Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have sad news for the House today. Our former colleague and dear friend, Peter Hoagland of Nebraska passed away yesterday in the hospital in Bethesda.

Peter served three terms in the House. Being an at-large Member from North Dakota, as I arrived, I looked to this distinguished gentleman from Omaha to be not just a friend but also a mentor.

During my years in this body, I have never served with anyone who enjoyed service in this Chamber more than Peter Hoagland. And yet, he would lay his tenure right on the line to stand for what he believed in and cast his votes in a way that were an example in high principle.

Peter will be deeply missed by his family; his wife, Barbara Hoagland; five children, Elizabeth, Katherine, Christopher, David and Nick; as well as the countless friends he leaves behind. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time.

And I have, for any Member requesting, the information in terms of how to contact the family during this hour of bereavement.

I want to yield a moment to Congressman Lee Terry, who now represents the seat previously held by Congressman Hoagland. And at the conclusion of Congressman Terry, if we might rise in a moment of silence.

At this time, then, Mr. Speaker I'd ask that we might have a moment of silence.

Madam Speaker, I got to be a father late in life so that now I have got an 11-year-old and a 14-year-old at home.

And last winter I had a real long, miserable, anxious weekend, one that any parent probably has experienced. I had a sick kid and I didn't know what to do. A fever higher than I was comfortable with. The disposition of my little fellow, very different than usual. And in the end, we sought some medical care.

I have spent a lot of time thinking about that weekend as we have thought about this SCHIP because there are families with sick young'uns and they don't know what to do, but they cannot afford medical care. They don't have coverage. They don't have Medicaid for the poorest of the poor. But by virtue of working in a place that doesn't provide employer-provided health insurance, by virtue of earning an income that doesn't let them afford it, they're uncovered.

What do you do? The cost of one trip to an emergency room is a month's rent. What do you do? You pray and you hope that the little one gets better. And, fortunately, they often do. But, tragically, they sometimes don't. So when that long-delayed trip to the doctor or the hospital occurs, we have got a runaway health issue that the parent has had to sit and watch develop, all the while trying to figure out how to handle this situation.

We can make this problem go away for 10 million children by moving this legislation forward. To me, this isn't a Democrat, this isn't a Republican matter. This is a matter of basic morality. Are we going to help families get access to medical care by getting insurance coverage for their kids so they don't have to pick between bankruptcy

and trying to address their kids' medical problem in a more timely way? It's as simple as that.

Gosh, the rhetoric has gotten so heated, this and that, one charge or another. But what we have tried to do is take many of the issues that were offered in support of sustaining the veto of the President stopping this insurance coverage for children from taking place. We tried to address it in this bill.

They said families earning $83,000 can get this kind of coverage. It wasn't true, but we have taken steps in this bill to make absolutely certain it couldn't happen under any circumstances.

They said parents are getting coverage. Well, there are a few isolated examples of where grandfathered programs allowed that, but we have phased that out.

We have listened and we have responded, and it's time for this side to take ``yes'' for an answer because there is something that has got to rise above the daily squabbling in this place, and that is responding to the needs of families to get their kids the health care they need. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give Members 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this bill, H.R. 3056.

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

We are in a time where there is a complete fascination in this administration with contracting out. If you are happy with Blackwater in Iraq, then I expect you are perfectly fine with contracting the debt collection of IRS debt to private bill collectors. But there are some essential facts at issue which should give us pause to reconsider.

First, the start-up costs. We were told, in testimony by the IRS Commissioner, this venture was going to cost about $14 million to get up and running. The tab so far, $70 million, five times the anticipated cost to begin this venture.

Now, you might say, well, okay, start-up costs are a little more than expected, but how are we doing on receipts now that we have got them fully going, collecting these receipts? We don't have a very good story on that one either.

It was anticipated that $46 million to maybe $63 million would be collected. Coming in at about half of that anticipation, $32 million in. It costs five times more to start and bringing in about half as much as advertised.

Well, okay, $32 million. It still sounds like a lot. Well, not really when you consider the fact they have been given 118,000 cases with an unpaid debt of $512 million. For the kind of money we have invested, do you know what we are getting back? We are getting about a 6 percent return from this experiment in private debt collection.

