Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005. First, I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Judiciary Committee for their leadership on this bill, and for their dedication to securing our borders and protecting Americans from terrorists.

My objective throughout debate over H.R. 10 was to get a bill that fully addressed all of our nation's security concerns. That means not only reforming how we gather and use intelligence, but also how we fight terrorism at home. I believe that the final bill that came to the floor fell short. That's why I voted against it.

However, the REAL ID Act implements crucial provisions that were dropped from H.R. 10 and fixes several glaring holes in our border security. One of the most important provisions in this legislation asks states to work with the Department of Homeland Security to establish and use standards for drivers' licenses.

Many states already have licenses that are difficult to counterfeit. Other states don't have stringent safeguards.

Some have argued that this bill creates a national ID. It doesn't. I would oppose any bill that did so. This bill simply requires states to make it harder for someone like Muhammad Atta to get a driver's license, and to use that license to carry out terror plans.

As the 9/11 Commission noted: ``All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document, some by fraud.'' Increased ID security will make it more difficult for terrorists to obtain documents through fraud and conceal their identity. Deterring terrorists from receiving state issued IDs will make it more likely that they will be detected by law enforcement.

This bill also tightens our asylum system--a system that has been abused by terrorists with deadly consequences--by allowing judges to determine whether asylum seekers are truthful.

Additionally, the bill will protect the American people by ensuring that grounds for keeping a terrorist out of the country are also grounds for deportation. Incredibly, we have legal justification to prevent an individual from entering the country if they have known terrorist ties, however, under current U.S. law once they set foot inside the border we cannot deport them. This hinders our ability to protect Americans from foreign terrorists who have infiltrated the United States.

I think all Americans--and those of us on both sides of the aisle-- can agree that the 9/11 Commission identified a number of improvements that will help upgrade our intelligence and enhance America's security. This bill provides common sense provisions to help prevent another 9/ 11-type attack by protecting our borders and disrupting terrorist travel in the United States. I urge members to vote in favor of the REAL ID Act.

Mr. Speaker, really what we are here tonight about is farmers and ranchers. The farmers and ranchers do not want us to have to be here tonight. They did not ask for these droughts. They did not ask for these disasters. But, in fact, they experienced them just like the people in Florida did, and it affects farming and ranching families all across America.

Several of my colleagues have gotten up and spoken about the tremendous impact it has had on those families and those economies. What we are talking about tonight is about doing something in this House for those farmers and ranchers. I rise today in support of the rule because it is going to help them. This is not something that is new, that was invented this evening. This is something that was done for the 2001 and 2002 disaster relief program, and it was taken out of this very same program in the 2003 bill. So we are not reinventing the wheel. We are trying to come up tonight in this House and say to the American families that make their living in farming and ranching across America, We care about you. We are trying to help you just like we did in 2001 and 2002.

One of the reasons that I introduced a new risk management crop insurance tool was to take our farm families away from having to depend on the will of the United States Congress when they have these kinds of disasters because currently a lot of our risk management tools, our crop insurance products, are not adequate to cover these losses, and so they have to come back to this Congress and say, Would you please help us.

What we need to do is to help them tonight and pass this rule.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a fiscally responsible approach to agriculture disaster assistance. I want those that were devastated by the successive hurricanes that hit Florida

and surrounding States to receive the much-needed aid they deserve. I also want to make sure that the disaster assistance package that helps farmers across the country who have faced losses in the past 2 years, including those who lost over 1.3 million acres of crops in west Texas last year, get their appropriate aid.

I supported the bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) introduced that mirrored the assistance package that the Senate had approved. Unfortunately, like my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) pointed out earlier, it has become apparent that that bill, without offsets, will not be successful.

This amendment will provide assistance in a manner that is consistent with the Senate amendment. The cost is offset through the same mechanism used to fund the agriculture disaster program 2 years ago, capping the CSP or known as the Conservation Security Program. This offset does not impact current funding of the CSP, and even with the cap, the CSP will receive ample funds over the next 10 years.

This approach does not, and I repeat does not, reopen the farm bill; it simply puts the 2003 cap back on the CSP. No farm commodity programs will be affected by this offset.

