Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the previous question so the House might be able to consider the Baird amendment restoring the deduction for sales tax, State sales taxes.

This is one of those issues that I wish the Committee on Ways and Means would have brought to the floor of the House 2 years ago. The AMT question is a very serious question of which there is a lot of concern about. But this is not the way to handle it in the bill today and the tax cut of the week, and obviously the lack of participation by my friends on the majority side shows how political this is and how substance is being thrown away.

But I want to talk about the State sales tax deduction which was eliminated in 1986. Citizens from States that do not have State income taxes such as my home State of Texas have been unfairly penalized. While taxpayers living in States that have an income tax are entitled to deduct their State sales taxes from federal taxes, folks living in States without income taxes do not receive an equivalent deduction. And my State is now in the process of increasing the sales tax on all citizens of Texas, which will compound the problem that we are talking about today. The result is that citizens of States like my State of Texas are paying more taxes than are citizens in other States with identical incomes, and I do not understand why the Committee on Ways and Means does not take up the question of tax fairness.

The Baird amendment would restore fairness to the Federal tax system by allowing taxpayers who have no State income taxes to, instead, deduct their State and local taxes. Why not? What is wrong with that? Why not have a discussion of that on the floor instead of the tax cut of the week, which is purely for political purposes that will show up in campaign ads all over the United States as evidenced by the lack of participation in the substance of that which we are talking about today?

I also believe that the fundamental bill, if we are going to have to, on the floor, ought to be paid for. I agree that this exemption of State sales taxes will cost an estimate of $1.2 billion, but it ought to be paid for and it should be paid for in the interest of fairness. States should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to adopt an income tax instead of being pressured to do so because the Tax Code is biased in favor of a State income tax instead of a State sales tax.

What is wrong with that picture? Why can we not have a serious debate

on this floor about tax reform? Instead of just talking about it in campaign slogans, which we do, flat tax, et cetera, a fundamental question, why can the Committee on Ways and Means not take up the bill that they bring to the floor today and have a serious discussion of that within the committee? Why not let Members in a bipartisan way participate in these issues? Instead, it is a campaign issue. If they want a campaign issue, this is a campaign issue.

In Texas, the inability of Texans to deduct sales taxes should be an issue on the hearts and minds of every single Texan, and the vote on the previous question will clearly identify in this body who is in favor of fairness and who is not.

Vote against the previous question. Allow fairness to be discussed on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing when we come to the floor and have this debate over and over and over again. We are fighting a war today, and I believe I would be factually correct to say this is the first war we have fought by reducing the amount of revenue.

I suggest our troops are paying dearly for that, because as we all know, they have not received that which they need in order to protect themselves while they are doing for us what we are unwilling to do for them.

This is a pretty straightforward amendment; and despite the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), despite the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and all of his rhetoric, nobody is talking about raising taxes. That is just rhetoric that will be used in campaign slogans.

All we are saying is, if we are going to cut taxes and reduce the amount of revenue to pay for the war, we have to provide either cuts in spending, which we do, in spite of the fact, all of what you talk about never happens because spending has gone up, up, and up since Republicans took over this House, and how you can stand on the floor and keep lecturing Democrats on spending, you have no conscience.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is great rhetoric, and I will yield again, but I want to respond to that. The gentleman from Pennsylvania put a budget out. How many votes did the gentleman get for his budget?

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. I can put a budget out too.

On your budget, I opposed it, because it increased the deficit.

You could not pass it.

I take back my time. I take back my time. Yes, it is great. You can come out, but the problem that comes out today is we have to live under the rules of the majority party. And for years I was criticized by the gentleman's side because it was my party that was doing to the economy what you said we were doing. Today, you are in charge; and no matter how many times you say it, you cannot overcome the facts. Republicans have spent more in the Reagan-Bush years, in the Bush years than we did in the Clinton years. You have spent more, period, and that record stands up.

All we are talking about today is a simple resolution saying, let us put us all under the gun. If you put your budget on the floor under pay-as-you-go, I will have to vote for it, if it is under pay-as-you- go, because I am sincerely for it. I did not vote for the last tax cut because it is with borrowed money on my children and grandchildren. I did not vote for last week's tax cut because it is with borrowed money; and I will not vote for the additional tax cuts with borrowed money on my children and grandchildren's money. But your rhetoric and mine should match. Where is the mismatch?

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) did not deliberately attempt to misspeak to this body, but revenues in 2000 were $2.025 trillion, revenues in 2003 were $1.782 trillion; projected CBO for this year is the $1.817 trillion. I understand that you are putting the best spin forward, on this year, it is going up, but look at what it has done under the policies that you continue to advocate.

What we are talking about is what Chairman Alan Greenspan would like to see us do; what the Concord Coalition would like to see us do: Put some fiscal responsibility into all our actions.

The gentleman keeps referring to the Reagan years. I was here. I helped pass the first Reagan tax cut. It did not work as was intended. It built up $1.8 trillion of debt in 8 years. The Bush 41 built up another $1.5 trillion of debt. In the 8 years of the Clinton administration debt went up $1.4 trillion; and it is estimated under the Bush 43, debt will go up $2.4 trillion. That is what we were suggesting doing something about. It is called fiscal responsibility. It is called living within your means. It is called making tough decisions.

Yes, there are tax cuts that grow the economy, but there are also tax cuts that increase the deficit. Let us make that decision, instead of just coming here and rhetorically talking about things that just are not so. With all due respect, it just is not so from the standpoint of the deficit coming down.

