Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, this is truly an historic day in our Nation's history. Both parties recognize the challenges we face as far as recurring structural deficits. They came together and through some hard-fought negotiations, some compromises, some give-and-takes, it was announced today that we have reached an agreement on a balanced budget plan that will bring the books finally in balance for the first time since 1969, when I was in the first grade. Yet, just to strike a cautionary note, this does provide the largest expansion of educational programs in the Nation's history, the largest expansion of children's health care since 1965, when Medicaid was passed. But I have always viewed this as the first step of a two-step process. The second step that we have to begin working on right away is some long-term fixes with the entitlement programs, Medicare, Social Security, which according to all the demographics and all the analyses are due to explode starting early next century when the baby boomers start to retire. That is the second step as far as maintaining the fiscal responsibility and the discipline started today, and that will continue into the next century. We also face other challenges in this country and before this Congress. One of the big issues I came to Congress on and which I feel there is no bigger issue that we should be dealing with in trying to find a resolution is the role of big money in the political system. That is why I was proud when I was called and I joined the Bipartisan Task Force on Campaign Finance Reform, working with my five freshman Republican colleagues and six Democratic colleagues. I commend the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Tom Allen] and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Asa Hutchinson] for the leadership they have shown during the course of this process, which has been educational for all of us. It has been very difficult. There were internal and outside forces doing everything they could to try to scuttle what we were trying to accomplish, because anyone who is a student of this institution realizes that nothing significant has ever been achieved without some bipartisan cooperation. So it was with that attitude that we joined the task force, trying to work out a compromise, finding common areas of agreement and, as freshmen, proposing our own campaign finance reform bill. This is incremental in every sense of the word. This is not the type of comprehensive overhaul that I personally would have liked to have seen, but it is probably the best chance we have of passing anything in this session of Congress. What it does do is it targets the biggest, as the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen] said, the biggest of the big contributions in the political system, the soft money contributions. Just to highlight the problem we have with soft money contributions right now, I am holding up a chart that shows the growth of soft money to the political parties, both Republican and Democrat, over the last three election cycles. As everyone can see, in 1996, it exploded soft money contributions, close to $140 million being contributed to the Republican Party, a little over $120 million to the Democratic Party. I submit, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We really have not seen anything yet until we are able to take some action in this session of Congress. That is why I am very proud of the product we have produced in the course of the negotiations. I am very proud, in a bipartisan fashion, of the atmosphere in which we came together to try to do what we feel is really in the best interests of the country. I would encourage my colleagues to get behind this piece of legislation. We are already seeing a lot of support within the freshman class on both sides of the aisle, but obviously it is not until some of the more senior Members start to weigh in on this legislation that we will see any true hope of getting this thing scheduled for the House floor, having it debated, and finally, calling a vote on what I think is a crucial and vitally important issue facing our country today. I encourage the leadership in the House to give it due consideration. I think it will be a great victory if we can at least bring it to the House floor. I ask Americans around the country who are listening in tonight to start calling in, start writing letters and hold their Representatives' feet to the fire on this very simple and incremental approach to campaign finance reform. I believe that if Members in this Congress cannot get behind this, cannot cast a vote in favor of what the freshman bipartisan task force is proposing in the course of this finance reform, then really they are really not interested in true campaign finance reform.