You might be asking yourself, look, there must be some more efficient way to do this. Well, there sure is. Let's fund the IRS, hire, train, manage the debt collection. My gosh, if there is one government responsibility, it ought to be in making certain that the revenue owed is the revenue raised.

And the statistics show by the IRS themselves that for $1 spent on IRS staff collecting debt, you get a 20 to 1 return, $20 back for every $1 spent. Private debt collection, the IRS again projecting, at best, $4 back for every $1 spent. That's $20 if we hire to $1 spent, $4 if we hire to every $1 spent under contracting. And that's their projection.

Look, at $32 million collected and $70 million spent, we are collecting 50 cents for every dollar spent so far. That's pretty bad business. If we had spent the $71 million to hire a Federal collection staff, we would have already collected $1.4 billion. That is the total amount they project over 10 years under this experiment of private debt collection.

I sit on the Ways and Means Committee. And as we considered this notion before it became operative, I thought this is the most expensive way to do this. It reminded me of that $600 toilet seat that the Department of Defense paid for awhile back. I call this a $600 toilet seat of tax collection. Well, when you look at it, they have taken $70 million to build this gold-plated throne and they flushed away $50 million on this foolish experiment.

There are many reasons to end this ill-advised endeavor, and the speakers we present are going to offer those reasons. But the fundamental is it's a matter of dollars and sense, and this don't make sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, the unrefuted data is that IRS collection with IRS staff is five times more efficient in terms of dollars received than contracting out. If we are worrying about IRS efficiency, do it on the staff model.

And I might say that their cost estimate about this bill contemplates that the IRS would hire no staff, would just forget hiring out contractors, hire no staff, and just walk away from them.

No. We have got a very different notion. We want to take the money we are sending to these private bill collectors and hire IRS staff that are going to collect on this five-to-one ratio. We have got a much better, more efficient model to address this issue of unpaid balances owed to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

We had hearing testimony on the survey that was referenced by my friend from Florida. Basically, the GAO testified that the survey was fundamentally flawed. Of 300,000 conversations that have taken place, 1,000 were the subject of the survey for getting taxpayer satisfaction, and the private debt collectors were able to pick which ones got the survey. So a 1,000 survey sample out of a 300,000 universe, with those stakeholders picking the ones that get to say it, was not deemed as credible by the GAO and not deemed as credible by the majority on Ways and Means.

With that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has spoken passionately about the jobs in his district, and I look forward to working with him on economic revitalization issues so vitally important to rural areas like the ones he and I both represent. But this is really not a jobs program before us. What is the best way for taxpayers to have collected what they owed? We want to collect what we are owed. We believe for every IRS employee, we are going to collect $20. For every private debt collector, the optimistic projection is you are going to collect $4. The reality has been much less than that. So when we are talking about the issue before us, what is the best way to get the money we are owed? The best way to do it is hire the personnel, train the personnel, run an IRS capable of getting its job done.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Nevada, Congresswoman Berkley.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the bill's prime sponsor, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, as part of the IRS appropriation, we fund the National Taxpayer Advocate. In her 2006 annual report, she writes, ``We are concerned that private collectors are using trickery, device and belated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act warnings to take advantage of taxpayers. We are concerned private collectors are taking advantage of taxpayers.'' That is from the National Taxpayer Advocate.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who has advanced the prohibition of this ill-advised endeavor in the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just again read from the National Taxpayer Advocate report: ``We are concerned private collectors are taking advantage of taxpayers.'' I will submit this for the Record.

With that, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, the cost cited assumes that not a nickel is spent on IRS capacity. Indeed, if we spend it on IRS capacity, the unrefuted evidence is that it would be a 5-to-1 return relative to private collectors.

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe private debt collection of IRS debt is a terrible idea and an important matter, which is why the majority leader will close for our side. I yield the balance of our time to the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, from Maryland.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, my friend is an articulate and forceful advocate. And we are all moved by the story of his time with the accountant, but they did not owe a tax. And basically, there is a figure missing from the motion to recommit he brings before us today, a very important figure: the cost of what the underlying motion to recommit would require. That figure is $498.8 billion. Now, we are a Nation of $9 trillion of debt, $9 trillion of debt, and they bring forward a proposal that would add another $498.8 billion, and they fail to say anything about how they are going to pay for it in their motion.

