years ago, there were genocidal practices being conducted in Bosnia. They feel like their mission means something. They have stopped the killing. They are instructing young children who, just a few years ago, were playing in mine fields and getting maimed by the explosion of mines, where it is safe for them to play. It is an incredible testament to the leadership the United States has shown in this war torn region. I would hope that we view the success that we have attained so far in Bosnia as a possibility to achieve that type of success in the entire Balkan region, including Kosovo. I support our troops serving this Nation's interests throughout the world, and I support the peace process in Kosovo. If needed, I will support a well-planned use of troops to assist in maintaining the peace in that region that has been the spark of continental and worldwide conflict in the not-so-distant past. It is in the Nation's interest to work with our European allies to prevent the Kosovo region from destabilizing and drawing the Balkan region into further armed conflict. But I submit that the debate we are having today is premature. I would like to first see a detailed plan and objective goals that the administration establishes in that region before we introduce U.S. men and women in U.S. uniforms in that region, so we know when we can withdraw them again from that region. Such a conflict that now exists there poses a humanitarian threat to innocent civilians and a political threat to the struggling independent nations emerging from the Cold War. The United States will be impacted by all these threats and preventive action is the best way to protect our interests there. The reality is that our Nation holds a unique position in worldwide affairs, whether we like it or not. Most major peace accords in recent years have required a deeply involved American presence and American negotiators at the table. Just a few weeks ago forces in Kosovo indicated that international peacekeeping efforts will have little credibility unless the United States is intimately involved in carrying out that mission. When the international community speaks out against brutality and tyranny, the voice of the United States of America resounds with particular strength and emphasis.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 808, a measure that would extend by an additional 3 months the Chapter 12 farm bankruptcy code. This legislation is a stopgap measure that would continue the program past its April 1 expiration date. Farmer friendly bankruptcy and reorganization provisions are needed now more than ever before. This past Friday, dairy farmers saw their price collapse by 39% as the February Basic Formula Price fell to $10.27 per hundredweight, a $6 decline from the proceeding month. When Congress originally passed the Chapter 12 farm bankruptcy code in the mid-1980s they realized that our nation's family farmers oftentimes face economic difficulties that were not of their making and are essentially out of their control. The prices of nearly all commodities including livestock, milk, grains and feedstuffs were or are at near record low prices. As a result, it is imperative that Congress work to create federal financial mechanisms that recognize these difficulties. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join my colleagues in supporting this worthwhile measure.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Ed-Flex bill, and I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for the fine work they have put into it. I believe this is a step in the right direction. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I was proud to support the bill as we reported it out of committee last week. But I, like many of the members of the committee who supported the bill last week, have some additional concerns, concerns on how we can improve the bill before it ultimately passes this Congress and gets signed into law, one of which is the distribution in the allocation formula of title I funding. I think there is legitimate concern that some of the funds for the more disadvantaged students in our country may be diverted for other programs, and we have to be careful that that historical role that the Federal Government has performed is not diluted in such a way where the most disadvantaged students are shortchanged. That is why I will support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) later today. I also have some concerns regarding the accountability language in the bill. I think the Miller-Kildee amendment goes a long ways to ensuring that there is going to be some accountability measures that we can sink our teeth into and find out whether these newer, innovative, creative programs are, in fact, working. We in this body have a responsibility to the taxpayers as well that money will not just be thrown into programs without any type of feedback or accountability that it is working. I think overall the concept of this legislation is commendable. I represent western Wisconsin, which has some larger cities in it and a lot of rural areas, and the educational needs in the district will vary from community to community. I think the concept behind this bill will allow that type of flexibility to take place where local solutions with parents and teachers and administrators and community leaders, working together in order to figure out programs that actually work at the local level, have that opportunity without them having to jump through a lot of hoops and a lot of bureaucratic waiver provisions out here in Washington before it can be implemented. Now, in my State of Wisconsin we have a proud tradition of supporting public education. Just a few years ago we had the SAGE program to reduce class size that passed. That is a classic example of both flexibility and accountability working in the State of Wisconsin, and I would encourage my colleagues to support the legislation. Education is consistently ranked by Americans as a top priority Congress should address. That is why, as a returning member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I am very encouraged by the attention education issues are now getting by elected officials here in Washington and everywhere around our Nation. And that is why I was very encouraged to see my good friend from Indiana, Mr. Roemer, and my friend from Delaware, Mr. Castle, work together across the aisle to draft and introduce this bill. Mr. Chairman, members of our committee looked hard at this bill and we had a very healthy and meaningful debate on it. I was impressed by the depth of conviction from which members spoke when offering and addressing amendments, and the committee came to agreement on most. At the end of the day, we approved a bill to give States and school districts flexibility in meeting Federal requirements for education programming, while requiring accountability to prove they are addressing the needs of their disadvantaged students. Some of my colleagues express concern that the bill before us may weaken title I protections for our most disadvantaged children. In fact, at committee mark-up, I supported amendments that would have tightened the accountability and oversight requirements of the bill and would have limited waivers for what are known as school-wide programs to those schools serving the most disadvantaged populations. I still have some concern about the title I allocation formula and that's why I will support Mr. Scott's amendment requiring 35 percent of title I students to be eligible, even though I acknowledge and share these concerns, I support the underlying bill and urge my colleagues in the House to do the same. Ed-Flex will help schools use funds available from the Department of Education in ways that are best for their students. Mr. Chairman, I represent a district that is very large geographically, and that is comprised of many small schools and truly community-based school districts. As I regularly talk with the parents, the teachers, and the administrators of my district, I have come to realize that if a problem exists or arises in one of their schools, the best solution to that problem will be found right there in that community, and in that school. This bill will give them quota flexibility to do so. I firmly believe the U.S. Department of Education serves a vital function by ensuring that poor or otherwise disadvantaged students are not denied educational opportunities. But if a community pulls together to tackle a problem, and a school district taps that energy to develop reforms to address the problem, we here in Congress should give that community and that school district every opportunity to pursue their reforms and advance their goals. Ed-Flex will provide that opportunity, without sacrificing protection for our most vulnerable children. Under this bill, before a State is given Ed-Flex authority to grant waivers to schools, the State must have an approved plan for standards and assessments that will be used to measure performance levels. In order to maintain its Ed-Flex authority, the State must monitor the progress of the schools for which it provides waivers and report that progress back to the Secretary of Education. Furthermore, the Education and Workforce Committee agreed to a very wise provision that will require an Ed-Flex State to terminate the waivers of schools which experience 2 years of decreased educational performance. In other words, if a State proves that it is willing and