Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today I am here to introduce a simple, but important, motion before us. My motion calls on Congress to extend expiring middle- and low-income tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year without increasing the deficit. We have seen broad and bipartisan support for extending the middle-class tax cuts. We have also seen bipartisan support for the concept of pay-as-you-go to avoid further increasing the ballooning budget deficits facing our Nation. The motion before us asks the conferees to be sure that Congress achieves both of these goals.

We have already seen a bipartisan proposal from the Senate extending for a year middle-class tax cuts without increasing the deficit. And the Blue Dogs have offered a corresponding bill in the House.

There are some simple solutions to making these cuts budget neutral, and I would suggest that they are relatively noncontroversial, such as closing various tax shelters that are being abused.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to be creating economic stimulus and tax relief while maintaining our long-term economic security. Economists have estimated that the current debt limit will be reached very soon, either this month or in October. This means that the limit on the national debt will have to be raised for the third time in 4 years to more than $8 trillion, effectively forcing our children and our grandchildren to pay our Nation's bills. Tragically, Social Security becomes the victim program of this irresponsible behavior because its surpluses are used to fund the debt.

The Congressional Budget Office has announced that the 2004 deficit will be $422 billion. When the Social Security surplus is excluded, the deficit for 2004 is $574 billion. And we have got projected deficits as far as the eye can see if Congress continues down the path it is on.

So for starters, I think a budget paired with budget enforcement rules would help get us on the right track. Alan Greenspan and many others have called for these deficits to be reined in through pay-as- you-go budget discipline. So if we are going to cut taxes in this fiscal climate, we ought to be doing it either with offsets or spending cuts. I could not in good conscience add more burden to the backs of our children and grandchildren, and this Congress should not have that kind of a conscience as well. Families are spending thousands of dollars each year in debt taxes because the Federal Government has not balanced its books. As deficits grow, so does the burden on taxpayers. Not only is the deficit spending irresponsible, but it is immoral, passing on a legacy of debt to be paid off by our children and our grandchildren.

One of our highest priorities should be to act fiscally responsible with the people's tax dollars. If we are to be responsible and honest with the people, we must honestly confront the cause of these deficits. We cannot continue down the path of increased spending and tax cutting at the same time. This Congress is doing both, and it is burying its head in the sand by expecting no consequences. Soon the debt will be so enormous that it will begin to affect ``the long-term health of our economy,'' not my words but the words of Alan Greenspan. When that day comes, we can be sure that the middle class will shoulder the heaviest burden.

So let us give the middle class some relief from taxes today without making them pay for it in the end.

Lastly, I want to make clear that this motion calls for the extension, not the expiration, of middle-class tax cuts. But there is no free lunch here. These tax cuts will be paid for somehow, whether it is with an offset upfront like we want to do it today or whether it is offset with borrowed money tomorrow. As the Concord Coalition has noted, if we must borrow the money, the cost will even be greater because we have to pay interest on the borrowed money. That is equal to a tax increase on the American people.

All it takes is a couple of hands reaching across the aisle, and we can make a real difference in the lives of the middle- and lower-income families of America. Both Congress and the administration ought to sit down, put everything on the table, and get our economic house in order, not mortgage our future to pay for today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Apparently the gentleman from Arizona, my good friend, has not read our motion to instruct. We want to do the same things about rejuvenating the economic machine that he does. We want to extend the tax cuts. We just want to pay for it. And so I fail to understand the point that he was trying to make.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think most Americans listening to this debate tonight would agree that tax cuts are not appropriate when you have to borrow the money to offer the tax cuts, so this motion that we are offering here tonight prevents that from happening. It simply says we have got to find a way to pay for it, and we are not going to go out and borrow the money. I think everybody at their kitchen table tonight would agree with that philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, how much is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will say that when this side of the aisle at one time subscribed to spending caps and pay-as-you-go, now they have abandoned that idea for some reason; but when we did have them in place, we actually went into a surplus. Now that we have abandoned that discipline, we are looking at deficits as far as the eye can see. Mr. Greenspan, his name was evoked tonight, and it was evoked because he believes in pay-as-you-go and spending caps. We have to get real with our budget deficits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have one more speaker, but that speaker will be making the closing remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This debate is about to close. In response to my friend from Pennsylvania's comments about the specifics, I would simply say that the Blue Dogs did offer a specific plan. I will not go into that specific plan now for the sake of time, but we put it on the line and asked the House to do it exactly like we have asked them to do it. So we would make the tough choices, and in our budget proposal we made those tough choices.