Well, obviously serious-minded legislators like my friend would not bring forward a serious proposal about repeal of the estate tax without some means of paying for it, and that is really what the heart of this motion is. It is not a real estate tax motion. This is a kill-the- underlying-bill motion.

The other side has some different priorities. Last week they were against SCHIP, expanding health insurance to uninsured kids. This week they are basically for privatizing debt collection of IRS debt. You like what Blackwater is doing in Iraq; you're going to love sending IRS debt to private bill collectors here.

Because they aren't going to prevail on the debate itself, they want to keep the vote from happening at all, which is what the underlying motion to recommit does, sends it promptly back to the Ways and Means Committee, which means the underlying bill is not before the House for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, to further use the time in our opposition to the motion to recommit, it is my honor to yield to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, 75 million American households own their home. About 68 percent of these homeowners have a mortgage, and about 26 percent of those also carry a second mortgage, a home equity line, or both. In total, Americans have about $10.4 trillion of mortgage debt outstanding.

The large majority of families are paying their mortgage payments on time, but many families are having a difficult time meeting their monthly mortgage payments as the interest rates on their loans are being reset to higher levels. Missed payments can mean high added fees also apply.

In this last year, more families have found that they just can not keep up and end up loosing their home in foreclosure. Both foreclosures and their precursor, delinquencies, shot upward. By August 2007, foreclosures were up 115 percent from last year, and up 36 percent from July. Since economic research shows that a single foreclosure within a city block lowers the value of homes in the area by 0.9 percent, many lenders want to help families stay in their homes. These families work out a new loan with their lender revising the home loans by forgiving some of the debt caused by the decline in housing prices.

The last thing these families need is a tax bill for the ``phantom income'' arising from the loss in the value of their home or the amount of debt forgiveness. Today, Congress rips up that tax bill for struggling families as we pass the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007. This bill provides relief to those families by permanently excluding debt forgiven under these circumstances from tax liability.

Housing is an important job creator in our economy. We still need to keep home ownership a reachable part of the American Dream. With recent reports in the Wall Street Journal showing that demand for previously owned homes tumbled in August to the lowest level in 5 years, we know that the trouble in the mortgage market hurts sales. Home resales fell to a 5.5 million annual rate, a 4.3 percent decline from July, according to the National Association of Realtors. Help for new home buyers is in H.R. 3648.

Solid Midwest values helped keep folks in my state North Dakota out of the subprime mortgage fallout, by and large. Yet, we all know that it is hard for young families to scrape together the money to make a significant down payment on their first home. Many of them are not able to purchase their home with a 20 percent down payment. Mortgage insurance protects these buyers that the market

needs, while insuring against the loss in home value in the event of default.

H.R. 3648 would help our kids and other would-be homeowners secure their first homes through a long-term extension of the tax deduction for private mortgage insurance. Mortgage insurance keeps new homeowners from taking out second and riskier loans to buy their first home. Extending this tax deduction until 2015 treats mortgage insurance as a cost of homeowners hip in the same way as mortgage interest.

The bottom line is that foreclosures do not help the taxpayers. It does not help the economy and it does not help our communities. H.R. 3648 is another step that this Congress is taking to restore strength to the Nation's floundering housing market. Providing help to keep families in their homes and to improve the ability of young families to buy their first home from those houses on the market would help ease the crisis we face.

I thank my friend, the chairman, for yielding.

I commend the last two speakers on the Republican side because they have at last made it clear what this debate is really about: Is there a Federal role for assisting the private sector in dealing with the management of the infinite risk of terror, or is there not?

I'm really surprised to hear in this debate how firmly my friends on the other side of the aisle cling to the notion that the market and the market alone can work this one out.

I used to be an insurance commissioner. What I know about insurance is that infinite risk cannot be priced, it cannot be underwritten, it cannot be reserved, it doesn't work. And that is why, right across the face of the insurance industry, we have heard as a body from the experts that they cannot make this coverage work private sector alone. They can whittle away at the edges basically by backing away from risk, coshares, enormous deductibles, the rest of it, but they have not told us they can make this market function.

But in the face of what reality holds forth, the minority is unmoved. They don't like government making business work. And so even in the face of a very uncertain construction sector, they would pull this coverage away.

