Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for yielding me this time and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for bringing forward this amendment.

I rise in support of this amendment, and I want to emphasize that this amendment is not anti-agriculture. This amendment is pro-water conservation.

The water situation in the Klamath Basin is in bad straits. We are oversubscribed in the Klamath Basin and, as a result, last year some 38,000 salmon, adult-spawning salmon in the lower Klamath Basin, were killed because of the oversubscription, the drought, and the extreme water problems that impact the entire Klamath Basin. This amendment will provide more water for fish without harming agriculture.

The Klamath Basin water problems are not insurmountable. We can fix them. But it is going to require that all parties take a seat at the table and show a willingness to work towards a solution. I would encourage all, those who are opposed to this and those who are in support of it, to come together, finally come together, join forces and attempt to fix this problem. I think this amendment is a step in that direction. It frees up a lot of water that can be used to mitigate the environmental problem that led to the death of some 38,000 fish, the largest fish kill in the history of this country.

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

I just want to make a couple of observations, and this has come from someone who voted for the farm bill and someone who actually farms. Again, this is not an antifarming amendment; it is a pro-water conservation amendment. That is what is needed in the Klamath Basin.

I just want to raise the issue that the low flows that we were talking about, this last year when 38,000 adult-spawning salmon were killed, this was the lowest water flows ever recorded since they have been recording the flows out of Irongate, the lowest flows ever during the migration period of the salmon.

The other thing I want to mention is that we can argue science all day, but there is one thing that is not arguable, and that is, fish need water. This is a good amendment. It is not antiagriculture. It does not have anything at all to do with the farm bill. There is nothing in it about chemicals or chemicals used in agriculture. This is water conservation. It will save fish. It will help farmers on both ends of the Klamath Basin. I ask for my colleagues' ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today against this rule. Members should have an opportunity to vote on an enhanced version of the bipartisan Senate bill. That is the Blue Dog prescription drug benefit bill. Unfortunately for seniors across this country, our friends across the aisle have disallowed a debate on this better bill. It is better because it has a guaranteed fall-back, which means if seniors cannot get a PPO, they will have Medicare. It is better because there are no premium supports, which means seniors are not going to be penalize for staying in Medicare; and it is better because it does not privatize Medicare. Medicare is an important program that has saved the lives of many seniors, and an inclusion of a prescription drug benefit deserves an open debate.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule so the Blue Dog proposal can be debated and seniors can have the best coverage that we can afford at this time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the rule of the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, H.R. 1. It serves only one purpose-- ensuring that the voices of several in the Democratic Party are never heard on this critical issue.

I stand here on behalf of the Blue Dog Coalition--a group which engaged in this debate by crafting a moderate, affordable prescription drug alternative that would have appealed to Members on both sides of the aisle. But this

body will never consider the Blue Dog substitute, because the Rules Committee denied us the opportunity to debate our proposal and have a vote on the House floor.

As you know, the Blue Dogs are a group of fiscally conservative Democrats, who are committed--as a coalition--to the passage of a prescription drug benefit that fits within our $400 billion budget window. On Tuesday evening, the Coalition formally endorsed legislation based upon the bipartisan Senate Medicare bill (S. 1).

The Senate has come together to develop a strong bipartisan benefit. It is not perfect. But, in recent years, the perfect has become the enemy of the good and, unfortunately, the perfect is out of our price range. The Senate offers America's seniors a good benefit. It carries a monthly premium of $35. A deductible of $275. A 50 percent cost-share through the first $4500 of drug spending. And, it offers a catastrophic benefit that kicks in after beneficiaries have spent $3700 out of pocket. Further, it corrects a variety of inadequacies in our Medicare reimbursement system for rural providers. And, it does all of this without putting Medicare on the path to privatization. But, with a score of $389 billion, there was some room for improvements. And, that is just what the Blue Dog Coalition has done.

We have strengthened the rural provider package by accelerating the start dates to 2004. And, we have improved the adjustments made to the wage index labor share--dropping the labor share to 62 percent.

