Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield some of my time to anyone, but just a summary, and I appreciate the return gesture from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) regarding doing this again.

I wish we could do it every week, find a time to talk about not just perhaps this issue, but some of the other issues in which we have found ourselves in some very, very strict partisan differences.

Just a few clarifying comments. The first one is when I hear mandatory spending being out of control, since when? Since when can 218 Members of the House of Representatives not control any spending that we wish to control?

I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). He is one of the few Members on either side of the aisle that has been willing to talk about Social Security and making some of the hard choices that have to go into eventually saving Social Security for my grandchildren. And I look forward to working with him on that endeavor. I wish we had had that on the floor last year. I wish we had it on the floor this year. I hope we have it on the floor next year. I get disturbed when we say we cannot do that again until after the 2004 elections. That bothers me because 2011 is getting awfully close to where we need to be.

Now, when my friends on the other side of the aisle come in and say that the Blue Dog budget raised taxes, that is not speaking the truth. Now, I want to be very careful on this. I like to quote Will Rogers when I hear some of these quotes. ``It is not people's ignorance that bothers me so much. It is them knowing so much that ain't so--that is the problem.''

And there were some statements that were made tonight that were just not true, and to stand here on the floor as we do in debate after debate and say the Blue Dogs raised taxes, we did not. We cut taxes. And to say that Blue Dogs spent more, we did not. We adopted the exact same spending levels that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) had in H.R. 95. And to say that we spent more, we spent less because we spent $400 billion less on interest because we did not borrow that additional money to give it back to the people. Since when can we give back something we do not have?

Discretionary spending this year will hit the lowest level since I have been in the Congress. In fact, it will be the lowest level of discretionary spending since 1958. Now, that is a pretty good record if you want to control spending. But our point was that you cannot have it both ways. We have heard it that we want to have it both ways. I would say you want to have it both ways because you want to ignore the debt going up, but you want to talk about controlling spending. Well, if you are going to talk about that, then do it. But you do not have the votes to do it or you would have done it.

The enforcement is something that I know the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) is not for. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is for it. And pay-go worked when we had it. When you came to the floor and you talked about increasing spending, you had to find someplace to find the money.

Well, the bottom line is this: We are in a direction of a train wreck; the perfect storm, as some have described it. How long can America keep buying $500 billion from the rest of the world, more than the rest of the world is buying from us, without the law of economics taking over? How long can we borrow $400 or $500 billion a year, which under the budget that we are now under that we did not vote for, that we object to, how long can we borrow $300 billion without something happening to the economy of this country?

Now, everything is on track for November of 2004, but there is a lot of folks worrying about 2005. And I think we have a consensus here tonight from most of those that participated on both sides that we would like to work together to change the direction.

The old rule of Confucius, of Garfield, or whoever it was that I like to give credit to, when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging; and it is very disturbing when week after week we continue to dig the deficit hole deeper, yes with tax cuts, yes with tax cuts, from money we do not have, and if you believe that that is any different in creating the deficit, then you are a supply-sider and you are a true supply-sider; but when we start talking to solve this problem, we have reached out the hand many times, but it has never been taken in the last 8 years, unless we happen to agree with a narrow band of thought that says supply side economics is the way to go and that the theory, the theory is if we just reduce the revenue we will starve government.

Spending on defense is spending. Spending on agriculture is spending. Spending on anything is spending, and total spending is going up more than our revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in humble appreciation for the 45 seconds being allowed to me tonight to speak for what I am for in Medicare and to express my extreme disappointment in the leadership of this House for bringing to the floor a bill based on an ideological agenda that will undermine the traditional Medicare program and fail to offer reliable prescription drug coverage for seniors in rural areas, or seriously address the issue of prescription drug costs.

The motion to recommit promptly reported back to the floor will have a guaranteed fallback within Medicare for rural areas if private plans are not available, stronger provisions for rural providers, stays within the $400 billion allocation which safeguards to make sure that that happens, and it is based on the compromise in the other body that will give strong bipartisan support and become law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2474, which requires that funds made available for the Bill Emerson National Hunger Fellowship and the Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellowships are to be awarded through the Congressional Hunger Center. This piece of legislation is needed to ensure that funds already appropriated to provide hunger fellowships in the fiscal year 2003 are able to be used for that purpose. In addition, it will ensure that funds made available in fiscal year 2004 are also available for these fellowships.

In the farm bill, we created the Congressional Fellows Hunger Act of 2002, which authorizes $18 million to a trust to be used as an endowment to provide domestic and international hunger fellowships. The program is overseen by a board of trustees, which only recently was appointed. Because of the time needed to establish the program as envisioned by the authorizing language, the funds provided for the fellowships in the fiscal year 2003 agricultural appropriations act are not available. This bill will allow those funds to be used by the Congressional Hunger Center for hunger fellowships.

The Congressional Hunger Center was formed in 1993 with a mandate to lead, speak, and act on behalf of the poor, the hungry, and the victims of humanitarian emergencies both on a domestic and international level. The Congressional Hunger Center, through its leadership development programs and its education, research, and advocacy programs has, as of 2002, graduated over 500 antihunger leaders who address hunger at the community, national, and international levels.

