Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is with very mixed emotions that I join in tonight's Special Order to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) on his departure from the halls of Congress. I say mixed emotions because, while it is more than fitting for the House to recognize him for his many years of service to this body, both as a staff member and as a Representative, I am sorry to see the departure of a colleague, a neighbor, and a friend.

Many times over the past two Congresses I would, sometime during my speech, say, well, at first it was the first Congress in the history of our Nation, then it was the second, this would have been the third Congress in which one State, Texas, had the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. At no time in our history has this ever happened. Not only were we from the same State, but we were neighbors and we were friends.

That is the spirit in which I come tonight. Since Larry came to Congress in 1985, we have had many occasions to work together for the mutual benefit of Texas, our Nation, and particularly our Nation's agriculture.

In fact, it was a year ago this month that the 2002 farm bill was enacted into law, and about a year and a half of the time and effort of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) went into writing that bill. It was a collaborative effort, very typical of the bipartisan manner for which the Committee on Agriculture is recognized.

As much as I would have enjoyed being the chairman during that period of time, that was not to be; but Larry made sure that, as ranking member, I was a full participant throughout the legislative process, and I greatly appreciated the opportunity of riding shotgun and working side by side with him in that endeavor.

I do not believe it would be an overstatement tonight to say that without Larry's devoted work on that farm bill in a bipartisan way, it would not have become law. I think that is a very fair and accurate statement. Many times we might stretch it a little bit; but knowing as much about the inner workings of what happened in that bill, without the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), we would not have gotten it done. I think the colleagues on the gentleman's side of the aisle agree and those on my side agree.

Larry's departure from the House of Representatives marks the end of a very distinguished record of service to the folks of the 19th Congressional District of Texas. Larry throughout this time has been a man of great character and sound judgment who has served his constituents well. I personally will miss his company, his counsel, and the true spirit of bipartisanship with which he conducted himself throughout his tenure in Congress.

Sadly, such bipartisanship and good will has increasingly become a rare

commodity in the halls of Congress, but not on the House Committee on Agriculture.

Larry, Cindy and I wish you and Sharon all the best as you embark upon a new chapter in your lives. I hope and trust there will be many more occasions for our paths to cross in the future. It has truly been a pleasure to work with you. We will miss you; but we know, suspect highly, that those paths will cross again in some constructive way. Good luck and God speed to you and Sharon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 856. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their speedy bringing of this legislation to the floor. It is my hope that the Senate will also act and that we can get this bill to the President in order that it might have a timely effect on the farmers in Tom Green County that the chairman and the ranking member have already adequately explained.

We have had persistent drought, particularly in Tom Green County, for the

last 7 years; and it is very difficult to pay for water that you do not get. The farmers are not asking that the loan be forgiven. What they are asking is that the length of time to pay the money be extended until such time as the Good Lord sends the rain and that we might use the project for that which it was created originally.

So, without further ado, I thank, again, the chairman and ranking member for their bringing this bill up. I thank them for their support, and I urge support for this bill.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 856, legislation I introduced to extend a repayment period for the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1.

The Tom Green County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1 has an outstanding loan with the Department of Interior for the construction of an irrigation canal. The remaining balance is approximately $2.4 million. The farmers in the District have made diligent efforts to make timely payments on the contract. They have paid 38 percent (about $1.5 million) of the original debt owed to the Department of Interior despite the fact that they have yet to receive a fair return on their investment.

In West Texas, there is virtually nothing of a higher daily concern than the availability of water. In recent years, Texas has been devastated by drought. As a result, the farmers have received a full year's allocation of irrigation water only 50 percent of the time. Moreover, for the other 50 percent of the time, they received either less than the annual allocation or no irrigation water at all.

Payment on the debt has never been forgiven, even in years when the District received no water. Deferments have been granted seven times; however, those payments still have to be made. They are added to the remaining balance and the payments continue to get higher annually because the original contract end date does not change.

To make matters worse, the concrete lining placed in the canal in 1960 has started to deteriorate after forty-two years and repairs are necessary. These repairs are very expensive. Farmers simply cannot sustain paying the costs of the annual operation and maintenance costs due to the irrigation district, the Bureau of Reclamation annual payment, and extensive repair costs when little or no water is available.

The Bureau of Reclamation has stated that the increased payments, as a result of continued deferments due to the drought conditions, are making it increasingly difficult on the farmers' ability to repay the annual payments. The increased annual payments place additional financial burdens on the District and increasing these payments further will only lead to future difficulty that the Bureau of Reclamation cannot remedy. Only Congress can remedy the long-term problem, which is why I have introduced H.R. 856 to get this loan restructured.

This legislation would allow the Secretary of Interior to revise the repayment contract (No. 14-06-500-369) by extending the period authorized for repayment of reimbursable construction costs of the canal from 40 to 50 years.

These Tom Green County farmers have been doing their part to meet their responsibilities. When year-after-year the water was unavailable, their only recourse was to ask for an extension on the loan. I'm glad Tom Green County Commissioner Clayton Friend brought this to my attention and I'm very appreciative of the speedy Resources Committee action. I have high hopes that we will be able to get this bill to the President within the next few weeks.

On behalf of the farmers in my district, I urge members to support

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice of explanation to what is happening in Texas and Oklahoma this week. It seems to be high drama. We Texans pride ourselves on a good old-fashioned, blood-racing, heart-pumping showdown at the OK Corral. It is no wonder the Nation's media has joined the audience for the show. But if anybody thinks this week's actions are nothing more than a real-life alternative to the afternoon TV soaps, they need to look a little closer and understand just what principles are motivating both sides in this showdown.

From the Republican side, it is the principle that says to the winner go the spoils. I am willing to go with this idea to a point, as my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) mentioned a moment ago. We Democrats certainly enjoyed our spoils for decades when Texas was already a one-party State. It just happened the one party was Democrats rather than Republicans. Acting within the rules and dedicated to the best outcome for its citizens, the majority party would be foolish not to maximize its power to accomplish its goals.