If you talk about spending, I just have to smile and get myself under control, every time I hear a Republican stand up on this floor and talk about spending, and I would yield to the gentleman to answer to a question, who has been in control of this House since 1994?

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Then if it is a bipartisan problem, that is what we are suggesting today is a bipartisan solution.

No, with all due respect, well, if you want to fight the war by shortchanging the troops in order that you can have your rhetorical answers on that, fine.

I will be happy to yield for a simple discourse, but every time you start that rhetoric that has put us into a $2.4 trillion hole in 4 years.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. The short- changing of our troops is bipartisan. I am \1/435\ of this body and anything we have not done, I accept my share of the blame for; but I am not in control. I am not in the majority. And the minority has been totally ignored on most of these issues, but I still have to take my responsibility for that action. And the fact is we have not done a real good job.

On the question of providing for spousal benefits for military retirees, we have a bill that has 300 cosponsors of and we cannot get it on the floor of the House in order to debate.

We are talking about pay-as-you-go.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, that is not the intent of this amendment. It is not to get into taxes or spending. It is just to say to this body, we have to make a decision regarding how much more we borrow on our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Because nothing in PAYGO precludes tax cuts, nothing does.

Right.

We did it in 1997. It was Democrats like me that stood up with Republicans and got it done.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago is when this debate began and those of us that believed that we had a little better plan, we lost that battle; and today, we are still fighting the same battle we did 3 years ago. We were told if we instigated the tax cuts that we would balance the budget in 4 years. It did not work out quite that way. We cannot argue with the fact that the budget, that is somewhere out there in never-never land between the House and the Senate, includes an increasing of the debt ceiling, the amount which this country can borrow, to over $8 trillion.

In the last 2\1/2\ years, we have borrowed $1 trillion. In the next year and a half, we are going to borrow in excess of another $1.5 trillion. We cannot escape that those are the facts. We all know the reason why.

This amendment today just suggests that this generation ought to be doing some of the paying rather than just blindly following a theory that does not work, the theory that we can balance the budget by cutting the amount of revenue when we are at war.

This is the first war in the history of our country that we have fought by cutting taxes, and the results are predictable. It is amazing. Most main-line economists agree with what we are talking about today, making it tough to raise spending, being very scrupulous on the manner in which we spend our taxpayer dollars, but also take a good, hard look at what we are leaving our children and grandchildren and take a good, hard look at who is buying our debt.

The Japanese will soon own over $600 billion of our debt. The Chinese are at $200 billion and going up rapidly; and if that does not bother my colleagues who is the banker of the United States, then continue to say, as some so-called conservatives continue to say, deficits do not matter as long as we are following the great game plan that has been totally rhetorized today by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey); and he does a good job, and I respect the fact he is sincere.

That is something that I can respect on this floor because he puts his money where his mouth is. The problem is there are not 218 Republicans that agree with him, but there are 218 Members of this body that would agree on pay-as-you-go and would get our fiscal house in order as we did in 1990 when Democrats were in control and a few of us voted with Republicans to put some fiscal order, and as we did in 1997 when Republicans could not pass their budget in 1997 without Democratic support, and I was there and I helped because I believed in that compromise legislation that then ultimately gave us the economic growth and expansion that we saw in the 1990s.

Now, we are arguing a theory today, and I understand there are some that just cannot say, I was wrong, I did not make a mistake, I am perfect, everything we are doing we have just got to keep on plugging and we can send that debt to our children and grandchildren and look at them with a straight face. I have three grandsons, and I cannot do it; and that is why I will continue to say we will reach out the hand to the folks on the other side of the aisle, and we will work together to bring our fiscal house in order; but we cannot do it with the game plan that they are advocating.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take time to recognize an important group of individuals who are being honored today, Tuesday, May 4, National Teacher Day.

Growing up in Stamford, my own teachers played an important role in my upbringing. It is one reason why I chose to become a teacher myself.

Since starting out as a vocational agriculture teacher, education has been a passion of mine. That is why I now spend so much time in our schools. And I certainly realize the important role that teachers play in our children's lives. Our teachers go above and beyond the call of duty time after time to help their students learn and be successful.

I'm happy we take this day to honor those who have chosen to enter this profession. It sometimes can be a thankless job. But it is rewarding to see the kids grow and mature before your very eyes--even after they have left your classroom.

I am pleased to cosponsor several pieces of legislation that support America's teachers, including:

The LEARN Act (H.R. 1643), legislation that would provide a $2,000 tax credit to teachers and principals who work in low-income schools.

Student loan forgiveness legislation (H.R. 1751, H.R. 934 and H.R. 2811), designed to result in the recruitment of new and talented teachers to educate the next generation of students. These bills would provide student loan forgiveness up to $17,500 to a teacher who teaches for five years in a low-income school, rural school or in high-demand subjects such as mathematics, science, special education, foreign languages and bilingual education.

The Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 594), which would end unfair discrimination against Texas teachers and other public employees who currently are denied the Social Security survivors benefit. I strongly support this legislation, and have signed a discharge petition that would bring H.R. 594 to the House floor for a vote.

As a former educator and grandfather of three, I will continue to be concerned about providing the best educational opportunities to all American children. Yet, the successful education of this nation's children is inextricably tied to the quality of the teachers educating them. We must provide the proper financial

and workforce incentives to retain the dedicated core of education professionals who daily shape the hearts and minds of the children of West Texas.