Pass this bill.

I cannot get out of my mind a picture that appeared in a newspaper a few months ago of a young boy with a toothache. The horrible story running alongside this picture was that this young fellow later contracted a brain infection from the tooth infection, and he later died. Because his family couldn't afford the tooth extraction, this young fellow lost his life. We don't have any more urgent national priority than making sure our children have access to the health care they need.

There is another feature of this bill as well. It's rural health care. If we don't pass this bill, there are very steep cuts slated for doctors of hospitals practicing in our rural areas.

It's hard keeping essential health services available for kids, for seniors, for everyone else in these rural areas. We have got to stop these cuts, help our kids, keep rural medicine thriving. Pass this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is a dispute about facts. I flat out absolutely reject the fact that this is costing jobs; in fact, American sugar producers, 146,000 jobs in 19 States, struggling without an increase in their market price for 22 years.

Now, this amendment would represent a loss in income averaging $294 per acre. I'm telling you, if you're a farmer trying to make those ends meet and you're taking nearly a $300 hit per acre as a result of this amendment, you are out of business.

Don't cost us these jobs. Reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, this is ridiculous. We have an Agriculture Committee. The Agriculture Committee has under it the jurisdiction of the crop insurance program. The crop insurance program's largely governed by the crop insurance law which is going to be up for reauthorization in the next Congress. We are close to completing a farm bill. The gentleman, who is not on the committee but participated in a hearing in the Government Oversight Committee, has developed a keen interest in the crop insurance program. He has advanced an amendment which has been made in order. It would have substantial consequences to the crop insurance program, and it has not had a hearing in the Agriculture Committee.

But beyond that, as with all amendments, there are timelines to submit to the Rules Committee, printed in the Record. Everyone has a chance to evaluate precisely what the gentleman is saying.

Well, that's not enough, because this morning, he comes to the floor and says that he has discovered, almost like a Grisham novel, discovered, on page 668, language. It's not just wrong, it's criminal, and if we only followed this man, we can alleviate ourselves of wrongdoing that must be criminal and save the reputation of our House and Members in it. Oh, what drama is unfolding here. What nonsense is purported by the gentleman asking for this unanimous consent request.

I will assert objection to the unanimous consent request. This is not accidental language. It didn't fall from the sky. It's part of a complete plan on crop insurance and the structure of a public-private partnership.

I look forward to working with the gentleman in an ongoing effort to really dig to the bottom of the gentleman's questions. But I will tell you something, none of us, certainly not me, is so doggone smart that after a hearing I go off and do a little more study, write a bill totally undoing vital risk protection to our farmers, and if that's not enough, come to the floor of the House and ask for unanimous consent to try and further rewrite this program right here as we go, without even having printed language before us.

Mr. Chairman, I assert the objection to the unanimous consent request.

Some quick facts: the insurance industry operates in this country under an antitrust exemption. It was passed into law in 1945 in the McCarron-Ferguson Act. But for a relatively recent interpretation of the Department of Justice, in constant negotiation, the Federal Government to the private sector partner has always been conducted under the way anticipated under the bill.

Twenty years ago I was a State insurance commissioner. At that time there were more than 60 companies writing crop insurance. Now they are down to 16. Why is that? Because there is so doggone much money here? Heck, no. It's because it's a tough line of business to work.

I am not saying that we don't need to look at it, but the committee takes out $2.9 billion, and now we got a guy that thinks he knows we can take out billions more. I tell you, you take out billions more, my farmers don't have the vital risk protection they need when crops fail and they need to make the payment back to the banker on their loans. So this is serious stuff. This isn't an academic exercise. This is vital risk protection for the farmers.

Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I, frankly, find it astonishing that we're going to have people representing farmers today that are going to be voting against a bill so important to rural America, a bill that enjoys the support of the farm bureau, the farmers union, the commodity groups, so many vital to the food production of our country. And why? Because they're worried about these companies based in places like Bermuda that want to take their money earned in the United States, route it through places like Switzerland, and park it in the bank back in those islands, those beautiful Caribbean islands where they don't have taxes. They would rather protect the tax cheaters in Bermuda than help the farmers in this country. And man, I would hate to go home and try to sell that one, because if that's not priorities tipped on their head, I don't know what is.