Many have said, well, I would prefer a disaster program that had no offset. So would I. However, when we know that the preferred alternative is not going to be accepted in these negotiations, then we are willing to consider other alternatives that would ensure its passage. What is more important to me is, the farmers that suffered these losses in 2003 and 2004 get the very-much-needed relief that they deserve.

It is a shame that disaster assistance becomes the political football this time of year in Washington. That is why I introduced legislation earlier this year that would provide a new crop insurance tool that would help alleviate the need for disaster programs in the future.

I urge Members to support this amendment in order to provide agriculture disaster assistance for all farmers and ranchers who experienced severe losses and provide it in a fiscally responsible way.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Chairman Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

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

I will just close with this thought. I came to this House tonight not to talk about politics, but about getting the job done for farmers and ranchers around this country, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me and let us get the job done for American farm and ranch families.

Offered By: Mr. Neugebauer

Amendment No. 2: In section 101, strike the section heading

and subsection (a) and insert the following (and redesignate

existing subsections (b) through (f) accordingly):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the marriage protection amendment. This bill could also be called the family protection amendment. It could be called the child protection amendment because it is the best environment for our children's future. It is one that arises out of a marriage between one man and one woman.

It is unfortunate that we have come to this point where Congress must step up and amend the United States Constitution in order to protect marriage in our country. However, the circumstances presented to us today leave us no choice but to do so. I want to ensure that the citizens of our Nation make this decision directly through their elected officials and their vote, and not by unelected Federal judges. I want my fellow Texans, not a Federal court, to decide what marriage is in our State.

In 2003, the Texas legislature passed a law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not compel Texas to recognize same-sex marriages authorized by other States, and I support that law. However, the law does not keep same-sex couples with marriage licenses issued in other States from moving to Texas and suing to have their union recognized as a marriage in Texas.

Would a Federal court or a Supreme Court uphold DOMA in this case? We do not know that. But what we do know based on recent history, the indication is that it is a safe bet that appointed judges and not the American people may make that decision. The situation I just described is not an imagined one. It is a reality in 11 States that are currently facing legal challenges in their States. Judges in these cases, not the people, will be able to define marriage. Mr. Speaker, this is not how our system of government was designed to work.

To date, people across 44 States have spoken. They have sent the message that they believe marriage should consist of a union of a man and a woman. This represents 88 percent of our States.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is not just what I am saying, but the children also know what the definition of marriage is.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor someone who is very important to me in my life, and that is my pastor, Bobby Dagnel.

Bobby Dagnel opened today's session of the United States House of Representatives with an invocation that should guide us throughout the day as we do the people's business in the halls of the United States Congress.

Pastor Dagnel began his senior pastorship at First Baptist Church in Lubbock on August 4, 2002. He completed his undergraduate work at the University of Texas at Tyler in 1985. And he went on to Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary where he received his Master's in Divinity in 1987. He is currently pursuing his Doctor of Ministry at George W. Truett Seminary.

As Pastor Dagnel has traveled down this path, he has become a man of steadfast faith. He understands personally what it means to transform one's life from one without direction to one that is full of purpose and meaning. Pastor Dagnel is a wonderful family man, a loving husband to his wife, Patti, and a father to his daughter, Courtney, who is 14, and to his son, Hunter, who is 12.

I want to thank Pastor Dagnel for answering the call to help others find their way and serving as an example for all that follow. God Bless Pastor Dagnel.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4806) to provide for a land exchange involving Federal lands in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4806.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4806 would authorize a land exchange involving Federal land in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico.

This legislation would exchange 80 acres between the Lincoln National Forest and Lubbock Christian University for a much-needed expansion of the University's Pine Spring Camp. The camp is used in the summer for week-long camp sessions, and utilized in the winter by college groups, youth groups, and churches for retreats. In recent years, the camp has seen an increase in its visitors and will soon run out of room, forcing the camp to turn visitors away. Both the camp and Lubbock Christian University are nonprofit.

While the land exchange takes place in the gentleman from New Mexico's (Mr. Pearce) district, LCU is in my district and approached me for assistance for this issue. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for his willingness to work with me on this issue, and I thank him for cosponsorship and support of this bill. Additionally, I would like to thank and recognize Lubbock Christian University not only for providing recreation and outdoor opportunities for students, but also for its notable contributions to the community of Lubbock and the State of Texas.

