Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, the Republican alternative actually brings real reform to the regulatory process and not big government. The first thing that the Republican alternative does is it ends bailouts. The American people are tired of bailouts; and particularly they are tired of bailouts when they come at their expense. The other thing that the Republican substitute does is it gets the government out of picking winners and losers. If companies make bad decisions, they fail. If they make good decisions, they succeed.

The other part of the Republican plan is we say, you know what, if you are taking risky behavior, you are involved in businesses that cause more risk to the system, you have to have more capital. The other thing that the Republican plan does is it actually protects consumers and doesn't limit their choices. I think that is the big difference in this piece of legislation; this piece of legislation that the Democrats want to do, they want somebody else to make the choices for you. They have a credit czar, and that credit czar is going to tell you what kind of car loan, what kinds of student loan, and what kind of house loan you can get. I have said all along that I think the American people have enough sense to make their own decisions.

In fact, I just recently came back from Afghanistan where we have young

men and women who are deployed, and they are over there trying to protect the American people's ability to make their own choices. I hope they are not going to be disappointed when they find out that back here in the good old U.S. of A., where they have been defending our freedom and liberty, we are over here trying to pass legislation that will limit their choices, limit their choices to be able to have the kind of house loan or car loan or student loan. Or maybe they want to come back from serving this great country and this great Nation after their distinguished service, they want a small business loan, only to find out that the United States Congress is limiting the ability of banks and credit unions to provide new business loans for these men and women. I don't think that is what they are fighting for.

I urge Members to vote for the Republican substitute and vote against the underlying bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, Treasury Secretary Geithner gave my colleagues, the Democrats on the other side of the aisle, a Christmas present yesterday in that he extended their revolving slush fund until October of next year--again, going down the road of rewarding bad behavior and punishing good behavior. The American people were deceived from the very beginning on this--this TARP money, this revolving slush fund as it has evolved into--because they were told it was just for emergency purposes.

Now we are told that, even by the Secretary and the President, that maybe the financial emergency is over. Well, if it's over, we ought to be giving that money back to the American people or, unfortunately, some of that money was borrowed, and we are borrowing the money from the Chinese. But, no, we are going to put that money back into a slush fund and now we are going to use it for whatever purposes our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decide to do with it. Let me tell you, they are very good at it. If you want somebody to teach you how to spend, they can teach you how to spend.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are spending money that we don't have. We are borrowing all of this money. Here we are today talking about now making a permanent slush fund, a permanent TARP fund, over $150 billion.

The American people are tired of the bailouts. They are tired of making their own mortgage payment and then they are being asked to make their neighbor's house payment. You know what the American people are doing is they are getting their own financial household in order.

But the other part of this bill that bothers me, and it should bother the American people, is we are going to have this new czar or czarina that is going to be able to tell you what kinds of financial products that are appropriate for you. Maybe there is only a certain kind of mortgage that you should have or a certain kind of car loan you should have, certain kind of student loan that you should have when you are trying to send your kids to college.

But the big concern I have is it's going to hurt the credit, limit the credit for small businesses across this country, the people that create the most jobs in this country and have the ability to bring us out of this economic slump. Yet now we are going to be able to put this big regulatory umbrella over them.

Defeat this bill. It's a bad bill.

There are a number of provisions in the manager's amendment that make this bill less bad. And really, we've come a long way from the bill that was originally introduced to the one that's on the floor now. We went through a very lengthy markup process. In many cases, sometimes during those markups we were able to make the bill better. In this manager's amendment, there are some changes that in fact do make this bill a little less egregious to me.

But the problem is, fundamentally, the bill still does what it originally started out to do, and that is to perpetuate bailouts in this country. One of the things that my colleagues and I have said from the very beginning is the American people are tired of bailouts. Unfortunately, this bill perpetuates bailouts in this country. We continue to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior, and this bill perpetuates that.

One of the things that also concerns me about this bill is that even with some improvements, it still becomes a job killer. For example, one of the provisions in this bill would give secured creditors a haircut. In other words, here is somebody that took collateral to make a loan, thought they were securitized, thought they were collateralized, and now at the end, arbitrarily they can be given a 20 percent haircut for their collateral. That is going to cause huge implications in the credit markets because these people, a small businessman, is going out to borrow money for his plant or equipment or other things, lenders making what they think are secured loans, and all of

a sudden the lender finds himself at some point in time where their security is going to be shared with someone else.

