Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from American Samoa for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2707. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I worked hard to push it through the House Committee on Agriculture; and I also want to commend highly my colleague from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for his diligent work on the Committee on Resources to make this issue a top priority and to shepherd this bill to the floor of the House of Representatives today. Again, I thank my friend from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for his work on bringing it to the floor today.

My friend from New Mexico and I share similar constituencies, and we maintain the same concerns that we must act now to ensure the availability of fresh water in the future. This legislation is not about simply eliminating Salt Cedar and Russian Olive from watersheds. It is about controlling these plants to increase our supplies of fresh water in the Western United States. America's citizens should not have to compete with invasive pests for an already limited supply of drinking water.

I have represented west Texas now for 25 years, and there is virtually nothing of greater daily concern out there than the availability of fresh water. Like much of the West, the 17th Congressional District of Texas has certainly experienced the consequences of drought. Stream banks and lakebeds continued to recede during the dry periods, while Salt Cedar proliferates in those areas.

The devastating results can be seen all over west Texas as dense thickets of Salt Cedar have overtaken native plant species in the Colorado River basin. In fact, the Colorado River Municipal Water District estimated that Salt Cedar consumed more water in 2002 than the district's largest municipal customer, a city with more than 100,000 people. The combined capacity of the district's three reservoirs fell below 25 percent during 2002, and it became readily apparent that Salt Cedar was robbing municipalities of this precious resource.

The water district has worked closely with many Federal, State, and local entities to begin brush control projects within the Colorado River watershed. They have implemented Salt Cedar control projects with reasonable success on both public and private lands. Further, private landowners have successfully partnered with the National Resources Conservation Service to employ brush control on their properties. In several cases, dormant streams and creeks have again begun to flow where those control programs were implemented.

I am convinced that this bill moves towards real solutions to the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive invasion. It lays out the framework for private and public land managers to cooperate with the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, local soil and water conservation districts and State agencies to work together on the demonstration programs authorized in this bill. After all, it will take integrated control and management practices to significantly deter the further spread of these non-native species.

I have worked tirelessly during my time in Congress to address the scarce water situation in west Texas, and I can attest that brush control efforts have produced the most lasting results in the 17th district. Most of our Nation faces an urgency to develop long-term plans to ensure that communities will have an adequate supply of drinking water. I truly believe this legislation will help public and private land managers across the Western United States take a giant step toward implementing more efficient and effective brush control projects that will result in better water conservation.

I close by saying, unlike a barrel of oil, it is tough to put a price on clean, fresh water.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the energy bill that America has waited so long for. Like the original House version of this legislation, I intend to support the conference report on the floor today, but not without some reservation.

Since being elected to Congress in 1978, I've carefully watched our federal spending and have advocated for a balanced budget. Under our current policies, America is facing a $400 billion budget shortfall, and we will continue to run deficits for the foreseeable future. This energy bill conference report continues on that path of fiscal irresponsibility. The Joint Committee on Taxation stated this bill will cost up to $23.5 billion dollars. I am very disappointed this conference report didn't include the offsets that the Senate version did.

However, I truly believe this legislation provides the proper framework to diversify America's fuel sources. As Ranking Member of the House Agriculture Committee, I'm glad there are greater incentives for increased production of ethanol. I'm glad to see production tax credits for wind, solar and biomass energy, as well as nuclear electricity generation. Diversification of our nation's energy sources will help us meet our goal of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of fuel.

More importantly, this energy bill provides the right tools for independent oil and gas producers to continue producing from our own fields, right here in this country. I've been fighting for these measures for years, and I'm glad Congress is finally going to implement them. The time is long overdue for Congress to recognize the importance for America to decrease our use of oil and gas from foreign countries and to capitalize on the resources beneath our own soil. And, contrary to what many groups will lead us to conclude, we can drill for oil and gas without doing damage to our environment. Former U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas once said that when America imported more than half of its crude and petroleum products, it would have reached a point of peril. Friends and colleagues, we have reached that point.

Although I intend to support this legislation, I must express my extreme disappointment of the process in which this bill was considered. I have worked for years in Congress to promote equality and bipartisanship in this great institution. However, this bill was written behind closed doors with no input from the public. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues were not given the opportunity to offer significant amendments to the legislation. This conference report isn't perfect, and it could have been improved significantly if my colleagues were allowed to bring their ideas to the negotiating table and if we were allowed to offset the cost of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 135, the Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act.