It's time for this body to do what's right and pass a farm bill so vital to rural America and the family farmers in our country.

Vote ``yes'' on this rule.

I was really surprised to hear my colleague, Mr. Flake, say, in talking about his bill, that farmers participating in the farm program are something like grown children living in the parents' basement. What a complete affront to the hardworking family farmers producing our Nation's food all across this country.

It also shows a profound ignorance in just what's involved in family farming, tremendous capital exposed every year you put that crop and risks you can't control, price collapse, crop failure. And the only thing that's going to keep family farmers as our backbone for U.S. food production is a farm program that helps allay these risks.

What do we want for our future, vast corporate-style ag production or family farmers producing the abundant food, the high quality, the low cost we've come to enjoy in our food supply in this country?

I know what the people back home represent. They want family farms, and that's why they want this farm bill.

Vote ``no'' on Kind; ``yes'' on the farm bill.

Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a fallen soldier, Corporal Nathan Goodiron.

Tribute to Nathan Goodiron

(By Albert Caswell)

An eagle above our nation soars on high,

With but his courage and character and Goodiron, the very bed

of freedom he so provides,

All so in peace and liberty, all so we may lead our lives!

Goodiron, of great heart,

A Young Eagle, of this earth . . . of the Mandan . . . a work

of art,

Of the best, of great Native American Indian . . . of great

value,

As his fine true worth . . . this man, his heart.

A good man,

Of warm heart and character, of great attitude . . . who to

our world so lent his hand,

Who gave his life, of iron in the midst of strife . . . where

strength begins, and ends . . .

Of good heart, where brave men stand.

Forever, a hero first

Strength in honor, of dream time fame . . . lies Goodiron . .

. as is your fine life's verse,

Of brave warrior fame of old, who loved the land . . . who

loved the earth,

And all its great soul here first.

Your smile, than one . . . a great American son,

Who went off to war, this one . . . to cast the light of

freedom's sun . . . as yes did you,

Our most splendid of all ones,

For when we think of you, Goodiron . . . it warms our souls,

just like the great bright sun of old,

And a breeze from above,

Running throughout the mountain tops, into the valley runs .

. . you and your love . . .

Out on the river it flows,

Your spirit, Goodiron so . . . we see you, we hear you, we

feel and touch you . . . as ever it grows.

To heaven my son, you have gone . . .

With all of those true of heart, with all of those fine souls

of iron . . . who so do belong . . .

Goodiron, a man of heart . . . an American hero with your

ancestors, you are now a part . . .

As ever living on. . .

Goodiron, Goodheart, American's son . . . our Lord's work of

art

Good Iron

In honor of a great American hero . . . Nathan Goodiron . . .

and may your family find peace, bless them!

Thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this Special Order. I want to congratulate you and all who have impacted the national defense authorization bill we will be voting on towards the end of the week.

You know, the principles of sound budgeting have got to apply to the administration of our government, and that means all facets of our government. We have had leadership at the White House that has basically said we can have a war, and we are going to have it off budget. We don't have to account for it in terms of our efforts toward reaching a balanced budget, our efforts in terms of reducing the deficit. We are going to have it off budget.

All it means is our kids are picking up every nickel of this war, as it goes straight on the national debt. That is why I appreciate the principles advanced by the Blue Dogs in H. Res. 97, the Operation Iraqi Freedom Cost Accountability Act, and I applaud you and all who worked so hard to get major portions of it included in the Defense Authorization Act.

The four significant provisions of the bill: transparency in how the war funds are being spent. This isn't a black-box proposition. The money is appropriated; the money flows. Where does it flow?

I believe we have at the rate of $2 billion per-week burn rate, we are entitled to know. We are entitled to know in much greater detail than we have had before. The Blue Dogs would go so far as to have a Truman Commission looking at war profiteering.

If in the depths of World War II, the face-down with Hitler, we could recognize that there were inappropriate funds being spent and worked to get a handle around them, as Senator Truman led with his committee, certainly the same holds true with the war on terror and with Operation Iraqi Freedom.