The fellowships originally awarded by the Congressional Hunger Center and codified in the Congressional Fellows Hunger Act of 2002 were designed, as we have heard, to honor the memories of Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland, who, during their careers in public service, were deeply interested in helping those in need by their words and by their actions. Bill Emerson, the distinguished late Representative from the eighth district of Missouri, and George T. Mickey Leland, the distinguished late Representative from the 18th district of Texas demonstrated their commitment to solving the problem of hunger in a bipartisan manner.

Providing the $3 million in funding to the Congressional Hunger Center for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 will ensure that the spirit of these two leaders will live on through the fellowships by making sure that there will be a future generation of leaders who will pursue careers in humanitarian service related to hunger.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is a good program. It has the kind of leadership and oversight from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) that we in Congress appreciate very much. I urge support of the bill. I thank the chairman for his leadership in this endeavor.

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 the resolution to recognize the role of the Foreign Agricultural Service in expanding export opportunities for America's farmers and ranchers and working to increase food security around the globe.

When FAS began its work, exports accounted for less than 10 percent of agricultural sales. Last year, 49 percent of the wheat and 54 percent of the cotton harvested in the United States was exported. By the year 2012, 98 percent of the world's population will live outside of the United States, and American agriculture will depend even more on export markets.

The men and women of the Foreign Agricultural Service have worked hard to identify and focus on the potential of growing markets such as Mexico and China where the economies are expected to grow by 5 and 7 percent respectively.

The U.S. agricultural producers are taking advantage of new trading opportunities. Between 1992 and 2002, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico grew from $3.8 billion to $7.3 billion per year. And in China from .5 billion to $2 billion. At the same period, exports to Canada have grown from $4.9 billion to 8.7, making it our largest export market for agriculture. And all of these markets, particularly China, have a tremendous potential opportunity for U.S. producers.

The success of the programs administered by the FAS is also reflected by the increases in funding that were included for many of these programs in last year's farm bill. These include an additional $650 million for the Market Access Program, $308 million for Food for Progress, $100 million for the International Food for Education Program, and $67 million for the Foreign Market Development Program.

Rural communities depend on export for one-third of their jobs. Over the past 5 years, United States agricultural exports have averaged over $53 billion per year, and our agricultural trade surplus has averaged over $13 billion. This is compared to the overall trade deficit of the United States of over $500 billion. Each $1 billion in exports supports 15,000 American jobs. This means U.S. agricultural exports are supporting over 800,000 jobs, 50,000 in my home State of Texas alone. Many of these jobs are on farms or ranches, but even more of them are in transportation, storage, marketing, trade services, and food processing.

As a representative of some of the rural communities that benefit from such jobs, I thank the men and women of the Foreign Agricultural Service for their hard work, and I congratulate the agency on its service to rural America.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for their work on this bill and the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and the underlying bill. As one who often comes to this well to express frustration at the unwillingness of the other side of the aisle to work with members on this side, I am extremely pleased to come to the floor in support of this bipartisan amendment which reflects the input of several members on this side of the aisle.

I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Mr. Goodlatte for working with me and other members on this side of the aisle to develop a balanced approach on this issue that deserves strong bipartisan support. I also want to comment Mr. Boucher for his hard work on this legislation.

This legislation is based on a simple, common sense principle that class action lawsuits that affect several states should be considered in federal courts. It does not make sense to allow state judges in a few local jurisdiction to make decisions that will affect businesses and consumers nationwide. Cases that are brought on behalf of folks from across the country and will have consequences in many states should be heard in the federal court.

The amendment before us, which was the product of bipartisan negotiations in the other body, clarifies the line between class actions that may be handled by federal courts and class actions that should be resolved by state courts. It ensures that class actions of predominantly local concern remain in state court, while allowing federal courts to handle larger cases that are national or interstate in character. In other words, if a class action lawsuit

is primarily a multi-state lawsuit, it goes to federal court and if it is a primarily a single state lawsuit it stays in state court.

The legislation before us is much stronger because of the commitment of Chairman Sensenbrenner to deal with this issue in a truly bipartisan manner. The legislative process and the American people are served best when we work together across party liens to find a reasonable middle ground on legislation. I hope that the process by which Chairman Sensenbrenner has handled this legislation is a model for other legislation in this body.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Under House rules, I would like to have our colleagues help us. How much debt did the gentleman say we have accumulated since the budget first passed on May 9? Is it $914?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, you look at this chart, the bill we have before us today; this is the problem you are fixing. This is the interest.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office projected the Federal Government will end fiscal year 2003 with the largest deficit in the history of our country, more than $400 billion. The Republican leadership responded to that news by scheduling a vote today on legislation that would add another $100 billion in debt over the next decade. The Republican leadership claims that we can afford their tax cuts and balance the budget by controlling

spending. Unfortunately, the Republican rhetoric about controlling spending does not match the reality of their own record.