In many ways I am a little saddened by the debate tonight because I heard my good friend from Pennsylvania talk about the fact that he is not as concerned about the deficit. It did not used to be that way on the other side of the

aisle. This side of the aisle used to be very concerned about the budget deficit. Now it seems like it is less concerned about the budget deficit.

All we are asking for here is to make sure that we pay for these tax cuts as we extend them. That is all we are asking. This side used to believe that. Now they do not. I think they ought to revisit their philosophy because it did produce budget surpluses.

Finally, I would say to the American people who might be listening tonight that I do not think anybody at their kitchen table would ask Congress to borrow the money for tax cuts, and that is what this motion to instruct prevents us from doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003.

The form of this motion is as follows:

I move that the managers on the part of the House at the

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1308

be instructed to agree, to the maximum extent possible within

the scope of conference, to a conference report that

(1) extends the tax relief provisions which expire at the end of 2004; and

(2) does not increase the Federal budget deficit.

Mr. Speaker, if Congress were to receive a fiscal responsibility report card, there would not be a single passing grade. Congress should receive an ``F'' for failing when it comes to taking care of our Nation's fiscal security. Congress should receive an ``F'' for failing to pass a budget resolution conference report.

Both the Senate and the House are controlled by the same party, and yet no agreement was reached on simply setting a budget that Congress should stick to. So much for taking fiscal responsibility seriously.

Congress should receive an ``F'' for so poorly managing the taxpayers' money that the debt ceiling will have to be raised by over $8 trillion in just a few short months.

For the third time in 3 years, the majority party needs to increase the debt limit. Last year we saw the largest debt limit increase in history, $984 billion, Mr. Speaker, and now we are looking at another $690 billion increase just to keep the Federal Government running.

Congress should receive an ``F'' for failing to pass spending caps and pay-as-you-go legislation, or PAYGO. Pay-as-you-go is a common- sense piece of legislation that Congress ought to pass if we are going to be serious about putting this fiscal House back in order. Simply put, PAYGO provides the blueprint for getting our Nation out of the red ink that we are swimming in.

The PAYGO rules Congress and the President enacted in 1990 were an important part in getting a handle on the deficits in the early 1990s and getting the budget back into balance. The pay-as-you-go rules enacted in 1990 have been tested, and they have passed. There is no question that significantly improved the responsibility and accountability of the budget process and were instrumental in getting from large deficits in the 1980s and early 1990s to budget surpluses in the late 1990s.

The one area that this Congress and administration has excelled in is its ability to run up massive amounts of debt. This year alone we are expected to run approximately a $425 billion deficit, just this year alone, the worst deficit in the United States history, every dime of which must be paid back.

Had Congress and the administration worked in a bipartisan manner with the Blue Dog Coalition, they could have passed a budget and PAYGO. Instead, they forged a partisan path, and the American people are left with neither. The American people deserve a better grade than failure on fiscal responsibility from their elected officials. The President is fond of saying it is the people's money, and he is correct. It is the people's money. And I believe that the people deserve to have our Nation managed in a fiscally responsible manner.

Let us stop playing politics with our financial security. Instead, pass real, meaningful PAYGO legislation and get our Nation's fiscal health back in order.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 37 and H.J. Res. 66.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend Americans learned of President Ronald Reagan's death. The President was an honorable and decent man whose legacy forever will be linked with the great love and optimism he had for his country. Unfortunately, his long and courageous struggle with Alzheimer's disease took him from us long before his death.

As a fellow Midwesterner, I appreciated the traditional American values he brought to Washington: his good humor, his love for his family, and belief in America. At a time when Americans had lost confidence in themselves, President Reagan reminded us we could achieve any goal, no matter how lofty.

When President Reagan addressed a grieving Nation after the Challenger explosion, he honored the astronauts for the way in which they lived their lives and affirmed that we would never forget them. Eloquently, he quoted the poem ``High Flight,'' declaring the astronauts had ``slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God.''

Mr. Speaker, today in this House, we are honoring President Reagan for the way in which he lived his life and led our Nation. And as he takes his own journey to touch the face of God, I am confident in this statement: That his life and achievements will forever be remembered by this grateful Nation.