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

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend and congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill], in his role in this whole process. I do not think anyone in the task force had more energy and more analysis and insight on what we were trying to accomplish than the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill] did. It was a pleasure working with him, attending the meetings with him. There were some difficult times as there always is in the course of give and take in negotiations and that, but as far as anyone exhibiting and displaying a true depth of knowledge, regarding a very complex and a very difficult issue, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill] ranked right up there at the top. I commend him and just wanted to tell the American people what a fine job and what a pleasure it has been to work with him in the course of this process.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and ranking member of the committee for the fine work they did on this bill. I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the Energy and Water appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, I want to commend the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for maintaining funding for the Environmental Management Program [EMP]. By appropriating $16.7 million for 1998 the EMP will be able to operate at the same funding level as last year. The Environmental Management Program is a cooperative effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Biological Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate, restore, and enhance ravine and wetland habitat along a 1,200-mile stretch of the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The EMP is authorized through fiscal year 2002 in the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The 1986 Water Resources Development Act authorized funding for the implementation of an overall Upper Mississippi River Basin Comprehensive Master Plan. This consisted of two essential components, one dedicated to improved navigation on the river for barge traffic, most notably lock and dam improvements, and the other to the long term environmental and recreational preservation of the river, which became the EMP. The EMP is an essential tool in maintaining the quality of the river environment, as well as recreational and economic opportunities along the Mississippi River. Navigation along the upper Mississippi River supports 400,000 full or part time jobs, which produces over $4 billion in individual income. Recreation use of the river generates 12 million visitors and spending of $1.2 billion in direct and indirect expenditures in the communities along the Mississippi. The EMP has always received bipartisan support, and this year is no different. Republican and Democratic members of Congress who represent areas along the upper Mississippi River joined me in helping secure adequate funding for the EMP in this year's Appropriations bill. The Governors of all five States who border the upper Mississippi and Illinois River--(Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri)-- support the EMP and have been active in maintaining its long term viability. The Mississippi River is a national treasure. It flows southward from Minnesota and Wisconsin through the heart of our Nation and into the Gulf of Mexico. The river is a vital source of clean water, a major navigational corridor, a crucial environmental ecosystem, an important flood damage reduction source and a tremendous recreational resource for millions of Americans. The Environmental Management Program serves a crucial role in protecting that resource so we can continue to provide for all of those needs into the future. The unique bipartisan, multistate support that the EMP receives, and the strong level of cooperation between Federal agencies is a model for all government resource programs. No other program on the Mississippi River is doing the kind of data collection and habitat restoration projects that the EMP does. I applaud the members of the Appropriations Committee for the support of this valuable project and I urge my colleagues to fully support the EMP at the appropriated funding level. On a personal note I want to thank Bob Dellany, the Director of the Environmental Management Technical Center [EMTC], and his staff for their dedicated work to study, protect and promote the upper Mississippi River. The folks at the EMTC, located in Onalaska, WI, do an outstanding job and they deserve our recognition and praise.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time and for offering this amendment. I also commend him for his diligent search for wasteful projects in the Federal budget in an era, at a time when we are trying to balance the books. The $90 million appropriated for the Appalachian Regional Commission road projects is bad for the environment, bad for taxpayers, and one more example of budget waste that should be eliminated. I want to make it clear that I do strongly support the efforts of the regional commission to cut poverty rates, reduce infant mortality, provide health care access and increase high school graduation rates. This amendment does not touch any of those programs in dollars. The amendment only seeks to eliminate the $90 million that go to fund highway projects in the 13-State Appalachian region. In the past, highway money from the Appalachian Regional Commission has funded environmentally unsound projects, such as the Corridor H highway project that my colleague has already cited. The Corridor H project does cut through two national forests. It rips up 41 streams. It would bring thousands