In the 8 years since Republicans took control of Congress, discretionary spending has increased by an average of 6.5 percent per year, compared to an average of 1.6 percent in the previous 8 years. President Bush signed spending bills increasing spending by nearly 22 percent in the first 2 years he was in office.

Now, some of that was uncontrollable, due to the war and 9/11, but not all of it. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, total spending was $1.4 trillion. Under their budget they propose to spend $2.2 trillion next year, an increase of over $800 billion over 10 years.

If we are going to come to the floor day after day, tax cut after tax cut, a tax cut a week, if that is your strategy, and you say we are going to control spending, you have got to do something about your record.

This is the way spending is going to increase under the budget that the majority has put forward this year. By the end of this decade, total spending under the Republican budget will be more than double what it was when Republicans gained control of Congress. You would not gather that by the rhetoric we heard again today. We just keep talking over each other.

But these are the facts of what is happening. If we are going to cut taxes and if we are going to do the things that you propose to do every week, then you have got to cut spending. Otherwise we are going to run this country into the ground. And you are not proposing to do it.

Earlier this week, the administration and Republican leadership have already agreed to increase discretionary spending for the next year by $5.2 billion, an increase above the budget resolution they passed just 2 months ago.

Just today, the administration has informed the Committee on Appropriations that they will request another $1.6 billion in supplemental spending for the current fiscal year, an increase. The Blue Dog budget called for tough spending limits by adopting the President's overall spending levels.

I have no quarrel with what the majority proposed on discretionary spending. This is the green line. I have no quarrel with that.

The budget conference report the Republicans passed earlier this year is essentially adopting the spending levels we had in the Blue Dog budget, and that was supported by a majority of Democrats. The Blue Dogs are willing to work with Republicans to hold the line on spending at levels in their budget resolution. Unfortunately, the actions of the last few days show that the Republicans are not willing to stick with the spending levels in their own budget, but yet we keep talking about we are going to control spending.

The Republican budget policies are increasing the most wasteful spending in the Federal budget, the $332 billion collected from taxpayers simply to cover our national interest payments. This debt tax consumed a whopping 18 percent of all Federal tax dollars this year, and will increase to 20.1 percent by 2013. This is an increase in the debt tax that working men and women are going to have to pay in order to fulfill the economic policy that we keep hearing about every day.

The bill that passed the House today would add another $31 billion in spending, spending, spending. We had a $3.48 billion problem, and what does the leadership on this side of the aisle propose to do? Spend $30.39 billion more to solve a $3.48 billion problem.

I do not know how much longer we can do that. It does not seem to bother anybody on the other side of the aisle. I used to join with you day after day after day in saying we need to balance our Federal budget. I used to vote with you. I have not changed my voting pattern.

Under the Republican budget plan, the national debt will increase to over $12 trillion by 2013. Now, that may not bother anyone, and we can have another tax cut next week, which I understand we are going to have.

But let me say at this point, in closing, Mr. Speaker, the Blue Dogs have issued a letter of challenge to the Republican Message Group. I have spoken with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). We would like to have a little debate on this. We have got responsible people on both sides of the aisle that are just as worried about this as we are.

Instead of talking over each other and reading our 2-minute speeches and acting like we are not even in the same world, the Blue Dogs are challenging at least once every week, every night, for the rest of this year, if that is what we agree to do, to talk about these issues, and not just have me standing up pointing to the charts, but having my friends on the other side stand up and say, ``You are all wet, Charlie. That is not the way it is,'' even though these come right out of your budget and the OMB.

I think we need to have a real debate on this issue. So we are making this challenge, I am making it publicly right now, and I look forward to Special Orders next Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, in which we can sit down and talk about this.

If we are going to talk about controlling spending, then let us propose a budget that does it. Let us not vote down the Blue Dog budget that would have been balanced. Let us not talk about a constitutional amendment, which, by the way, I am for and we will be starting the charge on that also next week to require a balanced budget.

If you are going to talk about it, you have to be prepared to do those things necessary to do it. And you do not cut taxes and increase the debt cost, the interest debt cost by $30 billion to solve a $3 billion problem. It will not work.

As we say back home in Texas, ``that dog won't hunt.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 252. I feel compelled to remind all 280 million Americans once again that we are truly blessed in this country to have the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people of any country in the world. That has not happened by accident. It has always happened because we have always used sound science, peer-reviewed, in order to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before.

Now, we have repeatedly heard even today the explanation that the European Union maintains its ban on new approvals of biotech products because European consumers are unwilling to accept biotechnology due to safety concerns. That explanation disappoints me.

There are no peer-reviewed, scientific risk assessments that conclude that food products of agriculture biotechnology are inherently less safe than their traditional counterparts. Bio-engineered crops in the United States are rigorously reviewed for environmental and food safety by USDA, EPA, and FDA. Food safety reviews of bio-engineered crops focus on the safety of the newly introduced trait, on the safety of the whole food, and consider issues including toxicity, allergenicity, nutritional content, and antibiotic resistance.