Today we recognize this important and influential group of people. My hat is off to our Texas teachers. And I encourage all Americans to take time on Tuesday to thank our teachers for the great job.

Mr. Speaker, this week a ruling by a committee of the WTO seems to have been interpreted by too many in the press that this was the end of farm programs in the United States. Furthest from the truth.

Let me encourage everyone to be patient until the 400-something-page report is read and deciphered by the House Committee on Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture, and then let us see exactly what they have said. Do not panic.

And let me remind everyone in the United States that we are truly blessed to live in a country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply, at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world. And to those who are critical of our farm programs that feed the American people in this way, take a good hard look and realize when you sit down at the dinner table tonight it is because of the American farmer and rancher.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic but this is a very straightforward motion. It simply says to this body that if Members want to take credit for cutting taxes we need to take the responsibility for the increased debt as well. Or I would put it in light of the last announcement, the three new little Rohrabachers I am concerned about today and I do not want us to add $95 billion additional debt to the three new little Rohrabachers that we just applauded.

This debate is not about whether or not we should end the marriage tax penalty. Every Member of this body supports marriage penalty relief. The debate is whether we should do so with borrowed money, adding more debt on top of our $7.1 trillion national debt, or paying as we go.

PAYGO worked in the nineties, 1990 and 1997. I believe it will work today if we can just start enforcing it. I do not believe we should pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. That is why I supported the Rangel substitute, which would provide for a full and permanent elimination of the marriage penalty without increasing the deficit. 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. Unfortunately, the leadership of this House seems to have forgotten that common sense principle.

Since the Republican leadership refuses to pay for tax cuts by cutting spending or replacing the revenues, every dime of this bill will be added to the debt we leave for our children and grandchildren. I believe that 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 pass legislation that would put our Nation even deeper in debt. But if my Republican colleagues believe that deficits do not matter, they should have no problem borrowing the money openly and honestly to pay for it.

I hope that all of the Members who have come to the floor today to brag about this bill will come to the floor with the same enthusiasm when it comes time to increase the national debt limit. But instead of taking the responsibility for the consequences of their economic policies, the Republican leadership is going to great lengths to avoid even having a discussion of the debt limit.

The budget resolution that this body may consider next week would increase the national debt to over $8 trillion. All this motion does is ask the House to acknowledge that every dime of tax cuts would be added to our national debt. Perhaps if we take responsibility for the impact that our votes have on the national debt we will think twice before we vote to place more debt on our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

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

Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I am a strong believer in pay-as- you-go legislation. It worked in 1990 when, in a bipartisan way, we passed it in this House. It worked in 1997 when, in a bipartisan way, you could not have done it without Democratic votes. I wished we were doing that. But since we are not going to even allow us to pay for the tax cut that is on the table today, we are going to brag about all the

things about it, it seems the least we can do is step up and acknowledge we are going to borrow it and say to the American people we are going to borrow $95 billion on our children's and grandchildren's future. That is all this amendment does.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 399, honoring the achievements of Melvin Jones and recognizing the contributions of Lions Club International.

One of our Nation's great success stories began when Jones, then an insurance agent, looked around his business luncheon group and asked a question:

``What if these men, who are successful because of their drive, intelligence, and ambition, were to put their talents to work improving their communities?''

On June 7th, 1917, Lions Clubs International was born. Jones eventually left the insurance business to devote himself to the organization full-time. With his guidance, Lions Club International became one of the world's leading service associations. Jones's leadership was held in such high regard that he was recruited as a consultant during the organization of the United Nations.

Today, almost 1.4 million Lions Club members in 193 countries tackle problems like blindness, drug abuse prevention, diabetes awareness, and disaster relief. Lions build parks, support hospitals and establish water treatment programs. The largest Lions Club in the United States meets in Lubbock, Texas, where they've served since 1929.

The Lions have been with us for 85 years. Melvin Jones's philosophy that ``You can't get very far until you start doing something for somebody else'' has become the motto of service-minded folks the world over. Where there's need, they're there. Where there's work to do, they serve.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Nebraska for yielding me time. I also thank the ranking member for his acceptance of this amendment and also the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment for agriculture, the agriculture exemption for truck drivers. Without this exemption, drivers employed by agriculture retailers and farmers during the busy planting and growing season would have to comply with the same stringent rules that apply to long-haul drivers.

U.S. agriculture depends heavily on this limited relief. We have a great opportunity with this amendment to develop a uniform set of regulations that haulers of agriculture commodities will use.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would again point out, this motion is based on a simple philosophy that when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging. Take the shovels away from Congress and the President.

The budget enforcement rules Congress and the President enacted in 1990 were an important part of getting a handle on the deficits in the early 1990s and getting the budget back into balance. They have been tested and they have worked. There is no question that they significantly improve the responsibility and accountability of the budget process and were instrumental in going from large deficits in the 1980s to surpluses in the 1990s.

The principle of PAYGO, if we want to reduce our revenues or increase our spending, we need to say how we would pay for it within our budget, something all families have to do, because they understand it. If a family wants to give up a second job, they must first cut spending of what the second job is providing income for. That is so simple. Why is it so difficult for the majority to understand that?