The key phrase of what I just said was ``acting within the rules and dedicated to the best outcome for its citizens.'' That is where I believe the Republicans' principle has become unprincipled.

For the past 2 days, reporters have been asking me if I think it is the right thing for Texas legislators to go on the lam in Oklahoma rather than doing their jobs in Austin. Of course I think that would have been preferable, and so do they. But when legislators do not have a prayer of doing their jobs not because they do not want to, but because the rules have been abused and rigged against them, I do not see what alternative those legislators have but to bring as much sunlight as possible into the rigged process.

Do not forget the context in which this is taking place in Texas, a $10 billion plus shortfall. I know the State House must be hearing from schoolteachers, health care providers, social workers, and dozens of other worried citizen groups, because I am hearing from them. A normal taxpayer would think with problems like we have in Texas, you would not have needed to pick another fight. But rather than grapple with those major problems affecting millions of Texans, our State legislators got harassed and harangued so long by Washington that they finally gave in.

Mr. DeLay finally convinced them to buy the kind of partisan poison, single-minded, rule-rigged brand of leadership that he has perfected here in Washington in this House of Representatives.

I understand the frustration of the 53 in Oklahoma, and I understand how it feels to be prevented from having their voices heard; to have their ideas kept out of the arena, for they would not prevail as we Blue Dogs have time and time again. I understand hearings hastily called at inconvenient times, witness lists unnecessarily shortened. I understand the frustration. Mr. DeLay knew how to advise the Texas legislature because he is practicing effectively the same tactics right here in this body.

I will admit that so far in Washington my wife has not yet been trailed by Federal officers or my daughter followed to the hospital as she gives birth to my grandchild. I find this extreme use or abuse of power particularly distressing. Mr. DeLay is quoted as saying, ``I have never turned tail and run.'' But neither have the Democrats in Ardmore, Mr. Speaker. When their hands have been tied, their mouths have been gagged and their eyes blindfolded, they had to be creative in finding a new way to fight under the rules. They are standing and fighting for what they believe in a far more courageous way than are required by rigging the rules of the game. They are playing by the rules.

History has shown that ``might makes right'' is a philosophy which might work in the short term, but ultimately is brought to its knees for one simple reason. In a democracy the people eventually will rise up and have their way. That is the bottom line here. It is not whether Charlie Stenholm is a Congressman from west Texas. It is not really which party is going to win this high-stakes battle. It is about how the people are being represented, and I am hearing from the people all over Texas saying this is not right to do it as they are doing it. I realize Tom DeLay does not care a whit about how the people in rural west Texas are represented, but I do. I have become very passionate about not losing the rural focus of west Texas districts and under his plan, west Texas will lose one representative.

Mr. DeLay is quick to express his belief that I am irrelevant. The rural constituents of the 17th district feel a little differently. In fact, all of my Texas colleagues whom we have heard from today, as we look at the plans, rural Texas is being shorted by this plan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the 53 in Ardmore for the courage they have shown for standing up for what they believe.

Pete Laney, David Farabee, I appreciate what they have done. Texas will be a better State because of the actions that they have taken on behalf of the people of Texas; and hopefully all of the legislature, both sides of the aisle, will come to their senses and will stop letting Washington determine how the Texas legislature should be run. Texans can take care of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, we can shout down the gentleman from Mississippi, but the facts are the debt is going to go up $1.4 trillion in less than 2 years' time under the leadership of this side of the aisle. That is more than occurred in the first 205 years of this country. This tax cut that we vote today will borrow $800-plus billion over the next 10 years just to pay for it.

I am standing up for my grandchildren today. The other side of the aisle can continue to ignore it; but let me point out all of the charts we have seen up here today, I assume for this moment they are all accurate, doing everything they profess to do over their economic game plan, we will owe $12 trillion at the end of 10 years' time. And some time between now and July 1, they are going to have to stand up and vote to increase the debt ceiling to pay for that which they argue for today.

Do they really want to do that for our grandchildren? Or should we start looking into the future and not continue to look for what is good for us today? My vote today is with my grandchildren, not for us.

Mr. Speaker, January 26, 1995, I joined with the 135 remaining Members on this side of the aisle to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. It is one of the happier days of my now 24 years in this House of Representatives. One of the saddest days was watching it be defeated by one vote on the floor of the Senate. Had the Senate voted for the balanced budget constitutional amendment, this bill could not be on the floor today, could not be on the floor today. But it is on the floor today.

Suddenly deficits do not matter. Balancing the budget does not matter. It is all on the myth and projections that we have heard over and over and over again, not only by this bill today, but also the one in 2001 and 2002. And the facts will speak for themselves.

I rise today in this motion to recommit and urge the 135 of you still here, including the Speaker, the majority leader, and all of the leaders on this side who will bring a constitutional amendment back to the floor by the first of July, I ask a simple question: How can you support this bill and at the same time say you believe that fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget matters?

Deficits no longer matter, Mr. Speaker. They matter to me. I am just as consistent today in my vote no on final passage and yes on this as I was when I joined with you regarding the seriousness of balancing the budget. And to those that argue that this is a growth package, your own economics do not support that this will be paid for. You will have to borrow not just the $550 billion but the 240 in interest to pay for this. But you are perfectly willing to do it.

I heard a moment ago the Speaker talking about debt and talking about how we want to change the corporate behavior. I agree with him, but you have got to start with us here right now. You cannot just talk about them. You have got to talk about us.

Under your own game plan that you are bound and determined to pass and take full credit for, and you will deserve it, you will deserve it, this country will owe over $12 trillion at the end of this game plan, exactly the time the baby boomers begin to retire. And at no time have we spent one second trying to deal with the problem of the baby boomers in Social Security and Medicare in the future. It is all about us today.

