Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to join with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) to offer this amendment tonight.

Expedited rescission has been around a long time. Dan Quayle first introduced it in 1975. Senator Carper, Dick Armey did yeoman's work in passing this legislation. I have been working in support of expedited rescission legislation since 1992. And I worked with many Members on my side of the aisle, including the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and others on similar proposals.

There is a fundamental question that we need to ask. Line item veto was unconstitutional, and I was never comfortable giving any President one-third-plus-one minority override over a decision of Congress, and the Supreme Court upheld that as being unconstitutional, but imperfectly willing to give any President line item veto over any pork spending, if that is what you want to call it, by me or the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) or anyone else, provided I have an opportunity to have a majority of the House agree with me or to agree with the President. That is what expedited rescission is all about.

I respect the concern of Members on my side of the aisle that that amendment will give too much power to the President, but it matters not to me who is President. I am perfectly willing to give any President that opportunity because it will have a very cleansing effect because anyone that sticks in as many add-ons as we have been adding on to the appropriation process, and I found it rather amusing listening to the appropriators a moment ago, when you look at what has happened with all of the add-ons, all of the add-ons that have been added in the appropriations process, I would love to see a President come in and line item veto that, even if it is mine or anyone else's, because it would have a cleansing effect.

If one cannot stand up on the floor and defend that which he has asked appropriators to put in the bill, he should not do it. And that is what this amendment is all about.

This amendment will not make a significant dent in our deficit, and I do not claim that it will. But it will have a very real cleansing effect on the legislative process. And it will take a step towards reducing the public cynicism about the political process.

The time has come for to us support this additional tool for accountability and fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is rather amusing if you have been around for a few years, as I have. The last time this was seriously discussed, my friends on this side of the aisle opposed it. They believe the expedited rescission was a bad idea and that we ought to go with line-item veto. The person that interjected taxes into this was Bob Michel, the minority leader, in suggesting that if you really want to do this in a way in which it will work, you put everything on the table.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) supported that, and today it is why it is so difficult. The gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) was talking about, it is us. It is we. It is pretty difficult for ``we'' to work on things when we keep changing what we think because of the current political environment that we have.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I know, but it is great. You can come in here and get 85 votes, and it does not get things done. We can get 300 votes.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, my motion will make one simple change to the base bill. It will reinstate the original pay-as-you-go rules for all legislation which would increase the deficit. The motion would leave in place the discretionary spending limits and other provisions of the base bill.

The original pay-as-you-go legislation was part of the bipartisan 1990 budget agreement between President George Bush and the Democratic Congress. Pay-as-you-go rules applying to changes in revenues in the mandatory spending were extended in the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act, the 1995 budget resolution, and the bipartisan balanced budget agreement in 1997.

The pay-as-you-go rules enacted in 1990 have been tested and they worked. They were instrumental in going from large deficits in the early 1980s and early 1990s to budget surpluses in the late 1990s.

The Concord Coalition, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the AARP and a bipartisan majority in the other body and a bipartisan majority in this body, for more than 20 minutes, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) offered this the first time, have all expressed support for reinstating balanced and effective PAYGO rules that applies to all legislation that would increase the deficit.

These rules are based on a simple concept that all families understand, and we have heard so much of this today. If we want to reduce our revenues or increase spending, we need to say how we would pay for these changes.

If we are truly serious about restoring fiscal discipline, budget enforcement rules must apply to all legislation which would increase the deficit through increased spending or reductions in revenues.

All parts of the budget must be on the table. It is irresponsible and politically unrealistic to propose budget rules that apply to one part of the budget but not others.

It is irresponsible and politically unrealistic to propose budget rules that apply to one part of the budget but not to others. Both sides need to be willing to apply budget discipline to their own priorities, not just the other side's priorities.

Applying pay-as-you-go rules to tax cuts do not prevent Congress from passing more tax cuts or increasing spending. All it says is that if we are going to reduce our revenues we need to reduce our spending by the same amount, and if we want to increase spending, we need to make room in the budget for the increased spending by cutting other spending or raising revenues.

Enacting meaningful budget enforcement legislation will require bipartisan support. This recommittal will bring bipartisan support.

I conclude by saying again, and listen carefully, 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 my friends on the other side of the aisle actually mean what they have said over and over about controlling spending, if all of those that have just offered the last two substitutes really mean what they say about controlling spending, they 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.

In fact, requiring Congress to offset tax cuts could be a tool to force Congress to control spending. The problem is that we have not matched our actions with our rhetoric. We propose cutting taxes without cutting spending. We run up the deficits and we pass the difference on to our children and grandchildren.

This motion to recommit, very simple, will accomplish that which we have talked about all day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the refreshingly honest statement of the gentleman from Kansas and what he just said because he stated quite clearly this is a vote to increase the debt ceiling.

I want to ask the gentlewoman from North Carolina if she concurs with that statement, that by voting for the previous question and this rule it is a vote to increase the debt ceiling through $8 trillion?

I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and I thank the gentleman from Kansas for making it very clear by voting for this rule, by voting for the previous question my colleagues are, in fact, voting to increase the debt ceiling. That is critical because there are those that want to avoid that at all costs.

Now, we should not be using this Defense bill for this purpose because it is an open rule. There is strong bipartisan support for supporting the troops. We should not be mixing politics up in this issue.

My friends on the other side would like folks to believe that the debate we are having today is simply about partisan politics and procedural tactics. That could not be more wrong.