able to take responsibility and work with its schools to achieve better performance results, that State may hold the authority to grant waivers for reform measures its schools would otherwise have to obtain from the Department of Education. This arrangement keeps the Federal Government in a partnership and oversight role with States and schools, while innovations and solutions will be developed at home. In my State of Wisconsin, we are proud of our tradition of supporting public education. We are also proud of our tradition of community involvement and innovative reform. A few years ago, Wisconsin started a program called Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, or S.A.G.E. The S.A.G.E. Program targets grades one through three and allows participating schools to reduce class size, develop rigorous academic curriculums, provide professional development for teachers, and stay open longer to play a larger role in the community. The S.A.G.E. Program has proven effective by raising performance levels in the most disadvantaged schools in Wisconsin. If schools in Wisconsin wish to expand on the success of the S.A.G.E. Program or any other, but must obtain waivers to implement a concept, I want my State Department of Public Instruction to have the authority to assess the proposed reform and determine its merit. Under this bill such a scenario is possible, but only if my State agency proves that it has its programs in order and will be able to effectively monitor its schools. That combination of flexibility and accountability are the key components to Ed-Flex. I believe the necessary elements are there, and I support this bill.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise today in support of this bill. I believe this is a commonsense measure allowing the Amish to preserve their culture as well as the control of the upbringing of their children while maintaining important child labor enforcement policies. I want to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and especially the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for the leadership that they have shown in crafting what I think is a very commonsense measure. To this day the Amish continue to make great contributions to our Nation's heritage across the country and as well in my congressional district in western Wisconsin. Traditionally Amish children's formal education ends at a very early age. They continue to learn by doing. Their youth attend school until the age of 14, after which they work with an adult member of the community to gain hands-on experience, offentimes in small, family-owned woodworking shops. In the past the practice has come into conflict with certain child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Yes, woodworking machines can be very dangerous, especially for young children, but thanks to my colleagues I think there have been some commonsense safeguards built into this legislation that we can all support. First, that teenagers must be supervised by an adult who is a member of the same sect or division; second, the teenagers are not allowed to operate or even assist in the operation of power-driven woodworking machines; and, finally, they must be protected by an appropriate barrier to the potential hazard of flying debris and wood particles. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to do all that we can to preserve our Nation's distinct and diverse heritage without sacrificing personal safety and well-being, especially when it comes to the safety of our children. I believe this bill is a commonsense step in that direction. Therefore, I urge my colleagues today to support what I feel is an appropriate bill with the appropriate safeguards.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Patricia Staff, a true hometown hero from Wisconsin. Last month, Patricia Staff, who is a resident of my district, took action that potentially saved the life of a young student. Patricia is a school crossing guard in Onalaska, Wisconsin. On Friday, January 8, she was working at her usual crossing location at Quincy Street and Sand Lake Road in Onalaska. While helping students cross this busy intersection, she noticed a car swerving through traffic with no intention of stopping. Patricia quickly grabbed a young boy crossing the intersection and pulled him out of harms way. According to the police, Patricia's actions saved the child from certain injury and possibly death. Every day, throughout our nation, dedicated men and women serve our country as school crossing guards. It is easy to overlook their work. The job they do, however, is vital to the millions of students who walk to school each day. Crossing guards assist students at busy intersections, they keep an eye out for strangers who may threaten children, they provide parents with the security of knowing their children are safe, and often they become good friends to the students. School crossing guards are essential to the safety and well-being of our children. Patricia Staff is a tribute to the people of western Wisconsin and all crossing guards. Patricia Staff put the protection of those children going to school above all other concerns, and because of that she potentially saved a life. I rise today to commend Patricia Staff for her work, thank her for dedication to her community, and praise her as a true hero.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these articles of impeachment. As a former prosecutor and special prosecutor, if the rule of law and this process of impeachment is going to have any credibility, it has to be applied fairly and consistently. But I am afraid the double standard against the President today is anything but fair, anything but consistent. In 1974, the House Committee on the Judiciary, when Congress was controlled by Democrats, drafted articles of impeachment against President Nixon based upon fraudulent tax returns. But the Committee on the Judiciary in a bipartisan fashion determined that it did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense because it was private as opposed to public misconduct. Well, then, what is this all about, if it is not really about perjury? If it is just about punishing and holding the President accountable and retribution, we can do that, short of punishing the country as well and paralyzing this government for the next six to eight months, we can punish President Clinton through censure and through private prosecution once the President leaves office. But we do not even get a vote on censure, which is fundamentally unfair. I do not believe the Founders intended impeachment to be used as a tool of punishment, but, rather, to preserve and protect the country against a rogue president, who, through his public duties, is jeopardizing the very structure and functioning of our government. No one can claim that that is happening here today. Mr. Speaker, I have two young boys who are not old enough yet to comprehend the gravity of this situation. My only hope is when they are old enough and are reading about this in the history books, that they are going to have confidence that every vote cast was done in the best interests of the country, rather than short-term political gain. I am not confident that is the story they will read. In fact, the one person in this country that probably has the best realistic assessment of what is really going on is the young mother of two young children who told me, ``Listen, I can educate my own children, I can teach them not to lie. But I can't protect them against the destruction of the presidency.'' Only we in this body can do that. I am afraid we are going to fail her in the next 24 hours. Please, do not destroy the 210 years of history in this country. Mr. Speaker, seldom in the course of our nation's history is a congressional representative called upon to cast a vote of greater constitutional significance than the possible impeachment of the President of the United States. Short of declaring war, there is not greater constitutional obligation. It is a responsibility I do not take lightly. After a thorough review of the historical evidence of the intent of the framers of our Constitution, the standard of impeachable offenses, prior precedents and the evidence so far collected surrounding the allegations against President Clinton, I have concluded that the President's conduct, as deplorable and indefensible as it is, does not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. Such conduct does not justify paralyzing our government indefinitely nor is impeachment needed to hold him accountable. I will vote against all four articles of impeachment. Just once before in our 210 year history has the House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment. Impeachment is a constitutional provision that has seldom been used and for good reason, impeaching the President is the atomic bomb of American politics. Besides paralyzing our government during an impeachment trial, the process causes, by its very nature, great acrimony and division throughout the country and within Congress. Ultimately, the end result could mean overturning a national election and the will of the people. I am convinced, after a thorough review of history and analysis of our founding fathers' intent, that impeachment was never meant to be easily or frequently used. That is why our founders established a very high standard of misconduct and placed the judgement of that misconduct in the forum of representative