The other piece of this is that this bill does something that I feel very strongly about, and that is, it limits the choices for consumers. I still believe that the American people are pretty smart people. I think it's their money, it's their credit, and they ought to have a lot more to say about the types of credit, the types of loans that they take out. They don't need the Federal Government telling them that this is the kind of loan we think is appropriate for you, this is the kind of student loan you should use to send your child to college, or this is the kind of car loan you should use. Or small businessman--this is the loan that we give small businesses, take it or leave it.

The other part of it is that this bill does something that I think is very egregious, and I think the American people ought to be outraged about. Here we are, Secretary Geithner gave the Democrats an early Christmas present. He said, you know what? That slush fund that we've got, we're going to keep it until next October. Man, a day doesn't go by and here we go, we're going to put our hand in the cookie jar here. In this bill, $4 billion out of the TARP money that was not represented to be used for these kinds of purposes, it was an emergency to stabilize the markets, but we're going to put our hand in the cookie jar and take $4 billion. By the way, it's $4 billion we didn't have to begin with; we had to go borrow that $4 billion.

Instead of taking the TARP money, the Treasury Secretary recently told us, he said, I think the financial markets are basically stabilized.

This is a bad bill, we should defeat it.

I thank the gentleman.

Sometimes we think that government's role is to save the world. When I was in small business, there was a joke: People would say, I'm from the government, I'm here to help you. And you know, what I hear from small business men and women all across the country right now is, Please don't help us anymore. Why are they saying that? Because over the years, Congress has amassed a huge amount of regulations, and those regulations have been put on the backs of businesses all across our country.

Today, we are here to put another huge mountain on top of the financial markets, the capital markets, the very markets that our small businesses depend on for capital, in the name of trying to help them. And I will tell you tonight we're going to hurt them. We are going to cause people to lose their jobs because of this bill. In fact, a recent study at the University of Chicago and George Mason University estimated that passing this piece of legislation would reduce job growth by 4.3 percent. And you say, well, how can a consumer protection, how can a regulatory bill hurt small businesses, how can it cause job losses? Well, let's look at some of the predictions in here.

We are going to have this new regulator that is going to determine what kind of financial products banks and people that provide loans can hand out. So if I need a specialized loan that maybe has a little bit different terms than normal, my lender is concerned that the regulator is going to look at that loan and say, you know what, you shouldn't be making those kinds of loans.

At a time when the President of the United States is even trying to look and wait to find some jobs--and we are all looking for all of those jobs that supposedly the stimulus package created, but the truth of the matter is this will kill jobs. It will also hurt small businesses' ability to get capital.

Right now, we already hear that banks across the country are a little reluctant to loan money. Why are they reluctant to loan money? Because the regulators are clamping down on them. And now we're going to say to the regulators, you know what? You didn't clamp down hard enough, you didn't

regulate enough, so we're going to give you some new marching orders and put this new massive legislation in place. And everybody thinks that that is going to free up credit for small businesses to create jobs in America? It's not going to do that.

The concern I have is that if we continue down this road of regulation in the financial markets, we are going to begin to limit the choices for these banks to provide financial products.

The other thing that this bill does is it picks winners and losers again. Now, the distinguished chairman of the committee, who I have great respect for, says the taxpayers' money isn't involved in here. Maybe it's not tax money, but the consumers are going to pay for these bailouts. If you have an assessment, and you assess an entity for bailing out its competitor--and how that makes sense, I don't know--who do you think is going to pay the additional cost that that company is going to have to pay the assessment? The consumer is.

So what is this going to do to small businesses? It's going to raise the cost of capital. In fact, there is an estimate out there that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others, say this will raise borrowing costs almost 1.5 percent for people and small businesses and consumers. Now, how does that help the economy? It doesn't help the economy; in fact, it puts a weight on the economy and, again, is going to cause jobs to be lost in this country.

So the question is, why are we here tonight? Why are we debating this bill? It's got a fancy title that says it's going to protect consumers, and it's going to punish Wall Street. Well, really, the issue is it doesn't punish Wall Street, because if you're a big company, this bill says we've got a way to prop you up because we're going to get the Federal Reserve to imply that you are too big to fail, picking winners and losers. And then that gives an unfair competitive advantage to these banks and other entities that aren't on the ``too big to fail'' list.

So I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

I think I want to go back to what really is at stake here and that's choices for the people that borrow money in this country. Back in the fall of last year and in the spring of this year, we were working on legislation that the other side brought forward for credit cards, and everybody has got a credit card story that they have had a bad experience. We passed this big credit card bill.

