Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a long-time independent voice of the people of west Texas, I rise to urge my colleagues in Congress to move forward with meaningful reforms to our national energy policy.

Driving across the long west Texas highways, one cannot help but notice the towering wind farms that have cropped up in the area I represent.

Unfortunately, further wind energy development is completely halted because Congress has yet to extend the production tax credit for renewable sources of energy.

We had the opportunity to extend the credits with the 2002 energy bill and now the latest energy bill has stalled in Congress. Because of unwillingness to move back to the negotiating table, my constituents are forced to forgo further wind energy development in their counties. This means fewer jobs are created in the area. Counties and schools have to give up additional tax revenue and the U.S. is put further behind in our goal to produce more renewable energy.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for folks in Congress to get serious about energy in America and immediately pass the extension for the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit. It is the economically

and environmentally responsible thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, the comments of my friend from New York, I feel compelled to remind everyone of the words of the late Will Rogers when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much. It's them knowing so much that ain't so that is the problem.''

We can talk about this all that we want to, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule, but any Member who has ever stood on this floor and talked about fiscal responsibility should vote no on this rule. All Members who care about the future integrity of the Social Security system should vote no on this rule. All Members who care about the legacy that we will leave for future generations should vote against this rule, and you know it in your heart.

Now, I too strongly support middle class tax relief. I support extending the marriage penalty relief. I support continuing the $1,000 per child tax credit and the expanded 10 percent tax credit. I have been a strong advocate for extending the wind energy tax credit.

The question is whether or not we will provide tax relief to middle income families. The debate is not whether we should do so with borrowed money, adding more debt on top of our $7.3 trillion national debt. We should not pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. That is the argument we make today.

Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget just like families across the country do every day as I hear from my friends on this side all the time, except when it counts. Unfortunately, the leadership of the House seems to have forgotten that common-sense principle. Instead of figuring out how to make these tax cuts fit within our budget, the majority has decided to avoid making tough choices. Every dime of these tax cuts will be added to the debt we will leave for our children and grandchildren, and you know it.

In the next couple of weeks, we will have to vote to raise the debt ceiling unless we hide it. Last year foreign interests financed more than 70 percent of our $374 billion deficit. More than $1.8 trillion of this debt we now talk about, well, we do not talk about it on this side of the aisle, is held by foreign investors.

I find it particularly ironic that we are considering legislation that would add $146 billion to that debt on the same day the House Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled to act on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. If a balanced budget amendment were already in the Constitution, we would not be able to continue following the budget policies being advocated by the majority. It seems only fair that those who support the amendment, as I do, be willing to budget accordingly by paying, rather than borrowing, for the policies they advocate.

The legislation before us is a perfect example of why we need a balanced budget constitutional amendment, to protect the rights of future generations who are not represented in our political system, but will bear the burden of our decisions today. It is easy for politicians to vote for tax cuts or spending increases that will benefit current voters and leave the bill to our children and grandchildren who do not have a vote.

Passing legislation cutting taxes or increasing spending without offsets today will increase the debt tax that must be paid by future generations and can never be repealed. The debt tax will consume 40 percent of all individual income taxes paid this year and will keep growing as long as we continue to pass legislation putting our Nation deeper into debt.

Continuing to run up the national debt will ensure that we and our children and grandchildren will be overtaxed for the rest of our lives. We should defeat this rule so the conferees can go back and put together a package that provides tax relief to working men and women without increasing taxes on our children and grandchildren.

To my friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds), let me remind him, it took our country 204 years to borrow the first $1 trillion, 204 years. We are borrowing $1 trillion every year and a half under the policies that you have got the guts to stand up here and say we ought to keep following.

Then vote for increasing the debt ceiling and tell the American people before November 2 this is the result of the policies. We are borrowing the money to have the policies that we are giving to you. Vote for us. Forget our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 494, which supports the goals and purposes of National Farm Safety and Health Week and applauds the men and women who provide a stable supply of food and fiber for the United States and the world.

By way of background, it should be noted that, for well over half a century, Congress has recognized National Farm Safety and Health Week. As far back as the 1940s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the first presidential proclamation recognizing National Farm Safety and Health Week in order to commemorate the hard work, diligence and sacrifices that our Nation's farmers and ranchers make on a daily basis.

This week is a time for our Nation to reflect upon the important role that U.S. agriculture has played and continues to play in this Nation and throughout the entire world. The United States began as an agrarian society, and agriculture has been the backbone of this country. Over time, however, our Nation became more industrialized, and people left the farms and rural areas to pursue opportunities in the cities. And yet despite the fact that there are fewer people producing the Nation's food and fiber, productivity has increased.

While the business of farming has undergone significant changes since the founding of this Nation, one thing has not changed: farming continues to be one of the most hazardous occupations in the United States. A report by the National Safety Council concluded that agriculture had the second highest fatality rate of all industries in the Nation. In 2003 alone there were 710 farm-related fatalities and 110,000 disabling injuries.

I hasten to add that, because of the nature of family farms, farm- related injuries and fatalities are not solely limited to adults. A 2001 study by the National Children's Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety reported that nearly 1.5 million young people, 20 years or younger, lived or worked on farms. The same study showed that more than 660,000 in that age range were employed but not living on farms. According to the study, more than 100 children younger than 20 die each year and more than 22,000 are injured from agriculture-related injuries. Similarly, a study by the American Academy of Pediatrics showed that for teenagers farm jobs have the highest rate of fatalities of all types of teen employment.

While there are many potential hazards on a farm, the greatest continues to be machinery. Reports indicate that 30 percent of farm machinery-related deaths occur in children less than 5 years old. Additionally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration concludes that 68 percent of farm-related deaths can be traced to some sort of machinery, including tractors, trucks, equipment such as augers and loaders, power takeoffs, and haying equipment.

Of all the equipment on the farm, tractors remain the most dangerous. In fact, OSHA reports that more than half of the deaths that occur on the farm are the result of tractor accidents. Of the deaths caused by tractor accidents, 57 percent are the result of rollovers and another 9 percent are the result of people either falling off or getting run over by a tractor.

Agriculture-related deaths and injuries are not limited to incidents involving machinery, however. Farmers and ranchers are subject to a whole host of other dangers including agriculture chemicals and fertilizers, unruly and unpredictable livestock, and buildings that contain high dust levels and toxins.

It goes without saying that the commitment to farm safety cannot be limited to a single week. Nevertheless, this timely and welcome resolution to commemorate farm safety reminds us all of how important it is for farmers, ranchers, and their workers to perform their work safely and to take precautions to protect themselves. When one's child is out there with them, take a little extra bit of care for that youngster.