democracy, the United States Congress, rather than in the political vacuum of the Supreme Court. standard of impeachment It is evident that our Founding Fathers intended impeachment to be a limited, last resort remedy reserved for misconduct that affects the structure of our government and our democratic process or for misconduct so egregious that society needs to be protected against the individual. At the outset, some delegates to the Constitutional Convention objected to including the power to impeach in the Constitution. Others were concerned that some process was needed to protect the country against misconduct by the President that would damage our government. The classic example was cited by George Mason who was concerned about a President selling state secrets to an enemy during time of war. Some process was needed to remove that person from office in order to save the Republic. Some delegates, such as James Madison, objected to the use of broad impeachment language. Madison noted that impeachment was only necessary to ``defend the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate.'' George Mason objected to the draft language, concerned that it was limited to ``treason or bribery.'' He sought to add the term ``maladministration.'' Madison objected to this vague language and substituted ``or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors against the State'' (emphasis added). The narrow scope of the phrase ``other High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' was confirmed by the addition of the language ``against the State.'' This language reflects the Convention's view that only offenses against the political order should provide a basis for impeachment. Although the phrase ``against the State'' was deemed redundant and eventually deleted by the Committee of Style, its deletion was not intended to have any substantive impact. I wonder how differently we would be debating President Clinton's conduct today if its was within the written context of misconduct committed ``against the State.'' The interpretation that ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' should be limited to serious abuses of official power is further confirmed by the commentary of both the framers of the Constitution and prominent constitutional experts, contemporary and past. For instance, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 65 that impeachable offenses ``proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' He stressed that those offenses ``may with peculiar proprietary be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself''. Impeachment precedents also demonstrate that offenses should arise out of a President's public, not private conduct. In 1868, Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House Republicans after he removed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Those members disagreed with President Johnson's post-Civil War reconstruction plans, which were merely the continuation of President Lincoln's policies of moderation and leniency toward the Southern States. The impeachment articles related to alleged public misconduct only, and the Senate failed to convict President Johnson by one vote. The proposed impeachment of President Nixon also supports the view that impeachment should be limited to threats that undermine the Constitution, not possible criminal misbehavior unrelated to a President's official duties. All three articles of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee involved misuse of the President's official duties. They included using the CIA to obstruct an FBI investigation, using the IRS to target political opponents, ordering break-ins of private offices of political opponents, using slush money to silence witnesses, using slush money to influence the outcomes of federal elections, and engaging in a course of conduct to obstruct the Watergate investigation. The Judiciary Committee actually rejected articles of impeachment against President Nixon relating to allegations of income tax evasion. There was credible evidence that President Nixon had knowingly committed tax fraud when filing his federal income tax returns for the years 1969 through 1972 (tax returns are filed under penalty of perjury). All seventeen Republicans were joined by nine Democrats to defeat this article by a vote of 26-12. The primary reason for rejection was that the tax fraud article related to the president's private, rather than public, conduct. As a former prosecutor, I know that if the rule of law is to have any credibility it must be applied consistently and fairly. The same is true with the standards of impeachment. I believe there is a double standard being applied to President Clinton. How can we justify impeaching President Clinton based on alleged perjurious statements about his private life when a Democratically controlled Congress concluded, in a bipartisan fashion, that President Nixon's perjured tax returns constituted private, as opposed to public, misconduct, and were, therefore, not impeachable? Based on this very high standard of impeachable conduct and the historical precedents, I am convinced that President Clinton's personal misconduct and his attempt to lie about having a consensual sexual affair do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. forum of democracy II also do not believe our Founding Fathers meant for this country's elected representatives to disregard the will of the American people regarding such an important decision. If the Framers intended an impeachment decision to be immune from public pressure, they would have placed the process in the Supreme Court where unelected, life-tenured justices could determine the case. Instead they placed the initiation of impeachment in the House of Representatives. ``the People's House'', so the American people could have a say, through their representatives, on the disposition of their President and consequences for the future of their country. There are some who say that we should pay little regard to the opinion of the American people on this important matter. I believe they do so at their own peril. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that members of Congress are the embodiment of all the wisdom in this country. I submit that it will be extremely difficult to impeach and convict a President unless there is some consensus throughout the country and bipartisan support in Congress to do so. Such a consensus has failed to materialize. In fact, since the beginning of this investigation, public opinion regarding the President has not changed. Opinion polls show by a 2 to 1 margin that the American people oppose impeachment and think the President is performing his duties well. How can this be explained? I believe the American people have made the distinction between the President's personal wrongdoing and his conduct in discharging the duties of his office. Unlike Watergate, when a consensus eventually materialized throughout the country and within Congress regarding President Nixon's public misconduct, most Americans feel that the President's personal conduct, however disgusting and inexcusable, doesn't threaten our form of government or the process of our democracy. Those who defy the public will and vote for impeachment should understand that in their fervor to punish this President they will violate a sacred covenant with the American people: this government is still the people's government. They will betray a promise that nothing of enormous consequence in the life of our Republic will happen without the consent and approval of the American people. A vote to uphold the confidence of the American people in the democratic process will be a vote against impeachment. Such a decision will be a vote of confidence in the simple but sometimes forgotten founding principle of our democracy that this government should be ``of the people, by the people and for the people.'' Without the support of the American public, how can we justify placing the country in a constitutional quagmire over a tortured definition of sexual relations, one that even the presiding judge in the case thought was confusing? How can we justify passing articles of impeachment which would require a lengthy trial in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, about the sordid details of a consensual affair and whether the President lied about it? How can we justify calling a young woman to testify before one hundred United States Senators and the Chief Justice about embarrassing and intimate matters that transpired in a consensual relationship? When you envision what a trial in the Senate will look like--Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp and Lucianna Goldberg all sworn in as witnesses-- one has to wonder: What in the world are members of Congress really trying to accomplish? conclusion The votes we are about to cast will be among the most important votes any of us will be asked to make. Our decisions should be dictated by our conscience and what each of us feel is in the best long-term interest of our country, rather than for any short-term political gain. I pray that we protect the impeachment process from being politicized and defined downward. The decisions we make today and throughout this process will set a precedent for future Congresses and future Presidents. We must guard against making impeachment too easy or we could disrupt the important balance of power that exists between the three separate