Our forward-looking regulatory system has not only ensured the safety of our food supply, it has allowed the development of technologies that have improved our food supply and lowered the cost of production. Besides lowering costs, biotechnology has the potential to reduce crop risks and improve food security in developing countries, as we heard the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) speak about a moment ago. Examples include US-AID projects in Africa to improve production of peas and bananas.

Regulations based on protectionism instead of science have a chilling effect on research and the adoption of biotechnology. When there is uncertainty that a product of biotechnology will be accepted, farmers are reluctant to adopt the product, despite its proven safety and benefits.

I believe that the US and the EU have a responsibility as developed nations to lead by example in developing regulatory systems that not only promote safe food, but also promote a better and more secure food supply.

And I am disappointed that Europe has so far been unable to construct a science-based regulatory system for food that encourage development of new technologies that can benefit developed and developing countries around the world.

The resolution before us today supports our requests for consultations with Europe on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, at the very time negotiators are putting the final touches on a tax cut that will add several hundred billion dollars to our national debt, the leadership in Congress is planning on slipping through the largest increase in the debt limits in the history of our country, without any debate up or down.

We are about to engage in brinksmanship with the full faith and credit of the United States Government by adjourning before Congress completes action on the debt limit, in order to force the other body to approve the largest debt limit in history. We are going to cut and run.

Mr. Speaker, I am willing to support a temporary increase in the debt limit. In a few moments I will offer a unanimous consent request to approve legislation providing for an increase in the debt limit through the end of the current fiscal year, with the requirement that the President submit a plan to bring our budget back into balance. This will allow us the time to consider a long-term larger increase with the deliberation the serious matter deserves.

If my friends on the other sides of the aisle honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, they should stand up and vote to increase the national debt to pay for their tax cuts, relying on parliamentary maneuvers to avoid an up-or-down vote on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, in light of this, I ask unanimous consent that the House end this charade of borrowing money to pay for tax cuts and immediately take up H.R. 2156, which provides a temporary increase in the public debt, but makes no room for additional debt-financed tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union address, the President told us this country has many problems, and that we will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents, and to other generations.

As a proud grandfather who wants to leave a better future for my grandchildren, I applauded that statement; and I applaud it today. Unfortunately, our current budget, our current economic game plan, our current budget policies, would do precisely what we all applauded we should not do. Every dollar of the tax cuts passed by the Senate will be added to our $6.4 trillion debt.

At the same time, we are debating another round of tax cuts, the leadership of this House is trying to slip through an increase in our debt limit of nearly $1 trillion, the largest increase in the history of our country. Our total debt in this country in 1979 was less than the amount that we will borrow in a period of less than 2 years. That is what we are objecting to in this motion to instruct conferees.

I do not oppose tax cuts. In fact, I have stood with my fellow Blue Dogs and an overwhelming majority of this side of the aisle, and a few from that side of the aisle, and voted this year to do the tax cuts on the marriage tax penalty, to do the child tax credit speed-up. But our budget, our bill, did not borrow the money to do it.

My objection to the tax cuts that we are about to vote on today is that they are being done with borrowed money. It is irresponsible to pass a tax cut for ourselves today that leaves the bill to our children and grandchildren in the form of a crushing national debt.

If my friends on the other side of the aisle honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, they should be willing to stand up and vote to increase the national debt to pay for their tax cuts, instead of relying on parliamentary maneuvers to avoid an up-and-down vote on this issue.

Our current economic and budget policies will increase the most wasteful spending in the Federal budget, the $332 billion collected from taxpayers simply to cover our national interest payments. The tax bill passed by the House would increase this wasteful spending by $273 billion over the next 10 years.

The best way to ensure that we, as well as our children and our grandchildren, are all overtaxed for the rest of our lives is to keep borrowing money and running up our debts. Our children will be forced to pay even higher taxes just to pay the increasing interest on the debts we incurred and getting fewer services from the government for the taxes they pay.

Under the majority's budget, the debt tax will consume more than 20 percent of all taxes going to pay the interest on our national debt by the end of the decade; $520 billion the Congress will have to tax the people in 2012, assuming 4 percent interest, assuming 4 percent interest.

That is under the economic game plan that, if it works exactly like the proponents and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means who will defend this, sincerely in his own heart, if it works exactly like they say and it creates exactly the amount of jobs that they propose, we will increase our national debt to $13 trillion over the next 10 years, continuing to ignore the baby boom retirements that will occur beginning in 2011, continuing to postpone to the next Congress and the next president dealing with the most serious problem facing the economy and this country, which is, how do we deal with the crushing unfunded liability of the Social Security system and the Medicare system, ignoring that in order to pass what they will explain, as we have heard in 1-minutes today, is a jobs-creating tax bill.

I hope they are right. As I said 2 years ago when we stood on this floor and opposed the then tax cut of the 2001 variety, I hoped that I would eat the biggest plate of crow in town. I sincerely did. For the good of our country, I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle are right, because it will be better for our country if they are right.