One thing I've learned since being elected twenty-five years ago, is that Congress can't pass a bill and make it rain.

This morning I look at the United States Drought Monitor again and I was reminded of a disturbing trend that several states have experienced for many years. Twenty-five states are suffering from drought conditions, and with no definite starting or ending point, droughts are extremely hard to predict.

But, as a cotton farmer from West Texas, I am always optimistic that the rains will come eventually. In the meantime, we cannot afford to leave a single stone unturned in our efforts to ensure that our citizens have a safe and adequate water supply.

Will my district be able to meet our water needs fifty years from Now? We aren't able to answer that question today, and we sure can't wait until that time is upon us to find out.

This is why I joined my colleagues in co-sponsoring the 21st Century Water Policy Commission Act. This legislation does what so many communities in my West Texas district are already trying to do. It establishes commission to consider all aspects of water management, water supply and demand, and it recommends comprehensive policy for meeting our nation's water needs in the 21st Century. For these reasons, I'm glad to support H.R. 135.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act conference report, and I am pleased to be here on the verge of completing legislation that will give us a chance to return America's cherished forests back to a healthy landscape. For the last century, public land managers have suppressed all forms of wildfire, including natural small-scale fires that restore forest ecosystems.

The unintended result of this policy is a decades-long buildup of forest fuel, woody biomass, and dense underbrush that is as close as the next lightning strike or escaped campfire from exploding into a massive fire. In some areas, tree density has increased from 50 trees per acre to as many as 500 trees per acre, according to the Forest Service and fire ecologists. These unnaturally dense forests are a small-scale ignition away from a large-scale wildfire. These natural small-scale fires burn at the ground level and at relatively low temperatures, allowing some trees to survive and, in the process, renewing the forest.

The suppression of these natural small-scale fires, however, has resulted in an accumulation of fuel that supports catastrophic wildfires of unnatural intensity that burn hotter, spread faster and cause long-term severe environmental damage, sometimes even sterilizing the soil. America's forest ecosystems are being decimated at an alarming rate by large-scale catastrophic wildfire and massive outbreaks of disease, insect infestation, and invasive species. Federal foresters estimate that an astounding 190 million acres of land managed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are at unnatural risk to catastrophic wildfire. Of that, over 70 million acres are at extreme risk to catastrophic wildfire in the immediate future.

During the second year of the National Fire Plan implementation, we witnessed the second largest fire season this Nation has seen in half a century. An early widespread drought, unparalleled since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, affected 45 percent of the country. On June 21, 2002, the national level of readiness rose to the highest level possible, 5 weeks earlier than ever before, and remained at that level for a record- setting 62 days. In fact, wildland fires burned 7.2 million acres, or nearly double the 10-year average. Colorado, Arizona and Oregon recently recorded their largest timber fires of the century. And then we saw the devastation in Southern California.

Forest ecologists, professional land managers, and many environmental groups agree, the exploding incidence of catastrophic wildfire and disease and insect infestation pose a massive threat to the health, diversity, and sustainability of America's national forests. The Nature Conservancy, one of

the world's largest and most acclaimed environmental groups, has been a leader in the environmental community in building public awareness about the environmental calamities that catastrophic wildfires cause.

Of the three factors that most influence wildland fire behavior, weather, topography and fuel, land managers can effectively affect only fuel. Unless we take a proactive approach to fuel reduction, the remaining components of the National Fire Plan, which include firefighting, rehabilitation, community assistance and research, will only continue to increase in cost. Local governments, volunteer firefighters, professional foresters, conservationists, and labor organizations agree, it is time to act to protect our forests.

Fortunately, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act addresses these concerns by giving Federal land managers the opportunity to restore our forests to a more natural balance while maintaining important environmental requirements. The conference report before us allows for authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects on Federal lands, helps communities in the wildland-urban interface prepare for wildfires, improves the NEPA analysis process, and augments public involvement and review. Additionally, the report includes titles allowing grants to use biomass, providing watershed forestry assistance, addressing insect infestation research, and establishing private forest reserves.

In closing, let me remind Members that this is not a new issue to come before the United States Congress. We have been talking about this issue for years. I remember the tremendous work done by former House Agriculture Committee chairman Bob Smith and his efforts to reach out and find a compromise, only to go down in flames because of the inability of extreme sides of this question to come together.