By recognizing the dangers inherent in farming and ranching and by taking steps to prevent accidents, our Nation will continue to lead the world in the production of agriculture commodities.

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

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

I have no further requests for time, but let me just say in closing that I am honored to join today with the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) in joining with the President, President Bush, having declared this week National Farm Safety Week; and I am very happy to join in support of that concurrent resolution, in support of the President. I thank the President for recognizing this important contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, 3\1/2\ years ago, there was a lot of talk around here about budget surpluses. Some folks actually claimed there was a danger that the government would pay off our debt held by the public too quickly. Today, projections of large budget surpluses have been replaced with projections of deficits as far as the eye can see, and the administration is asking Congress to approve another increase in the debt limit, the credit card limit, if you please, for the United States of America.

Last year, the Republican leadership slipped through a $984 billion increase

in the debt limit, the largest increase in history, without an up-or- down vote in the House of Representatives. This came less than 8 months after we raised the Federal debt ceiling by $450 billion. To put that in proper perspective, it took our country 204 years to borrow the first $984 billion. The Treasury Department estimates that the national debt will exceed the statutory debt limit, which is currently $7.384 trillion, sometime in late September or October, just before the election.

But instead of taking responsibility to pass an increase in the debt limit to pay for our policies, the leadership is counting on the Treasury Department to rely on so-called extraordinary actions, such as dipping into retirement trust funds to avoid reaching the statutory debt limit until mid November and avoid a vote on legislation increasing the debt limit until a lame duck session after the election. These extraordinary actions should be a last resort to avoid a default during a crisis, not a routine action used for political convenience. It would be irresponsible to take funds from retirement trust funds simply to avoid a discussion of the fiscal problems highlighted by the need to increase the debt limit.

When the House resumes consideration of the Treasury Transportation appropriations bill today, I will offer an amendment which would prohibit the Secretary of Treasury from dipping into retirement trust funds in order to circumvent the statutory debt limit. The effect of my amendment would be to force Congress to take responsibility for the increase in the national debt by approving an increase in the debt limit before adjourning in October instead of deferring action until a lame duck session. Congress should have a full and open debate on increasing our national debt limit above $8 trillion instead of relying on financial maneuvers to avoid a vote.

There would be no risk of default if Congress met its responsibility to approve an increase in the debt limit before we adjourn for the election. If my Republican colleagues honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, they should be willing to stand up and vote to increase the national debt to pay for their tax cuts instead of relying on financial maneuvers. Just like credit card spending limits serve as tools to force families to examine their household budgets, the debt limit reminds Congress and the President to evaluate our budget policies.

The national debt has increased by $670 billion over the last 12 months and $1.5 trillion over the last 3 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will exceed $10 trillion in just over 4 years under our current budget policies. As of the end of April, $1.813 trillion of our debt was held by foreign investors, more than $1 trillion of which is held by official institutions. Japan now holds $695 billion of our debt, and the Chinese another $217 billion. Despite this, the leadership of this body is talking about bringing up legislation this week that would add another $130 billion to that debt.

We should not pay for tax cuts or spending by borrowing money against our children's future. Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget just like families do every day. The borrow-and-spend policies of the current majority will leave a crushing debt burden for future generations who do not have any say in what we are doing today and do not benefit from the tax cuts and spending programs for current generations.

The one tax that cannot be repealed is the debt tax, the cost of paying interest on our national debt. The debt tax consumed 18 percent of all government revenues to pay interest on the national debt last year and 40 percent of every dime of income taxes is required to pay interest today at current interest rates. Congress should not grant the administration a blank check to continue on the path of deficit spending. Before we vote to increase the debt limit, we should reinstate the budget enforcement rules which make it harder to pass legislation which would put us further into debt, including pay-as-you- go for all legislation.

If the leadership were willing to work with us to add meaningful budget enforcement provisions to legislation increasing the debt limit, the Blue Dog Democrats would gladly supply bipartisan support for an increase in the debt limit. But if the majority wants to continue with their economic policies that have us on a path to running up more than $10 trillion in debt by the end of the decade, they should be willing to step up to the plate and approve the increase in the debt limit necessary to pay for their policies and not hide until after the elections to tell the people what the results are.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman this is a very simple amendment to restore a little bit of accountability and honesty around here about our fiscal policies. My amendment would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from dipping into retirement trust funds in order to circumvent the statutory debt limit.

The effect of my amendment would be to force Congress to take responsibility for the increase in the national debt by approving an increase in the debt limit before adjourning in October instead of deferring action until a lame duck session. There would be no risk of default if Congress met its responsibility to approve an increase in the debt limit before we adjourn for the election. The Treasury Department has repeatedly warned Congress that we are approaching the debt limit and need to increase it above its current level of 7.384 trillion.

Just 3 years ago, the administration stated that we would not need to raise the debt limit for 7 years and actually warned that we were in danger of paying off our debt too quickly. After 3 years of our current economic policies, projected surpluses have turned into record deficits; and we are being asked to increase the debt limit for the third time in 3 years to more than $8 trillion. But instead of taking responsibility to pay for the debt that we have run up as a result of our policies, the Republican leadership is relying on the Treasury Department to protect them from having to take this vote before the election by dipping into retirement trust funds to avoid breaching the statutory debt limit until mid-November.

When Treasury Secretary Rubin took these extraordinary actions as a last resort to avoid an imminent default during a crisis, he was loudly criticized by Republican leaders in Congress. The Republican majority in Congress passed legislation which would have taken these tools away from him, and some Republicans in Congress called for his impeachment. Today, instead of criticizing the Treasury Department for planning to dip into retirement trust funds, Republican leaders are actively encouraging the Treasury Department to take these same steps as a routine action used for political convenience.

It would be irresponsible to take funds from retirement trust funds simply to avoid a discussion of the fiscal problems highlighted by the need to increase the debt limit. Instead of honestly facing up to our ballooning national debt, the leadership of this body is talking about bringing up legislation this week that would add another $130 billion to that debt.

We should not pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget just like families across the country do every day. I would say to my Republican colleagues that if they honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, if they believe that deficits do not matter, they should be willing to stand up and vote openly and honestly on this floor to increase the credit card limit for our country to make room for those cuts.

There would be no need for these maneuvers to avoid a vote on the debt limit if the leadership were willing to work with us to stop the increase in deficit spending. The Blue Dog Democrats will gladly supply bipartisan support for an increase in the debt limit if it is accompanied by meaningful budget enforcement provisions, including the pay-as-you-go rules that were instrumental in turning budget deficits into surpluses in the 1990s. But we will not vote to approve a blank check that will allow the Government to continue runaway deficit spending.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to continue with our current economic policies that have us on a path of running up more than $10 trillion in debt, it will be up to them to provide the votes. We will work with them if they will work with us.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the chairman.