We have built upon the Senate's critically important fall-back provisions. The fall-back means that seniors--such as those living in rural areas without two or more plans providing service--will always have access to a drug benefit. We have provided an additional layer of stability for those seniors, by requiring the fall-back plans to contract for two years as opposed to one.

We have included the Senate Generic drug amendment, which has been scored by CBO as a cost-saver because it streamlines and clarifies the process by which generic medications can be brought to market. This will increase the amount of affordable medications available to all of our seniors.

We have incorporated disclosure requirements, to ensure that our plans are fully demonstrating how savings are passed on to our beneficiaries.

We allow the Secretary to negotiate on behalf of all Medicare beneficiaries for the best prices possible.

We permit the re-importation of medications from Canada, provided that the Secretary certifies that such action would not jeopardize the health and safety of the American public.

We allow Medicare to operate as the primary payor for all dually eligible beneficiaries, lifting some of the financial burden off of the shoulders of our states.

We allow a portion of employer contributions to be counted towards the beneficiary out of pocket limits, encouraging our employers to continue sponsoring retiree health plans.

And we are able to make these improvements within the confines of the $400 billion budget allocation.

Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office was not able to complete a score on our legislation prior to the convening of the Rules Committee. However, the majority of the changes we have made to the already-scored Senate bill were based upon Senate amendments that have either been introduced and passed or are pending introduction. As such, they have all been scored by CBO for their sponsoring offices. The availability of that information has allowed the Blue Dogs to say with certainty that this legislation fits within the $400 billion budget window.

But, Members with questions about the Blue Dog substitute will never have the opportunity to pose them because the rule has prevented all debate on this alternative. Medicare is a complex program and the debate on the addition of a new prescription drug benefit cannot be a simple one. Voices should be heard, debate should be had, and all options should be fully explored before one course of action is decided upon. Unfortunately--to the detriment of this body and America's seniors--that is not happening.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and in doing so allow the House of Representatives to give this critical issue the open and deliberate debate that it fully deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, during tonight's debate we have heard a number of times the Democrats do not have a feasible Medicare prescription drug proposal. This is just not true. The Blue Dogs have a motion to recommit that offers a real and an affordable prescription drug alternative, and it does so without calling for an end of Medicare. And we have included strong safeguard language that specifically instructs the Secretary to keep the costs of this measure within the $400 billion budget window. The Blue Dog motion to recommit provides Medicare fallback, unlike the Republican bill, protects traditional fee for service Medicare, unlike the Republican bill, and provides billions of dollars of relief for rural providers.

Unfortunately, for America's seniors, our proposal will only get 5 minutes of discussion tonight, 5 minutes to protect Medicare from privatization, 5 minutes to ensure rural seniors have a benefit if the PPOs do not come to their areas. And for all of the Members tonight who have said they are supporting the Republican bill in order to move the debate, the best way to do that is to support this recommit so we can promptly get a measure back here in the morning to vote on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to our colleague, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who is not a Blue Dog, but knows a good deal when he sees one.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to vote to send this motion back to committee and promptly report back a solid Medicare prescription drug benefit that we can pass tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Andrew T. Ringgold, Superintendent, Redwood National and State Parks, Crescent City, California, who is being honored on the occasion of his retirement after 36 years with the National Park Service.

A native of Washington, D.C., Andy Ringgold grew up in Williamsburg, Virginia and received his Bachelors Degree from Bucknell University. He began his outstanding career in the National Park Service as a Park Ranger at Sequoia National Park in California in 1967. In 1972 Andy became District Ranger at Lassen Volcanic National Park and then served as Chief Ranger at Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona from 1976 to 1979. After serving as Chief Ranger at New River Gorge in West Virginia, he became Staff Park Ranger, Division of Ranger Activities at the Headquarters Office in Washington, D.C. in 1984. In 1987 Andy Ringgold served as Chief of the Branch of Resource and Visitor Protection at the Headquarters Office and then, in 1989, became Superintendent at Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts. In 1995 he assumed the duties of Superintendent at Redwood National Park in California.