of cars and minivans into the scenic West Virginia mountains. As my colleague has already noted, the commission has funded inappropriate projects, such as the $750,000 for the Carolina Panthers football stadium and $1.2 million for the National Track and Field Hall of Fame. But finally, the $90 million I think is an unfair distribution of the highway funds. The State of Wisconsin has historically been a donor State under the Federal highway funding system, meaning the taxpayers there pay more in the Federal highway tax fund than they receive back for their infrastructure needs. The people of my State only ask that they get a fair distribution of the Federal highway dollars. At the same time the 13 States of the Appalachian region receive Federal highway dollars as part of the ISTEA allocation and they receive additional highway dollars through the Appalachian Region Commission. Now where I come from that is called double dipping, and it is unfair to my constituents, and it is unfair to the taxpayers in the other 37 States in this country. Now I am sure that there are people who represent the beautiful area, can stand up and speak about all the great things that the Appalachian Commission has done, and as I stated earlier I support most of these efforts in the programs that are being accomplished in the Appalachian region, and in fact the people of my State would love to have some of these programs back home for their use. But in our attempt to balance the budget, I believe that we can and should support programs to reduce poverty and promote economic development, but allocate funds under the appropriate avenue and venue such as ISTEA. We cannot support pork being delivered to a few privileged States, and it is time we stop the taxpayer handout and distribute highway funds in a fair and equitable manner through ISTEA, rather than double dipping as the commission is doing with these 90 million additional tax dollars.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise today in strong opposition to the rule today, and as a new Member of Congress, we soon realize that a good piece of legislation is not drafted, is not submitted and drafted with just one crack at it. This has been an ongoing process. There have been concerns raised about the Budget Enforcement Act, considerations that have been taken and drafted into the recent piece of legislation. But we are not going to have an opportunity to present the best piece of policy, the best piece of legislation that we can offer to the American people, because of the way that the rule has been set up. Now I am not familiar with the politics of the Committee on Rules, but I am learning some lessons awfully fast here, and it is disappointing that our best piece of legislation to enforce a budget agreement is not going to be given a fair consideration or hearing or debate on the House floor today, and that is unfortunate. But I do not understand what is going on here. What is the message we are seeing? What is everyone so concerned about in regard to the Budget Enforcement Act? All this says is that if the targets are not reached, if they are not able to practice fiscal responsibility year after year after year, then it is time to go back and change some policies. That is all that we are asking here. Is it any wonder that over 80 percent of the American people in a recent poll have no confidence at all that this institution is capable of balancing the books? I mean sure, if my colleagues worship at the idol of tax cuts and tax relief or if they worship at the idol of more spending and unrestrained spending growths, then, yes, oppose the Balanced Budget Enforcement Act. But that does not make any sense. I have a son who is almost 1 year old, and I want to be able to go home every day after work, look him in the eyes and tell him that I am working in his best interests, that I am working in the best interests of all the children in this country and future generations, and that if we do pull up short, if the economy does slow down, we do not have the projected revenue growth or the corresponding spending reductions to meet our balanced budget guidelines, that we as an institution have a capability of addressing it again; but if we do not, that there is a hammer held over our heads, this Budget Enforcement Act, which will do the job that we should have the courage to do on our own.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to rise today to express some concern that I have about the tax cut. We have heard a lot of discussion about who is going to benefit from the tax cut. I want to give a different perspective. That is the perspective of my son, Jonathan, who is approaching his first birthday, and what this tax cut is going to mean to him. The Treasury Department and even the Congressional Research Service, the independent investigatory research arm of this Congress, have both indicated that sure, although the tax cuts might be able to reach a balanced budget within the first 5 years, it is 10 years from now, 15 years from now the backloaded provisions of these tax cuts are due to explode the deficit again, at exactly the time when my son Johnny and many, many children throughout this country are going to enter the work force. What kind of message are we going to be sending to them in order to score a short-term political gain right now, by offering these huge tax cuts so they are going to explode the deficit early next century, without identifying the corresponding spending reductions to pay for it? I did not come to Congress to vote for the type of tax measure that is going to jeopardize my son's future and the future of the children in this country.