I will say that everything he has said is 100 percent the truth. We did not mention Social Security. I deliberately did not mention Social Security because that is not the issue here. Everything the gentleman said in the letter from the Treasury is the truth. That is not the point of our amendment.

The point of our amendment is to have an up or down vote by this body to assume the responsibility, rather than allow, under the law, the Secretary of the Treasury to manipulate the funds in a legal way to avoid having a vote on this floor prior to November 2, to have an assumption of the responsibility of the fiscal matters of this country. That is all I am asking.

The chairman is exactly right: We do not need this. If he would assure me that we will have a vote, and since both of us agree on a balanced budget constitutional amendment, this is helpful to those of us like you and I, Mr. Chairman, that want to bring fiscal accountability. That is all we are asking. Let us not confuse this issue with anything other than a clear, plain, up and down vote of expression.

I have already offered on behalf of a substantial number of Democrats to support an up or down vote, if you will put some budget enforcing accountability back into our process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I hope everyone caught the significance of the exchange between the chairman and me, because I am not disagreeing with anything that he offered in opposition to this amendment, because what he said is 100 percent true. I hope everyone in this body understands the significance of this side offering the hand of bipartisanship to pass an increase in the debt ceiling, which we must do. If we did not do that, our Nation would default on our good credit, and that is intolerable, unthinkable.

The purpose of this amendment, though, is to try once again to get my friends on that side of the aisle to accept the responsibility for the economic policy that they have voted and revoted and voted and revoted and continue to do, and that is building the debt for our children and grandchildren at a rate unseen in our history of our country.

It took us 204 years to borrow the first $1 trillion. We are about to borrow $19 trillion in a year-and-a-half, and my friends on that side do not seem to care.

We are offering to put back pay-as-you-go for spending and tax cuts to be paid for. It does not mean we cannot cut taxes. In fact, I support repeal of the marriage tax penalty, I support doing the child tax credit. I would like to see it. But I want to see it paid for, not passed on to my three grandsons in debt because it is good politics right before an election.

We are offering sincerely to offer some votes. Bring it up and vote on it. Do not force the Treasury to go through the mechanizations that they will go through just to avoid voting on this prior to November 2.

Mr. Chairman, we are sending alerts, the Blue Dogs, in which we will put in writing our willingness to work with you on doing this, because it is the responsible thing for us to do. But we also think it is responsible for this body in a bipartisan way to begin to actually do something about the deficit, other than talk about it and increase it, as we will do later this week, by another $130 billion, unpaid for.

Our grandchildren do not have a vote. That is why it is so easy for us to say here today we can fight two wars, we can fund homeland security, we can fight the war on terrorism, we can do all of these things, but we are going to send the bill to our grandchildren. We are not willing to pay for it, any of it, today. In fact, even worse, we are willing to decrease the amount of money available to do all of these things.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote on this, because it is the responsible thing for this body to do.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a story that appeared in the August 30, 2004 edition of the Lubbock Avalanche Journal, regarding Dr. Carl G. Anderson and his retirement, both as the Cotton Marketing Specialist for the Texas Cooperative Extension Service and as a professor with Texas A&M University's Department of Agricultural Economics.

As a West Texas cotton farmer, I will sorely miss Dr. Anderson's expertise, especially the calm, rational manner with which he makes sense of the cotton market. I often had the task of following Dr. Anderson in speaking at many a lunch or dinner, so I can attest to the respect and admiration he has among cotton farmers. He was, and will remain, a tough act to follow. I know my fellow cotton farmers, as well as all others involved in the cotton industry in Texas feel the same way.

I should note that Carl's love of agriculture was passed on to his daughter, Caroline Anderson Rydell, who worked for one of our former colleagues and was a staff member of the House Committee on Agriculture. Caroline remains in Washington and is working on behalf of American farmers and ranchers at the American Farm Bureau Federation.

It is my understanding that Carl will continue to be play a role on a part-time basis for another year. Those of us involved in cotton production in Texas will have Carl's expertise for one more year before we have to get through a planting, harvesting, ginning and marketing season without him!

I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his 22 years of service as the Cotton Marketing Specialist for the Texas Cooperative Extension Service, and I wish him well as he begins to enjoy a well- deserved retirement with his wonderful wife, Shirley.

Ag Expert Has Cotton in His Blood

anderson retiring but staying in field

(By Joe Gulick)

Carl Anderson's involvement in the cotton industry began as

a boy. He recalls picking cotton, dragging a heavy cotton

sack behind him, and repeatedly hoeing the stubborn and

prolific Johnson grass that sprouted in the black Texas soil

of the family farm outside Taylor, near Austin.

``We had never even dreamed of Round-Up in those days,'' he

said with a laugh, referring to the modern herbicide.

The many hours of hard work in the hot sun established

character and built within him the desire to work hard and do

well, he said. They also encouraged him to approach

agriculture from a different perspective--one in which he

used his head and not his hands.

``It got me started on thinking,'' he said. ``Thinking is a

lot easier than running a gooseneck hoe and picking cotton.''

The intellectual approach led to Anderson earning a

doctorate from Texas A&M and becoming one of the top cotton

marketing experts in the nation. His many awards and

accolades attest to his success.

He will retire on Tuesday as professor and extension

economist with A&M's Department of Agricultural Economics.

But fortunately for the Texas cotton industry, he will

continue to work part-time.

Roger Haldenby, vice president of operations of Plains

Cotton Growers Inc., said Anderson is one of the leading

cotton economists in the Cotton Belt--from California to the

Carolinas--but is especially well known in Texas.

``Carl has been ahead of the curve on all of the market

moves and has given sound and solid advice to cotton farmers

on how they can market, hedge or keep their cotton from

season to season,'' Haldenby said.

Dale Swinburn, who farms south of Tulia, called Anderson a

great asset to the Texas cotton industry.

``He is a real educator and helps farmers understand the

futures market. He is a great guy and is very approachable.''

Anderson, who attended college on the GI Bill, worked as an

economist for the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas for about

eight years after receiving his doctorate. He worked with

agricultural lenders in the fledgling cattle feeding

industry, primarily in the Texas Panhandle and Amarillo area.

In 1978, A&M created the position of cotton marketing

specialist, and Anderson returned to his alma mater to take

the job.

He recalls that he was surrounded by challenges, not the

least of which was the fact that West Texas cotton quality

was lacking at that time.

``The producers were very good at producing, but they did

not think beyond the gin,'' he said. ``At that point, the

producer was pretty much at the mercy of the market--with the

exception of a few co-ops.''

Improving the quality of local cotton was a gradual process

that was helped greatly by the change from hand evaluation of

strength and quality of cotton fibers to machine evaluation.