In 2002, Mr. Ringgold received the United States Department of the Interior Honor Award for Meritorious Service in recognition of his contributions to the management and protection of resources at Redwood National Park. He spearheaded the use of alternative methods and partnerships to achieve park goals. He has received numerous awards in recognition of his outstanding and innovative leadership.

Andrew Ringgold has guided the management of Redwood National and State Parks, which includes three California state parks and the national park as one unit, a precedent setting agreement that has evolved into a model partnership of cooperation and efficiency. It is a model that has set the standard for similar partnerships in other regions across the nation.

Andrew Ringgold has served the National Park Service with honesty, integrity and expertise. His high standards and dedication to his profession are widely recognized.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we recognize Andrew T. Ringgold for his vision and leadership and for his contributions to the preservation of the natural resources of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sergeant Steven P. Jones of the Lake County, California Sheriff's Department, for dedicating his professional life to protecting and serving the people of Lake County.

Steven Jones first joined the Lake County Sheriff's Department on March 15, 1973 as a Deputy Officer. Deputy Jones earned Peace Officer Standards and Training certificates in 1977 and 1982. His achievements and disciplined work ethic helped pave the way for his promotion to the rank of Sergeant in 1977.

Sergeant Jones has served the Sheriff's Department in many different capacities. He has served as SWAT team leader, Search and Rescue team leader, Patrol Supervisor, Investigator, Volunteer Coordinator and Commander at the Lower Lake Substation.

Regardless of his specific title or role within the department, Sergeant Jones has always been a leader and an example to his fellow officers. His dedication to the community has been a tremendous benefit to us all.

Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Jones epitomizes the standards of a true civil servant. For over 30 years he has conducted himself with honor and dignity. Even when he is not working, Sergeant Jones is never really off duty. On Sunday July 14, 1996 Sergeant Jones and his wife Pattie were walking in Library Park, a popular local recreation area. As they walked about, they looked to the water. There they witnessed an accident involving a 5-year-old boy and his Jet Ski. The child had been knocked off of his Jet Ski and was facing certain peril when without hesitation Sergeant Jones jumped into the water and began swimming toward the boy. Fortunately for that boy and his family, Sergeant Jones' strength and training took over and he not only reached the child, he pulled him to the dock and administered proper medical attention until rescue personnel could arrive.

Such is the character of Sergeant Jones.

Mr. Speaker, three decades have passed since Sergeant Jones first joined the force. In that time, his dedication to our community has remained firm and intact. He has never wavered and he has always maintained our confidence. Sergeant Jones has protected and served Lake County faithfully, he has kept us safe. For his outstanding service and amazing call to duty over the previous 30 years, it is proper for us to honor Sergeant Steven P. Jones at the time of his retirement from the Lake County Sheriff's Department and extend out best wishes to him in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to Captain Andrew D. LA Mont, USMC, who was killed in action in Iraq, 19 May 2003. Captain La Mont, a 32- year-old resident of Humboldt County, California, answered his country's call and paid the ultimate price.

Captain La Mont served as a pilot with the Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 364, Marine Air Group 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing. His CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter was on a re-supply mission in central Iraq when it crashed into the Shatt Al Hallah River. All four crewmembers perished, as well as a Marine Sgt. who drowned trying to rescue the crewmembers.

Captain La Mont was born at Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, DC, and moved to Humboldt County when he was 2 years old. He loved his country and chose to serve in the Marines Corps. He entered the Marines as an officer following graduation from San Diego State University, ROTC program. He served in Desert Storm and is a hero to his family and to the nation. He had a special influence on the life of his nephew, Sgt. Christopher La Mont, who is also serving in Iraq.

Captain La Mont is one of nine children born to Lt. Col. (Ret.) James and Mrs. Vivian La Mont. Lt. Col. James La Mont was a career officer in the United States Air Force.