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. (Mrs. TAUSCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment as well as the legislation overall. I feel that although it is not a perfect piece of legislation, we can move this on to conference. The Senate has some different provisions in it, but as a new member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am proud to see the cooperation and bipartisan effort that went into crafting this deal, even though there were a lot of 11th-hour maneuverings which got us to this point. I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] for the hard work they put into it, as well as the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] on this legislation, but I do feel that there is still some more work that needs to be done and improved in this piece of legislation. We have heard a couple of comments today about the substate formula and the minimum local grants and the effect that is going to have on a lot of needy students. I feel that the change of the formula, especially in the final couple of years, will undermine the key Federal role in assisting the neediest rural students in western Wisconsin, the district that I represent. I think this formula change sends a bad message to them. But also the formula change, combined with reducing the minimum grant from $15,000 to $10,000, would dilute the effectiveness of Federal funds. Again, this provision could endanger many of the consortia in my district in western Wisconsin where we have an effective system that allows local school districts to pool their vocational education funds. I am also concerned that the legislation severely cuts the funding for State-level activities. Vocational education institutions in western Wisconsin rely on State agencies to maintain a detailed performance of accountability and to supply them with analyzed statewide information on student success and program performance for their local planning. Performing these tasks at the system level is the most effective way to assist the local improvement. But I find the elimination of the special job training and just to hold harmless on already existing gender equity programs to be the most disturbing aspect of this legislation here today. The barriers that continue for women in those nontraditional fields remain a troubling national problem. This will only be compounded now with the full implementation of welfare reform across the country. By reducing support for women seeking to gain access to high-skilled training for high-wage careers, this bill once again overlooks the needs of a disadvantaged population. We must retain a minimum level of support for programs for girls and women in vocational education. I think this amendment goes a long way at addressing this need. That is why I strongly urge my colleagues here today to give welfare reform a chance and to support the Mink-Morella-Sanchez-Woolsey amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I was surprised to learn last week that the Speaker had just awarded the subcommittee $1\1/2\ million out of a political slush fund to conduct an emergency investigation on labor unions and working men and women around the country. First of all, when we are trying to balance the budget, where are we coming up with an additional $1.5 million for a political witch-hunt that will send us on a fishing expedition all over the country. Just another investigation. Here is a novel idea, if the Committee on Education and the Workforce has an additional $1.5 million, why do we not spend it on education and worker training such as the TRIO Program. That is a program that goes to low-income students to prepare them for higher education learning. In fact, the two largest universities in my district in western Wisconsin, Eau Claire and La Crosse, service roughly 2,000 low-income students in the TRIO Program. Another $1\1/2\ million will double that amount. I think we should use our taxpayer dollars wisely instead of going on another fishing expedition conducting an unlimited investigation on unwarranted charges.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report to my colleagues in the House about a terrific program that I had the pleasure to visit during our 4th of July recess last week. The program is the National Youth Sports Program, which is one of the Department of Health and Human Services', the Department of Agriculture's and the NCAA's best kept secrets, yet it is consistently one of the most successful, cost- effective, and influential programs helping youth in this country today. National Youth Sports helps at-risk, economically disadvantaged children and teenagers build the skills and the confidence they need to tackle the tough challenges and also gives them something positive to look forward to over their summertime break. Each summer 170 colleges and universities help shape the future of our youth through this program. We have all heard of summer sports camps where parents spend a lot of money to send their children to catch the eyes of local coaches. Well, National Youth Sports is completely different. While the program, which is provided at no cost to the participants, offers sports instruction and activities, the name is perhaps a misnomer. Program staff members also teach life skills, such as alcohol and other drug prevention, gang resistance, good nutrition, personal health, science and math, and job responsibilities. National Youth Sports also provides other direct services to the participants, such as USDA provided and approved meals, accident and medical insurance for each participant, and a medical exam before activities start. What makes the program so successful and cost effective is the outstanding partnership that