If we want to reduce our revenues, we need to say what spending we will do without. If we want to increase spending, we need to say where it will come from. If we want to decrease revenues, where will it come from? If we are truly serious about restoring fiscal discipline, budget rules must apply to all legislation which would increase the deficit, both increased spending or reductions in revenues. All parts of the budget must be on the table.

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

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

My Republican colleagues continue to argue that budget rules should not apply to tax cuts because tax cuts will not increase the deficit. I wish they would actually look at the facts of what is happening.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, it is not what my Republican colleagues, particularly the budget chairman, do not know about the budget, because he knows a lot, that bothers me; it is them knowing so much that ain't so and continuing to come to this floor and saying it.

We have enacted now three tax cuts based on the theory that tax cuts will stimulate the economy and pay for themselves as a result of economic growth, and yet the deficit continues to grow. That is what we are here talking about: the deficit.

The budget written by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) that Congress passed last year said that revenues would be $1.9 trillion in 2004. The President's budget came forward and said $1.8. That is $100 billion difference in estimates. That is all we are saying, that what do we do with that $100 billion? We borrow it. We continue to pass on all of these debt and deficits to our children and grandchildren.

If my Republican colleagues actually 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 control spending when we pass the tax cuts instead of just promising to do so in the future.

The problem is, the actions of my Republican colleagues have not matched their rhetoric. If they match their rhetoric and actions, they will find significant bipartisan support to get our fiscal house back in order. That is what they are not doing. That is why we should support this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, my friend, the budget chairman, again continues to listen to only part of what I say. The revenue is not meeting the estimates of what he is saying in his budget, therefore, we had to borrow another $110 billion in order to make up for it because his guesstimates are not, in fact, doing what is being said on this floor.

And spending is not my fault. The majority is the one that is spending all of this money they are talking about. It is time they take the responsibility for their own record on spending. They are spending it, not the minority.

Madam Speaker, let me follow in the same footsteps of my colleague from Maryland.

Last week, the House passed a budget, a very bitterly debated and very close decision on the final outcome as to which budget we should pass. A lot of speeches were made, a lot of promises were made, but one of the things that was not a part of the budget resolution last week was pay-as-you-go.

Now, our friends on the other side of the Capitol, the other body, in passing their budget they suggested that pay-as-you-go would be a good policy; and they included everything. In my opinion, unless we have everything on the table, spending and revenue, pay-as-you-go will not work as well in 2004 as it did in the 1990s.

There are those that believe there should be a difference. They are the

same ones that have succeeded in passing three budgets now in the last 3 years that have given this country the largest fiscal deficits in the history of our country. They are the same ones that are arguing now that pay-as-you-go should only include spending, not revenue. But they are the ones also that should accept the responsibility for their ideas, having, as I said, given this country the largest amount of fiscal deficits in the history of our country.

We borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2\1/2\ years. We are going to borrow another trillion dollars in the next year and a half. And yet they argue, and will argue this afternoon on the motion to recommit, that we should only include spending.

Well, the pay-as-you-go resolution that I supported, and it was in the Blue Dog budget, was in the Democratic party alternative, was put everything on the table. If you want to spend more for any purpose, then you have to cut spending somewhere else. If you want to cut taxes, then you have got to cut spending somewhere to make room for them or raise taxes in some other area that will be more proficient, more efficient, and accomplish what needs to be done for the job creation in this country but also for getting our fiscal house in order.

We are not going to wish deficits away. We can argue about this, and we did last week. We can argue about what trade policy we should have. But one thing we cannot argue about, and no one does argue about, is the baby boom generation reaching age 62 in 2008, 65 in 2011, 67 in 2013. That is when the greatest economic pressure that this country has ever known is going to hit us, and that is why it is so important for this Congress and this administration to get real about fiscal responsibility.

Philosophy alone will not cut it. To those that argue that cutting taxes was going to produce more revenue, it didn't. It did not. It came up over $100 billion short. Those of us that believe in pay-as-you-go say that when you advocate a policy, whether it be spending or revenue, and it does not do what you said it was going to do, then you should step up to the plate and pay for it. But, no, those who argue on the other side say we are not going to ask those fortunate to be alive today to pay for it, we are going to send the bill to our grandchildren. We are going to send the bill to them because they cannot vote in November.

Pay-as-you-go is a pretty simple philosophy. Every family in the United States has to adopt pay-as-you-go. Most families do not have the luxury, in fact, they would not even think about one of the solutions to the family problems is to reduce mom's or dad's paycheck and yet reduce that paycheck and live within that means. One would not think about doing that, but that is what the leadership of this House is suggesting. That is what they did even though a very large, I think plurality, maybe majority on the other side of the aisle agrees with those of us that says pay-as-you-go is something that should be part of the budget resolution, and it should be implemented, and it should be implemented with everything on the table.

That is what the motion to instruct conferees tomorrow will be about, and I would encourage my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, to vote for it and put some muscle into the speechifying on budgets in this body.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

The Blue Dog budget that we offer at this time is designed and based entirely on the simple philosophy that when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging.

Our country has a massive problem with fiscal deficits today. Our budget is built around the simple concept of pay as you go. If we want to pass a tax cut, cut spending to make room for it or raise some other tax to keep it from going to the bottom-line deficit.

In other words, we are suggesting taking the shovels away from Congress and the President. Our plan would cut the deficit in half in 2 years and put the budget on a path back towards budget surpluses in 2012 and balance in 2010. Our budget has $210 billion less debt over the next 5 years than the resolution reported by the Committee on the Budget.