Captain Andrew D. La Mont's tragic death reminds us that however just the cause, war brings tragedy to many families and that any casualty is one too many. He died serving the country he loved, with comrades he loved and with the love of his family in his heart. Our nation is humbled and grateful for his sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we recognize Captain Andrew D. La Mont, USMC, who gave his life in service to his country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the significant achievements of Dr. Jon S. Ebeling, a retiring political science professor at Chico State University in Chico, California.

Jon Ebeling earned his Bachelors of Arts in History from San Jose State College in 1962. Anxious to educate and serve, Jon entered the Peace Corps after graduation and was assigned to work in the first Peace Corps project in Ethiopia.

Upon completing his Peace Corps project, Jon returned to the United States and reentered school to pursue a postgraduate degree. In 1966 he earned his Masters Degree from UCLA and went on to receive his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1974.

Dr. Ebeling's enthusiasm for subject matter and life are contagious. Whether teaching statistics and research methods, public sector budgeting, evaluation research methods or cost analysis, Dr. Ebeling has the unique ability to make his courses both memorable and inspirational.

It is not surprising that Dr. Ebeling is also very active outside of the classroom. In addition to his full teaching load, he has used the

little free time he has had to direct more than 200 masters' theses.

Mr. Speaker, I earned my Masters Degree from Chico State University. There, I had the privilege of having Dr. Ebeling as a professor and an advisor. Were it not for the encouragement of Dr. Ebeling, I probably would not have my Masters Degree today. He taught my class that we could, and should, make a difference. Dr. Ebeling has the ability to make you believe that you can reach out and touch government; he made me believe I could get involved.

Mr. Speaker, for his invaluable contributions to Chico State University, his students, the Californian state government and our nation, it is most appropriate that we honor Dr. Jon Sutton Ebeling.

Mr. Speaker, on April 24, President Bush told the workers of Canton, Ohio that the best way to solve the deficit is to grow the revenues--and have fiscal sanity in Washington, DC.

As a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, I've been championing fiscal sanity since I first came to Congress. But, I just don't see the fiscal sanity of passing a $550 billion tax cut package that we flat out can't afford.

Especially when it's a tax package touted as help for the working person and the elderly but structured to help those in the top income brackets.

The corner stone of this bill is a proposal to reduce the tax paid on dividends and capital gains.

We've heard all about how this is going to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and boy is it ever going to help out seniors, with over half of them receiving dividend income.

Well, yes. Over half of our Nation's seniors receive dividend income. And, this bill will cut their taxes. But, if they make less than $50,000 a year, their tax cut will be a grand total of $44.

Since the average senior income is far less than $50,000, it doesn't seem that this bill is going to help seniors as much as some might like you to think.

And, this bill certainly doesn't help America's workers as much as some might like you to think.

The White House claims that this bill will create 190,000 jobs in this year alone. That's great, because the Labor Department says that we just lost 190,000 jobs in March and April. In fact, we've lost 2.7 million jobs since the last round of tax cuts were passed--over 239,000 in California alone.

And this new tax bill doesn't mean more jobs for California. In fact, this tax bill doesn't do anything good for California.

Over 146,000 jobs will be lost and state revenue will be cut by more than $1.2 billion. And, at the end of the day, most Californians, 47 percent, will get a tax cut of less than $100.

Where's the fiscal sanity in growing the deficit through a $550 billion tax cut, when the people who really need our help aren't the ones who are getting it?

Right now, this country is over $6.4 trillion in debt.

We increased our debt limit by $450 billion just 10 months ago--and we've already spent all of it. Now, we are trying to increase the debt limit by an additional $980 billion.

But, it doesn't look like that increase will come in time; it seems we've spent our money so quickly that we need to borrow an additional $79 billion just to meet our bills in May and June.

If we can't pay our bills now, how are we going to do it once we've shrunk revenues by $550 billion? Will we just borrow more?

At the rate we're going, this Nation is going to be over $12 trillion in debt within 10 years.

And, don't forget--we pay interest on that debt. Today, it costs us over $1 billion a day. Ten years from now, under a best case scenario of interest rates not going up, it will cost us over $2 billion a day.