exists between the Federal Government, local civil organizations and civic organizations, private businesses, individual colleges and universities of the NCAA, and local law enforcement agencies. Because the program is designed to serve youth from low income families, in fact approximately 90 percent of the participants at each of the 170 sites must meet U.S. poverty guidelines, those who become involved in the program know that they have a direct impact at helping at-risk youth make the right choices when confronting the challenges in their lives. This more than anything is what I wish to convey to my colleagues here today. I am very proud to have 2 of the 170 universities, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire in the congressional district that I represent, participating in this program every year. If everyone here could have seen the look of enthusiasm that I saw in those kids' eyes when I visited the program last week, they would all realize the full value of the National Youth Sports Program. There are some truly amazing things being done in the program. At the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire, for instance, the staff has put together an exciting math and science curriculum that relies heavily on the use of computers. They have put together a challenging rope course to not only test individual athletic skills but also team building skills. The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse program has entered into a partnership with the La Crosse Police Department that enables police officers to work in the program on a daily basis, infusing content from the GREAT Program, the Gang Resistance Education and Training. Besides reporting about the National Youth Sports Program today, I also want to take a couple of seconds here today to commend a few of the individuals I met who make the program the big success that it is. At the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Mo McAlpine, Garth Tymeson, Joannie Lorentz, Phil Esten, Tim Laurent, Officer Roger Barnes, and Lieutenant Doug Groth of the La Crosse Police Department; and at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire it is Bill Harmes, Diane Gilbertson, Mary Maddox, and Brad Chapman. There are many, many more staff and volunteers who devote countless numbers of hours at little or no compensation at all because they want to make a difference in young lives. They all bring a tremendous amount of enthusiasm, dedication, but also a concern for these children in our country. The Federal Government's $12 million grant, which acts as seed money for the program, and the USDA's $3 million worth of donated food are a very wise investment in the future of our youth. In this environment of balanced budget negotiations, fiscal belt tightening and even tax cuts, the National Youth Sports Program is a program worth investing in and, I believe, worth expanding so we can provide the same opportunities to many more economically disadvantaged and at-risk youth in the country. If we can find a way to provide money for an additional nine B-2 bombers, which during the course of a lifetime of those planes costs us roughly $27 billion, when the Department of Defense specifically requested that this country not allocate any additional money for more B-2 bombers, I think we can find a way to continue funding for this very worthwhile program. That is why I ask my colleagues today to support this program. In fact, just one of those B-2 planes will finance the National Youth Sports Program for the next 250 years. Need I say more?

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding this time to me. As my colleagues know, as a former prosecutor in the State of Wisconsin I am just trying to find some philosophical consistency with this bill. On the one hand, we are talking about it should be a State and local responsibility to teach our children, and there is very little disagreement about that. But when it comes time to punishing violent juveniles, we are saying with this bill being proposed today that Washington knows best, and perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of this entire bill is the lack of any type of oversight or review regarding prosecutorial discretion. I am telling my colleagues as long as the criminal justice system is made up of human beings errors will be made. I wish I believed in the infallibility of prosecutors when it came to making these very important and very crucial decisions on whether or not to prosecute a child as an adult. We need some type of review process in place in order to protect against errors that are going to be made. I do not think this bill addresses that concern. I think the substitute that is being offered does provide the tools and the resources and especially the prevention that communities need to combat juvenile crime. I urge my colleagues today to support the substitute, to think about what we are trying to do, what we are trying to mandate on the States from Washington. Let us give the States some credit. They are doing a good job.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor after completing a meeting of a bipartisan task force on campaign finance reform. It is a freshman task force, six Democrats, six Republicans, working together to try to advance some comprehensive campaign finance reform. We are taking baby steps. It is a complex, difficult process, but we realize that as freshmen, as new Members of this institution, we are not going to be able to do it on our own. I am here today to ask for the leadership in this Congress to take a lead on this issue, to start responding to the calls for help from the American people and figure out a way to get big money out of the American political process. I wish I had a magic wand as a freshman and could wave over this House and get one piece of legislation passed this year, and that is campaign finance reform. We are running out of precious time. We have an off election year. We have to do it in a bipartisan fashion to be successful before we get into another election year cycle. The people back home in western Wisconsin, the district I represent, have a common refrain. They beg me every time I have town hall meetings to get campaign finance reform passed and to get big money out of politics. Let us start the work now.