As the country and the world mourn his death, we will remember President Reagan as a great American who was a beacon of freedom for people everywhere. I think I speak for all of the Hoosiers in offering my condolences to his wife Nancy and the children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Douglas P. Zipes, M.D., Distinguished Professor of Medicine and of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the Indiana University School of Medicine. Dr. Zipes is retiring as Director of the Division of Cardiology and Director of the Krannert Institute of Cardiology at the Indiana University School of Medicine on June 30, 2004. Though not a native Hoosier, Dr. Zipes is a credit to his adopted state of Indiana and the institution to which he has devoted his professional life, Indiana University.

Dr. Zipes began his academic career at Indiana University School of Medicine in 1970. Despite many offers over the years to move to higher academic positions at other prestigious institutions, Dr. Zipes remained at Indiana University. There he developed the premier program dedicated to discovering the causes and treatments of heart rhythm disturbances, a leading cause of death in the United States and around the world.

The name Doug Zipes is known in every hospital and school of medicine in the world that deals with cardiovascular medicine. His research into heart rhythm disturbances has been prodigious. His publications of seminal original research in this area number in the hundreds. His breadth of knowledge in this arena, based on personal investigation and original research, is unsurpassed. His basic scientific evaluations have lead to clinical studies which have, in turn, been translated by Dr. Zipes into everyday therapies in clinical medicine. His work has saved the lives of countless individuals around the world.

Dr. Zipes has been honored across the globe for his contributions to cardiovascular medicine. He has delivered the most prestigious lectures, chaired the most important committees, edited the most-read and most authoritative textbook, advised governments and trained scores of physicians who now have assumed positions of authority in cardiovascular medicine.

Through all this, Doug Zipes remains a local physician, engaged in the community through his leadership in the Indianapolis Opera Company and other civic affairs.

He remains a physician most of all because, despite his debilitating schedule of publication deadlines, national and international travel, lectures, committee attendance, administrative details and the like, he regularly insists on attending to patients for whom he has cared for decades.

Dr. Zipes is a national and international treasure for whom the country and the world should rise and applaud. I speak for all Hoosiers when I wish him the best in his future endeavors and thank him for his contributions to the art and science of medicine, the State of Indiana and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the well of the House of Representatives to honor those who have so nobly given their lives in defense of our freedoms and values. The men and women serving in the armed services both here and abroad are American heroes. We are holding this moment of silence today for our fellow countrymen and women that have given the last full measure of devotion in battlefields throughout the world. They will forever be remembered and revered in the memory of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kansas for leading this discussion here this afternoon.

A few minutes ago on the floor of this House, I cast a vote against the AMT tax cut. Some would say that that was a foolish vote for me politically, do I not think so. I do not think it was a foolish vote politically, because I believe that the people of the Ninth District in southern Indiana believe that if it is tax cuts versus shoring up Social Security, if it is tax cuts versus paying down the debt, if it is tax cuts versus shoring up Medicare, if it is tax cuts or having foreign countries buy our paper to finance the debt, I think that they will pick fighting the war, shoring up Social Security, shoring up Medicare, making sure that not too many foreigners have our paper. They want to be fiscally responsible like many of the Members on this side of the aisle want to be. And the only way that can happen, I say to my colleagues, is for there to be PAYGO discipline in both spending and tax cuts.

Now, I was at the Joint Economic Committee meeting last week where Alan Greenspan was at the meeting. I asked him, Mr. Chairman, do you believe that PAYGO rules ought to apply to tax cuts as well as spending? And his answer in his prolonged way that he answers was an unequivocal yes. There needs to be discipline in the Congress of the United States. PAYGO rules have worked in the past, they will work in the future, and it is the fiscally responsible thing to do.

One last thing that I would just like to remind my colleagues of on this side of the aisle. A quote from the majority leader on the Republican side, Dick Armey: ``I am sitting here, and I am upset about the deficit. I am upset about spending. There is no way I can pin this on the Democrats. Republicans own the town now.'' Wise words, indeed.

Mr. Speaker, back in the 1980s, a budgetary theory was advanced called ``supply side economics.'' Some called it voodoo economics back in those days. It was the theory that you cut taxes, increase spending and, somehow, you get more money in. It did not work back then, and it has not worked again, because we have supply side economics all over again.

On January 28, 2003, during the State of the Union last year, the President said, ``This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents, and other generations.''

Last week, Members of Congress received copies of the President's proposed budget, and it is already clear this budget fails to meet the standards the President outlined last year. Today, my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition, a group that is well-known in Washington for our work on balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, are going to join me here to outline the dangerous course this budget outlines for our Nation.