Some say that debt only matters in comparison to our GDP. Well, if things don't change, by 2013 our debt will be almost 50 percent of our GDP. That matters. And, it matters now, when debt is almost 35 percent of our GDP.

Debt does matter. Deficits do matter.

They matter less in times of war, but they are still critically important factors in our overall economic security.

And, passing measures that will only worsen our economic projections and pass the buck--and the bill--to future generations is neither fiscally responsible nor fiscally sane.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished service of Bonnie Jean Long, the city manager of St. Helena, California. Her outstanding leadership and commitment to community service has significantly benefited the people of St. Helena and she will be sorely missed upon her retirement.

When looking to hire the first-ever city manager in St. Helena, our community would have had a truly difficult task trying to find someone more qualified than Bonnie. Prior to taking office, Bonnie served as the Cotati, California city manager. Adding to her preparation were the years she spent as the assistant city manager for the cities of Davis and Modesto, California.

Mrs. Long's expertise is matched only by her dedication to improving her community and her tremendous work ethic. As city manager, she has worked tirelessly to manage St. Helena's budgets, to maximize our resources and to handle the needs of our growing population. Somehow she has managed to make this difficult task look easy.

While serving our community as city manager, Bonnie has found additional ways to get

involved in bettering St. Helena through her volunteer work. Bonnie is a member of the St. Helena Rotary club, the Kiwanis club and she sits on the REMIF Board of Directors.

Mr. Speaker, as impressive as Mrs. Long's professional contributions and service to St. Helena are, she would be the first to tell you that her real success has been as a dedicated wife, a loving mother and an adoring grandmother. Whether traveling with her husband John, giving advise to her daughter Samantha or playing with her grandson Zachary, Bonnie has been a shining example of how to keep your priorities straight. For Bonnie, family is the true joy of life.

Mr. Speaker, because of the many contributions she has made to the town of St. Helena and for her excellence and dedication, it is proper for us to honor Bonnie Jean Long today as she retires from the office city manager.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Sonoma Valley Chorale as this organization celebrates its 30th anniversary.

The Sonoma Valley Chorale was founded in 1973 by Jim Griewe. It's first performance space was in the Pioneer Chapel of the First Congregational Church of Sonoma. As the membership grew, the Chorale relocated, first to St. Francis Solano Church and finally to the Veterans' Memorial Building.

Sonoma Valley Chorale, Inc. has a member-administered Board of Directors and serves as an umbrella organization for the 130 voice Choral, Chamber Ensemble, Orchestra, Sonoma Valley Children's Chorus and for community programs promoting small ensemble performances.

During its 30 year history, the Chorale has received many musical honors and has toured France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the New England states. The Chorale was featured during both the 10th anniversary concert series of the Napa Valley Symphony and the 50th anniversary concert gala of the Santa Rosa Symphony.

Guest conductors have included world renowned composer-conductor Jester Hariston. In 2000 the Chorale performed the world premier of ``Come Life, Shaker Life'' by American composer Gwyneth Walker. This work was commissioned by and composed specifically for the Sonoma Valley Chorale and its music director, Jim Griewe.

The Chorale's repertoire ranges from 1100 AD to the present and spans musical genres from Gregorian chants to Broadway show tunes.

Mr. Speaker, the Sonoma Valley Chorale is an integral part of the cultural landscape of the First Congressional District and a true treasure for the people of the Sonoma Valley. It is therefore appropriate that we acknowledge and honor the Sonoma Valley Chorale, its founder and director Jim Griewe, and the hundreds voices who have contributed to the legacy and success of this organization.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Domaine Chandon, the Napa Valley leading sparkling wine producer, as it celebrates its 30th Anniversary.

Domaine Chandon was founded in 1973 as the first American sparkling wine venture established by the French Champagne house, Moet et Chandon. As pioneers in producing California sparkling wine, Domaine Chandon has had a far-reaching impact on winemaking in the Napa Valley and is continuing to break new ground with its foodloving wines, both sparking and varietal stills.