When we were talking and debating that bill on this very floor, we told the American people be careful here, because what they are saying is they don't trust you to make your own choices, and they are going to tinker with the credit card industry. We said, you know what's going to happen? Interest rates are going to go up. Credit limits are going to go down, payments are going to go up. And what happened?

Rates went up, credit limits went down, and payments went up. Who did that affect? Well, it affected families. More importantly, we said it's going to hurt small businesses because a number of small businesses across this country use credit cards to help with their cash-flow needs of their company.

Now we are here tonight talking about the rest of the credit market. What's going to happen here, one of the gentlemen, several gentlemen have brought up predatory lending.

Well, let me talk about a predatory loan. How about this young businessman that needs to buy another truck and some tools for his plumbing company, and he goes to his banker and he says, you know what, I need an interest-only loan for 12 months until I get my business up and going and I get my new employee generating the revenue, and then I want to convert over to another payment plan at the end of 12 months.

The banker says, well, I would love to do that; I have done that for you in the past. But you know what, we have got this new czar, or czarina, who is in charge of determining what kinds of financial products I can offer, so I can't do that.

So what happens? That plumber can't expand, can't buy another truck, can't hire another employee. Those are the consequences of this.

Where we are headed in this is that we are going to let the Federal Government tell you, because you are not smart enough, according to my colleagues on the other side, to determine what kind of mortgage is appropriate for your family; that you are not smart enough to determine what kind of car loan is appropriate; what kind of student loan is appropriate for you and your family as you are trying to send your daughter or your son to school; that the overdraft privileges that your bank has been extending to you in the past, but because of these new regulations and the interference of government, you may not be extended those, or those charges may go up.

How about that person that wants to experience the American Dream and wants to go start their own business and needs a specialized financing package to be able to get that business off the ground and so initially has a small amount of capital.

The banker is going to take a larger risk, and so he is going to have to price the cost of that loan higher, and he is reluctant to do that because he might be making a predatory loan according to this new czar, this new agency that's going to determine what kind of financial products the American people get to have access to in the future.

You know what, Madam Chairman, I still have faith in the American people because this Nation wasn't built because of its government. This Nation was built because of its people, people that took risks and chances and worked hard and went out and did different things in different ways and made things happen, and they didn't conform to what was the standard.

You see, when we start standardizing everything, we begin to limit the potential for success, and we limit failure, and there is no reward for those who do the extra and do special. That's not what this Nation was built on.

I just recently over the weekend came back from Afghanistan, where our young men and women are doing remarkable things in the name of security, peace, and liberty for our country. You would have thought they would want to talk about, you know, thank you for the President's commitment to additional troops; but this sergeant came up to me as I was about to walk out and go get on a plane. He said, Congressman, you know what really scares me? It's not these Afghani Taliban people. What really scares me is what you all are doing to our country. Every time I turn around you are spending money we don't have. The government is getting into the car business. The government is buying banks. The government is limiting my choices.

You are leaving a legacy, and I am over here fighting for a country. Quite honestly, I look back home and I am not sure the Congress is not destroying our country by taking away the liberties and the freedoms that I am fighting for.

That's the reason tonight and tomorrow, whenever we vote on this, we need to defeat this so that we can preserve liberty and freedom for this country and trust the American people because the American people are smart enough to make their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of the

United States Air Force in their tremendous efforts as leaders in the Federal Government's participation in Energy Awareness Month this past October.

America depends on the Air Force to continually provide an umbrella of security, deter our Nation's enemies, and provide safe, efficient, and effective transportation of essential personnel and supplies to carry out their mission.

As the largest single user of energy in the Federal Government, the Air Force faces the daily challenge of improving their energy efficiency while continuing to provide our Nation and her allies with the most reliable Air Force in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also take this opportunity to congratulate Dyess Air Force Base, located in my district. Dyess Air Force Base was recently recognized by receiving the Department of Energy's Federal Energy and Waste Management Award. The Federal Energy and Waste Management Award recognizes individuals, groups, and agencies for their outstanding contributions in the areas of energy efficiency, water conservation, and the use of advanced and renewable energy technologies at their Federal facilities. Having earned this award in the past, Dyess Air Force Base continues to be a model for smart energy use.