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to recognize a distinguished public servant and former Member of the House of Representatives, Al Baldus. After 22 years of public service on the State and National level, Al retired this year to his home in Menomonie to spend time with his wife and family. A Merchant Marine in World War II, Al was also a veteran of the Korean conflict while serving in the Army from 1951 to 1953. From there he worked as a farmer, farm machinery salesman, stockbroker, and insurance broker before being elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly in 1966. He continued in the assembly for 8 years and then was elected to Congress in 1974 to represent the Third District. During his tenure in Congress, Al Baldus was a member of the Agriculture Committee and was chairman of the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee where he shepherded legislation that brought Wisconsin dairy producers 80 percent parity with other producers--the highest Government price support level ever. While that sounds like a lifetime of service, that was just a beginning for Al Baldus. In politics, it is not unusual to see ambitious young public servants move up through the ranks from local office to the State legislature to Congress and, when their congressional career ends, so does their career in public service. It is unusual, however, to see someone serve an entire congressional career and feel such a sense of public duty that they return to the State house to start another legislative career. That is exactly what Al Baldus did. After leaving Congress in 1980, Al worked for 8 years in the private sector, but then decided to return to Madison as a State representative for another 8 years. In all, he served 16 years in the legislature. Certainly, he could have chosen a less difficult path into retirement and probably could have made more money in the process. However, I think it's clear that what motivates Al is not the trappings of politic power, but the earnest desire to serve. I am certain that Al's wife, Lolly, would have preferred to see more of him over the years as she and her husband raised their five children, but Lolly recognized Al's heart was also with the people of his community and his State. That shouldn't surprise anyone. Lolly served her community as well and developed a distinguished career herself as an administrator at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. I thank my friend Al Baldus for a lifetime of positive contributions to Wisconsin and the Nation. And I hope you'll join me in congratulating Al and wishing him the best in his well deserved retirement.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleagues in the House, both Republican and Democrat alike, who attended the bipartisan retreat in Hershey, PA, last weekend, but especially to commend the gentleman from Illinois, Republican Representative Ray LaHood, and the gentleman from Colorado, Democratic Representative David Skaggs, for their vision and all the hard work they put into making the retreat last weekend, I think, an unqualified success. I would also like to commend the political leadership of both parties, the gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, and the gentleman from Missouri, Dick Gephardt, for their presence, without whom this whole attempt to try to find greater civility in the House of Representatives will not go anywhere. I also want to thank the Pew Charitable Trust and the Aspen Institute for investing in this retreat and making sure not one taxpayer dollar went for this retreat, and to give the Members a chance to explore civility. The premise for this historic gathering, unprecedented in our Nation's history, was very simple, and that is for any legislature to function, its members must have a level of trust and understanding of one another. That trust can only develop when the members have an opportunity to get to know one another a little bit better, as people, and outside the partisan political arena. When people know each other and their spouses and their children, they are less likely to let policy differences turn into personal animosity or hostility or to question one another's motives. In short, it is a lot harder to demonize someone when you know them on an individual and personal level. Over 200 Members came together in an attempt to explore ways in which to bring greater civility to the House of Representatives. No legislative business was conducted, no political games, just Members and their families taking time to get together, to get to know one another a little better, and to examine the environment in the House of Representatives and figure out how we can do the Nation's work at a level of decorum that this great democracy deserves. This was not a hug-fest. We continue to recognize that there will be deep, passionate policy differences between the parties. I think today's debate on the House resolution was a classic example, and we have no desire to blur those distinctions. Conflict in Congress is unavoidable, and the Nation is well served by healthy and