but coequal branches of our government. Just as Watergate has served as a model for our current proceedings, this impeachment proceeding will serve as a model in the future. One of the fundamental questions that each member of Congress must answer is whether the President's personal conduct, as deplorable as it was, justifies paralyzing our government for months and potentially damaging our country in the process. There are many issues in which Congress needs to be engaged. From Social Security and Medicare reform to Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf and Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo, from a Russian economic meltdown to financial crises throughout the globe, how will history record Congress' performance at this time of great domestic and international challenges? A fair reading of our founders' intent will lead to the conclusion that they placed country above personalities, the preservation of the union above personal retribution. Impeachment was never meant to be a form of punishment; it was intended to preserve and protect our country. There are other means of punishing Bill Clinton the person. One option is a censure resolution from the House and Senate which would require the President's signature to acknowledge the condemnation. Such an alternative form of punishment has bipartisan support. Former President Gerald Ford and, most recently, former Senator Bob Dole have spoken in favor of this resolution. They recognize the terrible cost our country will face if a trial goes forward and effectively shuts down the government. I would even favor imposing a fine to compensate the American people for the costs of the Lewinski investigation. If there is to be any fairness in this process, the Republican leadership should allow a vote on censure. Many members believe in good conscience that a censure is the appropriate rebuke. To deny a vote on censure would be the height of partisan politics. Furthermore, the President can still be indicted and prosecuted as a private citizen once he leaves office in two years. The President Has already indicated that he will neither pardon himself nor accept a pardon from any future President. As a former prosecutor, I would hope that if there is enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt before an unbiased jury, a prosecutor would have the courage to indict and prosecute him in a court of law. The President can and should be treated like any other individual, neither above nor below the law, and the Constitution ensures that will happen. We don't need to invoke the atomic bomb of impeachment to hold President Clinton accountable for any misconduct. We can spare the nation of the ordeal while still delivering the message to all our children that no matter who you are, whether a second grader at Roosevelt Elementary school or the President of the United States, there will be consequences to lying. What we do today will serve as a lesson for future generations. I hope it is the right lesson. Churchill once said: ``We must learn the lessons of the past. But we must not remember today the hatreds of yesterday.'' It is time to begin the process of reconciliation in American politics and find ways to restore civility and mutual respect to the democratic process. For too long now, the national political scene has been dominated by the politics of personal destruction and partisan bickering. That too is reflected in this impeachment process and it confirms Alexander Hamilton's worst fear when he wrote in Federalist No. 65: ``In many cases it will connect itself with the preexisting factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' As we move forward with this vote, let us all hope that our decisions will be made in good conscience for the sake of our country rather than for short-term political gain. My decision is based as so many of my decisions are, through the eyes of my two young sons, who are not old enough to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Like so many other Members, we all have to justify our decisions to our children and grandchildren. We can teach our children not to lie. But we must protect them from the destruction of the Presidency. My hope is that years from now, when they are reading about this in their history books, they will be proud of our conduct and they will conclude: ``They got it right.''

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for all of us to join together, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans, to express our support and offer our prayers to the young men and women in American uniform who are responsible for carrying out the current military operation against Saddam Hussein. Whatever our troubles and conflicts may be at home at this time, I submit that they are rather unimportant compared to the sacrifice these young men and women and their families are making at this time. Last night, Secretary of Defense Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Shelton came to this chamber and provided an excellent briefing to us Members of Congress about the military operations, their objective, and their timing. I am convinced now more than ever that this was the right decision at the right time and for the right reason. I want to just take a moment to thank our British friends and allies who have been partners in peace with us standing together against tyranny to help ensure peace and stability, not only in the Persian Gulf, but throughout the world. This partnership has grown out of commonly held principles of democracy, freedom, security and peace. Let me conclude by offering my heartfelt thanks and prayers to the military personnel and their families for the sacrifice they make to their country. This is especially true this time of year when everyone would prefer to be home during the holidays and with their loved ones.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 1999 omnibus appropriations bill. I do not cast this vote lightly. There are some good priorities in this bill--things that I have fought for these past 2 years including funding for improving education and job training, expanding rural health care, protecting the environment, and putting police on the streets. It also funds the International Monetary Fund which I believe is necessary to maintain global economic stability. Indeed, I support the programs which provide relief to America's farmers, summer jobs for teenagers, and higher health insurance deductions for the self- employed. Furthermore, I am fully aware that it is not unusual for several appropriations bills to be rolled together and passed in this fashion. But this year's bill goes way beyond what may be the usual ``rush to the finish'' and sets a very bad precedent for future fiscal responsibility. First, this is the first year since 1974 that Congress has not passed a budget resolution--the blueprint for annual spending. We had no official guidelines for spending this year and, consequently, we now do not know precisely how the spending caps were determined. There is no excuse for this irresponsible method of spending America's hard-earned tax dollars. Second, many parts of this bill were never considered by any committee or by either chamber of Congress. In fact, some provisions actually reverse language that has already been passed. The largest appropriations bill in this omnibus package is the Labor/HHS and Education bill. It is worth $83.3 billion and it was never considered on the floor of the House of Representatives. Members, such as myself, who are not members of the Appropriations Committee, never had the opportunity to vote on any individual provisions of that bill, we must simply vote yea or nay on the entire bill. Third, this bill contains $20 billion in so-called ``emergency'' spending. This money is very deceptive. It is money being spent completely outside of the budget caps established in last year's Balanced Budget Act. This spending is not paid for--and most of it is not crucial emergency spending. It includes spending for military readiness, ballistic missile defense, a U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Y2K computer fixes, and efforts to prevent drug production and trafficking. These funds may be worthy, but they should be debated, determined to be priorities, and incorporated into the general spending bills. Fourth, no one really knows what pork projects are contained in this bill. They are hidden deep within the 4,000 page document and there is no comprehensive list for all to see. Finally, members were given just three hours to review this monstrosity of a spending bill. This bill is insulting to those of us who are deeply concerned about the future of this country and the astounding $5.5 trillion national debt that we are passing on to our children. By passing this bill, we are avoiding the tough decisions we need to make if we are to ever see a budget surplus and shore up Social Security--and if we are ever to lower the national debt. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying Christmas has come early this year. There's something for everyone's stocking in this bill--but, unfortunately, our children will pay the price.