The only thing I disagree with the gentleman from Kansas, if my colleague wants to say all of these things

that happened in the past created the deficit and that, therefore, we have to increase the debt ceiling, my colleague could persuade me if we were setting in place a policy that would do something about the deficit next year and the year after that and as we prepare for the baby boomers. But to continue the economic policy that has driven this country to borrowing $2 trillion in a period of 4 years and then to come on and say, well, we are trying to put it in the Defense bill, that is wrong.

It is wrong for those that we prepare to spend the money to back our young men and women who are over in Iraq and Afghanistan today. It is wrong for us to say we want you to win, we pray every day you are going to be safe, but by the way, we are going to keep borrowing $500 billion a year under the economic policy that we have not got the guts to change on this floor and then add it to a Defense appropriation bill.

But it is nice to have somebody to come on this floor and to clearly identify for all 435 of us, if my colleagues vote for this previous question, they are voting to increase the debt ceiling. That is why I will vote ``no,'' and I will encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Separate the two issues. Let us support the troops with a rule that could pass unanimously, but let us deal with the economic policy of this country by having an honest debate on how we are going to do something about these deficits that we are talking about.

I rise in opposition to this rule which will allow Congress to increase our national debt limit to more than $8 trillion without a separate vote on this issue. We should not use a spending bill intended to support our troops to hide a long-term increase in the debt ceiling so we can leave more debt for our troops and other young men and women to repay in the future.

My friends on the other side of the aisle would like folks to believe that the debate we are having today is simply about partisan politics and procedural tactics. They could not be more wrong. This debate is not about politics or procedure. Rather it is about the financial condition of our nation and whether we will continuing piling on more and more debt on our children and grandchildren.

A vote for the rule is a vote for using parliamentary tricks to sneak through an increase in our national debt more than $8 trillion. I would say to my Republican colleagues that if you honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, you should be willing to stand up and vote to borrow the money to pay for their tax cuts instead of relying on undercover parliamentary tricks. While an increase in the debt limit is necessary to avoid a default, it would be irresponsible to provide a blank check for increased borrowing authority without taking action to stem the tide of red ink.

Before Congress votes to approve a substantial increase in the debt limit, the President must work with Congress to put the fiscal house back in order, just as a family facing financial problems must work with the bank to establish a financial plan in order to get approval to refinance their debts.

Congress has an obligation to re-examine our long-term budget policies in light of the dramatic reversal in our nation's fiscal condition before approving a substantial increase in our borrowing authority. At a minimum Congress should restore discipline and accountability in the budget process by reinstating budget enforcement rules which make it harder to pass legislation which would put us further into debt. Adoption of this rule approving an increase in the debt limit will allow the government to continue on the path of deficit spending, borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and a ballooning national debt.

I urge members to vote against the previous question and against this rule.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as we all know, and certainly the subcommittee is aware very strongly, the B-1 bomber is an integral part of our bomber fleet. The long-range strike capability of our national defense is enhanced by the superior payload capability, speed, and accuracy of this aircraft.

The Defense authorization and appropriation committees and my good friends, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from California. (Mr. Hunter), and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), have recognized the importance of the B-1 to the Air Force. It performed admirably in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I rise today to discuss provisions in the Defense appropriations and authorization bills that address the reinstatement of B-1s to the fleet. As a strong supporter of the B-1 and having been closely associated with this issue since 1985 when the first B-1 was assigned to Dyess Air Force Base, my support is, and always has been, a commonsense approach that advocates the best for the Air Force.

The B-1 fleet was recently reduced to its current size of 60 aircraft, with assurances that upgrades will be made to the fleet to increase mission capability rates, defensive systems, and lethality. I supported the Air Force decision in its plan to keep fewer, but top- quality, mission-capable B-1s.

The Defense Authorization Act included a provision for $105 million to regenerate an additional 10 B-1s above the Air Force recommendation to reinstate seven. The Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations brings to the floor today a recommendation which follows the Air Force's recommendation to regenerate seven aircraft, and also follows the Air Force confirmation that additional funding is not needed beyond the $17 million appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 2004.

My concern about the funding for regenerated B-1s is the fact that $17 million may not be enough for the seven aircraft that initially cost $283 million each. Again, I strongly support the B-1, but also strongly support full funding for the entire fleet. If we are going to add seven planes, I would like assurances from the chairman and ranking member today that they do believe that the Air Force is correct that $17 million is sufficient funding to keep 67 planes in the air, flying, with the mission that I know that they support.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I hope that the chairman and ranking member understand the concern here.

As I said before, I have always followed the recommendations of the Air Force. We have some concerns, we are standing down the 13th bomb squadron today at Dyess at the same time we got agreement that the fleet will receive seven extra planes. That takes operational money. That takes manpower. There are some recommendations that are going forward that caused this concern, but I do appreciate the reassurances of the chairman and the ranking member, and we look forward to working with my colleagues to see that the full 67 plane force is, in fact, fully funded and operational to do the job that they have been called on to do in Iraq and Afghanistan and, hopefully, if called upon again, will be able to do as good or a better job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in deep sadness about the way this House is being run. A rule which denies the ranking member of the Committee

on Ways and Means an opportunity to offer a serious, responsible amendment on an issue as important as this is should embarrass all of us who care about this House.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I must respectfully differ with the chairman of the Committee on Rules. The majority has justified the decision of the Committee on Rules to not allow the minority to offer an amendment because it is not a complete substitute. That explanation would be laughable if it were not so sad. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) submitted a comprehensive substitute to all of the provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. He did not get into the Committee on Agriculture, which is what we should do around here. I would be perfectly willing as the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture to work with the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules. But for the gentleman from California to stand on the floor and say that he followed the rules of the House is not correct.