The Blue Dog budget includes the pay-as-you-go rules that were adopted by a bipartisan vote in the Senate, as well as enforceable limits on discretionary spending. The Blue Dog budget adopts the tough spending limits by adopting the President's overall spending levels, but reallocates funding to put more resources into veterans, education, health care, and other priorities, and keeps from reopening the farm bill and also providing assistance to small businesses, manufacturers, firemen and policemen, the first responders in the war on terrorism.

We strongly support the President in the war on terrorism. Our budget provides the President with everything he requested for defense and homeland security and sets aside a reserve fund for additional funding for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we did last year.

Our budget provides tax relief for all taxpayers by extending the expansion of the 10 percent bracket, the marriage penalty relief, and the child tax credit. We also provide for immediate and permanent estate tax relief for small businesses, family farms and ranches. We offset the costs of extending tax relief, pay as you go, for middle- income families and pay for the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by asking those with incomes over $200,000 to have a little less of a tax cut until the costs of the war are paid and the budget is put back on a path towards balance.

Most importantly, our budget would reduce the debt tax that all American families, as well as our children and grandchildren would have to pay, in order to pay interest on our national debt.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, only 2 percent of the small businesses are affected by the tremendous rhetoric that the gentleman from Iowa just put forward on taxes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to my friend. I was getting my hopes up because he gave all the reasons why he should support the budget; but the idea of a slush fund, it is the same thing that is in the majority Budget Committee's report that comes before the House. We only say you can spend more if you pay for it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Chairman, that is a total misrepresentation of our budget and the gentleman knows it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the chairman. The cuts in Medicare that he mentioned are the advertising dollars that are being spent to justify the Medicare prescription drug bill that I was told by the same chairman and the Budget Committee was going to cost $400 billion. I was misled as everyone else in this body was misled because the cost was $530 billion. That is the cuts we are proposing. You do not need to advertise false numbers, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

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

I yield to the chairman for a simple request. Does the Blue Dog budget reduce the deficit more than the chairman's budget? Yes or no?

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Okay, Mr. Chairman. He does not want to respond. I was just asking him because I really dislike the kind of rejoinders that we are getting into now because it is ``he said, you said, I said,'' and it means nothing.

But since we are into this now, let me talk about the chairman's budget as it affects agriculture, both in mandatory and discretionary spending. And this is not about agriculture not being willing to take our share of the cuts, as the gentleman from Connecticut said yesterday. Agriculture has always been fiscally responsible and will continue to be. However, the Chairman's budget will result in a disproportionate amount of cuts from agriculture.

Keep in mind that in order to keep agriculture at last year's spending level, the appropriators will have to cut $650 million out of the farm bill as they did in the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. If we assume that in the chairman's budget the discretionary cuts will be proportionately divided among the appropriation bills, then this number will rise another $1.6 billion. That is correct. That is the chairman's budget.

And I want to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to read their own budget, what they are being asked to support today and how it is going to affect rural districts in conservation, water issues, rural development, environmental issues, research, because this is real.

And I commend the chairman because he honestly and sincerely is trying to do what his party has asked him to do. And it is real. His budget is real in what he proposes to do, including increasing the deficit $260 billion over the next 5 years. That is real. But he does it openly and honestly as he is defining it.

What I resent is his defining our budget as not being honest. His is honest. His will reopen the farm bill. Reopening the farm bill, which is what we will do under the reconciliation instructions that, if his budget passes, it will occur. And there are some on that side of the aisle and some on this side of the aisle that might want to do that. But I do not think a majority of this body want to go down that path.

So we want to talk about numbers, and we want to go through the little game we have been playing. Let us go through that little game.

This is not a game. In the agriculture function, this is real. The chairman is honest in bringing it to the floor and saying, this is what we will do if we pass their budget. Think about that before voting for this budget on final passage. Vote for the Blue Dog budget. It avoids that kind of a problem.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The Blue Dog budget assumes that we need a change. The gentleman's budget and economic game plan that he has been so proud of since 2001 has given us the largest deficits in the history of this country. We have borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2\1/2\ years. We are going to borrow another $1 trillion in the next 1\1/2\ years, and yet he comes and says his numbers are better than our numbers.

We simply propose a change, and it ought to be a bipartisan change and it ought to be one that adopts pay-as-you-go so that we get back on a fiscally responsible direction for this country. We thought we had a bipartisan support for that. It passed the Senate in a bipartisan way. What happened in this body?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say in the function 050 defense, the gentleman was correct in the spreadsheet that he looked at that in the resolution, we do not cut defense. We had an error in the numbers. We could not cut defense. We adopt the President's numbers on defense. That is the way our resolution states.

We also do not cut Medicare benefits for seniors by one dime. We use the CBO numbers for its prescription drug benefit, and all we say is if it turns out that that cuts, we are using the same numbers that the majority is saying. That is all.

It is factual to say, though, that this will reopen the farm bill, because I know that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and I recognize that if you are instructed to reconcile $2.2 billion out of discretionary spending, that is tough to do. What are you going to cut out? The Farm Service Agency, $1.4 billion? Agricultural research, $1.2 billion? Conservation spending? Where are you going to go? It will reopen the farm bill. If the majority succeeds in passing their budget, then we will do so; and it will not be pretty.

Everybody talks about taxes. We have been talking about the debt tax. In 2004, the average family will pay $4,391 in interest under the game plan that the chairman has just so eloquently defended. I have never heard anyone stand on this floor and defend losing jobs, as he just did. But $4,391 will go to $7,000 per year in a debt tax increase, and you cannot repeal that tax.