I am disappointed that certain Members of the House were excluded from the process that got us here today. That certainly has not been the case with the House Committee on Agriculture. I commend Chairman Goodlatte for his bipartisanship and leadership on this important issue. We all have differing opinions about the various components of the legislation before us; but in passing this legislation, we will restore America's treasured landscapes by reducing the risks of catastrophic wildfires and insect and disease infestations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give two of my remaining minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for the purposes of closing.

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

I will yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) if he would like to engage in a colloquy on monitoring.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I will state I certainly agree with the chairman. I understand the benefit of multiparty monitoring. However, the chairman is correct in expressing that our intent with respect to projects conducted under title IV are to be scientifically conducted and multiparty monitoring is not a requirement of these projects.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking all who have worked so diligently for so long to bring us to this point to where we truly have a compromise that will move our forest policy in a desirable direction.

I thank the staff, all who have worked on both sides on the aisle so diligently under somewhat trying conditions from time to time as we have had some of the internal strife that unfortunately finds its way into this House of Representatives. But that certainly has not been the case regarding

the House Committee on Agriculture, and the bipartisan support there is something that I have enjoyed and working with the chairman and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and others as we have strived to put together what is basically a good bill.

When you read the bill, much of the complaints about what we have heard today are not in the bill. If you are going to have sound forests, if you are going to have a sound forest policy, sound science, common sense has got to replace the opinions of many who have a difference of opinion regarding what is good conservation, what is good management, and how we do, in fact, manage our forests so that we do have lumber for housing and other projects.

So all in all, this is a good sound compromise worthy of overwhelming support of this body. I thank all of those who have worked on it. It certainly has been something that I personally have worked on for many, many years. I am glad to see it is getting to this point. I urge a very strong vote in favor of the project.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 117, the Florida National Forest Land Management Act of 2003. This legislation was introduced by Senator Graham, was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent on March 4. The companion measure we consider tonight was introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

This legislation was drafted with the help of the U.S. Forest Service and supported by the Air Force and will aid the agency with fire prevention and protection in the area.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 6; the energy bill that America has waited so long for. Like the original House version of this legislation, I intend to support the conference report on the floor today.

I truly believe this legislation provides the proper framework to diversify America's fuel sources. As Ranking Member on the House Agriculture Committee, I'm glad that there are greater incentives for increased production of ethanol. I'm glad to see production tax credits for wind energy, solar, biomass and nuclear electricity generation. Diversification of our nation's energy sources will help us meet our goal of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of fuel.

More importantly, this energy bill provides the right tools for independent oil and gas producers to continue producing from our own fields. I've been fighting for these measures for years, and I'm glad Congress is finally going to implement them. The time is long overdue for Congress to recognize the importance for America to decrease our use of oil and gas from foreign countries and to capitalize on the resources beneath our own soil. And, contrary to what many groups will lead us to conclude, we can drill for oil and gas without doing damage to our environment. Former Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen once said that when America imported more than half of its crude and petroleum products, it would have reached a point of peril. Friends and colleagues, we have reached that point.

Although I intend to support this legislation, I must express my extreme disappointment of the process in which this bill was considered. I have worked for years in Congress to promote equality and bipartisanship in this great institution. However, this bill was written behind closed doors with no input from the public. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues were not given the opportunity to offer significant amendments to the legislation. This legislation isn't perfect, and it could have been improved significantly if my colleagues were allowed to bring their ideas to the negotiating table.

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

I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 22, a resolution commending the USDA Agricultural Research Service for their 50 years of service to America. For half a century now, the ARS has been a leader in publicly- funded basic and applied research. Given the structure of U.S. agriculture, individual family farms are certainly not able to provide for their own technical and research needs. Publicly-funded research entities such as ARS can provide the lead for long-term projects and have been an obvious and significant success to the benefit of the American people.

Over the years, ARS scientists have made hundreds of technical advances, released thousands of new plant varieties, and contributed to the abundant food supply that all our citizens enjoy. My own State and district have benefited in many tangible ways from the work of the Agricultural Research Service, and I doubt that there are any of us here today who could not say the same thing. The ARS has contributed so very much to advances in the quality and quantity of our food supply, benefiting rural and urban dwellers alike.

I congratulate the Agricultural Research Service on their 50 years of service and I look forward to continue working with them to enhance both American agriculture and the well-being of all our citizens. I encourage all Members to support this well-deserved resolution of commendation.