Cotton grown in West Texas today has higher fiber strength,

longer fibers and better yields, he said.

Asked about the most rewarding part of his career, he

replied, ``Seeing farmers that have adapted to change,

whether it was new systems of farming, new varieties or

learning to price cotton when prices were most favorable.''

He has seen tremendous changes in the cotton industry since

his childhood, from machinery, herbicides and insect control

to chemicals and developments in genetics.

``I remember my father plowing with mules,'' he said. ``The

first tractors were two-row tractors with steel wheels. Now

they have four-wheel drive machines that do at least 12 rows

at a time.''

Anderson remembers spending the summer of 1949, after he

graduated from high school, participating to a small degree

in growing and harvesting the Texas cotton crop that still

stands as a state record. As he retires, it appears the state

will top that record this year.

``It is exciting to me that, with about half the acreage we

had then, we can exceed the 6 million bales we had in 1949,''

he said.

The future of cotton in Texas will probably be on even

fewer acres, he said. Some of the marginal acreage for cotton

now will probably be used to grow other things, but the acres

that remain will be higher-yielding ones.

And the United States will continue to be challenged by

international competition, particularly from China, which

Anderson said dominates the world in cotton production. One

problem has been the shrinking of the U.S. textile industry

and the strength of China's textiles, he said.

``The only way we can compete with them is to be the most

efficient, from field to fabric,'' Anderson noted.

He is honored by a graduate assistant scholarship fund that

has been established in his name at A&M. While he is looking

forward to slowing down a bit, his remaining on part-time

status after his retirement will be welcomed by those who

have come to depend on him.

``I have heard people introduce him as the dean of

cotton,'' said Billy Tiller, who farms west of Littlefield.

``I take my hat off to him for serving us for all of these

years. What would we do without him?''

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my friend from Arizona has left the floor. But I sat here and listened carefully to his very eloquent speech that was totally irrelevant to the motion that is before the House.

We are not talking about raising taxes. We are talking about being concerned about the rising deficit. And sooner or later these speeches that we make, and I think it was Yogi Berra who said this is deja vu all over again, sooner or later folks like the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) are going to have to come to this floor and increase the debt ceiling for the United States of America, the credit card limit. Because they can talk about all of what these tax cuts are doing all they want to, but CBO today certified that we now have the largest deficit in the history of our country, $422 billion; and it is explained away, somehow, some way, this rhetoric that we hear over and over that unfortunately has got a few of the American people believing them, that these deficits do not matter.

They do matter; and soon, I hope, the gentleman from Arizona will stand on this floor and move the motion to increase our debt ceiling to $8 trillion, which is what somebody is going to have to do because we will reach sometime in October or early November the credit card limit of what the United States of America can borrow.

The gentleman from Indiana offers a simple motion to instruct, and just as he said, the Blue Dogs, we had a substitute that called for an extension of middle-class tax relief, the marriage tax penalty. All of these, we are not arguing. We want to extend them. But nobody listens on that side. They come up with a speech that is totally irrelevant to the argument. But we want to pay for them because if we do not pay for them, we are going to have to borrow the additional money to make room for them. That is not me talking. That is not the Blue Dogs talking. That is the overwhelming consensus of economists who are saying we have got to borrow it; $422 billion dollars, $574 billion when we once again take into consideration we are borrowing all of the Social Security trust fund dollars and we might add in all the military trust fund dollars and all of the civil service trust fund dollars. And the folks on this side who claim to be conservatives say that is irrelevant.

It is going to take 40 percent of all the income taxes collected this year to pay the deficit tax, the interest on the national debt. And if interest rates start going up, guess what. The deficit tax is going to go up.

This is money that is literally wasted as far as a productive value for the United States of America. But nobody mentions that. Everybody is going to talk about more tax cuts, more tax cuts.

We say, great. Put them on the floor, paid for, and we will support you. But put them on the floor and borrow on our children's and grandchildren's future, and we say no. Let you do it. But you will have to make another speech like the gentleman from Arizona makes, and everybody thinks that is great stuff and that us Blue Dogs are all opposing him. We agreed with him. We agreed with him on everything, except you should not do what he is doing by borrowing on the future on some theory of economics that has been proven, proven in the 1980s, proven in the 1990s, and now we are about to prove it in this century, that it does not work, because if it did work, we would not have to be borrowing the money to pay for it.

So listen very carefully to what Mr. Greenspan is saying. Listen to what people like Pete Peterson, people like the Concord Coalition are saying; begging this body, begging this body to get fiscally responsible and not keep turning a blind eye to the fact that of this debt held by the public now, $1.7 trillion of that debt is now owned by foreign interests, and $1 trillion of our debt is owned by foreign institutions.

Now, the United States of America is no different than any family sitting down over dinner at this moment. When your banker tells you that you cannot borrow any more, you have to adjust your spending habits.

We are heading for a precipice that is going to be one of the most serious problems this country has ever faced, because 2011 is not that far away. The baby-boom generation, all the promises, all of the legislation we refuse to consider on this floor dealing with the future is being swept under the rug.

Support the gentleman from Indiana's motion to instruct. It is a fiscally responsible direction for this House to take.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania to yield a moment ago, and he refused to. And I understand, I did not mean to interrupt, but I did want to clarify one of the statements.

The gentleman was mischaracterizing what we are standing up here doing tonight. We are suggesting that tax cuts be paid for, and we would love to see spending reductions proposed to accommodate that. That is what we would like to see on this floor, and that is what we constantly and consistently do.

I would ask the gentleman, and I will yield to him for a brief answer to a question, will the gentleman bring from the Committee on Ways and Means a bill to the floor of the House before we adjourn for the elections to increase the debt ceiling for the United States of America to $8 trillion to accommodate the economic policy that the gentleman seems unwilling to make any changes in and believe is successful? Will the gentleman do that?

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to ask another question then. I would just refer to the gentleman as an individual Member, 1/435th of this body, does the gentleman believe we should have a clean up-or-down vote on increasing the debt ceiling for this country prior to going home to run for reelection?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and my friend from Pennsylvania asked for the specifics.

The Blue Dog budget this year proposed to spend no more than President Bush recommended that the Congress spend, and we intend to stick with that. When my colleague talks about spending and he talks about revising history, in the 8 years prior to the last 3\1/2\, spending went up 3.4 percent per year on the average. In the last 3\1/ 2\ years, spending has gone up 10.4 percent.

The gentleman keeps asking for specifics from the minority side. Last time I checked, the minority does not even get recognized for amendments so that we can do some of things that we talked about doing. We were denied having even a vote on some of our budgets over the last 3\1/2\ years. The gentleman keeps talking about specifics and rhetoric. His rhetoric does not match the specifics.