I urge support of this important measure.

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

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4045) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a feasibility study with respect to the Mokelumne River, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4045.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, authored by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), helps resolve a growing water supply problem in San Joaquin County, California. The area's water supplies are being depleted because of rapid population growth, highly significant groundwater overdraft, and saline intrusion. This situation grows worse every day.

This has prompted San Joaquin County officials to seek a more dependable and reliable water supply through extensive water development and planning studies.

H.R. 4045 authorizes limited Federal assistance to complete this effort. The project study authorized in this legislation will examine ways to capture flood flows from an area river in order to develop up to 65,000 new acre feet of water. The study will also determine whether or not the project construction is even feasible, since current water rights on the river, economic factors, and potential environmental impacts will be examined.

As passed by the Committee on Resources, this legislation also expressly protects State water law and current permits and agreements on the river.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will help provide a much needed solution to a growing water problem, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3589) to create the Office of Chief Financial Officer of the Government of the Virgin Islands, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3589.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) has introduced this legislation to address a potentially serious problem relating to her territory's financial future. Her legislation, H.R. 3589, will create an Office of the Chief Financial Officer for the United States Virgin Islands.

For over a decade now, multiple factors have lead to a worsening financial outlook in this territory. Natural disasters, a gradually declining tourism industry, and the resulting spending decisions by the local government have left the U.S. Virgin Islands with significant annual deficits. Further, this territory now faces a debt totaling $1 billion.

Given this economic instability and the worsening conditions, serious actions should be considered. For this reason, the Delegate has introduced 3589. This legislation uses local and Federal input to select an Office of the Chief Financial Officer. The CFO will tackle the difficult fiscal and related political decisions with regard to spending on these islands.

It is important to note that this individual and his or her staff will functionally be independent of the executive and legislative branches of the local government. This position will be temporary and will be empowered to stop wasteful spending and put this territory back on the track to more sound economic footing.

Without this legislation, one must worry that the Federal Government may have to take an even more serious action if this debt continues to increase. I am thus hopeful that the House can support the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands' (Mrs. Christensen) bill so that we can begin to address the dire financial situation in this territory.

Finally, I would like to point out that H.R. 3589, as amended, was passed by the Committee on Resources by voice vote on July 14, and I appreciate the bipartisan work of the committee in acting quickly on this legislation.

I hope we can act in the same bipartisan fashion. I urge adoption of this bill.

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

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

I would just like to commend the gentlewoman for bringing this solution forward and for taking on the responsibility of representing and making sure that the folks in her island are represented correctly.

So I commend her for that and for her great work on this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment would prohibit the National Institute of Mental Health from further funding a grant studying the decorations of dorm rooms and college students' Web pages. It also would prohibit NIMH from further funding a grant studying what makes for a meaningful day.

This would not cut out any funding for NIMH; it would simply focus research funding that is provided toward serious mental health issues and not interior decoration.

I have personally read this grant application and found that each participant was allowed to receive $100 for decorating his dorm room and, additionally, three $1,000 prizes were given away in a lottery to the study participants.

The second application states that ``for many students, attending college may be a source of meaning itself, as a stepping stone to future goals or as a means of occupying a meaningful social role.'' Now, I do not think we need to spend $1 million for college students to determine what is a meaningful day in their life.

Each of us meet with constituents on a daily basis with serious mental health issues threatening not only themselves, but their families. Right now, when Americans are facing these unbearable losses, taxpayer dollars should be focused on serious mental health issues like bipolar disorders and Alzheimer's.

Research areas under the NIMH include Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and suicide prevention. Grants to questionable studies like dorm room wall decorations cloud many of the good things that the National Institute of Mental Health does and can do.

According to a recent study published by the Treatment Advocacy Center and Public Citizen, ``Individuals with serious mental illnesses account for 58 percent of our direct costs for all mental illness. However, only 5.8 percent of the NIMH budget funds `clinically relevant' studies.''

I have no doubt that those receiving those NIH funds will conclude that their research is valid, but when I talk to Americans with mental health issues and mental illnesses, I want to be able to tell them that we are committing NIH funds to studying serious mental health issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Well, first of all, I want to thank the distinguished chairman for his hard work in bringing this bill forward. It is a good bill.