As we recognize October as Energy Awareness Month throughout the Federal Government, Dyess Air Force Base has made outstanding contributions in areas of energy efficiency, water conservation, and the use of advanced and renewable energy technologies. Some of the energy-saving initiatives included a system that employs a pond and an ice plant through which water is circulated and used to cool the installation during the hot summer months, and reducing the energy used by the B-1 bomb simulator over 30 percent, saving almost $239,000. They also developed a way to use previously unusable water through an abandoned pipeline for use by the installation's golf course, thereby saving almost 160 million gallons of fresh water each year.

All told, in 2008, Dyess Air Force Base reduced its total energy consumption 16.5 percent and saved the American taxpayers over $1 million. I am proud of this achievement and the honor that this award brings to the Air Force, the people of the 19th Congressional District, and to the State of Texas. As we step toward developing sustainable and alternative energy sources, we must continue to work to increase our energy efficiency.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally congratulate and insert into the Record the following names: Tom Denslow, Danny Dobbs, Ron Miller, and Daniel Thatcher of Dyess Air Force Base; and Steve Dumont of Air Combat Command for their efforts to reduce energy use and to make that base a model of energy use. It is because of their hard work and dedication that America's dollars are better utilized and airmen are best served.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing bill that cuts Medicare, piles debt on our children, raises health care costs, and raises taxes on the American people.

Last week, Speaker Pelosi introduced the long-awaited final draft of her health care reform bill. H.R. 3962, combined with the 42-page manager's amendment, comes in at over 2,000 pages.

A preliminary analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the true cost of the bill is $1.3 trillion. Buried within this bill are details that would add massive Federal involvement in the health care of every American, including the following: creation of a government-run insurance program that could cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their current coverage; elimination of the private market for individual health insurance; taxes on all Americans who purchase insurance, individuals who don't purchase insurance, and millions of small businesses; and cuts to Medicare Advantage plans that will result in higher premiums. Yet with all these taxes, mandates and cuts, the majority party still maintain somehow this bill will lower the cost of health care to Americans.

For months, Americans have been telling Congress they want real solutions for the health care crisis in America but they are also telling us there is a big difference between the right and wrong way to reform health care. Republicans listened to the American people and have produced a commonsense, fiscally responsible health reform proposal--not Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 2,000+ page government takeover of one-sixth of our Nation's economy.

Republicans' alternative solution focuses on lowering health care premiums for families and small businesses, increasing access to affordable, high-quality care, and promoting healthier lifestyles-- without adding to the crushing debt Washington has placed on our children and grandchildren. Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, confirmed that the Republican health care plan would lower health care premiums by up to 10 percent and reduce the deficit by $68 billion over 10 years without imposing tax increases on families and small businesses. The Republican alternative contains no tax increases, no cuts to Medicare, no health care rationing, no deficit spending, and no huge intrusion of government into your personal health care choices. Instead, our plan recognizes that health care reform must be based on competition, preserving the relationship between doctors and patients, and reducing health care costs for American families without a massive government intrusion.

Health care solutions are badly needed in this country, but we need to get it done right. Republicans have listened to the American people and put forth commonsense health care legislation that reduces the deficit, lowers premiums, and improves coverage options for those with preexisting conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cancer survivor.

August 1 of this year, I was diagnosed with the early stages of prostrate cancer. And thank goodness I live in America and I was able to sit down with my doctor and work out a treatment plan that would help me be cancer free and stand before you today. Thank goodness that I live in a country where I could go and see my doctor and make choices. And thank goodness I live in America where I didn't have to get on a list to determine when I was going to be able to have the surgery so that I could get rid of this cancer. Thank goodness I'm not living in Canada or Europe, the very system that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to model America's health care system on.

I thought about during August a young lady named Candy Menville that was crying in her wheelchair and begging me to make sure that we didn't turn our health care system in America into the same system that's in Canada and Europe. She said, Congressman, with tears running down her eyes, don't take away my options.

Mr. Speaker, don't take away Cindy's option and don't take away my options and others like me. Vote down this terrible bill.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the American people from across the country came to the people's House to oppose a government takeover of their health care. They said, Washington, no politician or bureaucrat should interfere with our choice. And I agree.

My colleagues and I have an answer for their calls by putting forward a commonsense reform, legislation that reduces the deficit, lowers the insurance premiums and improves coverage for those with preexisting conditions. As a result of the House Republican bill, the CBO now confirms that families will see their health care premium reduced by 10 percent. Hardworking taxpayers can expect deficits to decrease by $68 billion in the next decade.

The American people deserve choice. One size fits all does not work for them. Speaker Pelosi, the American people have said one thing yesterday. I hope you were listening. They said, Kill this bill.