I am troubled, also, that this rule waives budget points of order and allows us to pass legislation adding another $34 billion-plus to the deficit. The other body passed a bill that would not add to the deficit. Some of us are making the argument that we ought to go with pay-as-you-go. I believe that. I heard speech after speech after speech last night arguing about a million here and a million there, and today it is billions, and wink and smile and then come to the floor and say, well, we are following the rules.

Anytime this body begins to deny the minority party the opportunity to have a say and to honestly have it applied by the rules of this House, we are in danger of big trouble. This rule should be defeated. The Committee on Rules should go back and draft a fair rule, and I am talking about the rule. The merits of the bill, there are a lot of things in it I want to work with them on. This rule should be defeated by anyone that cares about fiscal responsibility.

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

Madam Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and add a few other points in opposition to the gentleman from New York's amendment. I appreciate all of those who support this amendment for their desire to protect a noble species. However, it seems clear to most people, and we have heard from the National Wildlife Federation, the InterTribal Bison Cooperative and others who live in that area who understand that this is more than an effort to protect a species.

In fact, those who oppose this amendment are the ones that are out to protect the species. Brucellosis when it occurs in a cattle herd or in a dairy herd, a beef cattle or a dairy herd, oftentimes the entire herd is disposed of in order to bring about control of the disease. In a few cases, individual animals are slaughtered in order to bring under control the disease. That is what is attempting to be done now in Yellowstone Park and in other areas of this region. We have a serious disease problem that cannot be controlled by good intentions on this floor.

We have to keep in mind that the continued infected status of these

bison is not just a threat to their continued reproduction but it also threatens our beef herd with reinfection from a disease we have spent millions of dollars trying to eradicate. As the steward of American wildlife, the Federal Government has a responsibility to manage all wildlife in a way that minimizes these sorts of negative impacts on private citizens and their property. That is what the policy that is now going on in Yellowstone is not only attempting to do but will do if we just allow it.

Again, I appreciate the author and all of those who speak in favor of this issue today, but I believe that this is another example upon close scrutiny of unintended consequences which often attend efforts in this body. Many well-intentioned efforts at Federal intervention, especially when local stakeholders have already negotiated their own agreements, end up producing worse outcomes for all involved. It seems clear that in this case that those made worse off include the North American bison herd. I encourage all Members to oppose this amendment. The best way to take care of the buffalo is to allow sound science to work with those who live in that area and who truly appreciate it; and the Indian tribes who would like to see more buffalo returning to their tribal lands certainly know more about it than any of us in this body today.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I planned to offer an amendment today that would prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from spending appropriated funding to add species to the endangered or threatened species list until the Fish and Wildlife Service moves forward with efforts to complete a population viability assessment on the Concho water snake.

Five years ago, I came to this body during the very same debate we are having today. At that time I worked with chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), to provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with $300,000 to study the feasibility of removing the Concho water snake from the threatened species list. To this day, the Fish and Wildlife Service has not issued a final decision. There has been no accountability as to how the service has used the funding that was provided to them.

In June 1986, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Concho water snake as a threatened species. Since that time, the Colorado River Municipal Water District in Big Spring, Texas, has spent over $4 million studying the snake and documenting its viability along the Colorado River in West Texas.

In June 1998, after documenting a species population and distribution much larger than previous Fish and Wildlife estimates, the water district submitted a petition to delist the snake. In addition, the water district has documented that the construction of Lake Ivie, which the Fish and Wildlife Service argued would threaten the snake, has actually benefited the species by stabilizing stream flow and its habitat.

According to the statute, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was supposed to provide a preliminary finding within 90 days of a petition to delist and a final decision within 12 months.

It took almost 14 months for the Fish and Wildlife Service to submit their 90-day petition finding, and they still have not issued a final decision on the issue. Although they claim that they were trying to finish a population viability study, the Fish and Wildlife Service is not moving on the issue.

West Texas as suffered from drought over the last several years, which has certainly affected the stream flows along the Colorado River. Still, the Concho water snake continues to thrive and reproduce in the area. But there are statutory requirements for the Colorado River Municipal Water

District to release certain amounts of water from the lakes it controls. Oftentimes, water releases from the lakes are more than the stream flows into them. How can we sustain this? Currently, Lake Spence on the Upper Colorado River is at less than 10 percent of capacity. I simply ask that common sense prevail and that the Fish and Wildlife Service move forward with issuing the final decision regarding the status of the Concho water snake on the threatened species list.

Mr. Chairman, if the chairman and ranking member would engage, I would be very happy not to offer this amendment at the appropriate time if I could have the assurances of the chairman and the ranking member that they will work with me and the Fish and Wildlife Service to do what was promised 5 years ago.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for that assurance.

What I want to get done is I want the snake delisted, as we have spent millions of dollars on something that should never have been done to start with; but 5 years ago, Fish and Wildlife promised this committee that it would be done. They have not delivered.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the agency to get the snake delisted, and I appreciate my colleagues' cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander).

(Mr. ALEXANDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not just nostalgia that makes us remember President Ronald Reagan especially so fondly upon the occasion of his death. Politics, ideology, geography aside, there is a mark of leadership and charisma which undeniably stamps some men and women.

Ronald Reagan was one of those men whose leadership was felt by all who encountered him. When President Reagan first came to office, he quickly understood that enacting his economic agenda would require bipartisan support in Congress, which was under Democratic control, 242-192 and 1 absent. It took 52 bipartisan votes to enact anything, and President Reagan understood that.

I met with the President on several occasions as he sought to build that bipartisan coalition to pass his legislation. I met with President Reagan one on one in the Oval Office as well as in Air Force One, and for a second-termer in 1981 that was pretty tall cotton for a Jones County cotton farmer.