We are going to prove unequivocally sometime in the next 2 or 3 months that the economic game plan we are under is not working because we are going to have to vote to increase the credit card limit of the United States of America for the third time in 3 years, this time through $8 trillion. Yes, the war is expensive and we must pay for the war, but this is the first war in the history of our country that is being fought at the same time we are asking to reduce the amount of money available to make sure the troops have the material that they need in order to fight the war.

If my colleague wants to make that argument, be my guest. All we are suggesting with this simple motion is go back to what worked in 1994, pay-as-you-go. It worked when we were bipartisan working on it. It worked in 1997 when we worked together as Democrats and Republicans. What has happened in the last 3\1/2\ years to suggest that, in a bipartisan way, we do not want to follow that which has worked?

That is the fundamental question for this body. I ask for a vote in favor of the gentleman from Indiana's motion. It is returning common sense, pay-as-you-go, making tough choices; does not raise taxes on anyone. It just says if we are going to increase spending for any worthwhile project, we have got to pay for it; if we are going to cut taxes and increase the deficit, we have got to cut the spending first, not rhetorically, after the next election. Do it now, and my colleagues will find there will be some Blue Dogs working with them.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

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

This is a very simple motion. The motion calls on Congress to extend middle-class tax relief without increasing the deficit. There is a broad, bipartisan support for extending the middle-class tax provisions which expire at the end of this year. There is also bipartisan support for the concept of pay-as-you-go to avoid further increasing the record budget deficits facing our Nation. Our motion would put the House on record in support of a conference report that achieves both of these goals.

I strongly support middle-class tax relief. I support extending marriage penalty relief. I support continuing the $1,000 per child tax credit and the expanded 10 percent tax bracket.

What I oppose is passing those tax cuts with borrowed money and leaving our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.

The Blue Dog budget and Spratt budget substitute called for extension of middle-class tax relief offset by suspending a portion of additional tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers.

More recently, a bipartisan group of Senators has put forward a proposal to expand the three middle-class tax cuts for 1 year, offset by an extension of customs user fees and closing corporate tax loopholes.

The question is not whether or not we should provide tax relief to middle-class families. The debate is whether we should do so with borrowed money, adding more debt on top of our $7.1 trillion national debt.

We should not pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget, just like families across the country do every day. If we do not pay for tax cuts by cutting spending or replacing the revenues, every dime of the tax cuts will be added to the debt we will leave for our children and grandchildren.

At a time when our national debt is approaching $8 trillion and our Nation faces tremendous expenses for our troops overseas, it is irresponsible to continue passing legislation that would put our Nation even deeper in debt.

As of the close of business last Friday, our total national debt stood at $7,273,792,456,490.62. It appears very likely the debt limit will be reached sometime in late September or October, with the most likely date being early October, and here let me pause for a moment and say instead of working in a bipartisan way, which we could achieve in a heartbeat to increase the debt ceiling, what we continue to face are more and more bills to increase spending and decrease revenue and increase the deficit.

We offer the hand of bipartisan cooperation on this amendment tonight, and in my opinion, if this would suddenly become the leadership's position, we would pass the tax cuts that the folks on this side of the aisle are talking about unanimously tomorrow or the next day, and it would conference out of the Senate.

But instead, it appears very likely the debt limit that will be reached

sometime in late September or October will come and go, and we will have a crisis.

Secretary Snow has publicly urged Congress to increase the debt limit as soon as possible, even before recessing in August, and we should do that. The most responsible thing for this Congress to do is do exactly what Secretary Snow is asking us to do.

As of the end of April, $1.726 trillion of our debt was held by foreign investors, more than $1 trillion held by official institutions of foreign countries. Despite this, the leadership of this body is talking about bringing up legislation that would add another $75 to $180 billion to that debt. And some folks even have the nerve to say with a straight face they are taking a conservative position.

Those who want to extend expiring tax cuts or make the tax cuts permanent should be willing to put forward the spending cuts or other offsets necessary to pay for them.

Applying pay-as-you-go rules to tax cuts do not prevent Congress from passing more tax cuts. All it says is that if we are going to reduce our revenues, we need to reduce our spending by the same amount.

If Republicans actually mean what they say about controlling spending, you should have no problem with applying pay-as-you-go to tax cuts, because it would force Congress to actually control spending when we pass tax cuts instead of just promising to do so in the future and having what apparently seems to be a good campaign issue.

The problem is that actions of Republicans have not matched their rhetoric. They cut taxes without cutting spending, in fact, increasing spending at the most dramatic rate that we have seen in many, many years. They charge the difference to our children and grandchildren by increasing the deficit. We should provide tax relief to working men and women, but we must do so without increasing taxes on our children and grandchildren. That is what the Stenholm amendment to instruct conferees would provide.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman did not intend to mischaracterize my amendment.

I guess I did not hear what I thought I heard you say.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

You are mischaracterizing my amendment. We are suggesting that the tax cuts be extended through next year. You are describing something that is not going to happen in my amendment, leaving a wrong impression with the people that might be listening to us right now.

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

I think it is a fascinating argument. We have heard it time and time and time again. My friend talks about the lack of controlling of spending. Let me remind, Mr. Speaker, you control this House. You control the Senate. You control the White House. All of the great speeches that are made about controlling spending are your responsibility.

This amendment will not stop that from happening. In fact, I suggest just the opposite has been happening because we continue to pay tax cuts but spending goes up. Nothing in my amendment suggests that spending would not go down. If you want to have a tax cut, pass the spending cuts first. Do not just do it on the promise of a theory that so far has not worked. Did not work in the 1980s, has not worked in the 1990s. But yet we hear the same rhetoric; and with all due respect, my colleague mischaracterizes our amendment.

I would be happy to yield at any time to my friend.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, I take back time because again you are totally misleading the body when you make that statement.

If you go back to PAYGO as was originally passed in this body in 1990, repassed in 1993, repassed in 1997 with Republican votes for it and Democrats joining, like myself, in putting that in place, it worked. There is nothing in this amendment that suggests that you, the majority party, must cut entitlement spending in order to achieve a tax cut.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Yes.

That is the problem. That is the problem. It is a lack of understanding.

PAYGO means you have got to come up with the spending cuts to take care of the amount of tax cut.

The gentleman has misstated the facts again. There is no budget. There is no budget until we get a House-Senate conference and we have a budget. If we had a budget, I would probably be standing up here agreeing with parts of what you are saying.

Reclaiming my time, that is precisely why I am standing here tonight offering a solution for the House and the Senate.