This budget makes it clear to my constituents in southern Indiana and Americans across this country that this White House and Congress are mortgaging our future to pay for today. As this chart shows, we are backsliding into a deficit ditch, and there is no end in sight. Look at this: 1989. These are figures where in the year 2000; we had an actual surplus of $236 billion. We had an election in the year 2000, and look what has happened in the last 3 years. We have gone from a $236 billion surplus to this year, a projected $520 billion deficit. It is incredible that this could happen so quickly. In only a few short years, we have gone from record surpluses to these record deficits.

By 2009, the national debt will have eclipsed $10 trillion. Put it another way, that is nearly $40,000 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States today. It is simply immoral to strap future generations with trillions of dollars of debt that they did not create. It is immoral to increase the debt tax, the mandatory costs we must pay up front every year to cover the interest of the national debt, that every family is going to have to pay on the debt.

I have a second chart. The President's budget raises the debt tax dramatically. In 2004, right here, a family of four will owe $4,367. As my colleagues can see, over the next 10 years, each family will go from $4,367 of our national debt to $10,368 of our national debt.

Ballooning deficits are going to impose some impossible choices on future generations. Without a show of fiscal responsibility, we will squander away any hope for future generations to address pressing needs of their time because they will be stuck cleaning up the multitrillion- dollar mess we are making for them today. Leaving future generations with huge debts is immoral, but that is not the only problem with this budget. This budget simply lacks credibility.

The President proposes to limit spending this year. That is good. I agree with the President that Congress should limit spending, but that is not the whole truth. Spending in Congress is out of control today. In 3 years, with almost complete control of the Congress and the White House, this side of the aisle has increased spending as a percentage of the GDP every single year. And in 8 years, under the prior administration, spending decreased in relation to the Gross Domestic Product 8 years in a row.

So, yes, we must control spending, but we have to do more than that. We must mean it.

This budget fails to include a dime of spending for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we should make it clear to the troops stationed overseas on 12-

month rotations that we will provide the resources they need, rather than playing games with the budget to artificially hold down the size of this deficit on paper.

As my colleagues in the Blue Dog Coalition have said, we believe everyone, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House need to sit down, put everything on the table, and get our economic house in order, not mortgage our future to pay for today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding such time to me.

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday we lost in Indiana another man by the name of Frank. A couple of months ago we lost our Governor, Frank O'Bannon, and this past Sunday, we have lost Frank McCloskey.

Frank was born on June 12, 1939, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Bishop Kendrick High School in Norristown, Pennsylvania in 1957, and got his undergraduate degree at Indiana University in 1968, his law degree at Indiana University in 1971. He served in the United States Air Force from 1957 until 1961. He was a newspaper reporter from 1961 to 1968. Admitted to the Indiana bar in 1971.

He became mayor of the great city of Bloomington, Indiana for 10 years, from 1972 until 1982. He was elected at the ripe old age of 32 years of age. He was in the U.S. Congress from the 8th District from 1983 until 1995.

He was an attorney, he was a good guy, and we are going to miss him. We are losing too many Franks in Indiana. Frank was a special guy. I like what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) had to say about Frank. He was a good and decent fellow, mellow, mild, dedicated, especially to the cause in Bosnia and made many trips over there. He was a good Congressman.

He created some controversy in this House on an election one time, and I think some Members still remember that, but the House has always been full of controversy, and we look beyond that in these kind of special things that happen to people in their lives.

It is the right thing for us to do today to honor Frank McCloskey by naming this post office after him.

I spoke with Frank last week in the hospital, and he told me he did not want to go. He was still fighting, wanted to fight to live, but he actually told me that he thought that he was not going to win this fight, but he went down swinging.

We have always respected that element in Frank McCloskey. He was a fighter for the things that he believed in, to the last day that he died.

My heart and my prayers go out to Roberta, his wife; his daughter, Helen; and his son, Mark, and to the people of Bloomington, Indiana who loved Frank McCloskey. They will miss him, I know, but we honor him here today by naming this post office in the city that he loved, in Bloomington, Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, to the people of southern Indiana, Joe Huber is well-known as both a restaurateur and farmer. To his friends and family, Joe is a loving father and husband, equally devoted to his community. Among the long list of Joe's noteworthy accomplishments, I would especially like to comment on his long and devoted leadership of the Harrison County local rural electric cooperative--Harrison REMC, where Joe has served on the Board of Directors since 1974.

As Joe prepares to retire from the cooperative board, I would like to share with my fellow colleagues in the House just a few of the many important contributions Joe has made to Indiana rural electrification over the past three decades.