I believe that we do have to bring some common sense to this process, and we have to be good stewards of the American taxpayers' money, and there are some serious mental health issues that need to be addressed in this country. Our charge as Members of this Congress is to prioritize how we spend that money and make sure that we are putting it into areas where there are serious mental health issues at risk.

Certainly, I think that this amendment is very positive and would encourage Members to vote in support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004, and in defense of the institution of marriage in America.

In 2003, the Texas State Legislature defined marriage as a union between

one man and one woman. Texas joins 37 other States that have enacted similar legislation defending traditional marriages.

With the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress declared that no State can be forced to accept another State's definition of marriage. Unfortunately, these actions are not enough. We have seen time and time again the will of the people can be overturned by the actions of a few judges.

Currently, Federal lawsuits attacking the institution of marriage are underway in several States across the country. If these lawsuits are successful, the voice of the people in Texas and the voice of the overwhelming majority of Americans will be ignored.

Without the Marriage Protection Act, it is possible that Federal judges in California can determine the definition of a marriage in Texas or any other State which tries to protect marriage.

This attack against marriage goes against every value that I and the vast majority of my constituents hold dear. For these reasons I strongly urge the passage of H.R. 3313.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 391 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a good friend, T.J. Patterson, who this week ended 20 years of service on Lubbock's City Council. T.J. served on 10 city councils and under five different mayors.

I had the pleasure of serving with councilman T.J. Patterson, and what I

learned in my 6 years in serving with T.J. is what most folks in Lubbock know, that he is a strong community leader and a tireless fighter for the values of the people he serves.

T.J. is a man of many firsts. After serving his country in Vietnam, T.J. became the first African American elected to the Lubbock City Council. He was also the first African American elected to be president of the Texas Municipal League. He founded the Texas Association of Black City Council Members and also the publication Southwest Digest.

During his 20 years of service, T.J. Patterson fought so hard for the things that matter to the citizens of Lubbock and Lubbock families: educating our kids and protecting Lubbock's youth from gangs and drugs.

The people in Lubbock and myself are grateful for T.J. Patterson's tireless service to his community.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3980) to establish a National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3980, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and his staff for their leadership and support for allowing me to bring this important piece of legislation before the Committee on Science. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who introduced this bill with me, and all of the cosponsors of H.R. 3980 for their support.

Windstorms in the United States, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, continue to cause high levels of injuries, deaths, business interruption, and property damage. Unfortunately, the level of losses due to the windstorms increase each year and will continue to escalate unless technology generation, education, and public policies are improved.

On May 11, 1970, tragedy struck my hometown of Lubbock, Texas. An F5

tornado ripped through downtown Lubbock. Six people were killed, and 500 were injured. The tornado had winds estimated in excess of 200 miles an hour and damaged or destroyed a large portion of our city.

In a few moments between 9:35 p.m. and the time the funnel lifted into the cloud, the tornado devastated a community along an 8\1/2\ mile-wide path. It wrought havoc along a track that was 1\1/2\ miles wide in downtown Lubbock to one-fourth mile wide as it passed over the National Weather Bureau's office located at the airport. The twister was responsible for $125 million in damage, and an estimated 15 square miles of the city was damaged or destroyed.

The National Weather Service estimates that between 1995 and 2002, hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorm winds caused an average of $4.5 billion in damage every year. Texas alone averages 124 tornadoes every year, which is more than double the average of any other State.

Over this past Memorial Day weekend, for example, 175 tornadoes were reported across the country, bringing the preliminary total for May to 544. The storms were responsible for 8 deaths and millions of dollars in damages in 12 States.

June 1 was the official start of hurricane season, and forecasters are predicting an above-normal Atlantic season. Officials anticipate 12 to 15 tropical storms for the season, with six to eight systems becoming hurricanes, with two to four of those becoming major hurricanes.

Last year, Hurricane Isabel, one of the storms to affect the United States, caused 17 deaths and more than $3 billion in damages. Technological advancements in the second half of the century have contributed to better, more accurate severe weather watches and warnings from the National Weather Service, ultimately saving countless lives. Advancements in computer technology also led to progress in numerical weather prediction, allowing meteorologists to apply physics in replicating motions of the atmosphere.