Madam Speaker, there is a difference between the right way and the wrong way on health care reform, and the American people know it. Results from a survey on my Web site just came back the last few days. We asked the question what the people in the 19th Congressional District thought about their current health care system versus the one being proposed by Speaker Pelosi. Eighty-eight percent of the people who took my survey believe that their current health care system is better than the one in this bill. Speaker Pelosi, this is the worst bill ever.

H.R. 3962 will cost $1.2 trillion over the first decade, and that's after using some smoke and mirrors with the numbers, not the $894 billion that the Speaker claims; or, simply put, this is bending the cost curve in the wrong direction.

This bill permits Federal programs to be spent on abortion services. It includes a government-run plan that will force tens of millions of Americans off their current coverage. In navigating the new health care system, the bill creates 111 new programs and bureaucracies. These are not the positive solutions the American people are looking for.

Mr. Speaker, let's start over.

Mr. Speaker, the people of my district are frustrated and they are scared. They feel like their Federal Government is out of control. Now Speaker Pelosi is playing a game of hide-and-seek with a health care system that comprises one-fifth of our GDP.

The American people would like to know what you are hiding as they seek to find out what is in this bill, this massive, government-run health care bill. Perhaps you are hiding the fact that this will lead to government bureaucrats taking over control of seniors' health care.

Maybe you are hiding the fact that this bill is designed to include $163 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage. These cuts will have an exceptionally harmful impact on seniors in rural areas, forcing many seniors into a one-size-fits-all government-run health care plan.

I would like to know, but I haven't seen the details of the bill because I don't know where they are hiding today. If you claim that it is true that the American people want government to take over health care, why is this process so closed and secretive, Madam Speaker?

The American people and our seniors deserve to know better. Madam Speaker, where are you?

Madam Speaker, I am proud to congratulate the City of Floydada, TX, on the occasion of its centennial celebration. This 100 year milestone was commemorated by the dedication of the ``Centennial Plaza'' on October 2, 2009.

Floydada was officially incorporated in October 1909 with a population of approximately 500. In 1910, the Santa Fe Railroad arrived in town, sparking the growth and development of this community. Floydada has seen great changes over the past years from the building of new public facilities and fire stations to meeting the challenges of hard times in the 1930s.

Throughout its 100-year history, farming and ranching, as well as a sense of community and fellowship, have sustained Floydada.

Today, the Floydada community remains a stronghold for agriculture and authentic country living and has earned the title of ``Pumpkin Capital of the U.S.''

I am proud to recognize Floydada, the P.R.I.D.E. Committee, the Centennial Committee and over 4,000 residents of the city on the 100th anniversary of their wonderful community.

Madam Speaker, I proudly congratulate the Southwest Collegiate Institute for the Deaf on the occasion of their 30th anniversary celebration. This special milestone will be celebrated on November 6, 2009 with the dedication of the new Technical Training Center in addition to other celebratory events around the campus.

In the late 1970s, Dr. Douglas J.N. Burke, along with several members of the community, took action to meet the need for a postsecondary program to provide higher education and career training for the deaf in West Texas.

On November 6, 1979, SWCID was established by the Board of Trustees of the Howard Junior College District. The campus of SWCID would be an entity of Howard College and located at the former Webb Air Force Base in Big Spring, TX. In September 1980, SWICD first opened its doors to students, and was established as a state-supported institution on May 14, 1981.

Over the past 30 years, SWICD has strived to offer vocational and technical training, state of the art learning environments and technologies for deaf students, as well as courses for hearing individuals who have an interest in working with the deaf community.

I applaud Dr. Burke for his vision of creating this program for deaf students along with the countless groups and individuals who continue to support his dream and the unique education being provided by this institution. A facility of this nature is of incredible benefit to deaf individuals so that they may learn the necessary technical skills to successfully enter into the job market.

It is a great honor to recognize the Southwest Collegiate Institute for the Deaf on 30 years of service to the deaf community of Texas and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I was absent from votes on September 29 and 30, October 1 and October 6-8 for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted as indicated for each rollcall listed. I ask that my statement be included in the Congressional Record.

Rollcall vote 740: ``nay''; rollcall vote 741: ``yea''; rollcall vote 742: ``yea''; rollcall vote 743: ``nay''; rollcall vote 744: ``nay''; rollcall vote 745: ``yea''; rollcall vote 746: ``yea''; rollcall vote 747: ``yea''; rollcall vote 748: ``yea''; and rollcall vote 749: ``nay''.