Mr. Speaker, if you are consistent in believing that balancing the budget does matter, I submit to you there is no way with a clean conscience you cannot vote for this motion to recommit and go back to the drawing board and at least give those of us who are willing to work for a more sensible economic game plan the opportunity to do so. Please join me in support of this motion to recommit and show that we are, in fact, sincere. Or if you are perfectly willing to assume the borrow and spend Republicans of the future, vote with this package today. I am for balancing the budget. I am not for borrowing and spending. It is not going to be in the best interest of this country in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hardin Simmons University women's basketball team from Abilene, Texas, who have achieved an incredible record including their first undefeated regular season in school history, a fifth straight American Southwest Conference tournament title, and a strong finish in the NCAA Division III tournament. The university community knew this team had a winning chemistry when the Cowgirls won all 24 of their regular season games and their fifth straight ASC tournament title which earned them a spot in the coveted NCAA Division III basketball championship and a number- one ranking in the Nation of the Women's Basketball Coaches Association.

None of these victories could have been achieved without the incredible teamwork that these 15 young women have demonstrated. One player in particular, Kendra Anderson, has been named the Division III national player of the year, the American Southwest Conference most valuable player for the third straight year, the tournament most valuable player for the fourth straight year and the first-team all- American and all-South Region for the third year. Coach Briggs brings out the best from her players, sharpens their strengths and improves their weaknesses.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize my constituents from Hardin Simmons University.

Mr. Chairman, the time is long overdue for Congress to enact a balanced energy policy that ensures reliable and affordable energy for all Americans. Our nation's citizens deserve a comprehensive energy plan that ensures the short-term availability of the energy supplies they need, while addressing long-term goals of increasing our use of renewable and clean sources of energy.

The performance of the energy market of the last several years, with its wide price swings on both the producer and consumer sides, simply illustrates the need for America to take responsibility of our energy future. Congress needs to consider measures to help restore market stability with domestic crude oil and natural gas prices, maintaining a level where domestic producers can compete in a global market and help reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil.

At the same time, Congress needs to ensure consumer protection measures to guarantee price stability and fuel availability when the demand is high. I truly believe that we can achieve equilibrium in the energy sector, thus creating a situation where prices are not so low that producers are put out of business but also not so high that they hurt consumers and threaten the economy.

America can no longer sustain a situation where this nation imports almost 60 percent of its oil from foreign sources--putting our economic and national security at risk.

I have been a long time supporter of domestic energy production in all arenas including: oil, natural gas, hydro-electric, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and the many others. I am certainly glad to see that H.R. 6, ``The Energy Policy Act of 2003'', includes provisions to insure further domestic production of these resources.

However, these production incentives come at a cost and must be accounted for. It is entirely unacceptable to simply write off the cost of this bill and add it to the current deficit that America is facing. In fact, we are already expecting a $361 billion deficit this year, even prior to considering the costs of this bill, the Iraq war, prescription drugs, new tax curt or any other expenses being debated currently. This is a remarkable contrast from the $250 billion surplus that last occurred in fiscal year 2000.

I cannot understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue their efforts to expedite tax cuts and not address Americas' financial health. The cost of this war could be well over $100 billion, yet we continue to promote over $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade.

And this week the spending continues. This energy bill comes at a cost of $18.7 billion dollars and includes no provision to offset these costs. I have long championed for: Increased access to capital for domestic oil and gas production; more research in alternative fuels such as nuclear energy; advanced clean coal

technology; a sound commitment to renewable energy, including a renewable fuels standards; and improved energy efficiency and environmental standards.

As Ranking Member on the House Agriculture Committee, I was especially pleased to see the Renewable Fuels Standard increasing the required use of ethanol, made from corn, as a fuel additive by gasoline refineries to 5 billion gallons by 2015.

There is no doubt I am glad to see these provisions in H.R. 6, but I am very disappointed that my colleagues on the other side made no attempts to offset some of the costs of this bill. This energy bill continues down the path of more deficit spending and makes no realistic attempt to justify this spending.

America deserves a balanced and forward looking energy policy and therefore I intend to vote for this bill despite my reservations about its cost. It is my sincere hope that Congress will ultimately be responsible and pay for provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 2003 without burdening our children and grandchildren with continued deficit spending.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend the Hardin-Simmons University 2003 women's basketball team from Abilene, Texas, who have achieved an incredible record, including their first undefeated regular season in school history, a fifth straight American Southwest Conference Tournament title, and a fifth consecutive ``Sweet 16'' appearance in the NCAA Division 3 Tournament.

Our Cowgirls exhibited incredible determination and drive as they worked to set a new benchmark for their university. Their school, community, and district stand behind them and join in celebrating their accomplishments.

When the basketball games first began the season, the university and the surrounding community knew this

team had a winning chemistry. The Cowgirls won all 24 of their regular season games, a milestone in school history. Games at Maybee Complex were some of the largest attended events the Cowgirls had ever seen, and soon Hardin Simmons University led the division in home attendance. With great talent and wide support, the Cowgirls attained their first number one ranking in the nation since becoming an NCAA member.

But the Cowgirls did not stop there. They soon played some of the most competitive teams in the American Southwest conference and triumphantly won their fifth straight AFC tournament title. And their win made them one of only two undefeated teams in the Nation, earning them a spot in the coveted NCAA Division III basketball tournament and a number one ranking in the Nation by the ESPN USA Today Women's Basketball Coaches Association.

The Cowgirls fought a tough battle at the NCAA championships. In the end, however, they were unable to win the title. But as Vince Lombardi once said, ``The spirit, the will to win and the will to excel are the things that endure. These qualities are so much more important than the events that occur.'' Trophy or not, they have already won the most important prize, the pride, the joy, and the honor of representing their university and community for all of America to see. To me and those I represent, you, the Cowgirls, are already the biggest winners of all.

None of these victories could have been achieved without the incredible team work that these 15 young women have demonstrated. From Abilene and San Angelo, Brady, and Stephenville, and all over the district, these women came from all areas, and through their hard work and efforts they became more than just teammates. They became life-long friends. Their names will be remembered with pride at their school and within our communities: Sarah Allen, Kendra Anderson, KraTaura Buckner, Diane Cox, Sara Dickey, Lauren Harris, Hannah Jones, Veronica Jones, Erika Keese, Diana Martinez, Leigh Ann Neal, Keila Remmele, Laura Ricci, and Terri Robinson. We will remember your victories in our hearts and our memories.