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a young lady from my congressional district who has made the State of Wisconsin proud. Meghan Ann Ellwanger, of Somerset, Wisconsin, has proven herself to be an astute entrepreneur at the age of 15. Her business plan for ``Berry Patch Nannies'' won the 1997-98 Business Plan Competition sponsored by ``An Income of Her own'' a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the economic literacy of teen girls. Berry Patch Nannies will be a business devoted to the raising of goats and the sale of goat products which include milk, cheese, and soap lotion. It will also be an ``environmentally aware business with products that are drug, disease and pest free.'' Miss Ellwanger gained some of the experience she will need to implement her plan for Berry Patch Nannies while she was operating Meghan's Poultry Palace, a family operated poultry business. Miss Ellwanger plans to cover her startup costs by applying for a 4-H business loan. She intends to invest her profits in a college education. I wish her success and congratulate her on this impressive accomplishment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by Mr. Hyde to begin an inquiry into allegations against the President of the United States. This decision does not come easily, but I believe that it is in the best interest of our nation. It is time to bring closure to this painful time in our history by conducting an open, fair and bipartisan inquiry to determine the facts in this case. Passage of the resolution will put in place a process to resolve this matter and allow Congress to move on and deal with the more pressing issues of the Country. I am not entirely pleased with the resolution we have before us. I would like to see some time limits placed on the hearing so this matter does not drag out for an extended period of time. That is why I also support the Democratic amendment which places reasonable time limits on the process while allowing for an extension of the inquiry if new information is presented or it becomes clear that more time is needed to conduct a thorough hearing. There comes a time, however, when we must rely on the promises of members who are leading this effort. Chairman Hyde has promised that he will make every effort to finish this inquiry before the end of this year. Chairman Hyde is a man of great integrity and I am placing my trust in him and his commitment to conduct this inquiry in a fair, non-partisan and quick manner. With passage of this resolution, we are embarking upon a very important Constitutional exercise that has seldom been used before. This is one of the greatest Constitutional responsibilities that members of Congress face. We must determine whether the conduct of the President rises to the level to justify removal from office and the paralyzation of our country for an extended period of time. As a former prosecutor, I've placed my faith and trust in the law and the due process of law. We have a process in our Constitution which allow the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry about allegations which may rise to an impeachable offense. I am willing to give the majority party, at this time, the benefit of the doubt that they can conduct this inquiry in a fair, quick and non-partisan manner. I believe that if we are going to have any credible closure to this investigation, it has to happen in a bipartisan manner. My hope is based on the fact that when we begin this extremely important Constitutional responsibility, all members will make decisions based on what they feel are in the best interests of this country and for future generations rather than short term partisan gain. That is what the American people expect us to do. The American people will decide the fate of this President, and, ultimately, they will be the judge and jury of the process we are about to embark upon. The authors of the Constitution placed the power of impeachment in the House of Representatives because it is the ``people's House''. Members of Congress must have the support of the public before we take action to overturn a national election. I support this resolution with the confidence that Chairman Hyde will keep to his promise of conducting a fair, non-partisan and quick inquiry. Not only is the integrity and credibility of the Presidency at stake, but so is the integrity and credibility of the U.S. Congress. In the final analysis, our children and grandchildren will know, years from now, whether we did our Constitution and this great nation proud.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana for yielding to me. I too want to rise before this body tonight and offer my sincere thanks and congratulations to Lee Hamilton. Lee, I was 1 year old when you joined this great body, the United States Congress. Not to date you or anything. As a freshman Member, when I am back home in Western Wisconsin people come up to me and ask me how do you do it, how do you come up to speed with all the procedures and all the substance that you are confronted with out in Washington, D.C. And in a large respect it is by just listening and getting feedback from the people who sent me there to represent them. But I also tell them that as a new Member you seek out role models in this body, people who you can admire and emulate, that you can sit back and watch and listen to, see how they conduct themselves, see how they handle themselves during debate, and sit next to them at times before votes and as policy is starting to develop, especially in the area of foreign policy, and just pick their brains. And, Lee, I am not too proud to admit tonight to you and to the Nation that you have always been one of my role models as a freshman Member. There have been countless times when I have taken the opportunity, that we so often have in between votes, to sit down next to you and talk to you about events in China, Kosovo, Bosnia or Russia, understanding the wisdom and experience that you bring and insight that you bring to these discussions that we wrestle with day-to-day in the United States Congress. I have always been amazed at how oftentimes you turn the subject back to me in your questions, about me personally and the family and the children, my athletic career, which too was shortened because of a career-ending injury, and your intense interest on the Wisconsin Badgers. I was not so sure if it was because of your interest in Big 10 football, or if you were just getting a scouting report for Indiana University before the big game. But I really have admired you and I have appreciated all the advice and counsel you have given me, someone who has an interest in foreign policy, having studied abroad, in London for a couple of years; having traveled in Europe extensively, Central Europe, North Africa, and realizing the importance that foreign policy decision-making is to this place, the United States Congress. It is my only hope, Lee, that when I finish my career here, however long the people in Western Wisconsin want me to represent them, that I will have lived up to the very high standard of personal integrity and honor that you have brought to this institution; that you have established while you have been here. I think the Woodrow Wilson Center and Indiana University are extremely lucky to get you, your wisdom, your integrity and your experience with the greatest Democratic institution in the world. I wish you and your family a very long and very happy retirement. Thank you, Lee.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend Ranking Member Kildee and Chairman McKeon for all of their hard work on making this important legislation bipartisan. This bipartisan conference agreement on the Higher Education Reauthorization Act includes a number of important initiatives to increase access to college, lower the student loan interest rate, and prepare more students for college. Increasing access to quality higher education must be our nation's number one priority and this legislation helps us accomplish this goal. This legislation increases the maximum Pell Grant award $3,000 to $4,500. The Pell Grant is crucial to giving students the financial assistance they need to afford a higher education. The increased award level is important to keep peace with the increasing cost of a college degree. One of the biggest concerns I hear from students in western Wisconsin, is the growing debt burden they face upon graduation. This legislation will ease that burden and give more students an opportunity receive financial aid assistance, by lowering the student loan interest rate. The bill slashes the interest rate from 8.25 to 7.46 percent, which will save college students hundreds and thousands of dollars over their loan repayment period. This legislation also expands and creates initiatives designed to encourage students from disadvantaged backgrounds to pursue higher education. The highly successful TRIO outreach project is expanded and a new national effort called GEAR UP has been created to provide support services, mentoring and early intervention counseling to encourage students to strive for and attain an education beyond high school. I am pleased to support this bipartisan conference agreement, which will provide students in western Wisconsin with increased access, affordability and quality higher education.