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

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 1367, the National Veterinary Medical Services Act. I want to commend the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for their good work in advancing this legislation.

Assuring an adequate supply of veterinarians in many underserved rural and urban areas is a critical issue for our Nation's animal health infrastructure. It is generally private veterinarians who are the first to identify and respond to animal disease outbreaks. In addition, there is a great need for private veterinarians to supplement the Federal response during future animal health emergencies. The assistance that this legislation will provide to encourage veterinary practice in underserved areas, along with the creation of something like a ``National Guard'' for private veterinarians who can be called up in emergencies, should wisely enhance our preparation to deal with future animal health emergencies.

The bill under consideration will help to encourage both goals through a very modest public investment with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I believe H.R. 1367 is a good, cost-effective policy. I encourage Members to support passage of this bill.

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

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

I would ask to engage the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) in a brief colloquy.

During the Committee consideration of H.R. 1367, I raised some concerns about the potential that implementation of this bill, should it be passed and signed into law, might include an arbitrary graduation cutoff date for veterinarians wishing to participate. We certainly do not want to preclude participation by veterinarians that may have years of valuable experience. This has been a problem with regard to a different educational loan repayment program that folks from my district have tried to access in the past. It is my understanding that nothing in this legislation before us today would encourage the establishment of such a standard by USDA. It is my understanding that any veterinarian who meets the general standards for participation would be eligible to apply for this program no matter how long might have elapsed since her or his graduation from an accredited school of veterinary medicine. Is that the gentleman's understanding of the bill language?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for helping to make this point clear.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3217, legislation to convey several small parcels of National Forest System land in the Apalachicola National Forest in order to resolve boundary discrepancies involving the U.S. Forest Service and the Mt. Trial Primitive Baptist Church of Wakulla County, Florida.

Briefly, H.R. 3217 would allow the Mt. Trial church to expand a cemetery that it maintains next to its church building. This legislation would correct boundary discrepancies that resulted from the church and the Forest Service claiming ownership to the same 10-acre tract of land.

By way of background, the Mt. Trial Primitive Baptist Church is a historically African American church that purchased 10 acres of land in the 1930s in anticipation of expanding its cemetery. The church, however, never recorded the deed for the land purchased at the local county courthouse.

In 1938, the U.S. Forest Service purchased the same 10 acres of land as part of a larger tract that was incorporated into the Apalachicola National Forest. In that instance, the Forest Service did record its deed; and while there is no dispute about the validity of the church's purchase, the Department of Agriculture's legal counsel has ruled that because the Federal Government did file its deed with the county, it is the rightful owner of the property. I would also note that two graves are already located on the Federal Government property and the church's existing cemetery is full.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3217 will solve the boundary discrepancies by giving the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to transfer the property to the Mt. Trial Primitive Baptist Church. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure. This measure has been brought to our attention by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3157 is a bipartisan piece of legislation that attempts to address the very serious issue of USDA program coordination and information dissemination during times of federally declared national disasters.

Currently, there is no statutory requirement that USDA make a representative available at the Emergency Operations Center following a catastrophic disaster. As a result, if a farmer or rancher suffers a loss due to a natural disaster, there is no USDA point of contact on site to answer questions or provide information about departmental relief programs. Such information is obviously critical, and this legislation simply ensures that farmers and ranchers will have access to an on-site USDA point of contact.

While expressing support for this bill, let me briefly address a bigger issue for farmers and ranchers that have been adversely affected by a disaster. The fact is there are only minimal standing disaster programs within USDA to help farmers and ranchers deal with the variety of losses that can occur as a result of a natural disaster. In effect, all that USDA on-site points of contact can do is to tell farmers and ranchers, Sorry, the United States Department of Agriculture cannot help you. In addition, farmers and ranchers do not qualify for Small Business Administration programs and, in point of fact, receive very little help from FEMA.

So again, while I support H.R. 3157, the bigger question is what can be done to provide farmers and ranchers with greater certainty in terms of permanent disaster programs so that they may have some hope of recovering from such disasters.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2304, legislation to resolve boundary conflicts in the vicinity of the Mark Twain National Forest in Barry and Stone Counties, Missouri, resulting from private landowner reliance on a subsequent Federal survey.