The team as a whole has an incredible spirit, but one player in particular has achieved notable recognition for her abilities on the team and for women's basketball at large. Kendra Anderson has been named the Division III National Player of the Year by the Women's Basketball Coaches Association. She has been the American Southwest Conference's most valuable player for the third straight year, the conference tournament most valuable player for the fourth straight year, and the first team All American and All South Region for the third year. She was also a WBCA All Star Challenge participant with 17 Division I All Stars. She scored an average of 20.1 points and 10 rebounds per game this season alone. Kendra has forever raised the bar of excellence to a new standard for her friends and teammates to follow.

We all know that a basketball team can have all the best players in the world, but without direction and guidance, strong leadership and vision, the team cannot develop and grow. That guiding force was first- year head coach, Shanna Briggs. Miss Briggs brought out the best in her players, sharpened their strengths and improved their weaknesses. The Hardin Simmons women's basketball program will continue in future years to prosper under her leadership and the dedication of its players.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to give the recognition today to the 2003 Hardin Simmons University Cowgirls, the hard work that the players and coaches have done to make this team the champions they are. They have learned, as Grace Lichenstein once said, that ``your opponent in the end is never really the player on the other side of the net or the swimmer in the next lane or the team on the other side of the field or even the bar you must high jump. Your opponent is yourself, your negative internal voices, your levels of determination.''

The 2003 Cowgirls are examples and role models for athletes everywhere and proof of the powerful and resilient nature of women's sports. Hardin Simmons University's 2003 Cowgirls, congratulation on a great year.

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

I wish to ask the gentleman from Washington if he might respond. I want to ask the gentleman a question regarding this resolution.

As I understand it, this is the martial rule, and this is necessary in order to bring up the budget resolution that just came out of the Committee on Rules.

I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

That is the point I want to clarify, following House rules.

Does this resolution follow rule 26 by increasing the debt ceiling every year for the next 10 years?

But not for 10 years?

So we are not exactly following House rules. Let me ask then, is it true that this resolution that will follow this same-day rule that will follow the other rule will increase our national debt by approximately $900 billion in the next 12 months?

Nine hundred billion.

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, I see several Members on the floor, including the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

I think it is very critical for all Members to understand, when you vote for this rule you are setting in motion the passage of a budget that no one on this side of the aisle has read and I doubt very many on that side has read, and we are going to borrow 984 billion additional dollars. That is on top of $450 billion we have borrowed since we increased the debt ceiling 8 months ago. That is $1.430 trillion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I arrived in this body in 1979. In 1981 I watched our debt ceiling for our country increase through the $1 trillion mark. We are about to borrow and spend $1.400 trillion more than we have got, and we are going to do that within a period of 1 year following the economic game plan that we cannot get a majority on this side of the aisle to say is not working.

Now, I respect the right of the majority, and I respect all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that for whatever reason find it impossible to change a plan that was put into effect last year. But I honestly do not understand when so many of you privately are concerned about this but publicly feel like, at 11:20 at night, you have got to have a martial rule, jam it through, pass it, which is every right of the majority to do; but when you do, you are going to be voting to increase the debt ceiling by $1.400 trillion in less than a year's time.

Now, that used to bother folks on this side of the aisle and I used to vote with you. In fact, I have done it more times than I have the other way. But what has happened to you? Why is it tonight that you are not worried about borrowing and spending $1.400 trillion in a 1-year period of time? September 11, 2001. Changed a lot of things. It should change the economic game plan that we are under; but if you are bound and determined to do it, be my guest. But no one walk out of here tomorrow and complain that we could not do better. We could do better.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I think the spirit of the debate, and precisely what you have been arguing is why I so strongly oppose what you are about to do tonight because the very economic game plan that you have once again articulated by your own scorekeepers, if it works exactly like you have got it planned, if all of the things happen that you believe will happen with it, we are going to owe almost $13 trillion at the end of the 10 years. We are going to owe another $3 trillion almost at the end of 5 years if we do it just like you are doing it.

That is why some of us are asking you respectfully, take a look at that rhetoric that you have been repeating since 2001 that you do again tonight. I know you believe it sincerely. I do not question that, but how can you continue to make that argument when the result of it in the budget that we are passing, we are going to have to borrow another trillion dollars almost in the next 12 months, and even if it works exactly like you have articulated so well, as you can do, tonight, we are still going to be borrowing that amount of money?

Mr. Speaker, I wish we could avoid speaking untruths on this floor.

As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) knows, the Blue Dog budget balanced without using Social Security in 2013. The budget you have on the floor tonight will not balance without

using Social Security by 2013. You will not come within $300 billion.

And to the last speaker from Florida, you cannot borrow and spend your way to prosperity, either. That rhetoric, that dog, will not hunt. You are going to borrow $984 billion. Under your budget, you are going to borrow more money in the last year than we borrowed in the first 205 years of this country. We cannot borrow and spend our way to prosperity, either.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate if the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) would listen, and if the gentleman disagrees, to disagree with me again. If the gentleman looks at the Blue Dog budget, we would have $1.8 trillion less deficit over 10 years and $120 billion less deficit next year.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

The debt limit for next year, everybody increases the debt limit for next year. The reason we do it is because the budget you voted in place in 2001 and 2002 has dug us this hole. We are suggesting in the Blue Dog budget to stop digging the hole deeper. We have got to stop digging the hole deeper. You want to keep digging it deeper and deeper and deeper, but you misrepresent totally the Blue Dogs because we do not spend one dime more than you propose spending in your budget tonight. We also have $1.8 trillion less debt over the 10 years, and $120 billion next year. That is not small potatoes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the work he has done on this year's budget and in attempting to speak about the facts, not the political rhetoric, but about the facts.

Tonight, as we speak, we both know that the Committee on the Budget of both the House and the Senate are attempting to work out the budget resolution, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is here on the floor, and Democrats are being completely excluded once again from making any of the decisions.