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. As a freshman member of this body, the United States Congress, I lobbied hard to get on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Subcommittee on Higher Education, and it was exactly for this evening and this purpose, to be able to stand up and proudly support an outstanding piece of bipartisan legislation that really goes to the hopes and dreams of what my life has been about. Growing up in western Wisconsin as a young student, my hope and dream was to be able to go on to school, go on to college. My father was a telephone repairman with five kids. He was in no position to be able to afford sending myself or any of my brothers or sister on to school. But for the existence of programs that are being reauthorized in this legislation today, the student loan program, the Work Study Program, expansion of the Pell Grant program, I in no way would have had the financial means to go on to school. Now representing western Wisconsin, a place that has five state universities and seven technical school campuses and a private college, this legislation represents to me the fact that many, many more students growing up in western Wisconsin will now have the financial ability to go on to higher education, which is really the underpinning of the great American dream and that which we cherish so much in this country. I commend the ranking members, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for the fine work they have done; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon). I also want to especially commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for the hard work that he put in for the Gear Up for High Hopes Program, that he worked incredibly hard on, not only in the Committee, but with every member of this body, who he probably spoke to two or three times to get their support. This truly is an historic night, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity for us to encourage the rest of our colleagues to support what is probably going to be the shining example of the 105th Congress, of how we can bridge the partisan gap and come together and do what we think is in the best interests of this country and the future of our Nation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of the Energy and Water Appropriations Conference report and to commend my colleagues on the Conference Committee for their diligent work in bringing this Conference Report to the floor. I would like to take a moment to highlight two items in this bill that are important to the citizens of western Wisconsin: The Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program and the LaFarge Dam, located in the Kickapoo River Valley. The Mighty Mississippi River runs through the heartland of our nation, and has been the focal point of our country's development throughout history. Today, Americans from 33 states live, work and play in its basin, and so it is only right that we recognize the Mississippi River as a nationally significant resource by funding programs such as the EMP, that serve the multi-purpose nature of this great river. The Mississippi River is a working river with diverse uses. It carries the agricultural products of our nation's midsection to foreign markets while providing habitat for fish, wildlife and migrating waterfowl. Boaters and anglers use the rivers backwaters and side channels for a wide variety of recreational activities. During this congress, I have worked with Rep. Oberstar, Rep. Leach and Rep. Gutknecht to form the bipartisan Upper Mississippi River Task Force. Sixteen members of Congress--eight members from each side of the aisle--have joined together, to recognize the national importance of the navigational, recreational, and environmental benefits this nation enjoys because of a healthy, vibrant Mississippi River. The Upper Mississippi River Task Force has repeatedly voiced its unwavering support for fully funding the EMP. I thank the members of the Task Force for their bipartisanship, diligence and perseverance in supporting our nation's interest in the Mississippi River. The EMP is unique in its multi-agency and multi-state cooperation in addressing the diverse needs of the resource. This Appropriations bill provides $18.9 million for the long-term resources monitoring and habitat restoration and enhancement efforts of the EMP. I commend the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri for their participation in such a successful program. This appropriations bill also provides $2.8 million in much needed funding for the LaFarge Dam project in my district in Western Wisconsin. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 provisionally deauthorized the Army Corps of Engineers' La Farge Dam Project, located on the Kickapoo River in western Wisconsin. It also called for the transfer of ownership 8700 acres to the State of Wisconsin and Ho-Chunk Indian Nation. This funding will provide the Army Corps of Engineers the resources it needs to continue the relocation of a state highway, conduct an environmental clean-up of reserve land, make safety modifications to the site, and address cultural resources issues in compliance with federal law. This funding will finally make the Kickapoo Reserve accessible to hikers, canoeists and outdoor enthusiasts for generations to come. I applaud the Appropriations Committee for its diligence in protecting these priorities and providing the financial resources we need to preserve and protect the integrity of our nation's most treasured natural resources, our nation's rivers.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican proposed tax cut bill and in support of the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). This is a wrong tax cut bill at the wrong time for the wrong reason. Is there any wonder that the people in this country are so cynical when we are trying to rush through a tax cut bill just a few short weeks before the November elections? But the main problem is not the provisions of the tax cut, it is how we would pay the tax cut. There is no surplus unless we are willing to raid the Social Security trust fund. But perhaps the most compelling argument to oppose this is what the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Chairman Greenspan, has been saying. Is anyone who is pushing for this tax cut bill listening to one of the most credible voices on fiscal and monetary policy in this country today? He says do not rely on any of these so-called surpluses, because they may never materialize given the international economic crisis and the Y2K problem and the impact that it might have on our economy. Instead, we in this body should be trying to pass fiscally responsible, sound decisions that are going to encourage the Federal Reserve to lower long-term interest rates so we have investment in capital and increased worker productivity. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the tax cut bill and support the Rangel substitute.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, the House this week is going to be considering an $80 billion tax cut. As far as tax cuts are concerned, the provisions contained in it would receive wide bipartisan support in this body. Perhaps it is not as pro-growth oriented as much as I would like to see, but as far as tax cuts, it is not bad. The problem is, it is going to be relying on the so-called surplus to pay for it. The fact is, there is no surplus unless we are willing to borrow and steal from the Social Security trust fund. I commend the leadership for being up front and honest about it, that they are intending to take the money from that trust fund to pay for this tax cut, but it is the wrong policy. It is the wrong thing to do for our seniors and children, and we should not engage in that election year tax cut in order to satisfy a certain constituency. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, was on the hill yesterday and when asked what would be the best use of the so-called surplus, he said, I will tell you what not to do. Do not use it for a permanent new spending program and do not use it for tax cuts when the surplus may never materialize in this very volatile international financial crisis which may have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the tax cut.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take this moment to pay tribute to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Vic Fazio), and to congratulate him on a terrific career in public service, and to personally thank him for the leadership he has given our party and to me personally, as a freshman Member of this great democratic institution. In fact, his retirement is not only a great loss to this House, but it is also a tremendous loss to future freshmen classes who will not benefit from his leadership, his wise counsel and advice, his timely wit, and the force of his example, which has been nothing less than the highest form of integrity and respect for this institution. I have watched him time and time again unite our caucus and keep us from taking ourselves a little too seriously sometimes and unite this House by working in a bipartisan fashion. I know I have benefitted from his presence here, just from what I have learned from him. He is one of the great examples of why term limits would, on occasion, hurt the function of our democracy. I know one of the secrets to Vic's effectiveness. It is not just the charm and the wit, the grace and the intelligence, but it is his smile. I have seen that in another great public servant in this country, my former boss, Senator Bill Proxmire, who recently wrote a book, ``The Joyride to Hell,'' in which he advocates smiling more for a healthy life. Well, Vic does not have to read the book. In fact, he could have written the book. Keep on smiling, Vic. This body is going to miss you. I personally am going to miss you greatly. Have a great retirement.