In 1981, I was just in my second term and was a member of the conservative Democratic forum better known as the Boll Weevils, the precursor to today's Blue Dogs. In the very first month Reagan was in office, he had to pass into law an increase in the debt limit, and so he invited me to meet with him. Now, mind you, this was the first major piece of legislation of the Reagan administration. In the past, prior to President Reagan's being elected, Republicans had always opposed increasing the debt limit. Republicans had denounced Democrats for voting to increase the debt limit. So here was the first Republican President in many years coming to ask conservative Democrats for support in passing this very thing into law, something members of his own party had opposed on many occasions in the past.

We had a lengthy talk. The twinkle in the eye that many of those who had known him much better from California were there, and we finally struck a deal. We had an understanding that if the President could deliver 100 votes from Republicans, then we would do our best to deliver the necessary Democratic votes. President Reagan more than held up his end of the bargain. He ultimately delivered 150 Republican votes. So in the spirit of bipartisanship and on a very tough issue, Reagan successfully secured the votes he needed, from Democrats and Republicans, and got the increase in the debt limit, just as he and we needed it.

I was proud to have several opportunities to work with the President in the months and years ahead to build bipartisan coalitions, especially on his economic agenda. I still proudly display a picture in my home in Abilene, Texas, of President Reagan signing the 1981 tax bill. I got one of the pens and one I treasure.

Reagan had very strong principles and very strong values. We know what they were. But he also understood that in order to govern, it was important to find a middle ground. And I was lucky enough to be in the middle of many of those compromises.

One of his greatest strengths was his ability to communicate, a skill that he used to great effect when courting votes in Congress. His courting of Members of Congress was the best of any President I have served with, and I have now been privileged to serve with five. If the Members can imagine a second-termer sitting in the Roosevelt Room in the White House talking about some issues with the President's Cabinet members and others and having the President walk in unannounced and put his hands on his shoulder; some telephone calls that we had many times when there was a vote and the President had to work the phones like no President that I have seen since, rounding up the votes, and he was very effective at doing that.

President Reagan's private and public demeanors was the same. What one saw was what one got. That is the mark of a great leader.

Ronald Reagan was a very decent man, and he understood how he could use his office to make a difference in countless lives. This aspect of his personality was always very clear to me

because it was this decency, this understanding of the power of the office that gave me the most rewarding opportunity I had to work with President Reagan.

The context was very personal. In May of 1983, I was contacted by the grandfather of Ashley Bailey, a baby girl in Abilene, Texas, who needed a liver transplant to survive. At that time organ donations and organ transplants were not as common as now, and the organ donation system was not organized to the extent it is today.

I spoke to President Reagan's folks about it to ask for his help in getting the baby girl a new liver. Shortly after receiving my letter, President Reagan used his weekly radio address to publicize Ashley's situation and encourage all Americans to fill out organ donor cards. He also called Ashley's mother, Annette.

Unfortunately, the President's plea did not result in finding a liver in time to save Baby Ashley, but it did end up saving the lives of dozens of other babies who needed liver transplants. President Reagan later started a national organ donor awareness program, which led to the designation of National Organ Donation Awareness Week every April. To this day I consider this one of the highlights of my 25 years in Congress.

Reagan knew how to disagree without being disagreeable, rise above politics, and these qualities, unfortunately, are rare today. President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill, the Massachusetts liberal, were good friends who got along very well during their years of service together. They never lost their philosophical convictions, and they never let those philosophical convictions hijack their understanding that America's democracy requires respect for all opinions and a practical determination to work out our differences for the good of the country.

President Reagan spoke of hope and a better tomorrow. He reminded us that we live in the greatest country in the world, and he made us believe it and believe in ourselves. He believed that we, as Americans, had a special duty to promote peace and freedom for the rest of the world. He always told us that for America, the best was yet to come.

It is good for all of us to remember Ronald Reagan's optimism, his kind-heartedness, and his cordiality. As we remember this great man this week, it would do us good to remember how we should behave today and in the future.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, tonight, certainly, our prayers go out to Nancy Reagan and to the Reagan family. And in the true spirit of the character that has been exemplified over and over by those that have known President Reagan tonight, I yield the balance of my time to my classmate and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) to use in whatever manner he might see fit tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our military troops fighting for liberty in Iraq and Afghanistan. As we celebrated Memorial Day this past weekend, it is fitting to remember not only those heroes who have passed on, but also those who promote freedom around the world today.

I also want to take this opportunity to remember the fine young men of the 17th District of Texas who made the ultimate sacrifice for us all in Iraq and Afghanistan. They made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom and liberty, and I extend my condolences to their families and loved ones. Today I honor:

Lt. Nathan White of Abilene, Texas;

Chief Warrant Officer Scott Jamar of Granbury, Texas;

Sgt. Roy Wood of Graham, Texas;

Lt. Doyle Hufstedler of Abilene, Texas;

Lance Corporal Elias Torres of Grape Creek, Texas;

Staff Sergeant Rene Ledesma of Abilene, Texas.

These men are patriots, and I salute them and thank them and their families for their priceless sacrifice.

This Memorial Day, we were especially aware of the sacrifices made by the Greatest Generation, those men and women who fought and won the most important war in our history. Last weekend, we opened a memorial to these brave men and women in a prominent location on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., in a grand setting that befits the strong and indomitable nature of these true heroes.

The veterans of World War II earned their greatness through their blood and sacrifice for a global conflict that destroyed the ambitions of tyrannical regimes. Our soldiers' dedication to country, to freedom, and to duty persevered over frightening threats to our society and way of life.