I have been here for 24 years, and for most of those 24 years I have been labeled here and at home as a tax-and-spend Democrat. I have looked forward to the day, really I did not look, I looked forward to shirking that title, and we have done that. We have done that. But now we have borrow-and-spend Republicans, and my grandchildren do not differentiate between either one.

What we have attempted to do now, over the last several years is, and we were successful up until last year when once again we began to experiment with the idea that there is no such thing as a bad tax cut as far as the economy and jobs are concerned. We experimented in 1981 and we borrowed $4 trillion, and it took us until 1997 to get us to a balanced budget. I was proud to stand on the floor in 1995 when we passed the balanced budget constitutional amendment which would have required this body to balance its budget every year except when we are at war.

Let me make this point right now. Tonight we are at war; we are at war in Iraq. We are losing some of our youngest and finest. The House last week voted to borrow the money necessary to fight that war, and we will borrow whatever is necessary to fight that war because every dime that is required for tax cuts or for fighting the war will be borrowed money.

But tonight I want to focus in this brief period of time on where we are regarding debt and debt limits and to express my strong opposition and complete disappointment in this House going back and trying to hide increasing the debt ceiling. Instead of doing what we were accused of doing for years, and we Democrats did it, we hid the debt ceiling increases in a budget resolution, and we were chastised for doing that, and I was not for us doing it, and I am not for us doing it today. And the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was not either.

But now we are faced with a vote in which we are going to vote to increase our debt ceiling. If we take the budget that passed here last week, we are going to increase the debt ceiling to $11 trillion in the next 10 years. That is obscene. In the next 5 years, we are going to increase it by almost $3 trillion.

What are we here tonight talking about? What I am here tonight saying is, we are at war and we are behind the troops, and it was almost a unanimous vote of the House supporting our troops and our commander in chief, almost unanimous.

This is the first war in the history of our country that we are arguing about how big a tax cut we are going to give to the American people, not all of the American people, in order to fight the war. That does not make sense to the people I represent. I have yet to find the first person at home, and I am sure I might find one now, that says, you bet, borrow that money. Borrow that money for a $700 billion tax cut, borrow that money to fight the war so those men and women doing their best for America today, when they come home and they go back to work, they will get to pay the interest on the debt.

Friends on both sides of the aisle say this is not the time to be arguing how big a tax cut and whether we are going to make it permanent. This is a time to hunker down and say, How can we in fact manage our fiscal affairs in wartime and do it in a way that does not do damage to our veterans, that does not do damage to Medicare and Medicaid recipients. We had an opportunity to vote on that, but we did not vote for it. We voted for the economic game plan that was put in place 2 years ago that folks apparently still believe is working even though by their own plan, their own budget shows that if everything works exactly like they have it planned, exactly like the dynamic scorers believe it will work, we will end up owing $11.564 trillion in 2013.

Things changed on September 11, 2001. I do not understand why the other side of the aisle cannot admit that things changed on September 11, 2001, in a lot of other areas other than in our necessity to fight a war. It caused a change in our economy. It caused a change big time in our economy. That, to me, requires another look at the economic game plan; and the budget that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) put on the floor, that

the Blue Dogs put on the floor, would have recognized that change, but we lost.

Now let me say again, I hope that the wisdom of this House is not that we will attempt to hide increasing the debt ceiling in a budget resolution. If Members really believe the economic game plan is what they say it is, have the courage to come out with a clean bill; as Secretary Snow has asked us to do, on April 4, have a clean bill to say to the American people, we believe you ought to borrow the money in order to give us the tax cuts, all of them that we are talking about. There are good tax cuts, marriage tax penalty relief, child tax credit, estate tax relief, things that we can agree on, and we have agreed on in a bipartisan way, that can be paid for.

But I am getting a little bit tired of hearing everybody talk about these tax cuts we are now talking about and compare it back to what John F. Kennedy did in 1960. Sure, when you cut the marginal rate from 90 percent to 50 percent, we change economic behavior.

But I challenge Members, and we are unable to find a reputable economist who says cutting the marginal tax rate on today's corporate CEOs from 38 to 37 percent is going to change economic behavior and is going to create jobs and economic activity in the United States. And that is what we are arguing about. I do not understand it.

But if Members do believe it, let us have an honest debate, no more canned speeches from political campaigns. Let us talk about how we are going to borrow $3 trillion in the next 5 years and we are going to owe $11 trillion at the end of 10 years, following the economic game plan that some believe cannot be changed in this House. We are not doing a service to our grandchildren when we make that argument. We are darned sure not doing a favor to those who are out defending the freedom tonight as we speak. We are not doing them a favor when we are saying we must borrow money for an economic game plan that has already shown it cannot possibly work in the economic climate we are in.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, but I want to use a portion of my time commending him, but I wanted to ask the gentleman a question.

I will when it comes my time, but I will do it on my own time, but I am curious because it seems to me over the last 8 years you talk about your party has been in control. So all of the points that you make with the blue books, why have we not done it?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I do not want to leave the impression that the Blue Dog budget is doing anything more than spending what President Bush has asked the Congress to spend, not 1 penny more.

We sometimes get the rhetoric around here, you would think we are big spenders in our budget. We are spending what the President has asked us to spend, and no more.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I have waited 24 years for this day to shuck the tax-and-spend Democratic label and transfer it to the Republican borrow-and-spend label. I say this with a smile on my face, and I am one of those that believe when I am pointing the finger of partisanship, there are always three pointing back at me. I will take the three best shots of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), but I insist the gentleman takes my one at this time.

The gentleman said we have a difference between our two philosophies today. This chart shows it. Our budget is the green budget. The yellow budget I ran against in 1978 because I thought deficit spending was bad. I voted for the Reagan tax cuts; and this is what we got, following the same economic theory that we once again are being asked to support today.

I am for the green. The Blue Dog budget will accomplish that based on the estimates. The gentleman's budget today will keep us in Social Security for the remainder of the 10 years the gentleman is talking about.