Unfortunately, their track record thus far does not meet the rhetoric that we will hear over and over and over again.

When my Republican colleagues talk about the economic benefits of tax cuts, they conveniently ignore the harm to the economy and the impact on private capital markets from the government running large permanent deficits.

Just yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Joint Economic Committee that deficits do matter in any evaluation. What happens to deficits is an integral part of the analysis. That is why the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation both concluded that the tax cuts would actually harm the economy over the long term by increasing the deficit.

I ask my colleagues, as one Democrat who used to vote with them, with my friend who came to Congress at the same time in 1979, when we used to try or we passed the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995, what has happened to him? What has caused the gentleman to suddenly start saying that deficits do not matter, balancing the budget does not matter? If we believe that deficits matter, if we agree that we should not be placing a crushing debt burden on our grandchildren, vote for this motion to instruct and then follow it. Do what this motion says.

The motion the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has put forward today, or I have been privileged to do on his behalf to this point, is to include in the conference report the fiscal relief provided by the States to the maximum extent possible within the scope of the conference, agree to a conference report that will neither increase the deficit nor increase the amount of debt subject to the public debt limit.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter today. It is probably one of the most serious points in the history of our current generation that we have been to. I hope that those that believe that increasing the debt is not a problem, that there is an unlimited amount of money that the United States can borrow for whatever purposes we wish to borrow and spend it, because if we will look at the spending side of the ledger, we will see that spending is going to increase at the greatest rate in the last 25 years.

So when we hear that it is Congress' spending that needs to be controlled, look at the facts. Do not deal with rhetoric, mine included. Just look at the facts. Somehow, some way we have got to focus on the facts of what we are doing to this country: pursuing an economic game plan that most economists in this country say will not work, cannot work under the conditions we are living in today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) be permitted to control the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman care to revise and extend the remark that he just made about the success of his party in the majority and what has happened to our national debt?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York to answer a question.

Is or is not the $350 billion tax cut that you have raved about all night going to be paid for by borrowed money? Yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have heard that rhetoric all night. That dog will not hunt. That is borrowed money. Right now you are asking the Senate to approve a $984 billion debt ceiling increase. This tax cut tonight is paid for by borrowed money, and if you say you are going to grow your way out of it, why do your own economists, why does your own budget, why does your own rhetoric behind your words tonight not back up what you say?

What you are reading to us time and time again is not factual. It is borrowed money. We are increasing the debt. Since you have taken over this House, you have increased our Nation's debt by 54 percent. You will increase it by 167 percent by 2013, following the game plan you are talking about tonight.

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

I commend the chairman of this committee and the ranking member for their work in putting together this very important bill. As a strong supporter of the B-1 bomber program, I appreciate the committee's recognition

of the excellence of B-1 in combat and their importance in operations in the Korean Peninsula by directing the Air Force to restore the 23 aircraft set to be retired.

I hope it is the full intent of this committee that, should these 23 planes be restored to the fleet, that these bombers will be given adequate manpower and maintenance with additional funding to ensure that these costs will not come out of the operations and maintenance funds of the existing 60 bombers.

Mr. Chairman, I also commend the gentleman from California for his attention in this bill to the national defense needs of our Nation, and I also applaud his efforts to hold the Base Realignment and Closure round in 2005 accountable to our emerging national defense needs.

This bill stipulates that the required force structure for the armed services meet prescribed levels and that the Air Force would include in its force structure not less than 96 combat-coded bomber aircraft in active service. I hope it is the intent of this committee in this legislation that the 23 B-1s that would be restored to the fleet under this bill will be incorporated into the parameters of the Air Force bomber structure and taken into consideration for purposes of the base realignment process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a bill, but in equally strong opposition to the rule. I do not know how much longer that this House is going to continue to suppress the rights of the minority to be heard on the floor of the House. There was a little news last week about the 51 Democrats in Texas that used the rules of the house to go into Oklahoma to stop a bill from passing. Many people do not understand why they did that.

Today is another example of the frustration on the minority side when the rule does not allow free and open debate on this floor on issues. I disagree with my friend from Oregon and will oppose his amendment. I disagree with my friends on this side of the aisle who contend that this bill does all the bad things to our national forests, because it does not, in my opinion.

I have spent about 6 to 8 years working with chairman Bob Smith of Oregon, and now the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and listening to all of the opposing arguments. In the Committee on Agriculture we had an open rule. Anybody could offer an amendment and have full debate on these issues.

What is different about the floor of the House? Why is it that, day after day after day, we come here and we say we cannot debate these issues openly and honestly.

I do not understand this. This was not the Contract with America. Some of you remember when I used to stand with you when you were in the minority and oppose the majority on this side when they would not allow you to have your amendments. And we came up with a rule. We came up with a rule that said if you have got one Democrat and one Republican that is for something, put it out on the floor and let it be discussed. Give us a time limit, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 1 minute; but just let it be debated.

That is what this House should be all about. That is not what the pattern of rules does. And to those who wonder why the 51 did what they did, remember, who is causing it in the House of Representatives? The same person, same persons, are causing it in the Texas legislature.