The Greatest Generation fought against these threats with the best qualities that America had to offer--courage, strength, determination, resourcefulness, fearlessness, and independence. They fought against those who

would steal our freedom and replace our way of life with blind obedience enforced by secret police and fear. Today's soldiers are fighting an enemy with similar goals. Our soldiers are fighting an enemy that would take our freedoms through acts of terror and fear. But these enemies cannot defeat our indomitable spirit and our love of freedom. Our enemies cannot and will not defeat us.

This is not the first time that the United States and her allies have gone into a country representing freedom. As we remember the Greatest Generation we certainly recall the epic D-Day Invasion during World War II when we asked our military--today's distinguished veterans--to place themselves in danger to liberate Europe from the occupation of Nazi Germany. We did not ask for much in return when our troops were victorious.

And our World War II troops did not ask for much from America when they returned home. Most of them did not return to hometown parades, they just returned to their everyday, pre-war lives, even though they had not seen their loved ones in several years. In return for all they had given up, they simply came home, desiring that the world would remain free. We helped Europe, the West, and Japan rebuild under democratic principles, and today we see the fruits of that labor. We have the golden opportunity to do that for Iraq, to help them rebuild into a free country after years of tyranny.

I give my thanks, respect and gratitude to today's military who will be tomorrow's veterans. These individuals represent the long and distinguished tradition of our armed forces as exemplified by the Greatest Generation. Our current service men and women can look to those who came before them as examples of honor and courage, the very lifeblood and creed of the military, and the principles that will always carry the United States to victory.

Mr. Speaker, a vote for this budget resolution conference report is a vote to automatically approve a $690 billion increase in the national debt. Under the Hastert rule, passage of the budget resolution conference report would deem that the House had passed separate legislation.

My friends on the other side of the aisle used to criticize this rule when the House of Representatives was under Democratic control and repealed it in 1997. But when the national debt started growing at a record pace, they reinstated it. I agreed with them when they criticized it in the past. Why have they changed?

A vote against the previous question would require the House and Senate to have a full and open debate and vote on increasing the debt limit instead of using the budget resolution to avoid a debate on increasing the debt limit. Last year the leadership slipped through a $984 billion increase in the debt limit, the largest increase in the history of our country, without an up-and-down vote. This came less than 8 months after we raised the Federal debt ceiling by a whopping $450 billion. Now the House leadership is trying to slip through another $690 billion increase in the debt ceiling without a debate.

The national debt has increased by $670 billion over the last 12 months and $1.5 trillion over the last 3 years. Approximately 70 percent of our borrowing from the public last year came from foreign investors. At the end of March, foreign investors held $1.7 trillion of our national debt. The $323 billion we spent last year for interest on our $7 trillion national debt represents a debt tax that must be paid by all future generations. Continuing to run up debt as we are doing will guarantee our children and grandchildren are overtaxed for the rest of their lives.

If my Republican colleagues honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, they should be willing to stand up and take credit for the increase in the national debt that is necessary to pay for these tax cuts. 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 from time to time to reevaluate our budget policies.

Before we vote to increase our national debt by another $690 billion, Congress should sit down and figure out how to stop running up this debt rather than just bringing us a continued reinstatement of what we are doing. I would say to my friends on the other side again, I would gladly join them and will to increase the debt ceiling if they would agree to add budget enforcement rules that they supported in 1997. I hope the four Senators will stay fast in the other body that they will do those things that they said they are going to do to send this budget right back to us until we at least get serious about restoring fiscal discipline.

Put PAYGO into this and we have got a deal. But, no, I read where the majority leader said recently the only thing he cares about in the budget is making it easier to pass tax cuts and that everything else in the budget really does not matter to him. Increasing the debt limit over $8 trillion matters to me. I think it matters to a lot of other Members on both sides of the aisle. The decision on whether or not we make it harder for Congress and the President to pass legislation that puts us deeper into debt matters a great lot to me.

If cutting taxes with borrowed money is all that matters to you, then vote for this rule and vote for this budget. But if you are concerned about a national debt approaching $8 trillion, if you are concerned about deficits of several hundred billion dollars structural as far as the eye can see, vote against the rule and against this budget.

Vote against the previous question. The vote on the previous question will be a clear up-and-down vote as to whether or not we should have at least 1 hour to discuss increasing our debt ceiling, at least 1 hour in which we would have an honest discussion between both sides as to whether or not we should continue in the path that we are on believing that that is the best for our country. Vote against the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

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

This instruction is pretty simple. The effect of this motion would be to call on the House and the Senate to have a full and open debate and vote on increasing the debt limit, instead of using the budget resolution to avoid a debate on increasing our Nation's debt limit.

Under House rules, passage of the budget resolution conference report would deem that the House had passed separate legislation increasing the debt limit upon passage of the budget resolution, without a separate vote or opportunity for debate or amendments on the issue. Republicans were highly critical of this rule when the House of Representatives was under Democratic control and repealed it in 1997, but have revised it now that the national debt is growing at a record pace.

As a result of the Hastert rule, passage of the budget resolution conference report in the House and Senate would automatically approve a $700 billion increase in the debt limit to increase our Nation's debt limit to more than $8 trillion, without a separate vote and at least discussion, which we at least will have tonight.

Last year, the Republican leadership slipped through a $984 billion increase in the debt limit, the largest increase in the debt limit in the history of our country without an up-and-down vote. This came less than 8 months after we raised the Federal debt ceiling by a whopping $450 billion, and now the House leadership is trying to slip through another $700 billion increase in the debt limit without any debate.