I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) did. The budget he brought out of committee was an honest budget. It told this conference and this Congress and the American people that if they want tax cuts, they have to pay for them. They have got to do the spending cuts that they suggested.

However, the gentleman's own conference said, no. As I told the gentleman privately, and I will say publicly, if the gentleman would reconcile the cuts in a public manner on this floor first and then go to the tax cuts, he would have some support on this side. But I am skeptical, when they bring a budget that even their own conference will not support to the floor on the spending cuts, but yet we are going to have a tax cut on the floor in a very short period of time, that this is what we are going to get.

Our budget balances without using Social Security by 2013. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) said a moment ago, it is immoral what this Congress, these last few Congresses, are doing to our children and grandchildren.

When we talk about spending cuts, I have heard it explained that in the agricultural function it is just 1 percent. But let me remind all of us, we took 2 years writing the farm bill that passed with two- thirds support, equally divided Democrats and Republicans, and the President signed it. We stayed within the budget that they asked us to last year.

Anyone that suggests we can make the cuts that the gentleman is suggesting, assuming that it passes, without reopening the farm bill and rewriting it, is totally misinformed as to what the facts are regarding the authorizing of various programs.

I find it very interesting that today in the Committee on the Judiciary we were supposed to have passing out a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. As many know, I am for it. I am a cosponsor of it. One of the happiest days in my life was when we passed it on this floor; one of the saddest days was when it went down by one vote in the Senate.

Had that passed in the Senate, they could not bring their budget to the floor today. The only budget we will vote on today is this budget right here, the blue one, the Blue Dog line, that shows that we will balance without using Social Security in 2013. They

could not do it had we had a constitutional restraint. Yet some on the gentleman's side have the audacity to suggest that the budget is a good one; but yet we want to have a constitutional amendment to require us to do what we are not willing to do when we have a chance of doing it.

In 1999 the Republican leadership issued a statement pledging to protect the Social Security surplus: ``As leaders of the House of Representatives, we will not schedule any legislation that spends one penny of the Social Security trust fund. This leadership is committed to ending the 30-year raid on seniors and paying down the debt.''

We could not help 9-11-01, and we cannot help the fact that our economy has gone south, but we can stop digging the hole deeper as of today. That is what the Blue Dog budget does. It is the only budget that stops digging the hole deeper.

Now, one area we cut below the President, and our spending levels, I repeat, in this budget we do not spend one penny more than President Bush asked us to spend, one penny; but there is one area we want to cut below the President. We want to cut $420 billion out of the President's budget and somewhat less out of the chairman's budget for interest on the national debt. They can bring out all of the blue books, they have been there when the gentleman's party has been in charge, and some of us on this side would like to work with them. But they constantly and consistently deny us that opportunity, which, if they pass their budget today, once again, they deny us the opportunity.

We had a better budget 2 years ago. The economic situation of this country would not be as bad. I ask Members to support the Blue Dog budget.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would just say there are 35 Blue Dogs that stand ready to work with the gentleman's side on every one of the issues in the blue books that my colleague had up. If we would have the same spirit on those issues that we have had by allowing us to have this 1 hour this year, which we were not allowed to have last year, we would have made a lot of progress on this.

The fact that my colleagues were kind enough this year to allow the Blue Dogs to have 1 hour of debate so we can have this discussion, we do think it is a better plan, but it is up to the will of the majority of the House as to whether our plan is better than my colleagues. We will stand by the will of the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, of which I am an original cosponsor. I cosponsored this bill because I believe that it will help ensure the availability of vital health services for patients in this country.

Listening to the debate today, the average citizen would assume that it is necessary to choose sides. Either one is for the docs and other health care providers or they are for the patients. I simply reject that premise and assert another, which is this. We must have a system where good doctors can practice good medicine if we are going to have healthy patients.

Does creating a good system mean that no doctor will ever fail again? No patient will ever again be injured through negligence or poor practice patterns? Of course not. But when those injuries occur through clearly bad behavior on the part of a health care team, I want the health care professionals to be responsible for their action.

I sympathize with the case examples brought to the floor by my colleagues on my own side of the aisle. There are a great many tragedies which occur when health care is poorly delivered. I have no interest in removing appropriate avenues of redress for those injured people and their families, but I do not believe these cases have much, if anything, to do with the bill before us today because it retains a great deal of legal redress for plaintiffs.

No one can claim that the system we have now is good for the doctors or the patients when doctors must pursue expensive defensive medicine rather than doing what they think is right. No one can think it is good for places to have doctors leaving the profession in droves because of the financial and physiological strains of caring for people under current malpractice realities.

The bottom line is that the failure of the medical liability system is compromising patient access to care. More than half of Texas physicians say that they are considering early retirement due to skyrocketing insurance premium, and nearly one-third are reducing the kind of services they provide.

Spiraling medical liability insurance premiums are forcing many hospitals to consider difficult decisions from cutting services to closing clinics. Some hospitals find it difficult to appropriately staff emergency departments, recruit and retain physicians in high-risk specialties. Where is the victory for patients in that scenario?

This situation is further magnified in rural communities where there are fewer hospitals and health care professionals. These hospitals and clinics already operate on narrow profit margins, and skyrocketing medical liability insurance push them closer to the brink of closure.

Ignoring the litigation problems we have now is a recipe for disaster. Many States, like my own, are already on the precipice of disaster, especially in fields like obstetrics.

It is for these reasons I join my fellow colleagues as original cosponsor of the HEALTH Act of 2003. The bill is not perfect. It can be improved but it will not be improved if it is defeated today.

I urge my colleagues, especially those who represent rural America, to support H.R. 5, which will have a chance of stabilizing our Nation's shaky medical liability system.

Mr. Speaker, this week the Blue Dog Coalition expressed our deep concern over the announcement that the Federal Government had reached the debt limit just 9 months after increasing it by $450 billion.