What are we afraid of? I am for you. I am for the bill. I think it ought to be voted on. But my colleagues on this side who have a different opinion have every absolute right to have their issues debated within the confines of reasonable time restraints.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule today. It will pass. But I have asked the chairman and I ask the leadership and I ask my colleagues on the other side, please do not continue this pattern of not allowing free and open debate. We should not be afraid. We have a good bill today. I am prepared to argue and oppose amendments, I am prepared to support the bill. It is a good bill. But why do we not allow free and open debate?

The answer to that question, to those who wonder why the 51 in Texas exercised their rights under the rules, this is a good example of the frustration building on this side of the aisle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with tribal chairmen/representatives from the tribes in Arizona with timber interests, the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona. They had come to thank me for cosponsoring the Healthy Forests Act and to let me know that they supported the legislation and hoped for its passage. Unfortunately, for several of these tribes, they are already facing the devastating impacts of forest fires and insect infestation, two results that the Healthy Forests Initiative is meant to help prevent.

The chairman of the White Mountain Apaches recounted for me the mass destruction that the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire of 2002 had on the forest resources of the Fort Apache Indian reservation. This fire raged across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and the Fort Apache Indian reservation, burning some 469,000 acres. It grew to 15 acres in the first 13 minutes of its life and continued to expand at a rate of 1\1/ 4\ acres a minute.

Timber harvesting and processing was the main industry of the White Mountain Apache tribe, and it will be years before the jobs and income generated by that industry will be seen again. Even their burial grounds and the graves of their ancestors are in danger as a result of the environmental damage from the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire.

The bark beetle has decimated the forest resources of several of the other tribes, with the San Carlos Apache tribe having lost 40 percent of their forest due to the damage of this pest.

The question before us today is whether we are willing to learn from our mistaken belief that the best way to protect our forests is to leave them alone.

We made a decision a long time ago to manage our forests. Having made that decision, we now have a responsibility to manage them using the best science we have available.

Well-managed forests can withstand fire. In fact, forests that have been preventively treated to reduce hazardous fuel loads can benefit from periodic fires. These fires create forest openings for new growth, provide a variety of wildlife habitat and reduce fuel buildup.

The bill before us today will help us improve management of our forests in several important ways. The bill authorizes expedited approval of forest thinning and cleanup projects on 20 million acres of Federal lands. It authorizes applied silvicultural assessments on 1,000-acre plots to test treatments for insect and disease infestations. It provides grants for biomass energy production from the debris produced by the projects. And it establishes a new conservation easement system to protect ecologically important forests on private lands.

The cumulative effect of these changes will be healthier forests that are less likely to produce the catastrophic wildfires that have destroyed millions of acres of private and public forests in recent years. These catastrophic fires burn hotter, spread faster, and cause long-term, severe environmental damage, sometimes even sterilizing the soil.

Last year, 23 firefighters lost their lives fighting wildfires; and taxpayers spent about $1.5 billion to contain record-setting fires. In the rural communities nearest to forests, tens of thousands of people were evacuated from their homes, thousands of structures were destroyed, and tourist-dependent economies suffered significant financial losses.

Let us untie the hands of our forest managers and let them begin using the management practices that are best suited to prevent the wildfires that have already taken so much from us. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1904 and oppose the substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, in the distribution of time, I heard that, I believe, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, yielded his time for management to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Did anyone claim the time on the Democratic side for the Committee on the Judiciary?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the charge that the Healthy Forests Restoration Act cuts the heart out of the National Environmental Policy Act.

The fact is, this bill requires the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to conduct environmental reviews of forest thinning projects in accordance with NEPA. The most important element of NEPA is the environmental review of the proposed project, the project that is to be implemented; and that review is retained under the bill.

The bill also gives agencies discretion to limit environmental review to the proposed project only, which means an agency would not have to consider multiple alternative project options that are not likely to be implemented as is currently required under NEPA. Under current law, land management agencies are required to analyze multiple alternatives, devoting scarce resources to hypothetical projects instead of to developing additional projects in other vulnerable areas of our forests.

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

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the Healthy Forest Restoration Act increases protection for communities from wildfires by speeding up the implementation of forest thinning projects. That is true. That is why we keep hearing it.

To my friend, the gentleman from Washington, and his response, that little, bitty red dot, many of us who have spent considerable amount of time studying this problem believe that by reallocation of current forest services we can deal with this. It does not require all of the new money that some propose if we in fact readjust the manner in which we regulate the forests of our country.

Even the critics of this bill acknowledge, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) states in his dissenting remarks to the Committee on Agriculture report, that streamlining of the administrative appeals process would be appropriate for high-priority fuel reduction projects.

In a Dear Colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) argues that his substitute provides for expedited treatment of Federal lands that pose a risk of wildfire to local communities. Under the bill, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management would have to conduct a full environmental analysis of each proposed thinning project, but the agencies would not have to analyze a full range of alternatives to the proposal, as current law requires.