Joe is a remarkably driven individual, always willing to jump into a cause wholeheartedly to ensure success. This legacy of dedication was evident the moment Joe decided to run for a seat on the REMC board. Going beyond the usual lobbying required of a board candidate, Joe actually packed school busses full of his friends, neighbors, and supporters from across the community, and transported them to the Harrison REMC board meeting to vote for him. And, to nobody's surprise--he won.

Since his election, Joe has been able to lend his foresight and influence to the co-op through a period of unprecedented expansion. Harrison REMC nearly tripled the number of electric meters during his tenure. To this day, the REMC's growth-and its sterling service to its customers-continues.

Like any other well-established organization that has climbed the ladder of success, the co-op has had its share of difficult moments. Yet, true to character, Joe displayed his resolve during these trying times by maintaining an open and optimistic mind, working hard to help the co-op find new solutions, new ways of thinking, and new promising directions to take as it continued to meet the needs of the community it served.

Just a few years ago, one of the worst scenarios for a rural electric utility struck Harrison County as a terrible ice storm swept through the region. Joe Huber decisively, and humbly, stepped to the fore to lead the effort to restore service throughout the county. He led crews among downed power lines and helped direct crews from outside the region navigate unfamiliar terrain in terrible conditions. He coordinated food and care for the hardworking crews so they could maintain a level of comfort while concentrating on the quick restoration of power.

Joe's leadership has extended well beyond Harrison REMC. He has served as a board member for the rural electric trade group Indiana Statewide, as well as having been on the board of directors of the Cooperative Finance Corporation--the influential national financial organization within the rural electric industry. Joe has been called upon by the National Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives to serve on blue ribbon panels, speak at seminars, and share his wisdom and insight with other representatives of rural utility companies from around the country.

Joe Huber has long been an individual of integrity, perseverance, and distinction in southern Indiana. He has always placed his family and his community first in his heart, and demonstrated to the people of southern Indiana his unwavering values through his actions.

As Joe ends his career on the board of Harrison REMC, it is fitting that we take these moments to congratulate him on his lifetime of hard work and good deeds, and recognize that he has established an enduring legacy in the realm of Indiana rural electric programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, in the August break, several Members had the opportunity to take a trip to Israel. As a matter of fact, there were 28 Members. It was lead by the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). This evening we would like to offer Members who went on that trip the opportunity to share their experiences and to give their opinions and give their support for the State of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, as the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel has been a strong and important ally to the United States for over 50 years. Maintaining that relationship is imperative to the strength and security of the United States.

When I was approached several months ago about joining a congressional delegation to Israel, I welcomed the opportunity. Though I had been to Israel once before in the early 1990s, it was during a very different time, a time when peace seemed near.

Given the events over the last several years in both Israel and the United States, I felt it was my duty as a Member of Congress to gain a better understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how it relates to the security of the United States.

One of the most important aspects of this congressional delegation trip were our meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. We were greeted by both leaders with optimism regarding the peace process. These meetings shed light on the challenges that both sides face in beginning meaningful peace negotiations, and they highlighted the importance of U.S. involvement in the peace process. Unfortunately, that optimism has turned to violence, as the road map to peace has crumbled. Israel has been forced to defend herself against terrorist attacks much like the United States did in the wake of September 11. I continue to strongly support Israel in its stand against terrorism. However, I am hopeful that all parties will exercise restraint so that they may, once again, focus on the process of achieving peace.

Mr. Speaker, when we were over there, both the at-that-time Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and Mr. Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, were very optimistic about the chances for peace in Israel. They believed that they could achieve it. But, once again, we have negotiations breaking down. Our thoughts and our prayers are with both Israel and the Palestinian people, that they will try to reach out to one another in a peaceful way and bring peace to the area.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to have the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) on the trip. He contributed a great deal to the success of the trip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) who is a new Member in Congress but is really doing an outstanding job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) spoke about the fence. The fence takes on symbolic proportions just by the idea that we are putting up a wall, some people like to call it. But this fence is not designed to keep the Israeli people out of Israel like the East Germans tried to do in East Germany trying to keep their people in. This is to protect the Israeli people.

As the gentlelady from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) so eloquently said, until you have been there and seen if for yourself, you really do not have a great appreciation for it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for her kind remarks. It was an opportunity for us to get to know one another a whole lot better in our trip to Israel. I have a great amount of respect for the gentlewoman from Guam.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to my colleague from California who I sit on the Committee on Armed Services with, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis of California).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis). I am always impressed at her presentation and her ability to ask the tough questions in such a nice way.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his eloquent remarks. As always, he has a lot to say.