vigorous debate. In fact, it is crucial to the functioning of this democracy. The retreat, rather, was about handling those disagreements constructively and honoring our democracy with debates that are more civil, more respectful and, ultimately, more productive; in short, to explore ways where we can disagree without being disagreeable. To build upon the future, we have to have knowledge of the past. History teaches us that when we unite as a country for a grand purpose there is nothing that we cannot accomplish. It was altogether fitting that during the course of the retreat some of us Members took time to tour the Gettysburg National Battlefield. That is the site where the northern and southern armies met by chance during 3 days in July 1863 and engaged in the largest military battle in the Western Hemisphere. When the armies marched away, they left behind more than 51,000 dead, wounded, or missing soldiers in a battle that many historians believed determined the fate of the Nation. These were men who in President Lincoln's words gave their last full measure of devotion so this Nation might endure. I wanted to especially thank National Park Service employee Eric Campbell for his terrific guided tour of the battlefield. In fact, he described in vivid detail the battle over Little Round Top, which many military historians felt was the crucial ingredient to the outcome of the battle. During that battle there was a lieutenant by the name of Joshua Campbell, who was trying to hold the high ground for the Northern army, the strategic high ground. And when his men ran out of ammunition, they had two options that they faced: Either retreat and give up the high ground, and perhaps forfeit the strategic battleground and possibly the entire military conflict; or to charge ahead. And they opted to lead a bayonet charge down the hill, which swept off the Confederate forces and saved the day for the Union Army there. When we think about the sacrifices that the men gave on that battlefield, what they gave for their country, and then to ask the House to, in a more civil way, conduct this Nation's business, I do not think that is a lot to ask from us as representatives of the country. Perhaps that is why the institution has become more uncivil recently. We forget this is not about us as Members or as individuals. It is really about the country, about all of us in this Nation, those who came before us, those who will come after us, our children and our children's children. It is perhaps when we start thinking of it in personal terms that we begin acting aggressive, defensive and rude, all those things that everybody does when we feel threatened. This is not about us as individual Members, it is rather about this great country, everybody, who have come together to fight for the principles this country was founded on. All of us, I think, crave to be part of something larger than ourselves, which is probably why most of us ran for the House of Representatives to begin with. That is why we have families, why we participate in church, join organizations, just to be a part of something significant, noble, decent, and right. There is no simple cure for the incivility we see too often in American society, just as there is no simple cure for the rancor and mistrust in the House at times. Last weekend's retreat is no panacea but it is a start. As Members of Congress, we have an enormous responsibility to the Nation. Our country deserves better from all of us, but we look upon our leaders to set the standard, as we should, and with some luck and good will, what has begun last weekend will help us better meet that great responsibility to the Nation.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to formally congratulate the Super Bowl champion Green Bay Packers and to thank them for finally returning the Vince Lombardi trophy back home to the State of Wisconsin where it belongs. This season, Packer fans old and new watched the progress of the NFL's only community-owned team from the NFL's smallest city. It is a remarkable story as old as history: When David first slew Goliath, when Moses led his people out of Egypt, when 13 little-known small colonies took on the great might, the world power of Great Britain and King George and won their independence. The Packer's success has rekindled the spirit of Green Bay and the entire State of Wisconsin, as well as the spirit of small towns and small cities across America. In an era when some professional athletes are failing as role models, the Packers organization consistently produces outstanding members of the community. Take a look at Brett Favre's story. It is a remarkable story. A superstar who realized that he was addicted to pain killers, fought through that, won a second MVP award for the NFL, and then led his team on to the Super Bowl victory; and Reggie White, the catalyst, the glue, that held the team together, gave great pride to the entire Green Bay area and State of Wisconsin; one defensive man who probably dominated the sport more than any other defensive player in the history of the NFL, but who always reminded us also always, always remember who the glory belongs to, and that is to God. Last week, over 100,000 people braved subzero weather for many, many hours waiting to welcome the Green Bay Packers home to their city as Super Bowl champions, and I think that story tells it all. That is why it is my great honor today to congratulate the entire Packer organization and their many, many loyal and patient fans, not only in Green Bay, but in Wisconsin and throughout the country and to honor the Packers and the remarkable achievement on the floor of the House of Representatives and before this Nation today.