These boundary conflicts resulted from discrepancies between recent land surveys conducted by the U.S. Forest Service and its implementation of the Restoration of Original Corners Program, and decades-old surveys conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. As a result of the more recent land surveys, private property lands adjoining Federal lands were moved, and private property landowners discovered that, due to their reliance on the older land surveys, they had inadvertently trespassed on Federal land.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2304 would remedy these boundary discrepancies by authorizing and directing the Secretary of Agriculture to convey title to U.S. Forest Service land on which private landowners can demonstrate that they inadvertently trespassed because of their reliance on a previous inaccurate Federal survey, or relied on a survey based on a previous inaccurate survey.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in order to resolve these boundary discrepancies.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion is really very simple. It is basically intending to return this body to regular process. I know this is a novel idea around here lately, but it requires the managers of the House to meet in open session with the Senate conferees, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, as soon as practicable after the adoption of this motion.

In addition, it requires the conferees to file a conference report no later than Thursday, November 13. The November 13 deadline is meant to highlight the imperative nature of the Healthy Forests legislation. However, we all recognize the time-consuming nature of conferences and the short time frame this will provide, but let me remind Members, we have been talking about this issue for years. I remember when it was chairman Bob Smith of the Committee on Agriculture, and the tremendous work he did all over this country in trying to reach out and find a compromise. It was turned down.

If we are going to deal with problems as severe as what we have now witnessed in California, it means some strongly-held beliefs are going to have to be compromised in order to do things that some folks do not want to see done; but most people believe and will agree that they must be done if we are going to accomplish what is needed for our national forests. The important part of my motion is the requirement that the conferees meet and deliberate on the merits of the Senate and House proposals.

We will hear that the Senate has a finely tuned deal if it breaks up, everything breaks up. I hope that is not going to be the argument. I hope that we can have a meaningful conference.

The House Committee on Agriculture has a reputation, a long-held reputation, of working in a bipartisan way and that is why we accomplish as much good for our Nation as we do. No Speaker, no majority leader, would ever dare rewrite a farm bill in the Committee on Rules or in the leadership office. It has been tried, but it has never worked.

I am personally very disturbed by what I have seen going on in the energy conference. I am very interested in energy legislation, and I am very disturbed when the leadership of this body suggests that they are the only ones that can write this legislation. This body does not work well when we do some of the things that we have been doing in this body over the last several years.

On the Committee on Agriculture, we have a history of bipartisan cooperation. Many of my colleagues have suggested that we simply take the Senate bill, pass it and send it to the President. I am not supportive of that procedure. We need to reach a consensus on the issue surrounding the Healthy Forests legislation. I know many on the far left and many on the far right will say that is impossible, but both sides of the aisle have a responsibility to come to the table with a willingness to compromise. This is an issue that demands just that kind of process if we are going to deal with disasters like we have just seen in California, disasters like we have seen all over Colorado, and all over areas of this country that are witnessing what happens when we do what we have done over the last several decades in the handling of our national forests. The record is there.

I think the House bill is a good bill. It was put together with bipartisan support, not unanimity of opinion. There were differences held, and we will never get 100 percent to agree because politically that is impossible. But I think if we do our job in this conference, as this simple motion, as I said in the beginning, a novel idea that we actually allow this House of Representatives to function as was intended by our forefathers who wrote the Constitution, gave us the responsibility to deliberate and set forth under the rules of order of this body how we should go about it.

Yes, we can do it in a very short period of time if we are willing to. So I hope and fully expect, since I cannot imagine any controversy over this motion today, that it will pass. That is not what I am most interested in, though. I am very interested in seeing the process work. I think this body will be better off if at least one committee, and there are a few others that still function in a bipartisan way, but very few. The energy bill is a prime example of how not to run this House. The Medicare pharmaceutical bill is an example of how not to run this House. Maybe we need a good example.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just say I appreciate the tenor of this discussion and debate today, because that is exactly what we intended from this motion. It is the history of the Committee on Agriculture, working with other committees, to let the process of the House of Representatives work its will and come together in compromise.

Compromise has never been a four letter word to me or to anyone else in this body. It means that some have to give on some very strongly held beliefs. Sometimes it means to have to say no to some of the organizations who take a great deal of interest in this process.

My friend from California mentioned a moment ago that down in my district, when we clear out the underbrush, we take two Caterpillars and a string of chain between them and drag it across it. I want to go a little further with that. We do that for a different reason; we do that to preserve moisture.