We have borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2\1/2\ years. We are going to borrow another $1 trillion in the next year and a half following the game plan that the chairman has eloquently defended at the behest of his leadership in this House.

We respectfully differ on this side of the aisle. We think it is time to quit digging. The budget plan that you have before you will not do it. The only one that will do that on the floor of the House today is the Blue Dog plan, and perhaps the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have served in this body for 25 years, and I said last year it was just amazing the budget debate that occurred in this body. I said the same in 2001 when so-called conservatives on this side of the aisle continued to bring budgets to this floor that proposed deficits as far as the eye can see.

Here again in 2004, with the baby boom generation on the horizon reaching age 65, once again my friends on the majority side bring a budget to the floor that does not balance and make no pretense of balancing the budget. We will hear a lot of rhetoric about it, but it does not balance. It does not have a chance of balancing.

The Blue Dog budget, we put our money where our mouth is. We say pay as you go. If you are going to cut taxes, cut spending to pay for those taxes or raise some other taxes to pay for it; do not increase the deficit. That is the budget we submit, and we will balance in 8 years.

We have borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2.5 years, added it to our children's tax. There is a lot of rhetoric; I keep hearing do not vote for the Blue Dog budget because it is going to raise taxes. Yes, it will raise taxes on the people who will pay it today, but what about our grandchildren? How long can we continue to ignore the fact that once we put a tax in place, we cannot repeal that debt tax? The interest must be paid. I do not understand those economics.

Not only have we borrowed $1 trillion, and spent it, borrow and spend in the last 2.5 years; we are going to borrow another $1 trillion and spend it in less than a year and a half. No one on this side of the aisle seems to worry about that because they have a philosophical bent that says cut taxes, cut taxes, raise spending and do not worry about the deficit because they are only worried about the people that can vote November 2.

I am worried about my three grandsons that cannot vote on November 2. I am worried about the baby boom generation. We ought to be debating what are we going to do about the future of Social Security. That is what we should have been doing last year and the year before. I am prepared to work in a bipartisan way with those on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I have a bill that we have proposed. It is not perfect, but at least it is something that is in the right direction.

As a member of the House Committee on Agriculture, I can take the $2.3 billion in cuts and reopen the farm bill, which you are going to force us to do. If you pass the Republican budget, it will reopen the farm bill. With this budget, $2.3 billion in cuts from the House agriculture bill, we could do that, and I would do that working bipartisanly if at the end of those 5 years the deficit would be going down and not up.

But we are going to cut agriculture; we are going to reduce conservation spending, rural development spending, crop insurance spending. We are going to reduce all those, for what, so we can borrow another $260 billion while we are making those kinds of budget decisions. It makes no sense to me.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who brought up the farm bill.

I want to remind my colleagues that we passed the farm bill within the budget that was set by the majority party. I am often reminded, particularly with my Texas colleague just speaking, of the words of 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 is the problem.

Members talk about what the Committee on Agriculture was instructed to do under the budget: 1 percent. We have a 7 percent cut from that bloated agricultural budget this year because it is working. We are not spending $5 billion that we would have spent had we not changed the policy that a two-thirds majority on both sides of the aisle voted for.

I want to make it clear to my colleagues, if you pass the Republican budget, you are going to reopen that farm bill, which the gentleman from Connecticut honestly wants to do, and I think probably my friend from Texas wants to do, reopen the farm bill, go back in and take another chunk of cuts out of it; and you heard me say I will do that with a budget that goes back to balance.

But with a budget that increases the deficit as far as the eye can see, I do not see the percentage in that considering the harm we are going to do to the food production factories of this country, the family farms around this country. Where are we going to cut? Where are you going to tell us to cut? Are we going to cut out of crop insurance, or cut out of conservation, like we did last year, as the appropriators were instructed to find $647 billion in cuts? This year it will be that $647 billion plus another $1.1 billion.

Are you going to cut the Farm Service Agency, agricultural research, Cooperative State Research, Education Extension Service, animal plants? Are you going to get into the farm bill, into the dairy direct payments?

It is easy to stand up here and make these speeches, but when you have a budget that continues to borrow at the rate you are borrowing and stand here and say I am doing something, and then you have the guts to stand up and say to the Committee on Agriculture, you are the ones causing the problem, well, one-third of that side of the aisle and one- third of this side of the aisle agree on that, but two-thirds said, no, we have a food policy that is working for us.

It is not a free shot. We are playing with real bullets now. This deficit is

not anybody's imagination. When we propose the cuts, as you propose in your budget, and you propose to continuing borrowing at the rate you are doing, as you propose to increase the debt ceiling to over $8 trillion so we can continue to borrow and spend, which, as the gentleman from Kansas reminded Members, the Republicans are in control. For 20-something years of my career here, it has always been the Democrats' fault; but today the Republican Party is in charge, and if you want to pass the budget and enforce that budget and continue to borrow and spend, be my guest, but not with my vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing listening to my colleague from Texas. One would think that we Democrats are still in control and that his party has not been in control of this House for the last 8 years. It is amazing listening to these speeches. It is amazing to see the budget that came out of the committee which he serves on, that next will propose to borrow $377.6 billion, including all of the Social Security trust funds, all of the Civil Service trust funds, all of the Federal military retiree trust funds. In this same budget he supported today, the debt limit will be increased to $8.88 trillion, and yet the finger-pointing stills goes on.