Mr. Speaker, there was no vacation that we took. We worked very hard and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) worked us very hard. We were at it early in the morning and until late at night every single day. As a matter of fact, by the end of the trip, I was thankful that we were going home. But because of his leadership, we learned a great deal and we have a much greater appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the leader of this trip, our Democratic whip, for purposes of control.

Mr. Speaker, I have been most impressed by the quality of remarks that have been talked about here this afternoon, most impressed about the sincerity of the remarks that have been made here this afternoon. I believe that it demonstrates the quality that Frank O'Bannon had and that he transcended politics. Both Republicans and Democrats admired him and respected him and loved him. They may have had differences, but never lost the respect.

I have known Frank O'Bannon for over 20 years. He was one of the first people that I ever became acquainted with in politics. His home, where his wife and his children were raised, is in Corydon, Indiana, a town that is in the 9th District, in my district. I have been to his house, stayed all night with him, loved him and admired him and respected him, and we miss him in Indiana. For the last week we have mourned our great Governor, but in the next couple of days we are going to celebrate the life of Frank O'Bannon and the many accomplishments that he had.

Probably the greatest accomplishment in his life was the fact that one could be a nice guy and get elected to the highest office in Indiana. Good guys can finish first, and Frank is a perfect example of that.

I wish many people and Members of Congress could have witnessed the class that the First Lady of Indiana demonstrated to the people of Indiana and to this Nation. She really held her strength and demonstrated that, while she could mourn, she could remain strong for the people that she loved in Indiana.

We are going to miss Frank O'Bannon, but I am convinced of one thing: He has a one-way ticket to heaven, and I hope to join him there someday.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all congratulate the gentleman from Maine for making this motion to instruct conferees. I want to address just briefly the comments that were made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

My colleague will have to realize that many people on this side of the aisle, when we hear comments from some Members on that side of the aisle that they would like to see Medicare wither on the vine, that we hold suspect whether or not Republicans really believe in this program or not.

When I came to Congress in 1999, the Federal Government was projected to run a surplus of nearly $5 trillion over the next decade. As a result, I advocated budgeting a portion of that money to provide a voluntary and comprehensive prescription drug benefit for all seniors under Medicare. While our fiscal situation has changed dramatically, the needs of our seniors have not changed. Like many areas across the country, southern Indiana is home to thousands of seniors who struggle every day to find room in their budgets for the mounting costs of prescription drugs.

My father died 2 years ago. He was 93 years old when he died. Much of his medical expenses when he died were paid for by Medicare. If he had to make the decision whether or not to go into a private plan or a plan under Medicare, it would have confused him. He would not have been able to make that kind of a choice. And that is the reason why Medicare is such an important program for Americans. It has been proven successful for almost 40 years now, a program that helps senior citizens, that helped my father pay his medical expenses. If it is not broken, do not fix it. It is not broken.

Medicare is not broken. If you ask every senior citizen in this country, well, maybe not every senior citizen, but most senior citizens whether or not they want to change Medicare as we know it today, they would say no, we like Medicare; it is one of our government's most successful programs. Millions of Americans are counting on us to make certain that this program is there when they retire.

I urge the conferees to do what is best for America, assure each and every American that Medicare and its program will be there, available to them when they need it. Medicare is not broken; we should not be trying to fix it by trying to privatize it in 7 more years. It will confuse our senior citizens, it will scare our senior citizens, and it is wrong the proposal that is being made. Medicare is a good program. We need to keep it as it is.

When I came to Congress in 1999, the Federal government was projected to run a surplus of nearly $5 trillion over the next decade. As a result, I advocated budgeting a portion of that money to provide a voluntary and comprehensive prescription drug benefit for all seniors under Medicare.

While our fiscal situation has changed dramatically--the needs of our seniors have not. Like many areas across the country, southern Indiana is home to thousands of seniors who still struggle every day to find room in their budgets for the mounting costs of prescription drugs.

These seniors are depending on Congress to uphold its promise to provide some relief from their drug bills--and to make Medicare a stronger program for future generations.

I did not support H.R. 1. I am concerned that, instead of providing Medicare beneficiaries with greater security, this bill would

dismantle the traditional Medicare program--leaving seniors vulnerable to unstable and unpredictable health care coverage.

Medicare is one of our government's most successful programs. Millions of Americans are counting on this program to be there when they retire. I urge the conferees to do what is best for America-- assure each and every American that the Medicare program will be available to them when they need it.