Rollcall vote 750: ``yea''; rollcall vote 751: ``yea''; rollcall vote 752: ``nay''; rollcall vote 753: ``yea''; rollcall vote 754: ``yea''; rollcall vote 755: ``yea''; rollcall vote 756: ``nay''; rollcall vote 757: ``nay''; rollcall vote 758: ``nay''; and rollcall vote 759: ``nay''.

Rollcall vote 760: ``nay''; rollcall vote 761: ``nay''; rollcall vote 762: ``nay''; rollcall vote 763: ``yea''; rollcall vote 764: ``nay''; rollcall vote 765: ``nay''; rollcall vote 766: ``yea''; rollcall vote 767: ``yea''; and rollcall vote 768: ``yea''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the taxpayers of the 19th Congressional District and all across America. They are angry, Madam Speaker, about the spending and the borrowing that's going on in Washington.

At a time when they are cutting back to make ends meet, paying down their credit cards, saving more, working hard to provide for their families, they don't understand why their government isn't doing the same thing. They don't understand why the government is not only spending all of their tax dollars, but also borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar that they spend.

This bill before us increases spending for the legislative branch by 5.7 percent. I don't know about other Members in the House, but I think it's pretty hard to explain to the taxpayers why we are increasing our budget by 5.7 percent and the American people are cutting their budgets.

The only explanation I can think of is that Congress doesn't get it. Well, the American people get it. Like them, I don't understand why we are increasing the legislative branch budget when the deficit is going to hit $1.6 trillion this year, projected to be $1.3 trillion next year.

This bill includes provisions to continue funding for programs as we complete the remaining annual spending bills, but I would advocate that Congress go ahead and finish the job that it started.

The problem is that these annual spending bills are set forth to increase our spending by 8.9 percent this year. This spending increase would come on top of an 8.6 percent increase last year, a nearly $1 trillion economic stimulus package, and a $700 billion financial bailout.

Instead of passing bills to increase spending at a time when we have added $1 trillion to our national debt this year, Congress should, at a minimum, freeze spending at this level.

Had we gone through normal order, I offered an amendment that would have frozen spending for the coming year and saved the American taxpayers $43 billion. It's a start, Madam Speaker.

I urge members to vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in recognition of the 100 years of work and dedication of scientists at the AgriLife Research and Extension Center in Lubbock. In 1909, The Lubbock Agriculture Experiment Station #8, now known as Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Lubbock, was established by the Texas Legislature in response to the passage of the Hatch Act by Congress in 1887 to create agriculture experiment stations. Since its inception, researchers and staff at the Center have worked to address the High Plain's most pressing agricultural issues of the day including improvement of crops with emphasis on seed development, crop pest and disease management, cropping and efficient water systems, and harvest methods.

During its 100 years of service, the Center has provided the region's producers and economy with significant contributions that include the following: the first hybrid grain sorghum in cooperation with the Chillicothe Station, greenbug resistant grain sorghum, improved cotton cultivars, improved cotton harvest equipment, improved boll weevil control techniques, methods and equipment for increasing irrigation efficiency, drought tolerant variety development, conservation tillage strategies, farming systems, precision agriculture methodology and risk management strategies.

The Lubbock Extension Center is one of the largest off-campus centers in the Texas A&M University System. It serves as headquarters for agents in the 20-county South Plains Extension District 2 and includes offices for 22 Research Scientists. The Center is composed of a research farm at the Lubbock site, two research farms in the northern part of the South Plains near Halfway, Texas; one substation at Pecos, Texas; a cotton research farm in Dawson County in cooperation with Lamesa Cotton Growers and a peanut research farm in Terry County in cooperation with Texas Peanut Board.

The research is used by Extension Specialists and the Extension Agents to educate producers on the methodologies of the most recent and innovative production techniques. The benefits of this program can be seen across the spectrum for agriculture on the South Plains ranging from reduced industry impact on the environment to the profitability producers enjoy from their trade. This model

of cooperative research and development is one of the major reasons American agriculture has been so productive.

Agricultural producers of the Texas South Plains contribute substantially to the agricultural economy of Texas and the nation. The success is supported by a strong foundation of knowledge and technology generated by the research and technology transfer of scientists, specialists and agents in cooperation with USDA-ARS, Texas Tech University and agribusinesses and commodity organization collaborators. This cooperative effort to address the many complex issues facing the South Plains agricultural industry will no doubt continue to benefit producers and enhance the region's agriculture-based economy for the next 100 years.