There is a bipartisan family tax relief proposal in the other body. It calls for a clean 1-year extension of the present law, $1,000 tax credit. It calls for the marriage tax penalty relief and the standard deduction, clean 1-year extension of present law so that married couples get twice the standard deductions of single filers. It calls for the 10 percent rate bracket clean 1-year extension. It calls for 1- year acceleration of the scheduled 2005 increase from 10 to 15 percent. It provides for the benefit of the child credit to military families by expanding the definition of earned income.

There is not a bit of this that you are opposed to. We all agree on that.

Now, what my proposal does is the offsets that they put in their bill. The Concord Coalition today has endorsed what this bipartisan group of Senators, let me read the names, Senator Snowe, Republican of Maine; Senator Baucus, Democrat of Montana; Senator McCain, Republican of Arizona; Senator Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana; Senator Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island; Senator Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas.

The other body is showing some signs of saying, look, it is time for us to deal with a very serious problem. If we do not act, these tax cuts are going to become tax increases on the middle-income folks. If we do not act. To act you are going to have to eventually get some kind of bipartisan agreement. You will never get bipartisan agreement by standing up in this body and saying, we passed a budget in this House. Whoopee. We passed one in this House. But you have got to have a Senate concurrence if you are going to, in fact, achieve something that we all agree needs to be done. That is my point.

We can do this. It is not that difficult. Unless you just believe we can borrow unlimited amounts of money.

There are some misconceptions flowing around. I have been in this body now for 13 terms. And when I look at spending as a percent of gross domestic product when I arrived here in 1979 and compare it with spending today, total spending as a percent of GDP, it is one half of 1 percent less today than it was in 1979. Revenue has dropped by 5 percent. The amount of revenue that we have available to fund the programs, including fighting three wars, has dropped by 5 percent; and in dropping the revenue by 5 percent, we are adding to the deficit at an alarming rate.

It does not seem to bother you, Mr. Speaker. It does not seem to bother my friend. As long as we were out here arguing about tax cuts, it does not bother anyone. And why should it? The folks that this should bother are our children and grandchildren, and they have about as much knowledge of this as my friend arguing on the other side here today and they cannot vote. That is the problem. Our grandchildren cannot vote.

Adding to the deficit under a political theory that has not worked, did not work in the 1980s, is not working today, is dangerous to the future health of this country. I believe that.

My friends on the other side apparently do not believe that. And that is fine. As long as you stand up and say, honestly, I do not believe it is going to harm the United States of America that we borrow another 75 to $180 billion, because tonight I do not know what my friends are proposing in this mysterious conference. Very unusual procedure that we are talking about in doing what no one knows until the leadership deems that it is going to be on the floor, and deems the way it is going to be carried out, and deems the way that it is going to, in fact, effect the future economy of this country.

Now, that is perfectly within the purview of the majority party, to continue to allow business as serious as the economic future of this country to be decided in a very small cadre of Members who happen to be in the leadership. And if you continue to do as you have been doing, you are going to be successful in this body. But then what happens if we cannot get an agreement with the other body?

Why would we not come together tonight and say, okay, we can have a 1-year extension and we can pay for it, either with the way the Senate has proposed it or by finding some other spending cuts up front. Not doing it like we did it 2 weeks ago, and spending 7 hours in this body debating all these wonderful amendments and then having nothing. Some got 100 votes and some got 105. And that is perfectly within the purview of any Member to stand up and speak for what they are for. But, ultimately, when you are in the majority party you have to accept the responsibility, the responsibility of your actions.

Just as I took the hand of your party in the 1980s when we were in the majority in this body and we worked together for some compromises regarding the economy of this country, we offer that hand tonight. This amendment, if you look at it honestly, again, is a very simple motion. It calls on Congress to extend middle-class tax relief without increasing the deficit. What is wrong with that? I ask my colleagues, what is wrong with extending middle-class tax relief without increasing the deficit? Why are my friends on the other side of the aisle so bound and determined that you want to continue to increase the deficit because you have a theory, a theory, that by cutting taxes without paying for them that it will do something other than increase the deficit?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I do. I respect the sincerity of the gentleman

and his belief. I happen to believe that he is wrong and is being proven wrong every day by the facts. And let the facts speak for themselves.

That is the whole question today, and this is something that we can continue to argue, but if we do not get some agreements fairly soon, middle-income folks will get a tax increase, and it will not be my fault.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, subject 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 the motion is as follows:

Mr. Stenholm moves 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, an earlier speaker tonight said the economy is showing signs of some considerable improvement. Jobs are being created, GDP is increasing. Well, it should. We have borrowed $2.5 trillion in the last 3\1/2\ years and spent it. We should get the kind of results with that amount of borrowing.

Last week, the administration failed to meet the deadline to release the mid-session review of the budget. If the administration had released the mid-session review, it would have shown that our budget is in a deep hole. As my colleagues have heard me say many times, when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging. Soon we will have an announcement of another record deficit, somewhere between $425 billion and $500 billion.

Under the simple concept of pay-as-you-go, if we want to pass a tax cut or spending increase, we need to say how we would pay for it. We need to take two shovels away from Congress and the President to stop us from digging the hole deeper. The original PAYGO legislation was part of the bipartisan 1990 budget agreement between President George Herbert Walker Bush and the Democratic Congress. It was subsequently extended in 1993 and 1997, but was allowed to expire in 2002 by President Bush and the Republican Congress.

We should be spending our time trying to find a bipartisan solution to balance our budget, but that may be too much to expect from this do- nothing 108th Congress. Not only has this Congress failed to make any serious efforts to reduce the deficit, we have allowed the budget enforcement tools, which we have proven the track record of in controlling the deficit, to expire. Last month, the House spent 7 hours on this floor debating 19 amendments on budget process reform, but the House leadership would not even allow an up-and-down vote on the Blue Dog budget enforcement proposals because the leadership knew that it would have enough bipartisan support to pass.

Now, I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Nebraska who just spoke regarding marriage. I strongly support middle- class tax relief. I support extending the marriage penalty relief, the $1,000 per child tax credit and the 10 percent tax bracket. What I oppose is passing these tax cuts with borrowed money and leaving our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.

Those who want to extend expiring tax cuts or make the tax cuts permanent, which they will try to do again this week, adding another $120 to $180 billion to our deficit, should be willing to put forward the spending cuts or the offsetting necessary to pay for them.

Applying pay-as-you-go rules to tax cuts does not prevent Congress from passing more tax cuts. All it says is that if we are going to reduce our revenues, we need to reduce our spending by the same amount so the deficit does not get deeper.

If Republicans actually meant what they say about controlling spending, they would have no problem with applying pay-as-you-go to tax cuts, because it would force Congress to actually control spending when we pass tax cuts instead of just promising to do so in the future.