He had a chance today to vote for a budget enforcement bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson)

offered that would do something about the deficit. He voted ``no,'' but he comes to the floor and makes a wonderful speech that sounds good, but does nothing to deal with our Nation's fiscal problems.

The Blue Dog philosophy and the budget we will offer next week begins with a simple wisdom: when you find yourselves in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging. Stop pointing the finger at the other side of the aisle and let us see how we might work together to deal with the most serious economic problems that have faced this country, perhaps in our history.

Strong budget enforcement rules are an important component of restoring fiscal discipline and making sure the budget remains in balance once we have done the hard work necessary to bring it back into balance. The budget enforcement rules Congress enacted in 1990 with bipartisan support, and that is when we Democrats were in control, and I worked with my friends on the other side of the aisle to do something about the deficit, and we did; it was an important part of getting a handle on deficits in the early 1990s and getting the budget back into balance with discretionary spending limits.

I want to make it very clear: the Blue Dog Democrats support President Bush's spending request to this body, not one penny more. So do not talk about spending when we talk about alternatives. If you do not have one that will work, do not come to the floor and speechify, unless you are just trying to make a good impression with the folks back home.

Unless we renew our budget discipline in this body, Congress will continue to find ways to pass more legislation that puts still more red ink on the national ledger. If we are truly serious about restoring fiscal discipline, budget enforcement rules must apply to all legislation that would increase the deficit. Through increases in spending or reductions in revenue, 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 the other. Borrowing for tax increases that do not contribute to growth in this country are just as irresponsible as the spending the gentleman was talking about a moment ago, if one is worried about the future of this country. Those of us 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. Similarly, those who want to spend more in certain areas need to be willing to say where they would cut or how they would raise revenue to pay for their proposals.

Let me again repeat, I am part of the Blue Dog organization that will not vote to spend one dime more than President Bush asked us to spend this year, and let that be very clear. The Blue Dogs support spending caps, limiting total discretionary spending to no more than the spending levels in the President's budget. If it is the will of the majority to pass legislation that will make the budget situation worse, we should be forced to step up and take the responsibility for doing so.

Under the Blue Dog plan, a separate vote would be required to waive the pay-go requirements or increase the discretionary spending limits. Congress could pass new spending or tax cuts without the offsets, but we will be held accountable for increasing the deficit by waiving budget rules.

The recognition that budget enforcement is an issue that needs to be addressed and the announcement that the Committee on the Budget will be considering budget enforcement legislation tomorrow is a positive step forward. But I am very, very disappointed that the Committee on the Budget in their wisdom chose to leave most of the issue off the table. If we really want to do something about deficits, we have to begin to address them, yes, on the spending side, no question about that. But we cannot continue to cut taxes with borrowed money unless we are willing to say to our grandchildren, I do not give a rip about your future.

Mr. Speaker, we can continue to vote for tax cuts and have the greatest tax increase, which is exactly what the majority is doing. You are voting to have the greatest tax increase in the history of this Nation by continuing to borrow as you are now borrowing, we are borrowing. I am part of it. I am part of the Members of Congress. But we will have a constructive alternative that we will be putting forth next week, and I hope sincerely that we can find some bipartisan support to put meaningful enforcement into place, so that we do something about the deficit other than come to this floor and speechify.

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

I want to begin by acknowledging the tenacity of my friend from New York in continuing to attempt to pass what is basically an animal rights question. We have had this discussion many times. It is interesting listening to the debate on this, because as a cosponsor of this base legislation today, I am opposed to frivolous lawsuits. But we make a mistake when we leave the impression with our colleagues that there is a connection between a downed animal and a diseased animal. That in itself is grounds for a frivolous lawsuit, because a downed animal is not necessarily a sick animal. And a downed animal is not necessarily a BSE animal. That is what, if this amendment shall pass, is intended to do, is to make a tie between the two.

Now, I am sure the gentleman knows that a lot has transpired since we had this discussion on the floor last summer. USDA has already banned all downer cattle from the human food supply, period. His amendment, though, includes all livestock; and this would provide the grounds for a lawsuit under the general argument I have heard from too many of my colleagues over here today, that any firm that could be accused of slaughtering a hog that could not walk, and if you have ever raised hogs you know that many times something happens to their body physique that will cause them to just drop and you cannot get them up for any other reason other than just pick them up and carry them. Now, what that would have to do with adulterated food, I do not know; but if this legislation should pass with this amendment in it, that would be grounds for a lawsuit.

It is not fair or just to exclude some manufacturers from these legal protections who are processing food legally and in accordance with USDA regulations simply because some folks have an unrelated animal welfare concern about downer animals. That needs to be thoroughly understood by my colleagues on the floor. There is no connection whatsoever between a downed animal and a food safety concern, it is only after examination of a downed animal that shows that it is, in fact, a sick animal and should and must be excluded.

And as I said this last summer, any firm that puts a diseased animal knowingly into our food chain should be hung to the nearest tree. That, as the chairman has explained, is what this legislation is all about. It does not take away the right to sue for those things that are so clear.

I conclude by again saying, please, please do not continue to attempt on this bill or any other bill to associate downed animals with diseased animals with BSE. That is not a fair comparison. It is not. There is plenty of attention being given to the issue of animal health and welfare in other arenas. The House Committee on Agriculture has held one hearing on BSE, a field hearing on animal identification was held last Friday in Houston; and we will be holding more hearings on these issues in the months ahead.