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Ways and Means is going to consider an $80 billion tax cut, and supporters are admitting that we will use part of the so-called budget surplus to pay for it. There are three things that the people in America get that some people here in this Chamber just do not get: First, there is no real budget surplus, not unless you want to raid the Social Security trust fund, not unless you want to collect payroll taxes from working families and transfer that money into the pockets of other people in this country. Secondly, this tax package not only spends the Social Security trust fund, but it also prevents us from starting to pay back the $5.5 trillion national debt. Finally, there is no guarantee that any of this so-called surplus is going to materialize given the international financial crisis that we are in today. This tax cut is wrong for our seniors, it is wrong for our children, and supporters just do not get it. We must protect Social Security, we must start paying back the national debt and we must oppose fiscally irresponsible election-year tax cuts that are not paid for honestly.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey for yielding. I want to commend both of my colleagues here tonight for staying this evening and talking about an issue that is incredibly important for the future of the country. We are at a pivotal moment as far as fiscal policy is concerned as a Nation. This time of year when it comes down to budget crunch time and the passing of the 13 appropriations bills, some crazy things happen. Although I am a new Member, I have had a chance to live through one budget cycle already and it is very discouraging to hear some of the comment, some of the talk that is happening, especially what might occur tomorrow in the Committee on Ways and Means, the tax-writing committee in this House, in regards to the tax cut and how that tax cut is going to be paid for. When I was running for Congress and wanted to serve and represent the people in western Wisconsin, I made a promise to them then that I was going to be a fiscal watchdog, that I was going to keep an eye on their tax dollars and try to make fiscally responsible decisions. One of the proudest moments I have had so far as a freshman in this 105th Congress was the hard work that all of us put in, a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle, in negotiating a good bipartisan balanced budget agreement that we were finally able to come to agreement on last year that set a good blueprint for the next five years on fiscal decisions and tax policy in this country. It amazes me as a new Member that no sooner is the ink dry on those type of agreements that there are proposals out there that would virtually violate all the hard work and all the effort that went into reaching that agreement. That is what is coming up right now with this tax cut proposal. I think it could be incredibly harmful for the country. Mr. Speaker, let me just amplify a few important points that the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) were talking about earlier. First of all, and the American people get this. The people back home on the main streets in Wisconsin, they get this. There is no budget surplus, not unless we are going to continue with the fraud and the tricky accounting procedure that has been perpetrated on the American people over the past few years about robbing from the Social Security trust fund in order to finance other government operations or tax cuts within the budget. They understand that. That is why they get a kick when I am back home talking about fiscal issues, they get a kick about all this talk about budget surpluses for the next 10, 15 years or so. They all know that there is this robbery going on with the Social Security trust fund. We need to take that off-budget, we need to set that money aside to anticipate the baby boomer generation that is going to start retiring early next century and we need to stop these budget accounting games that are going on right now. They find it funny that there is all this talk about a surplus. They are very supportive of protecting that trust fund in order to bolster and shore up the Social Security system. It is amazing that the proponents, the advocates of this $80 billion or so tax cut that is going to work its way through the Committee on Ways and Means are admitting that what they are going to do is finance at least part of that tax cut by continuing to rob from the Social Security trust fund. That is just plain wrong. It is misguided policy. But at least they are acknowledging the fact that they are going to do that. They are up-front with the American people. I guess that is what elections are all about, surrounding issues such as this. Another point that the gentleman from New Jersey already raised, that is, that the Social Security trust fund is there, not only to protect that and if we can move it off-budget, that is great, but by moving it off-budget, what we would in essence be doing, starting to pay back the $5.5 trillion national debt that has been accumulated throughout the many years of this republic. There is a golden opportunity that we face right now in order to do that, in order to get the trust fund off- budget and start going to work on paying off that $5.5 trillion national debt. It is an amazing price tag that we pay every year on just interest payments on that national debt. It is the third largest spending program in the Federal budget of roughly $250, $260 billion every year going to pay the interest payments on our national credit card for this $5.5 trillion in debt. We face a great opportunity to do right with our senior citizens in the country, by protecting the Social Security system, but also by doing right for our children and grandchildren and future generations by starting to tackle this $5.5 trillion national debt, rather than trying to pass some election year tax cut gimmick. Because everyone knows that in an election year, people love to hear about tax cuts. But hopefully the American people are going to see through this, I am confident they are, because they already get the budget gimmick that is going on with the trust fund already and they are going to say no. They are going to agree with the President in his State of the Union address and what he has said consistently from day one on this issue, that is, not a new nickel, not a new dime for any new programs or any new tax cuts until we first shore up the Social Security system. I think that is a very wise and prudent policy. Finally, the third point I want to raise, and again the gentleman from New Jersey touched on this, is that there is no guarantee that we are even going to see this surplus materialize over the next five or 10 or 15 years as CBO is attempting to calculate right now. It is very hard to calculate with any accurate projection what the fiscal numbers are going to look like a couple of months from now, let alone five or 10 years. When you wake up, America, and start taking a look around us and the international financial crisis that we are facing right now, I think that this highlights the concern that many economists have in this country that things can slow down dramatically as far as economic growth and productivity in this country because of the impact of the financial crisis in Asia and in Russia and in eastern Europe and the domino effect that that might have. We are seeing some very disturbing signs now in Latin America and in South America. All this is going to have an impact on the U.S. domestic economy as well. One-third of the growth that we have experienced over the past few years in this country has been export-related. If those markets dry up because of the financial crisis in those countries, that is going to have a tremendous slowing effect. The revenue projections are going to get thrown way off. But if we this year in an attempt to please voters in an election year try to pass this tax cut gimmick, then we are locked in on that. Everyone knows it is going to be virtually impossible to have to increase revenues at some later date to make up for a shortfall. We may have a repeat of what happened during the early 1980s. Our memory is young enough to remember what happened then when the Reagan administration came in and promised huge tax cuts that did pass in the first year of his administration, but the problem with that economic package was those tax cuts were not offset in the Federal budget. In fact, spending increased, primarily in defense-related projects. When you have a shortfall in revenues because of the tax cuts and an increase in spending, that led to the annual structural deficits that happened throughout the 1980s, early 1990s and now fortunately in this administration we have had six consecutive years of deficit reduction, we are heading in the right direction, we are starting to make the corner when it comes to true fiscal responsibility and doing right with the Social Security program, having a chance to pay back the national debt. I read the other day that roughly 83 percent of the entire national Federal debt that we have today, the $5.5 trillion, roughly 83 percent of that was accumulated during the 1980s and early 1990s. This is a relatively new phenomenon in our Nation's history that we are laden with this very heavy national debt, we are paying this exorbitant national interest rate every year in the Federal budget, $250 billion every year in the budget to help finance the national debt. If we go down this road again, if we are going to be willing to take our chances with the economy with so-called surpluses and projected surpluses over the next five and 10 years, we could very easily find ourselves slipping back into those annual structural deficits again. That would be disastrous. Two of the most credible voices when it comes to monetary and fiscal policy in this country today, Secretary Rubin of the Treasury Department and Alan Greenspan, Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve, are in agreement on this issue. Both of them are on record. Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin were just on Capitol Hill again today but both of them are on record as saying we need to be extremely cautious in how we deal with this so-called budget surplus. Obviously Secretary Rubin is in agreement with the President when he says no new tax cuts, no new spending coming out of the surplus until we first protect the Social Security program. Chairman Greenspan has reiterated time and time again when asked by Members of Congress in the Senate and the House what would be the best use of the surplus, and he said, ``Let me tell you what you shouldn't do.'' This was about a month and a half ago when he was testifying on Capitol Hill. ``What you shouldn't do is start spending the so-called surplus on any new programs or any new tax cuts before that surplus materializes.'' That was a point he has emphasized again and again and again. In fact, he is on record as saying the best use of any surplus, if you call it a surplus, is to start paying down this $5.5 trillion national debt, because of the economic activity that it is going to generate, the increased investment in capital, the increased production we are going to get out of the American workers by investment activity because it is going to lead, he said, to a lowering of long-term interest rates by the Federal Reserve. That ultimately is the big tax cut that everyone is going to benefit from. If we can maintain fiscal discipline, if we can continue reducing the deficit and move the trust fund off-budget, start paying back the $5.5 trillion national debt, that is going to give confidence in our financial markets, it is going to give confidence in the Federal Reserve Board to lead them to reduce long-term interest rates even further which is going to be a boon to the economy with increased investment and productivity, but also any American that has a credit card, that has to make house payments or car payments, are going to realize savings because of reduced interest rates. That is really where we should be going with our fiscal policy in this body, not jeopardizing the future of the Social Security program and the future of our children by hoping these surpluses are going to materialize. That would be disastrous. Finally, let me just comment on some feedback that I received from the constituents in western Wisconsin who are very fiscally conservative. That is why I have so much fun representing them, because I come from the same cloth, I come from the tradition of Senator Bill Proxmire who was a fiscal hawk in the Senate for decades before that term was in vogue, before anyone was real concerned about deficits and Federal spending. I did a survey earlier this year asking my constituents what they think would be a wise use of the so-called budget surplus. The response was overwhelming, over 4,000 people responding on this simple survey back in the district. Over 80 percent of them, of my constituents said before we spend a nickel on a new program, before we have a nickel go to a tax cut, let us first shore up Social Security and start paying down the national debt. That was a very loud, a very resounding statement that the people at least in Wisconsin were sending to this representative in this body. I would hope that Members now pushing for this tax cut wake up and finally get that message from the rest of the American people because I do not think Wisconsin is all that different from what the average working person in this country is thinking in regards to these so-called surpluses.

Mr. KIND. Just another point in regards to the Social Security program. What we are going to hear is that we are just borrowing a little bit from the Social Security trust fund, that roughly 10 percent of the $80 billion tax cut would be financed from the Social Security trust fund. What that means is basically we are going to be collecting payroll taxes from hard-working men and women throughout the country. We are going to be taking those payroll taxes from them and redistributing it into the pockets of selected Americans through this tax cut. It just seems ridiculous to have a tax cut package that will do this. Even if we were to take the entire Social Security trust fund off-budget and not touch any of that money and could stop borrowing from it, it is still not going to solve the long-term challenge that we face with the Social Security program. So even a 10 percent drain from the trust fund is going to make it even more difficult to preserve Social Security well into the future. It is making our job all the harder when we take on the almost daunting challenges that we are going to be facing in the very near future and, that is, trying to find some long-term fixes to preserve the Social Security program. That is another reason why I think this tax cut is misguided. Even though it is just a little bit coming out of the trust fund, even a little bit is going to make it a lot more difficult for us to do right with the Social Security program, again to do right with the seniors in this country and future generations who would like to see that program still existing when they become eligible.

Mr. KIND. If the gentleman would yield, let me just raise final concern on this subject is that there has been a lot of talk here in the halls of Congress lately that the $80 billion tax cut is only the beginning, that early next year they are going to come back and take a look at it, and instead of just taking 10 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund, it is going to a hundred percent of the Social Security Trust Fund with a massive tax cut. And if we go that route and suddenly there is a slowdown in the economy and those surpluses do not materialize, we are looking at massive Federal deficits for many years to come, and that would be a tragedy.

Mr. KIND. I do not want to leave tonight leaving the impression that we are against tax cuts per se. I mean we are for responsible tax cuts that could be offset within the Federal budget. That seems to be a more fiscally responsible way of doing it. Tax cuts are great. I am a believer in providing tax relief in this country so long as we can pay for it and find some offsets in some other areas in the budget in order to pay for it so that we have some fiscal honesty as we move forward here on up, and I appreciate my friend's remarks from Wisconsin and the position he has taken in regards to the Social Security Trust Fund as well, and it should not be a partisan issue. It really should not, and hopefully it will not be because when you take on Social Security, both parties are going to need to lock arms together on this if we are going to have any progress and do right by the American people, and that is an extremely important point, and I appreciate my friend's comments in that regard.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to first commend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for the fine leadership that they have performed during this very tough and rigorous process. I am a proud member of the Freshman Task Force that worked on finance reform. I am very proud of the work product that we have produced during the course of the year and a half that we have been working together. I am very proud of the Task Force members with whom I have had the privilege of associating myself. I am especially proud of the freshman class that really stood up and took on this issue early last year at the beginning of this 105th session of Congress, when it looked as if the issue was dead in the water. Perhaps it does take a new perspective and fresh energy to come to this body, to add some life to an issue that is incredibly important to people back in my district in Wisconsin and throughout the entire country. What united us freshmen was a common experience that we all shared in 1996 in winning our first election to the United States Congress. Those were typically very negative campaigns that was unbelievably costly, and we all realized that the system had run amuck and we need to do something about it. Those who have supported Shays-Meehan, and I was a sponsor and supporter of Shays-Meehan, and those who are going to support the freshman bill can all be proud of the label that we all share. Reformers, because there has been a great philosophical divide on this issue. Some in this body believe that the problem with the political system is not that there is too much money in it but that there is not enough money. That is not what motivated us freshmen. We believe we need to get the big money out of the political process and hopefully, therefore, the influence of money out of the political process, so we can restore some integrity and some credibility to this body again. I would encourage my colleagues to support finance reform, and ask the Senate to pass it this year.