That is wrong. In this, the people's House, the House of Representatives, we should be discussing and debating this issue of major significance.

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, which the majority in this body say we will not change.

Congress should have a full and open debate and vote, up or down, on increasing our national debt limit above $8 trillion. It would be irresponsible to use parliamentary maneuvers to slip an increase in the debt limit into law without addressing the fiscal problems highlighted by the need to increase the debt limit.

If my Republican colleagues honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, if my Republican colleagues believe that three wars and three tax cuts, soon to be four, is good economic policy, then my colleagues should have the courage to stand up and vote and tell the American people, We are going to increase our credit card limit in order to make room for that economic policy.

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 and sometimes reevaluate our budget policies.

It has been very frustrating for me, constantly and consistently with my majority friends, seeing no willingness to take another look at the economic policy we are under. Just borrow the money and keep on trucking and explain it away.

Any farmer or small businessman who needs an extension of their credit must work with the bank to reestablish a financial plan in order to get approval from the bank. We should be following that principle by working on putting our budget back in order before we vote to raise our credit limit.

One of the things Congress should consider as part of the full and open debate we are calling for when we increase the debt limit is reinstating budget enforcement rules which make it harder to pass legislation which puts us further into debt; and tonight, my hat is off to our fiscally responsible Senators, the ``fiscal four'' in the other body that are holding forth, that are saying to the Senate and to this House, who are not listening, we will not vote for a budget that does not reinstate pay-as-you-go rules.

Pay-as-you-go was good in 1990 when I worked with the then-minority in passing it. Pay-as-you-go was good in 1997 when the Republicans had taken over this body and some of us voted with my colleagues. In fact, without us, they could not have passed it. We said pay-as-you-go was a good budget enforcement tactic.

I see the chairman of the Committee on the Budget is here tonight, and I will ask him right now, what is it

about today that is different from 1997? Why does my colleague believe that putting some little persuasion into this body to, in fact, be a little bit more restrained on our fiscal policy, rather than just borrowing and spending at the rate we are going, what is it that has changed?

Again, my hat is off to our friends in the Senate, the courageous four, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, Senator McCain and Senator Nelson. This is one House Member that appreciates them continuing to hold out for fiscal responsibility.

They were agreed to by a majority of this House in 1997, but for some strange reason, the leadership in this House today says, what we did in 1997 does not count. It is what we are doing today that counts.

But we hope they hold forth, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to at least discuss tonight and not trying to hide it in some budget resolution that we are going to increase our debt ceiling to $8 trillion, almost $100 billion. And we are going to hide it instead of discussing it and debating it, but we will tonight, we will discuss and debate it.

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

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

I am very disappointed in my friend from Iowa for once again taking the political line. I was not talking down the economy of the United States. Nothing that I said had anything to do with what my colleague just said.

All we are saying is, we ought to have a legitimate discussion as to the effect of the economic policies that we are, in fact, enforcing with the gentleman's vote time after time after time.

I am not here tonight to talk down anything. I hope the economy booms as a result of my colleague's policy, and we are seeing signs that it is making progress. That is good and I rejoice in that.

All we are suggesting, though, is, and if my colleague would agree and join with me in putting PAYGO back as he did in 1997, we could have a budget agreement, bipartisanly supported at the drop of hat. But for some strange reason, the majority is saying no, we will not do it, even less than what we did in 1997 in putting in some enforcement.

Because you blindly believe that we can fight three wars and have a tax cut a week and that somehow, some way, we are going to be able to borrow this money into infinity. I respect your right to believe that. I do not. I do not.

And I believe very strongly we should put some rules back that we used to have bipartisan support on, and which the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and I used to vote together on but tonight we seem to be apart on. That is what is puzzling to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for purposes of a response.

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

I think it is important, in light of the chairman's closing comments, to restate that I will vote to increase the debt ceiling because to do otherwise would be irresponsible. But I think it is critical for us to seriously consider changing a little bit the game plan that we are under and that is reinstate pay-as-you-go. The chairman and the gentleman from Ohio made eloquent defenses of their economic game plan, and that is all past. I am worried about today forward. We keep talking about everything we have done in the past. We keep talking about 9-11- 01. And, yes, this country was thrown into a crisis and, yes, we had to make some additional investments, all of which are very true. But what about today forward? Why continue blindly because of a philosophical belief that the perfect plan that we put into effect 3 years ago, 2 years ago, 1 year ago is still good, when, in spite of the gentlemen's eloquent arguments, the structural deficit of this country is a major problem that will not be cured by growth, will not, based on an overwhelming consensus of economists?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman tonight has made an eloquent argument for his philosophy. But it is interesting when you look at the last 44 years, under Democrats, the economy grew 5.7 percent faster than debt. For 24 years of Republican leadership, the debt grew 6.8 percent faster than the economy. And when we look at the current 4 years, the debt is going to increase 10 percent greater than the economy.

Yes, we rejoice at the good things that are happening in jobs, and we hope they continue. But should we get that kind of economic recovery by borrowing $2.3 trillion on the future of this country?

The gentleman continues to want to talk about tax cuts, and the Blue Dog budget supported tax cuts for purposes of getting the economy going again. But we also believe in pay-as-you-go.

We are fighting three wars. I would defy anyone in this body to find any time in the history of our country in which we have fought a war by cutting the amount of revenue available to fight the war. With all due respect, that does not make sense to me, and I believe, as the gentleman from Tennessee said, that is morally wrong. That is not a philosophical difference. That is not something we come out here and vote about. That is passing on a debt to our children and grandchildren that we should not be doing today.