There is a book that I recommend and bring to your attention, ``Imperial Life in the Emerald City.'' It is an outstanding inside account of the administration of the Green Zone in the early days after the conflict and into this postwar period in Iraq. It will raise in your mind, as it has raised in mine, any number of deep and troubling questions about how this whole matter has been administered, and that goes to war contracting, and that means we need to take a thorough look at all of that.

Part three of H. Res. 97, running the future funding of this war through the regular appropriations process, a principle adopted now both in the budget and the Defense Authorization Act, and the fourth essential component of this bill, moving greater Iraqi responsibility for their policing and security.

Now we have a unanimous vote of the Armed Services Committee with the defense authorization bill, and I believe the Blue Dogs can be very happy that the principle of funding this war through the normal appropriations process and greater transparency in how the funds are spent will be the policy of this House, a policy adopted I am happy to say with bipartisan measures.

The essential management goals for this war will have to be established by the Department of Defense, and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction will have a much greater say in bringing information on the expenditure of these dollars to this body. There have been efforts, frankly, to hamstring the Inspector General. We make clear in this legislation that the Inspector General's authority goes towards reconstruction funding regardless of the source or the fiscal year. We need to expand our efforts to get a handle on how in the world we have spent to date nearly $400 billion, and the tab flowing just as fast as ever.

I think that this represents an important Blue Dog accomplishment. I look forward to voting on the defense authorization bill. Rather than take further time, I ask that Jim Marshall, a member of the Ranger Hall of Fame, a member of the defense authorization committee, be one that might further expand in this area. Obviously, his credentials are extremely well established.

I would just conclude by saying that the Blue Dogs have stood for accounting principles and solid budgeting in the administration of this war, and we have prevailed with the bill coming out of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, there was a mistake by which some Members were inadvertently added as cosponsors to a bill, and now I would ask unanimous consent to remove these cosponsors from H.R. 1419:

Mr. Hinojosa

Mr. Conaway

Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

Mr. Bachus

Mr. Holt

Ms. Matsui

Mr. Rohrabacher

Mr. Skelton

Mr. Petri

Mr. Wilson of South Carolina

Mr. Rehberg

Mr. Feeney

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I represent farm families in desperate need of the disaster assistance in this bill, and that is why I am so offended by this Statement of Administration Policy threatening veto on this bill. Consider some of the words in the veto threat of the President: ``The farm economy is strong. Both crop and livestock receipts are forecast to be record high in 2007.''

You know, I don't think they get it. National numbers. National averages. These are of no value whatsoever to the individual farm family that gets wiped out in a disaster.

Most of the country on Labor Day of 2005 had a perfectly delightful Labor Day weekend. But part of the country got hammered to bits with Hurricane Katrina. I represent people living more than 1,000 miles from there, but we think we need to help those people. When it comes to the North Dakota farmers, who have been devastated, well, they need our help too. These are natural disasters certified by the President.

Take a look at this corn. You've heard of ``knee high by the 4th of July''? Well, this was taken in early July. When the wind starts blowing, the temperature soars and the rain stops and the drought takes hold, the families' income goes away. Family farmers lose their crops. Family farmers forced to sell their cattle. Family farmers lose their income. And without our help, without our help tonight, family farmers are going to lose their farms.

In North Dakota, this was the third worst drought on record, only following the thirties and the fifties. But we are not alone. Look at this figure. We had farmers through the great heartland, an area by the way providing some of the President's staunchest support, deeply hurting from these droughts and in need of this disaster bill.

We need to send a strong bipartisan signal and send it right now, tonight, help is on its way. Please vote for this bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just also very briefly, representing the other side of the aisle, want to echo the statements so eloquently made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Jerry, you spoke right from the heart. We can feel the pain that you're feeling on behalf of those who have had their lives just devastated. It's important for them to know that they're going to have your first class advocacy. And you certainly just put that on display tonight.

And it's also important for them to know that we offer them our prayers. And beyond that, we will be with them as they rebuild.

I represented a city that got flooded, and it took years, but we just had the 10-year commemoration of that event, and this city is back, bigger and better than ever.

Now, I've never seen anything like the picture that you put on display tonight. It's a different challenge. A different magnitude of effort's going to be required, but we will be with you. The Federal Government will be there, and we will follow your lead as we fashion a response that meets the need, the tremendous need in the wake of this tornado. I yield back.