In fact, we have a couple of bills pending right now, working with my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), on salt cedar. In areas of arid Texas and New Mexico and Colorado and other areas, more New Mexico and Texas in this instance, we have a need of controlling brush to preserve water so that our people will have something to drink.

But here a little novel idea just popped into my mind, because when we clear brush in Texas, many times the landowners pay for all of it themselves, if they can, and many of them can and do. They expect no one to come in and help them clear out the trash on their own land.

In many cases though we have cost-share. We have programs that are set up that are designed to provide cost-sharing. We have got an excellent one going in Texas, in which the State of Texas puts up a share of money, the local landowner puts up a share of money, in some cases the local county puts up a share, and the property owner is expected to put up their share of the money. The Federal Government then puts up its share.

This is an idea that I think we ought to pursue as we go into a conference on this, because the gentleman from California is exactly right, we are not talking about forest lands in the area many a time that have been burning recently in California. We are talking about a different kind of problem that needs to be solved, and can be solved, if we would just put our shoulder to the wheel and solve it.

Resource limitations are very real, that is true; but also doing nothing is not an option. Even though in my district we do not have any forests, I recognize the importance of the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), all of my colleagues that have spoken today.

Everyone now recognizes that this debate has gone on longer than it

should. We are that close. We have two bills. It is not impossible. In fact, it is more than possible that we can achieve what we are saying with this motion to instruct today. It will just take the sincere dedication that we know we have on the House Committee on Agriculture, working with the Committee on Resources. And I know it exists with the Senate. We have always had, when it comes to agriculture, an excellent working relationship to go to conference, to work it out. That is exactly what this motion does. I hope the House will accept it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I took it exactly like the gentleman meant it. It was a compliment. I appreciate the support in this, because in many cases some of the folks do not agree with us on doing that either.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one of the requirements that I have had all along in this is do not muck around with my mesquite trees, whatever you do. But now we are talking about a very good, constructive use of mesquite trees. We have now got delineated, outlined clearly, how we can provide more of it, and we have a market for it, so I already see some benefits to this bill that are going to accrue to the 17th Congressional District of Texas in the new market for mesquite trees.

But here let us get back to seriousness. I hope we can do what this motion does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I have done better than that. I have had them drill on my own property. They drilled 11 dry holes which I have had discussions with them as to why they could not do a better job of finding oil under my property than just drilling dry holes.

But from the standpoint of the basic in the gentleman's exchange with the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), we used to have a very bad situation in Texas, and I can show my colleagues land in my community that was literally destroyed by the oil and gas industry because of their inability and unwillingness to protect it. That was 50 years ago.

Today, when the last well that was drilled on my property, again a dry hole, one cannot tell they were there today. They do an excellent job because that is the rules and regulations that Texas imposes upon the oil and gas industry, and I believe that is basically true all over the United States today.

The question before us, though, it is not just oil and gas producers that are opposed to these proposed storm water regulations being imposed unilaterally across the board on every possible site. It is also my small towns and communities have got real problems with this, home developers, et cetera, because in dry West Texas, we can impose some of these regulations based on the possibility of rain and spend more money than one can possibly get out of the investment that they are going in. So it would have a very damaging effect on economic development.

A couple of days. They would go in and dig the slush pit. The next thing, the drill rigs are there.

And they have to dig a pit that will hold that which they are going to use on that particular site.

Under current law, that is correct.

Not until they drill.

That is most certainly the fear, and it is not just a fear, it is a reality if we impose these regulations all across the United States, as someone might in a certain area in which we have a different rainfall characteristic.

The annual rainfall in my district ranges from 14 inches in the west to 35 inches in the eastern part of my district, the part that adjoins the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). Therefore, there are different components. But the law gets interpreted and put into place and enforced in ways that assume that a drilling rig in west Texas is going to suddenly be faced with a 20-inch rain.

In the case of a flood, wet dirt that goes into a home is a pollutant.

Two years ago, but I take the gentleman's point.