The Federal Government hitting the debt limit so soon after raising it by so much merely validates our concern of the fiscal policies we are now following. Due to the debt limit being reached, the Department of the Treasury announced it will dip into Federal retirement programs to circumvent the debt limit, an action for which House Republicans severely criticized Secretary of Treasury Bob Rubin for taking in 1996. Less than 6 years ago, 225 of my Republican friends voted to soundly reprimand and prohibit then-Secretary Rubin from taking precisely the actions announced this week by Secretary Snow. The silence of the Republicans in Congress about the announcement made by the Bush administration stands in stark contrast to the reaction from many of my same Republican colleagues to Secretary Rubin's action.

A 1995 resolution, authored by a then anti-deficit Republican majority, insisted that a balanced budget would ensure lower interest rates, a faster rate of economic growth, increased national wealth, increased rates of savings and investment, faster growth in the capital stock, higher productivity, and improved trade balances. I agreed with my Republican colleagues 6 years. I wish they agreed with me today.

Now, we can disagree about what has put us in the deficit hole today, but we should be able to agree that digging the hole deeper is ill- advised. Yet the President's budget proposes policies that would increase the deficit by more than $2 trillion over the next 8 years. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the tax cut signed by the President and new proposals in his budget are responsible for 45 percent of the $7.9 trillion deterioration in our budget outlook. Now, that is 45 percent. Fifty-five percent is the recession and the war and other things that are occurring today. Not the upcoming war.

The suggestion that we will be able to grow our way out of the deficit was contradicted in testimony by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan earlier this month. Even under the most optimistic, dynamic estimates of the President's tax cut, large deficits will continue as far the eye can see. And the projections of the economic benefits of tax cuts ignore the economic harm caused by government borrowing to finance deficits, higher interest rates, and lower investments in American businesses.

Now, contrary to some suggestions, my concern about the budget deficit has always applied to spending, increased spending, as well as unfinanced tax cuts. Even before many of my House Republican colleagues, I volunteered to help hold the line on spending at the level last year requested by the President. I hope the President, Mr. President, that you will send to Congress a list of pork-barrel items that you believe should be eliminated from the funding bill endorsed by the House leadership and recently signed into law. If you do, I will support those spending cuts. But the reality is that under the President's budget the deficit hole will be dug deeper.

Now, the rhetoric from my Republican friends about controlling spending just does not hold up to factual examination. In the 8 years since Republicans took control of the Congress, discretionary spending has increased by an average of 6.5 percent per year, compared to the previous 8 years of 1.6 percent. Those are the facts, not the rhetoric we hear on this floor every time someone stands up and questions the economic direction that we are going.

Now, some days, some of us ignore the most wasteful spending in the Federal budget, the $332 billion collected from taxpayers simply to cover our national interest payments. This debt tax consumed a whopping 18 percent of all Federal tax dollars last year. Under the budget, the economic game plan that I hear we are going to have on the floor in 2 or 3 weeks, the debt tax will increase 50 percent in the next 5 years. A 50 percent increase in taxes, the debt tax, is what is being advocated.

Now, I do not understand the logic of that. I agreed with the President, and I do agree with the President, and I believe him to be sincere when he says this Congress should not pass on to our children and future generations our debt. That is what we are doing under the proposal that is before us today.

To my friends on this side of the aisle, there are many on this side of the aisle that are ready to reach out and accept the hand and are beginning to work and to recognize that we need a change in direction. Yes, we need to restrain spending. And, yes, we need to

restrain our desire to give tax cuts to the current generation, just as we anticipate sending our youngest and finest over to fight a war. It is not fair to them. It is not fair to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, and I do so with extreme disappointment today.

As one that worked awfully hard in 1996 with both sides of the aisle in coming up with a welfare reform bill, working with my own State, working with the providers of welfare, working with the recipients of welfare, working with the business community, we came up with a good compromise bill.

Now, I am disappointed that we are taking the same bill that was passed last year, without legislative input, and bringing the same bill up today without committee action and the nonrecognition that the economy has changed since last year.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 would severely restrict the flexibility of States such as Texas to continue the activities that have been successful in their welfare reform bills. According to CBO, it will cost Texas $688 million over 5 years to pay for the Washington-mandated policies in this bill. Texas cannot afford these enormous expenses at the same time that we face a $9.9 billion budget shortfall and a sagging economy that continues to reduce State revenue. This will force Texas to drastically cut back on basic services or raise taxes, and they are not going to do that. It would be the height of arrogance for me to stand here in Washington and vote to require Texas to increase taxes or cut spending on other programs to implement policies that the Texas legislature has already considered and rejected in favor of other policies which have been proven to work.

Vote down H.R. 4; support the Cardin substitute. It will be much better for the State of Texas and other States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this tax and spend bill before us today. This bill will force States to increase taxes to pay for the increased spending necessary to meet the costs of the bill's unfunded mandates.

The Republican bill would impose mandates that would force States to change their existing welfare programs. Welfare reform has been a success in Texas and across the country in large part because of the State flexibility. I do not understand why the majority wants to force States to scrap the programs that have produced this success in order to comply with a Washington-knows-best approach. The States and folks at the local level know what works and what doesn't work in their local communities. They do not need Washington telling them how to run things.

According to a survey conducted by the National Governor's Association, 41 out of 47 States who responded would have to significantly alter their welfare program in order to comply with the requirements of the bill. This will require a costly redirection of resources. States will have to dismantle effective programs that have met the individual needs of their citizens.

For example, Texas's program helped them achieve a 61 percent reduction in welfare recipients since 1996. The Texas welfare program establishes time-limited benefits and requires welfare recipients to participate in work activities. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) oversees the Choices employment program, as well as child care, through a system of 28 local workforce development boards. The Department of Human Service is responsible for client eligibility determinations.

If the bill proposed by the majority passes, Texas will have to dismantle this successful program. They would have to drastically scale back its vocational education program which has been successful in matching welfare recipients with business needs, and implement a subsidized wage program that the State previously rejected as being ineffective. Texas would have to end its current practice of levying a reduction in cash benefits in order to comply with the mandate that States terminate assistance completely for families out of compliance with work requirement.