Before Domaine Chandon was established, American-made sparkling wine was overshadowed by French Champagne. When Moet et Chandon, makers of Dom Perignon and other fine Champagnes, selected the Napa Valley as the next world class sparkling wine regions, it helped establish California's reputation as one of the world's top wine producing regions.

In addition to producing premium sparking wine and a highly regarding line of still wines, Domaine Chandon has proven that sparkling wines shouldn't be limited to New Year's Eve and weddings. With eight sparkling wine cuvees available nationally and five specialty wines available at the winery, Domaine Chandon offers a full range of flavors and styles that are very well matched with foods. As the only Napa Valley winery with an on-site restaurant, Domaine Chandon showcases the pairing sparkling wine with food and in doing so, has help establish the region as a world-renowned dining destination.

Mr. Speaker, as Domaine Chandon celebrates its 30th anniversary with a showcase 30-course dinner and other signature events the weekend of May 2 through May 4, 2003, it is appropriate that we recognize them today for their many contributions to fine wine and fine dining in California's Napa Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Brother Timothy Diener for his outstanding commitment to serving the Napa Valley community in my home state of California.

June 2003 will mark the 75th anniversary (diamond jubilee) of Brother Timothy's entry into the De La Salle Christian Brothers.

Brother Timothy, a lifelong Catholic and the son of German immigrants, was born in 1910 in New Jersey. In 1918 his family moved to Los Angeles, where he graduated from Cathedral High School. He joined the Christian Brothers in 1928 and made two significant discoveries, wine and teaching.

At the age of 25, Brother Timothy became heavily involved in the new Christian Brothers winery. Officially his title was ``wine chemist'' but it was common to find him performing such additional duties as digging ditches, being the hose dragger, scrubbing the tank, driving the trucks and operating the cement mixer. Half a century of hard work and excellence have since passed and today Brother Timothy is considered a pioneer in the Napa Valley wine industry and is treasured as a master vintner.

Much like the spectacular wine he makes, Brother Timothy gets better with age. Though he turns 93 in November, Brother Timothy maintains an enthusiasm for life and a deep dedication to serving others. Not surprisingly, he continues to serve the cause of Christian Brothers' education as an honorary founding member of the Lasallian Education Fund. He uses his position to assist the underserved youth of our community.

Mr. Speaker, Brother Timothy represents much more than Napa's wine roots or our communities commitment to promoting education. Quite simply, Brother Timothy represents the heart of the Napa Valley. His life has been a legacy of hard work, faith and passionate living. For all of these reasons and countless more, it is most appropriate that we honor Brother Timothy Diener at this time and congratulate him on 75 years with the De La Salle Christian Brothers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ginny Simms, a community activist in Napa, California who is being honored by the Napa Sierra Club and Get a Grip on Growth with the Second Annual Earl Thollander Environmental Award.

Since moving to Napa in 1955, Ms. Simms has had a tremendous impact on the community. Her first activities were with the American Association of University Women and in various community projects. In 1967 she served as Secretary of the county Grand Jury and the following year she was appointed to the Napa City Planning Commission.

She also developed a life long interest in environmental issues and was instrumental in creating Napans Opposing Wastelands, Inc., an advocacy group that commented on city and county growth proposals. One of the group's most visible contributions was the development of the county's first bike trail.

In 1972 she was elected to the County Board of Supervisors and served through 1977. During this time, the county's new General Plan was adopted that limited residential growth to urban areas. She was later involved in successful efforts to protect agricultural lands.

She has also served on the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District, the Napa Valley College Foundation and the Napa County Land Trust.

In addition to her many hours of civic activity, Ms. Simms has remained a devoted wife, mother and grandmother. She and her husband, Warren, have two children, Wendy and Doug, and five grandchildren, Chris, Clare, Gregg, Dillon and Allie.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we recognize and acknowledge Ginny Simms for her many contributions and for her dedication to Napa County.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to Lance Corporal Patrick O'Day, USMC, who was killed in action in Iraq 24 March 2003. Corporal O'Day, 20- year-old resident of Sonoma County, California, answered his country's call and paid the ultimate price.