No one is more interested in seeing that our food supply remain as safe as it is today. We are making progress. We will continue to make progress. But it is not in the best interest of anyone to continue to make the tie between downers and food safety.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the gentleman from New York keeps talking about BSE and mad cows and downers in the same breath. We are not arguing that today. With all due respect, the argument that the gentleman has just made, we have stock shows going on all over the country. A young boy or girl has raised this calf. They have shown it. Unfortunately, it breaks its leg. Under the gentleman's thinking, that calf immediately goes to the dump. It is unfit for human consumption no matter what because it is a downer and it cannot walk.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud tonight to stand and take these 5 minutes in support of the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act of 2003 introduced by my good friend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). I am just happy to say I am glad to be in his line-up tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue that is very important to me, the health care of rural veterans and the challenges that these patriotic Americans who have so proudly served our Nation in times of war today face. I am proud to address their concerns about access to health care and the unique obstacles they face for medical treatment.

Why is this so important? The answer is very simple. We owe these brave men and women who fought for our freedom and defended our liberty, including those who are doing so tonight as I speak. Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans, and we have those in Iraq and Afghanistan doing once again their duty in order that we might remain this free and proud Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I come from a very rural district. To say that my district is rural is an understatement. The 17th District of Texas is 33,836 square miles, in fact larger, than six States.

This talk about the size of my district can also give my colleagues an idea of how far it is to drive for a veteran to receive health care, in fact how far it is to get anywhere. In the 17th District, there is no subway to take a person from one end to another. A taxi ride would take a few hours and be outrageously expensive, and bus lines do not run from the bedroom community of Ft. Worth to the outskirts of Lubbock.

So what does all of this size and magnitude have to do with rural veterans? Well, it has a lot to do with them. If anyone here has been to my district, they know how long it takes to get from point A to point B, but to veterans in need of health care in West Texas, a 2-hour drive is not just a jaunt down the road or a time to think and reflect. For these folks, a long drive is a very big challenge.

I am proud to stand by the veterans of my district, and again I say, stand as a cosponsor of the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act of 2003.

The gentleman from Nebraska's (Mr. Osborne) bill goes a long way to helping to alleviate some of the difficulties faced by rural veterans. I am glad he is stepping onto the field to fight for rural veterans, and I am proud to be standing with him.

I endorse his idea that no less than 5 percent of appropriations to VA health care should be used to improve access to medical services for highly rural or geographically remote veterans.

Last year, I was deeply disappointed by the leadership's implicit acceptance of using veterans' resources for political expediency. The VA appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 broke a promise made to our veterans. The measure contained $1.8 billion less in veterans' health care than was promised last year by the Republican leadership in the budget resolution. We all know that the leadership's first priority during the budget negotiations last year was achieving large tax cuts.

Along with several of my colleagues, we warned that the commitments made for increasing funding for veterans' health care, along with large tax cuts, could not be kept. For this reason, I supported a smaller tax cut that would allow the promise to be honored. We were later informed that the commitment would be honored, but when it came time to act, the leadership found they could not keep this promise, along with the large tax cut after all, but that was last year.

I am hopeful that 2004 will bring greater sense to those in power. I pray that 2004 will bring greater loyalty to those who were told that they will be remembered.

I think it is important to remember that today's fighting men and women are tomorrow's veterans.

A recent issue that highlights the challenges facing rural veterans is the CARES Commission's recommendation recently that the West Texas VA health system, the VA hospital in Big Spring, Texas, should be closed.

I represented Big Spring up until the redistricting in 2001 removed it from my district, but now my interest in this issue is just as strong today as it was when I represented Big Spring. Most of the population that uses the Big Spring VA center is to the east, specifically in the population areas around Abilene and San Angelo where two Air Force bases fuel the veteran and retiree residents.

Given this fact, it only takes plain common sense to see that the Big Spring VA is well-positioned to keep the promise made to our veterans and military retirees for health care.

I have had some folks ask me why we are in such the forefront of this challenge. My answer to them was threefold: So many of the veterans in my district are treated in the Big Spring VA hospital; all the veterans and military retirees of this country deserve the best health care and benefits we can give them; and that we are in very much dedicated to seeing that just that happens.

I was pleased to participate in a meeting with VA Secretary Anthony Principi that was called by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. The meeting was very productive and allowed me to assert my belief that the Big Spring VA needs to be both kept opened and strengthened for rural veterans of West Texas.

I understand the need for our government agencies to periodically review missions, goals and facilities, but such reviews need to be deeper than number crunching.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of the bill. I believe it goes a long way to getting more people to recognize the importance of health care for rural veterans, as well as all veterans.

Mr. Speaker, today we owe the country $7,078 billion, being swept under the rug every day. Foreign holdings of our debt now total $1.5 trillion. Foreign investors financed 70 percent of our record $373 billion debt last year. In January of 2002, foreign investors held $1 trillion of our U.S. debt; today it is $1.5 trillion. Japan holds $545 billion, and China holds $149 billion of our debt. By far, the United States' largest foreign aid program is our interest payments to foreign investors, yet we continue to not want to change our economic game plan to do something about it. The largest single debt tax increase in the history of our country is being perpetrated on us today.

Mr. Speaker, $7,078 billion, that is what we owe today.