The bill would set a 15-day time limit for filing lawsuits challenging the fuel reduction project once the agency has formally announced a final decision and would urge the courts to the maximum extent possible to rule from within 100 days from when the suit was filed.

Critics of the bill seem to want it both ways. First, they argue that the bill does not do enough to implement these projects. Then they argue in favor of continuing the unnecessary and time-consuming analysis of alternative projects under NEPA and against reasonable time limitations on legal challenges.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

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

Mr. Speaker, I quarrel not with the intentions of anyone who has spoken here today. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation because I believe it does what needs to be done in order to break an impasse on how we deal with our Nation's forests.

We have heard the arguments against for year after year after year. The bottom line is the situation is not getting better. It is getting worse. I have read carefully this legislation, the specific points that seem to be coming under the most attack, and I do share the belief of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that it does all of the bad things that they allege it does.

Is it perfect legislation? Probably not. But I have traveled and visited some of our forestry areas, and I have seen the results of good management and sound science. Some of those, not my colleagues, but some of those organizations who oppose time and time again legislation like we have on the floor today, oppose it not from the sound science and good management but from a deep visceral feeling of how our Nation's natural resources ought to

be cared for; and I respect that, but I differ very strongly with that because I do not believe that we can do those things necessary to maintain and improve our Nation's forests without applying sound science and good management.

The public should not be left out, and the public is not left out. But those who have learned to use the law in ways that keep things from happening by constantly and consistently going to the courts are not doing our Nation the service that they allege that they are doing.

I urge support of the basic bill. I urge opposition to the amendment. Let us give those in charge of our Nation's forests a chance to do a better job than what is done under current law.

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

I thank my friend for yielding. I will just make a few additional points.

How many times have we heard, it's your money, we're going to give it back to you? How many times have we heard this from this side of the aisle?

Let us clarify the record. Borrowing money on our grandchildren's future in order to give it to us today in a tax cut, is that really your money? Or is it their money? I happen to believe it is their money. That is why the Blue Dogs have been begging and pleading, arguing, taking Special Orders, presenting an alternative budget. Sometimes we get to vote on it. Other times we do not. But we have been trying to point out the seriousness of the direction of the economy of this country. The Secretary of the Treasury has announced this week that they have used all of their legal tools to avoid default and will run out of borrowing authority by June 2.

I remember a few years ago when the previous administration did this, used all of the legal tools available to avoid default, we had cries of impeachment, impeach Secretary Rubin for doing what Secretary Snow is doing, perfectly legal; but this week now the Senate is going to have to vote. We were so brave when we passed the budget in the House that we hid it in the budget. No one in this body wants to vote on increasing the debt ceiling by $984 billion. The Senate is going to have to vote on it. There will be 12 amendments on the floor of the Senate which our fellow Senators on the Democratic side have got an opportunity to amend this debt ceiling. I hope they amend it. I hope they send it back.

I would like to see them do what we are prepared to do on this side and, that is, offer unanimous consent to increase the debt ceiling by $375 billion effective immediately, provided the President will resubmit a budget that will balance by 2008, unified balance. Resubmit the economic game plan for this country instead of blindly following the borrow-and-spend policies that we are now under. How I remember the tax-and-spend Democratic cries that came over and over and over again. What is the difference between borrow and spend?

To those that suggest that this economic game plan that we are under is working, why will we as a Nation owe $13 trillion by 2013, 2012, if everything works exactly like the economic game plan supporters say it will work? Not worse, not better. Why will we owe that much? Do we realize that in 2012, this country owing $13 trillion, it will require taxes of $520 billion just to pay the interest on this debt? $520 billion. That is assuming 4 percent interest. But anyone that believes that interest rates are going to stay low with the United States conducting our fiscal policy like we are conducting it has got to be dreaming.

One of the happier times of my life is when I stood on this floor and we passed the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995. One of the saddest times was standing in the back of the Senate when it went down by one vote. If we had passed the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995, we could not have the tax cut on the floor in Congress, in conference going on right now. That is another thing. We are going to have another vote on the balanced budget amendment. I am for it. But I do not see how we stand the laugh test from this side of the aisle unless we submit a budget that balances. The Blue Dogs did. We

submitted a budget that balanced by 2008. We did.

Those who are listening and looking right now, saying, well, there they go, there's those big-spending Democrats. Let me make it very clear, the Blue Dogs that you are hearing from today, we say the President's spending numbers are adequate. We will not propose spending one dime more than the President asked us to spend. Spending is not the issue. It is the economic game plan that we are under. The tax cuts with borrowed money on our grandchildren's future is what the problem is all about.

Just as the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Florida said a moment ago, borrowing money by itself is not a sin. Everyone does that. We borrow to build a home, we borrow to farm, we borrow to conduct our small businesses. We go to our banker. We explain the rationale for why we are borrowing the money. If we have a good story, they loan us the money. That makes sense. I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee. Take a look at Mr. Buffett's comments today. One of the best rhetorical answers to what the Blue Dogs are talking about that you could possibly have, the best that you could have, questioning the makeup of the tax cuts. And then you have got the Concord Coalition, bipartisan, that has been saying over and over and over again to this Congress, get your fiscal house in order, quit borrowing money on your children's and grandchildren's future. I do not know what it is going to take, because in this body everybody on the majority is just hoping and hoping that the Senate will not amend the debt ceiling so we do not have to vote on it.