Corporal O'Day served as a Tank Crewman/Gunner with the 1st Tank Battalion, 7th Regiment, 1st Marine Division. His tank was crossing the Euphrates River northwest of Nasiriyah in Southern Iraq when it plunged off a bridge and submerged in the river. All four crewmembers perished.

Corporal O'Day was born in Scotland and moved to Sonoma County when he was three years old. He loved his adopted country and chose to serve in the Marines, enlisting immediately after graduating from Santa Rosa High School. He was drawn to the Marines because of its reputation as the toughest of the military branches and he was driven to succeed. When he developed stress fractures in his legs during boot camp, he spent six months in rehabilitation rather than accept a medical discharge.

Corporal O'Day was the eldest of four boys. His brothers looked up to him for guidance and counsel.

He met his wife, Shauna, in high school. They married last fall and their first child will be born in September.

Corporal O'Day's tragic death reminds us that however just the cause, war brings tragedy to far too many families and that any casualty is one too many.

Corporal O'Day died serving the country he loved, with comrades he loved and with the love of his wife and family in his heart. Our nation is humbled and grateful for his sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we recognize Lance Corporal Patrick O'Day, USMC, who gave his life in service to his country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the time, and for his good work on this budget. It is a matter of economic security.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the easiest way that we can ensure economic security to this Nation is to pass a budget that actually balances. The other side will argue that theirs does, but we know that it does not, not unless we use the Social Security Trust Fund to pay down the debt, and that is not really balancing. It is breaking a promise to the American people and raiding a priority to pay for a select tax expenditure.

In this time of sacrifice, we are debating the passage of a budget that increases the debt and takes money away from programs that help our most deserving, our seniors and our veterans.

This budget cuts almost $107 billion from the Medicaid program and $62 billion from the Medicare program, and in this time of war, this budget cuts our veterans programs by $30 billion.

I received a letter today from one of my constituents, Florence Newton from Humboldt County, California, a retired marine, who sent me an article that talks about the 7-month wait for veterans to get an appointment with the VA, and she asks is there not something we can do about this? She describes the situation with one word, unconscionable, and she is right. It is unconscionable that we are slashing these critical programs, and it is even more unconscionable that we are doing so to finance a $1.6 trillion tax expenditure.

Today, the Blue Dogs will introduce an alternative that does balance the budget and does so without raiding Social Security. It adopts the spending level in the President's budget proposal, reserves money for the Medicare prescription drug program, provides immediate and targeted tax relief to all taxpayers, particularly those middle-class families, and it has $1.35 trillion less debt than the Republican budget, reducing the amount of money we spend on paying interest on the debt, which currently costs us $1 billion a day, reducing it by $250 billion.

It acknowledges the fact that we are a Nation at war. It pays for the war, and it provides funding, $24 billion for our veterans programs. This means funding for discretionary veterans programs like the VA Health Care Program, the service-connected disabilities and burial benefits, all of which are cut drastically by the Republican proposal that is on the floor today.

The Blue Dog budget responds to the concerns of constituents like Florence Newton, who are finding our financial affairs and the resulting shortage in services to be unconscionable. I am proud to stand behind the Blue Dog alternative which provides this Nation with the economic certainty it needs in these uncertain times and into the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished new Member of the House that spent 20 years on the appropriations committee in Georgia balancing their budget.

(Mr. SCOTT of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), an esteemed Blue Dog colleague and former first lieutenant with the 101st Airborne in Vietnam.

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

The national chairman of the Disabled American Veterans wrote the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and he said, ``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, health care and disability compensation, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?''

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who represents a number of veterans at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

I just want to reiterate my support for the Blue Dog budget, a budget that is balanced, it reduces the debt, and provides a reasonable level of services to our veterans and our seniors. Unlike the majority budget, it does it without robbing from Social Security, Medicare and the veterans programs. I urge everybody on both sides of the aisle to vote for the Blue Dog budget.