The Republican plan proposes radical waivers and block grant options what would affect the basic structure of the Food Stamp Program. It puts at risk the Program's effectiveness as a work support for families leaving cash assistance, ignores the considerable flexibility States currently have to run the program, and would undermine essential protections for the program's vulnerable clients. Congress instead should maintain the Food Stamp Program structure affirmed in last year's bipartisan farm bill reauthorization.

The Republican bill would create an unfunded mandate of $8 billion over 5 years according to the Congressional Budget Office to meet the work requirements in the bill. CBO estimated that if States actually meet the 40 hour work requirement with meaningful, structured requirements instead of self-reported activities, the unfunded mandate would increase to $11 billion. For Texas, the equates to a sum of up to $668 million over 5 years. Texas cannot absorb these costs. Faced with a $9.9 billion budget shortfall, and now a sagging economy that continues to reduce state revenue, the State will have no other option than to explore alternative ways to fund the government. This will mean cutting back on basic services or raising taxes.

In would be the height of arrogance for me to stand here in Washington and vote to require Texas to increase taxes or cut spending on other programs to implement policies that the Texas legislature has already considered and rejected in favor of other policies which have been proven to work. Many other States will face the same problem, as they face an $85 billion combined budget shortfall.

Republicans do not often like the term ``unfunded mandate'' because States would have the option of terminating current, nonmandatory services like child care to working families to cover the additional costs, rather than

spending new State dollars. However, child care is a necessary component of a welfare-to-work program, and terminating these programs are not a real option for States who want to help working families afford child care.

The Democratic substitute increases funding to States for child care assistance to match the CBO estimate of increased child care costs resulting from the work requirements in the Democratic substitute. The Democratic bill provides an additional $11 billion for mandatory child care over 5 years.

The Democratic plan focuses on moving welfare recipients into work and keeping them employed. The majority talks about their bill being tougher on work because of the 40 hour work requirement, but the reality is that 16 hours of that work is in unsupervised, unstructured activities that are not defined and could include helping children with homework or other self-reported activities. On the core work requirements, the Democratic substitute matches the Republican bill with 24 hours of work. More importantly, the Democratic substitute provides a credit for moving welfare recipients into employment, whereas the Republican bill allows States to reduce the work participation requirements simply by reducing the caseload for any reason.

The Democratic plan aims to equip welfare recipients with the knowledge and skills necessary to escape from poverty and welfare, and into a paying job, while the Republican bill does not. The Democratic plan allows for education and training to count toward the participation rate for up to 24 months, while the Republican plan limits them to 4 months. Republican plan eliminates vocational education from the list of work-related activities that count toward the State's participation rate--for the first 24 hours a week.

If you want States to be able to continue succeeding at the necessary job of helping folks get back to work, vote no on H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago the President stood in where the Clerk of the House stands and told the Nation that we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other Presidents and other generations. I stood and applauded that statement because I agree with my President. I agree with my commander in chief.

Then I was somewhat disappointed, considerably disappointed, when the administration's budget came through projecting a $307 billion deficit for next year and deficits as far as the eye can see. The President's budget protects cumulative deficits of over $2.1 trillion from 2002 through 2011. That is a $7.7 trillion deterioration of our fiscal matters of this country in 2 years.

The Blue Dogs stood on this floor and opposed the economic game plan that we are now under. We were not prophetic. We agreed with the majority party on the spending, but we were not even allowed to have our budget on the floor, and we have heard nothing but rhetoric ever since.

But now the results of the economic game plan are coming in, and I want everyone to understand, 60 percent of the deterioration has occurred because of 9-11-01 and the military homeland defense needs of this country and the recession. But 40 percent of that deterioration has occurred because of the economic game plan that we are now under.

I personally happen to agree with the President's leadership regarding solving the Social Security problem while we still had a chance. Again, I am ready to step forward in a bipartisan way and work with my colleagues to take care of that debt for our children. But that is not what we are talking about today. That is not what is being proposed and talked about in the budget.

After 4 years of reduction in the debt held by the public and warnings by administration and Republican after Republican in Congress that the government would pay off the debt too quickly 2 years ago, debt held by the public will exceed $5 trillion by 2008, a 50 percent increase, a debt tax increase on the American people that every taxpayer will have to pay, a debt tax increase under the administration's budget that is being proposed.

The administration requested the statutory debt limit be increased for the second time in less than a year. That ought to tell us something. When we are having to increase the debt limit so we can borrow more money, it ought to tell us there is something wrong with the game plan that we are now following.

The greatest danger of the deficits in the President's budget is that it will make it harder to address the challenges facing Social Security and Medicare when our baby boom generation begins to retire in the next decade. Instead of saving money to prepare for those costs, we will already be in a deep hole when the $18 trillion liability facing those programs begins to come due. The analytical prospectus volume of the President's budget, the administration warned us, as the baby boomers reach retirement age in large numbers, the deficit is projected to rise steadily as a percent of GDP. Deficits will grow from 2.2 percent of GDP in 2020 to 5.4 percent in 2030 to 8.8 percent in 2040 under the President's budget policies. How can we continue to ignore that today?

The debt tax is real. It is an increase. But instead of our paying for it today, what are we saying? We are going to give this generation another tax cut. And no one, including the President's

own budget analysis, shows that it is going to do anything other than increase the debt.

And we are not even talking about paying for the war, the war that we all pray will not come, but it looks like it is; and I am behind my commander in chief 100 percent. But the rhetoric of the economy in the budget does not match the rhetoric of what is needed as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) spoke so eloquently on a moment ago. The debt tax consumed 18 percent of all government revenues to pay interest on the $6.4 trillion debt last year. That debt tax will go up to 19.5 percent by 2008 under the economic game plan that we are being asked to support.

I ask my colleagues as one Democrat who used to vote with you and we passed the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995, what has happened to you? What has caused you to suddenly start saying, deficits do not matter, balancing the budget does not matter?

The Blue Dogs stand ready to work with our President and with the majority in seeing that we do not increase the taxes on our children through the debt tax.