But let me issue a little warning tonight to those that believe we are going to escape. Based on current figures, the deteriorating situation of the budget of this country, the deteriorating condition of the economy of this country that has caused this problem indicates that $984 billion is not going to be enough to get us to November 4, 2004.

I take no satisfaction in that. Because if in fact that is true, that is a serious matter. We believe it to be true. We are not here to be critical without offering a constructive alternative, which we have over and over and over again. Back off from this rhetoric, back off from this rhetoric that says it is their money. It is not their money. They are borrowing on their grandchildren's future. It is not their money.

And just as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) made the statement a moment ago, and it bears repeating, these are the first wars, and I say wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, the war on terrorism, these are the first wars since 1812 that Congress did not raise taxes in order to pay for the war. No one is suggesting raising taxes. No one. But many of us are saying why and under what circumstance can we afford to have additional tax cuts under this situation?

I do not know what it is going to take. I do not know what it is going to take to get people to start focusing. I do not know how long we are going to be able to buy $500 billion of materials and products from the rest of the world more than they buy from us without the law of economics or the law of politics taking over. I do not know.

And of course we know the reason we have been able to do that is others are reinvesting in the United States. How long are foreign investors, now approaching 35 percent of owning all of our debt, scheduled to go to 40, how long are they going to continue to invest in our country if we run our country as we are now running it? Borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, spending, spending and spending. Increasing, increasing, increasing our Nation's debt.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I start again referring to our grandchildren. 2011 is when the baby boomers begin to retire. Everyone knows there is no disputing that the economic pressures on this country in 2011 and 2012, when the baby boomers begin to retire and begin to draw their Social Security and begin to qualify for Medicare, the pressures on this country are going to be tremendous. That is why we think balancing the budget before we get there so that there will be the money in order to pay off the obligations to those which have been promised under current Social Security law.

So first off to those intending to retire in 2011, it is in their best self-interest that we honor the pledges that were made to them. Then we back off to the grandchildren, and of course they are not old enough to answer this question. They are not old enough to wonder. My two grandsons right now, seven and five, they would not have a clue what I am talking about right now. But the young working men and women just graduating from high school, going on to college, just graduating from college, about to get a job, they understand. They already know that they wish that Congress would make the changes today in the Social Security system so they might have something that is not just promised but that can be reality. If we do not deal with the fiscal problems of this country today, they will not be able to get that which they are promised to receive.

What does it mean to the average family having dinner tonight? Some of them remember 15 percent interest, 20 percent interest, trying to buy a car, 15 percent interest. Some of them remember what it was like when we had let our economic game plan get out of control. Many of them I would hope would see today that, with the decline in interest rates, they have had a tax cut. An increase in interest rates is going to be a tax increase, just as sure as we are standing here tonight. There is a balance involved in this.

Home building, homeownership, that is something that we pride ourselves in, rightfully so. We support the policies, and we hope we allow more and more families to gain homeownership. We let interest rates get out of control, we will see that dream vanish in a puff of smoke. So this is something I know what the gentleman is getting at and something that I struggle with at home. How do we relate this?

I do not take pleasure in opposing the President of the United States in anything. I have served now with five Presidents. I do not take joy, as some of my colleagues have said, in opposing the President. Basically, the only major area of difference that I have is on this economic game plan because of what I honestly and sincerely believe it is going to mean to the average working men and women. But my dedication to this and the simple answer I give to the gentleman's question is do not forget about our grandchildren.

About 10 years ago, of the 10 largest banks in the world, nine of them were in Japan. All nine of them today are in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

We have an obligation, and somehow, some way the American public is going to have to realize that our country is no different than that family that we are talking about having dinner tonight, that when they sit around and decide how are we going to spend Dad's raise that he did not get? How are we going to spend Mom's raise that she did not get? When one gets to that point in which they do not get the raise, they make readjustments.

And this surplus that is our money, we are going to give it back to them, is kind of like their not getting the raise. The money is not there, and therefore if the money is not there, they readjust, and they certainly do not spend money they do not have unless they are willing to take the chance.

Or put it another way. Would their banker really lend them the money for the tax cut that we are talking about today? Is it really going to benefit the average working family, as our colleagues on the other side say every day? Mr. Buffet says no. Mr. Buffet is right.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate his taking this Special Order today. I hope that somehow, some way as we repeat this, the Senators will find a way to amend this

debt ceiling and send it back over so that we might pass a debt ceiling without bringing our country to the point of default. We are willing to do that by unanimous consent tomorrow; and we should do it tomorrow, quite frankly. We ought to do it right here so we do not go to brinksmanship with the Senate. We ought to do it. We are willing to do it.