The problem is the actions of Republicans have not matched their rhetoric. They cut taxes without cutting spending and charge the difference to our children and grandchildren.

Last year we increased the debt limit by $984 billion. The current debt limit is $7.384 trillion. At the close of business last Friday, our total national debt stood at $7,273,792,456,490.62. It appears very likely the debt limit will be reached sometime in late September or October, with the most likely date being early October.

It is time for Congress to deal seriously with our Nation's fiscal affairs. We cannot keep having 70 percent of our debt being bought by foreigners and not paying the bill sooner or later.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Common Computing Environment system. There are a lot of folks making a lot of great speeches today, and I agree with all of them. I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). I agree with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the concerns and the needs there. I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and his statement. I agreed with the chairman and what he is saying.

But what I am afraid of is that we are about to do something that is going to do more damage to all of our farmers and all of our needs and the efficiency of the delivery of these programs by once again using the Common Computer Environmental systems as a cash cow.

USDA began modernization and streamlining with the USDA Reauthorization Act of 1994 signed by the President, October 13, 1994. Since then we have made some progress. USDA field agencies still rely, though, on outdated information technology. Basically, what we were saying in 1994 to USDA, start cooperating and working together. Have FSA, NRCS and Rural Development start looking at one-stop shopping, start looking at putting their computer systems together, start doing those things that would allow them to operate efficiently and save money for our appropriators and get the job done better.

We have got a ways to go. But if we deny them the technology to do it, we will never get there.

I want to give the Members a little story about how using modern information technology can benefit not only producers in the delivery of programs and services but can save the taxpayers millions of dollars of waste in eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the delivery of Federal assistance.

In 2000, the Committee on Agriculture included a provision in the crop insurance reform bill it was considering. The bill instructed the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and implement a coordinated plan for the Risk Management Agency and the Farm Service Agency to reconcile all relevant information received by RMA and FSA from a producer who obtains crop insurance. The agencies were to reconcile such producer- derived information on at least an annual basis to identify and address any discrepancies.

We encouraged the Secretary to use an outside entity that had expertise in information technologies known as data mining and data warehousing and other available information technologies to administer the program. It took over a year to implement the provisions, with USDA kicking and screaming all the way. In fact, only RMA ultimately entered into the agreement with Tarleton and Planning Systems Incorporated to apply data mining and data warehousing to its data in an attempt to detect fraudulent practices in the multiperil crop insurance program. FSA refused to share its producer data.

We talk about cutting waste, fraud and abuse from Federal programs all the time. In 4 short years and an approximately $20 million investment by this body, RMA estimates it has saved American taxpayers $250 million in claims not filed by detecting schemes to file bogus insurance claims losses. Technology can do the job if we allow it to do it. What more could we accomplish if we required all of USDA to use modern technology and by sharing information to ensure that the programs it administers and services it delivers is done in an effective and efficient manner?

If we are serious about eliminating waste, fraud and abuse from government programs, I suggest we fully fund USDA's Common Computing Environment.

I recognize and I saw all of the amendments that my colleagues were bringing today, each one of which is designed to get into this particular, they believe, cash cow, for doing some very good and important things. But I think we become considerably shortsighted if we do not recognize that if we are truly to deliver the services to our producers that the conservation, with technical assistance, if we are truly to do those things that we all want to do, the best place to start is by making sure that the USDA Reorganization Act of 1994 is fully implemented by demanding USDA do it, but at the same time not shortchange them on the technology they will need in order to do it. That is my concern today.

I guess basically I am rising in opposition to all of the amendments until someone can show me that taking money from the computers is a better investment. I would much rather continue to recognize we have a budget problem, not an appropriations problem. I recognize what the chairman is attempting to do with this amendment, but I believe it is not in the best long-term interest of USDA and the people we serve, the producers and consumers of America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and associate myself with both chairmen's comments.

Right now, we are in some serious negotiations on the current Doha round of the WTO agreement. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) made the comment a moment ago, I want to repeat it. It makes no sense for us to unilaterally disarm ourselves when we are in the process of negotiating the next round of trade agreements.

Also, I have to chuckle sometimes when I hear other groups who suddenly become experts on everything that is done or not done in agriculture. Right now, we are in an international marketplace in which we have to compete with other governments. I first became aware of this over 20 years ago when it affected the poultry industry and when we found turnkey jobs being offered to anyone that would buy their chickens. We had folks that were willing to pay for turnkey jobs for everything from the feeding, to the growing, to the processing, to the selling, to the promoting. We had this same argument year after year in which for some reason we have been refusing to stand shoulder to shoulder with our businesses in that international marketplace.

If we could isolate it, then the gentleman is correct with his amendment. But when one looks at it from the standpoint of the negotiations that we are now going through, it makes no sense whatsoever for this body to unilaterally disarm those producers of commodities that are trying to compete in an international marketplace and the only help they get is this small amount which is given through the MAP program.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let us give our negotiators a chance, and if by chance we can negotiate away all Federal help by all governments everywhere in the world to do this, then I will be the first one standing here on this floor saying, let's do it. But today let us not do it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4766.

Mr. Chairman, once again the chairman and ranking minority member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have done an excellent job under very tight constraints. The bill is well balanced and will allow the Agriculture Department, the CFTC, and other related agencies to carry out their various important functions.

Mr. Chairman, the cap on this bill binds very tightly. It represents a near hard freeze and, as a result, the Appropriations Committee had to cut into mandatory funding.

I was very proud of the work that the Agriculture Committee and this House did in developing the 2002 farm bill, and for me it was a great honor to be involved in its development. In a very forward-looking way, it addressed farm income, but it also made substantial investments in research, so that American agricultural technology can continue to lead the world; in conservation, so that our natural resources will continue to be available for generations to come; in rural development, so that our rural areas could make technology improvements and provide basic services; and in preserving our nutrition programs that protect the needy.

But because of this Congress' failure to take a similar, forward- looking approach to government debt, this appropriations bill cuts the funding for the reforms and investments that were so strongly supported in this House. The FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill made substantial cuts in farm bill programs of over $650 million, and this year's bill goes farther still to the tune of $1.26 billion.

I find it somewhat disingenuous for the leadership of this House to profess their commitment to agriculture and the progress made in the farm bill--even leading members of their own party to believe that the farm bill will not be opened--and then attacking the farm bill in this back door approach. Whether we open the farm bill and cut agriculture because of reconciliation instructions or because of appropriations constraints, the end result still takes us to the same place--breaking our commitments to farmers and ranchers, to our commitments to conservation of our environment and protection of wildlife, and to the improvement of our rural economy. What is even a bigger shame is the fact that when you slowly dismantle the farm bill in this fashion, without the benefit of an overarching budget agreement, you still don't achieve a lower deficit/balanced budget.