Now, I appreciate the opportunity tonight to debate, and all we are saying is, we should have a vote on it. I will vote to increase the debt ceiling. I will vote for it tomorrow, provided we put pay-as-you- go back into place so that it forces this body to make tough decisions on spending and on revenues.

The gentleman from Iowa voted with us in 1997 when we had a tougher pay-as-you-go rule. We said we would sequester if the revenue did not magically appear. I do not want to get into these chart arguments, but revenue has collapsed under the economic program the gentleman is defending here tonight. It has collapsed. We have less revenue to spend and we are fighting a war.

So what are we doing? We are borrowing on our children's future.

Let me remind everyone, the baby boomers are about to begin retiring, and I suspect that the people of America pretty soon are going to be wondering, what the heck are we doing here having the philosophical arguments we are talking about tonight and ignoring the pressure on the economy of the United States that is going to occur when the baby boomers begin to retire in 2011?

The largest single economic pressure on this country is going to occur, and all we are doing tonight is digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper, and it is structurally going down. No matter how eloquently my friends on the other side come on the floor and talk about it, the deficits are going to continue to go up, because the economic game plan we are under cannot work.

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

Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on S. Con. Res. 95, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005.

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 concurrent resolution S.

Con. Res. 95 be instructed, within the scope of the

conference, to reject provisions that provide for an increase

in the statutory debt limit.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time, and this debate is not about whether we should provide tax relief to middle-class families. Every Member of this body supports that general principle.

The debate, though, is whether we should do so with borrowed money on top of the $7.1 trillion that we already owe. I personally do not believe we should pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. That is why I support the Tanner substitute, which will extend the 10 percent tax bracket without increasing the deficit.

This debate today is really about PAYGO, and I appreciate the fact the majority side does not want to go back to pay-as-you-go. They have made that very, very clear; and I am sorry that the majority whip left the floor because I was a little disappointed in some of what he was saying last week when we had a little change of vote by a few folks on the pay-as-you-go, and it was inferred to the majority side, those who have been voting with us on pay-as-you-go, that this bill and the same one we will vote on in a few minutes or later today on pay-as-you-go was different than that that was paid in 1997.

It is not different, and in fact, today once again the majority will make it very clear that they do not wish to go to pay-as-you-go government, that they are perfectly willing to borrow any amount of money, any amount of money in order to continue to implement their economic game plan, which I will submit is not working, and it will only take a year or two before it will be proven, when we will see the largest tax increases in the history of our country being implemented, called the debt tax because we cannot borrow $8 trillion and not have somebody pay for it; and 4 percent interest on $8 trillion is $320 billion, and a 1 percent increase in any 1 year will increase the debt tax by $80 billion.

My colleagues can keep wishing that away and they can keep coming up with red herrings like the three reasons why my colleagues should oppose this, and my good friend who has been here for the same 25 years I have been from Florida brings up OMB. He knows that that is standard language that we use, they use, constantly use. It has always been used that way.

Let us assume for just a moment he is right and you will come back and say, no, that is not right. I would share with the gentleman talking about AMT relief, I believe we can find a way to have bipartisan cooperation to fix that. We can have bipartisan agreement on how to fix the OMB and delegating our authority from this body.

What it seems we cannot fix, though, is pay-as-you-go. There seems to be some reluctance in this body. It used to be my colleagues voted with me on this issue. In fact, it took Democrats to pass it because there were not enough Republicans when all of them were voting for pay-as- you-go to pass anything, and some of us were voting with my colleagues or they with us, and we got it done. What was the result? A balanced budget for our country, and all of the sudden that balanced budget is gone out the window.

The Tanner substitute says we are not opposed to cutting taxes.

We are not increasing taxes with this amendment. That is a red herring, and folks on this side know better than to stand on this floor and say that it is.

What the underlying bill that everybody is going to vote for theoretically, I wish they were not, I wish they would vote for the substitute because it is a better bill. It does exactly what we want done. The only thing it does not do is borrow another $50 billion. Now, I think we have an obligation to ensure that future generations will be able to meet our commitments to Social Security and Medicare before we lock in reductions on revenue. My friends on the other side do not believe that anymore, and that is fine. That is a legitimate political position, and you are taking it over and over and over again. Fine. Just assume the responsibility for that.

The Tanner substitute tells the President and the Congress we have to start making some tough choices. You bring up a tax cut a week. You make these statements, send out these press releases, et cetera. That is wonderful. But the baby boomers are out there. They are about to begin retiring, reaching age 62 in 2008. And to lock in the lack of revenue to cover the obligations for them is not a good decision in my book.

Let me remind everyone, we are fighting a war, a war that has already cost us $150 billion and is costing another $4 billion a month, and we come to this body and we argue about how much we are going to reduce the amount of money that we have available to see that the troops gets the material, the protection, the armaments that they need to fight the war. We argue about how we are going to reduce that amount of money and shortchange them.

This is an amazing place, Mr. Speaker. Amazing how individuals can vote one way 4 or 5 years ago and vote another way today and explain it both

ways. But that is exactly what the majority, all of the majority that were here in 1997, are doing. And by opposing the Tanner substitute, you are really opposing pay as you go.

I urge a vote for the Tanner substitute, and I will be one of those opposing borrowing another $50 billion without applying pay as you go.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4280. Health care costs have been increasing dramatically over the past decade, while insurance has become prohibitively expensive for over 40 million Americans.

There are a number of factors which have contributed to the skyrocketing cost of health care, and the costs associated with medical malpractice are one factor.

This Country's tort system encourages litigation and large awards in medical malpractice suits, which has led to high malpractice insurance rates and increased health care costs through the practice of defensive medicine.