Ironically, we are facing the same question in some regions of this country where dirt is considered a pollutant, and we are attempting to regulate plows. I remember 3 years ago, I believe, in Arizona, we were attempting to regulate dust storms. That is difficult to do, the same way the gentleman is talking about regulating when is it going to rain and how much is it going to rain. From the standpoint of a normal operation in my district, again, on my own farm, the site is prepared. It would be unconscionable to require a permit, going over 6-8 months, or order to find an opportunity there based on storm water. It is done based on other conditions, and that is already current law.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me say the concern I have, when the regulations are read and the experiences we have had, we have had some extremely damaging experiences with the Endangered Species Act. What the gentleman says--7-day permit, that is correct; but someone comes in and sues at the exact moment, and then we get into the litigation and all of the questions based on it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Cardoza motion to instruct Medicare conferees. The Cardoza motion instructs conferees to insist on a House-passed provision that would largely eliminate reductions in Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments, or better known as DSH payments, currently scheduled to go into effect in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 and provide some benefits in later years. DSH funding is our Nation's primary source of support for our safety net hospitals that serve our most vulnerable populations. Medicaid DSH is especially important now as the number of uninsured Americans continues to rise, with now over 43 million Americans without health care coverage.

In our State of Texas, I say to my friend from Houston, where nearly a quarter of the population has no health insurance, hospitals and health care clinics rely heavily on the DSH payments in order to finance care for the

poor and uninsured. Despite the growing demand, Texas is increasingly constrained from making DSH payments to needy hospitals. In the recent budget cycle, Texas State legislators slashed millions in funding and services throughout the Medicaid program in response to the State budget deficit. In fiscal year 2003, Texas DSH payments were reduced by $80 million due to statutory limits in Federal law.

All of these cuts inevitably will fall on the shoulders of Texas' poor and uninsured, depriving them of their access to basic health care as providers like hospitals are left with no choice but to reduce services. Particularly this is a problem in rural areas. If hospitals and health care providers do not close their doors or fold under the financial pressure, they may shift the burden of caring for the poor and uninsured by charging more to the patients who can afford to pay, making health care more expensive for all Americans.

The House DSH provision contained in the Cardoza motion is essential to ensuring that the most vulnerable Texans continue to receive vital health care services. The provision, section 1001 in House bill 1, would provide Texas an estimated $140 million increase in fiscal year 2004 over current law. Sufficient DSH payments are absolutely critical if hospitals and health care clinics are to continue to serve the neediest and the poorest Texans. Now is not the time to deny the poor and uninsured access to the health care they need or to shift the burden to the average American on an experimental program.

I cannot say how strongly I oppose the general provisions that my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to believe that privatizing Medicare, turning Medicare over to the private industry, is going to be the best way to serve the uninsured in Texas. It will not work because it cannot possibly work when you already have a program that the administrative cost runs consistently less than 2 percent. No one has ever been able to show me in any debate, any discussion, anywhere at any time that you can do a better job with less money. I would enjoy hearing people defend this from the standpoint of something other than philosophy.

But in the case tonight, we have a clear choice. This motion is clear to us, unless you believe, as some do, that privatizing is the way to go. We have already experimented with this in agriculture. We have done it now for 10 years. It has not worked and cannot work, and we continue to hear folks coming to the floor of the House talking about the need for additional Federal involvement in disaster programs covered by insurance. It does not work there. It cannot possibly work in something as important as health care.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Cardoza motion to instruct Medicare conferees and hope the conferees are listening carefully.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 300, a bill that recognizes the outstanding contributions of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Christian colleges and universities.

America has benefited greatly from the more than 900 Christian colleges, beginning with the nation's first such college in 1636.

Christian colleges add to the rich diversity of higher education, offering students and faculty a place to learn and grow in a Christ- centered atmosphere.

There are four Christian universities in the 17th Congressional District of Texas: McMurry University, Abilene Christian University, Hardin-Simmins University and Howard Payne University. These Christian universities are actively rewarding scholarship and meaningful service. They help develop in their students respect and love for intellectual pursuits and faith in a loving and beneficent creator God.

They graduate students with a broad and biblical worldview, an appreciation for human diversity and dedication to a life of service.

I am truly honored to commend the high moral standards, Christian character and intellectual strength of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of McMurry University, Abilene Christian University, Hardin- Simmins University and Howard Payne University.

These individuals teach us how to achieve success while engaging Christian principles.

I also want to acknowledge the invaluable contributions these Christian institutions bring to the Abilene and Brownwood communities.

The students and staff place a high priority on community service, and these West Texas communities benefit from their dedication and servant leadership.

Please join me in recognizing the unique contributions of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Christian colleges and universities, and other faith-based institutions, throughout this Great Nation.

I am pleased to support House Resolution 300, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support.