I have said before and I repeat it again, agriculture is always willing to do its fair share for fiscal sanity. However, when we willy- nilly cut agriculture without regard to a bigger plan I have severe reservations.

Mr. Chairman, you can't blame the Appropriations Committee for this condition. They have worked on a bipartisan basis to provide the best bill possible in a bad situation. Amazingly, we are considering this bill without the benefit of even having a budget in place; our deficit in May reached $347 billion--well on its way to $500 billion before the current fiscal year ends.

But in order to meet the cap, this bill cuts these mandatory farm bill programs: Key research in the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; small watershed rehabilitation; the Rural Strategic Investment Program; rural broadband and local rural television initiatives; funding for rural firefighters; the Wetlands Reserve Program; the EQIP program; the Conservation Security Program; the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; the Farmland Protection Program; and the Renewable Energy Systems Program.

Mr. Chairman, the farm bill--which was developed in a very inclusive and bipartisan manner--has been working very well. But our current fiscal policies--which are being developed without that kind of commonsense bipartisanship--are causing the piece-by-piece dismantling of the farm bill. I hope that the leaders of this House will soon reach across the aisle so that we can work together toward a common solution.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the U.S. Forest Service grounded 33 of their heavy airtankers that were used to support firefighting program. Although a few of these planes have been cleared for service in this fire season, we must work to develop long-term plans for the U.S. Forest Services' aerial firefighting program. I would like to work with the members of the Appropriations Committee in the future to help fund research and development of adequate aircraft to support our country's forest firefighting program.

Mr. Chairman, once again I commend Appropriations Committee members on both sides for their work on this important bill and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3980. With the rain, wind, hail, and tornadoes that passed through West Texas last month and again today, this legislation could not be more timely.

This bill will give us the tools to research the effects of these storms, and it will provide us with a foundation from which we can learn how to minimize the damages associated with them. A working group comprised of officials from many Federal agencies will be formed to assess ways to reduce losses of life and property caused by these storms. As a farmer from West Texas, I know how damaging tornadoes and windstorms can be, and I understand the importance of this legislation. In the past I have strongly supported the efforts of research entities like the Texas Tech Wind Science Center to study ways to mitigate the damages caused by large windstorms. The Wind Science Center at Texas Tech has done yeomen's work identifying the best ways to reduce structural damage to properties caused by high winds associated with tornadoes and hurricanes. As a member of the Wind Hazard Reduction Caucus, I have supported efforts to make available the resources needed to study and minimize the damaging effects of these windstorms.

As has already been pointed out, in 1997 I worked on a bipartisan, bicameral basis with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to ensure the Texas Tech Wind Science Center got its first Federal earmark of $3.8 million, which was included in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill. As is quite often the case, when some folks do not understand, quite frankly, what wind is all about, some suggested this was pork. We contacted the then-Chief of Staff for the White House, Erskine Bowles, and requested that the funding be supported by President Clinton and be kept off the line item veto list. These efforts paid off. The center has since received anywhere from $1.1 million to $2.4 million each year since then.

I want to close by thanking the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for his work on this issue and the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) first introduced this legislation in 1999, and he has been a champion of wind hazard reduction efforts since he has come to Congress. I know that he is happy to have this bill on the floor, as I am here today happy to support these measures again and encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor very disappointed because once again the majority has chosen not to allow the Blue Dogs to have our amendment considered. I would like to ask the gentleman from Washington, why did his committee allow 19 amendments, most of which should be offered by the minority party, but are being offered by the majority party? Why did he not allow the Blue Dogs to have 5 minutes, 10 minutes, a simple up and down vote on our proposal?

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I take back my time from the gentleman. I appreciate the honesty in which he comes forward and with a straight face attempts to say why they denied us a chance. They can find time for 19 amendments, most of which are a joke. The rhetoric sounds good. The gentleman from Minnesota just spoke, there is a lot he and I can work together on. What we offered in our amendment is a chance to work together on something, but we are constantly denied and why? Because if they allowed our amendment on the floor, there is bipartisan support for it and it might have a chance to pass.

Any resemblance to democracy in this House is purely coincidental with the running of it by the current leadership in the House. Purely coincidental. I ask my colleague why they denied our amendment but allowed 19 others. We heard the answer.

The rule before us presents us with a false choice. Let me remind everyone, Republicans control the House, Republicans control the Senate, Republicans control the White House. The only thing Republicans cannot control is spending. Spending has gone up more in the last 3 years than in the previous 8. And when you talk about spending, I have been here 25 years. Spending has gone down by one-half of 1 percent as a percent of gross domestic product since I was elected in 1978. Revenue has gone down by 5 percent. That creates the deficits. I agree with the gentleman who just spoke a moment ago. Raising the debt ceiling would have to be done. But we should never raise it without putting a change in the manner in which our economic program is working that will just continue to have the debt ceiling going on as far as the eye can see. That makes no sense.

Some of us would like to work with you but we are constantly denied the opportunity to come before this body and have a vote. What we asked for is pay as you go that applies to both spending and to revenue. If you are going to spend more, you have got to cut someplace else. We agree with the President, President George W. Bush's spending limits for 2 years. We agree. There is no argument on spending. But there is an argument on deficits. And with all due respect, if you want to cut taxes, you have got to cut spending. Do not just talk about it. Do not just come and make the speeches we are going to hear all day today about how tough we are going to be on spending. You are in the majority. Anybody offering some of those amendments you are offering, you ought to be doing it. Nobody is keeping you from doing it. You have got the votes. You can do anything you want if you have got the votes. But what do you do?

You bring 19 amendments to the floor that you used to offer when you were in the minority party, and I agreed with you. I agreed with you on many of those. But now you are in the majority and I disagree with the manner in which you are running this House. But that is a right of the majority. All we asked for is a chance to have our idea debated and through the wisdom of, oh, well, you are going to disappoint some from time to time, there are folks on your side that agree with us and you deny them the right to vote with us.

That is shameful. Applying pay-as-you-go rules to tax cuts does not prevent Congress from cutting taxes, and do not say that over here. You know it is not true. It makes great sense, pleases a lot of folks, I suppose. But all it says is if we are going to reduce our revenues, we need to reduce spending by the same amount. Do it. Do not just come to this floor and spend 12 hours debating some of the silliest amendments that we could have if you are serious about doing something. If we really want to do it, let us do it like we did in 1990, like we did in 1997, when we had bipartisan support for doing something about the deficit.

The hand is still here on this side. I wish somebody over there would take it just once before this year is over.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, and I appreciate that fact, and I do not consider all of the amendments silly. I consider some of them very silly, but the one that I am agreeing with him on I do not consider silly.