Last year, my state of Texas enacted reforms of our medical malpractice system in order to avert a growing health crisis in the Texas health-care system. Too many lawsuits against health-care providers were driving up the cost of practicing medicine, resulting in reduced access to affordable health care.

There are early signs that the reforms enacted in Texas have helped improve access to

affordable health care. Essentially, every doctor in Texas is either paying less malpractice premiums today or avoiding scheduled increase in premiums.

The bill before us today contains the same proven reforms that will translate directly into increased access to affordable health care for all Americans.

Without Federal legislation, the exodus of physicians from the practice of medicine will continue, especially in high-risk specialties, and patients across the country will find it increasingly difficult to obtain affordable health care.

In rural areas, we are particularly sensitive to the impact malpractice insurance costs have in discouraging physicians from locating in rural communities, leaving residents without health care.

Here in Washington, if an obstetrician decides to stop delivering babies because the malpractice insurance costs are too great, the yellow pages will still list hundreds of other choices of physician care for expectant parents. In rural communities, the same physician decision may well mean that young couples must entirely uproot and relocate to urban centers just so they can have a family.

The ultimate result of this legislation will be greater protections for quality health care, keeping precious health care dollars in direct care rather than feeding our legal system, and buttressing access to care for all Americans.

Medical malpractice reform isn't a magic bullet that will solve the problems of skyrocketing health care costs by itself, but it is one part of the larger process of reforming our health care system to control costs and improve access to health care.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here tonight in the well in personal support of our law enforcement officers, all of them all across the United States. Along with our military members serving so bravely in harm's way overseas, our law enforcement officers deserve high recognition and a special place in our hearts for their service in the name of security and safety.

With this being National Police Week and Saturday, May 15, being National Peace Officer's Memorial Day, I think it is important for us to pause to recognize the noble duty performed by our peace officers. I recognize the special difficulties that come with being both a crime fighter and a keeper of public safety. I cannot imagine the hazards faced by these brave men and women every day. Not only do law enforcement officers fight crime, they work tirelessly, night and day, to prevent crime from happening in the first place.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 145 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2003. On average, more than 58,066 law enforcement officers are assaulted each year, resulting in some 16,494 serious injuries. We have all witnessed frightening scenes and events where no one else would want to go, but the first people who respond to these incidents and accidents are the police. To me that encapsulates the honorable service of our Nation's police officers. They go places that most folks want to avoid.

In fact, just today an alert in the Rayburn House Office Building notified us of a suspicious substance that was found. I admired the officers of the Capitol Police who were there to cordon off a corridor during this alert. I thank God that the alert proved negative, but the mission and duties of all law enforcement officers were brought into sharp relief, and at that moment I was thankful for the protection of us in this body of the Capitol Police.

Fighting crime is not an easy job, and I am certainly not a police officer, but I think I am safe in that assertion. It is a scary job with a lot of danger, but the brave men and women of law enforcement take up the banner of justice and safety for us all. We should be very proud of that.

Mr. Speaker, a tremendous amount of our homeland security falls on the shoulders of local police officers. Our police are the ones who investigate and apprehend suspects who would unleash terror in our homeland. They are the ones we look to for protection and safety against the tragedy of crime and disaster.

Mr. Speaker, any investment that we make in public safety is a winning proposition. There is a great need to support law enforcement not only through our words but through our actions.

Coming from a rural area, I know all too well the challenges faced by people who do not live in or near major cities. There is a unique set of circumstances that confront our rural law enforcement officers every day. That is why I am pleased to join my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson)

by cosponsoring H.R. 4276, the Rural Safety Law Enforcement Improvement Act. This is good legislation that not only goes a long way to making rural communities safer, but helps to heal some of the damage caused by drug abuse. Rural areas suffer from the same problems that urban and suburban areas do, but the rural areas must make do with fewer resources.

Mr. Speaker, I am fully committed to honoring and providing for our law enforcement officers from all regions of our Nation. I am hopeful that we all remember them not just during National Police Week but year around. They provide immeasurable service to us and I hope that we remember them when it really counts.

To all law enforcement officers, I thank you and may God continue to bless you and your families.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to reflect on this important day in history where a relatively small group of valiant men met and overcame tremendous odds to bring hope and unity to a struggling nation.

On Cinco de Mayo, 1862, General Zaragoza led an untrained and outmatched group of 2,000 Mexican fighters to defend the town of Puebla against the French. Under the command of Napoleon III, these 6,000 French soldiers were among the best-trained and best-equipped armies in the world. However, their sophisticated armor and weapons were no match for the iron will and solidarity of the Mexican people.

Their victory became a symbol of the pride and patriotism of the Mexican people, who defended themselves against a superior force. In the United States, Cinco de Mayo has become a celebration of the achievements and rich contributions Hispanics have made to our great nation, as well as a reminder of the values and freedoms all Americans hold so dear.

Hispanics in my Congressional District, and across the nation, have added much to the cultural fabric of our country. As the fastest- growing minority population in the nation, they are a driving force in the U.S.--economically, politically, and socially.

That is why I am proud to cosponsor House Concurrent Resolution 163, a resolution which recognizes the historical significance of Cinco de Mayo and calls upon the American people to observe the date with appropriate festivities. I know in West Texas, folks are participating in local festivals and gatherings to commemorate Mexico's victory at Puebla.

Hispanics share with other Americans the common goals of freedom, opportunity, and a chance to build a better life. I am happy to be here and remember this momentous day as we are reminded that all people-- regardless of their race, color, creed, or gender--deserve the opportunity to experience liberty, freedom and the right to self- determination. America stands behind these ideals and appreciates the contributions of Hispanics everywhere.