But even as we build on our current weather prediction successes and create new resources to predict windstorms at a greater rate, the United States continues to sustain billions of dollars each year in property damage and economic losses due to wind storms, and the human costs are all too painful.

Over the last 5 years, Texas Tech University Wind Engineering Research Center has received funding under a cooperative agreement with the National Institute For Standards and Technology to research the detrimental effects of windstorms on buildings and to reduce the loss of life from windstorm events. Their work has led to many accomplishments on the national scope. This year alone, they will receive $900,000 to carry on research to improve the economy of shelters and wind-resistant construction.

A variety of cost-effective windstorm hazard mitigation measures exist, and many more are undergoing important research and development at universities like Texas Tech University across this Nation. However, these efforts are not being coordinated at the Federal level to improve the general public's understanding of windstorm impacts, and we are not doing a good job of encouraging implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures for our citizens.

Improving the wind resistance of buildings can only be achieved when there is a demand for wind-resistant construction by homeowners. Hurricane Isabel, the tornado in Lubbock that was so destructive more than 30 years ago, and the 544 tornadoes in the month of May alone are serious reminders of how vulnerable we are and how serious we should be about severe weather safety and preparedness.

Here is what we can do about it. The objective of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program is to achieve measurable reduction in loss of life and property from windstorms. In a coordinated effort between academia, the private sector and the Federal Government, this legislation will improve distribution of current research findings, develop cost-effective and affordable windstorm-resistant systems, and develop outreach techniques for the general public.

The aim of this act is also to enable the marketplace to form incentives. Improving our understanding of how wind impacts buildings, enhancing the scope and detail of damage data collection, and measuring the degree to which varying mitigation techniques can lessen that impact will make it possible to quantify the value of mitigation. This information will give policymakers, private industry, and individual homeowners the tools to make decisions that take windstorm vulnerability into consideration.

An investment in windstorm impact reduction will pay significant dividends and will save lives, decrease property damage, and reduce the cost of Federal disaster relief in the future. Therefore, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3980.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just summarize a little bit about this bill and to also let folks know that this bill has a lot of endorsements from people that are very active in this type of engineering: the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the Manufacturing Housing Institute, the National Association of Wind Engineering, Applied Technology Council, and the International Code Council. These are the organizations that are actively involved in this kind of research, and

they wholeheartedly support and endorse this bill.

One of the things that this bill does is it creates a national windstorm impact reduction program, and it improves our understanding of windstorm issues. And it also brings about a collaboration of the private sector and the public sector so that we can begin to commercialize a lot of the important research that is going on. It really does not do us any good to do a lot of good research in this country if we do not get it into the hands of the people that can actually use that, and those are the homeowners and the building owners around this country.

It also brings some oversight to the process and creates a National Advisory Committee who will oversee the various research. They will be reported back to and given an opportunity to give progress reports to the Congress to make sure that we are providing adequate oversight for the important research dollars that we are providing for this type of research.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by saying that this bill consolidates and coordinates windstorm research that has been going on throughout multiple agencies and brings oversight to that process, and I think that is very important. I think the American people expect us to oversee the moneys that we are appropriating and authorizing; but it also is a public and private partnership, and the whole goal of this bill is to make sure that we get the important research out of the laboratories and into practical solutions that are going to be saving lives and reducing property damage.

So I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Budget Accounts amendment. I appreciate having the chance to work with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) on this amendment which enhances the budget legislation we are considering today.

In this and other debates today, we have heard a lot of talk about a provision called PAYGO. Well, I think this

amendment creates something that I call save-go.

Budget Protection Accounts allow us to actually save money for the taxpayers as we go through the appropriations and other spending bills; money that is set aside for the taxpayers, either in the form of tax relief or debt reduction.

When Members offer amendments on appropriations bills today that reduce spending, any money reduced automatically becomes available to be spent on another program or a project in that bill or in another bill. If the Budget Projection Accounts are created, Members would be able to direct savings resulting from their amendments to the debt reduction or tax relief. Members are not required to do so, but they are simply given that option. Imagine being able to go home back to your district and actually tell your constituents that you saved them some money.

This is an important option to have if we are serious about doing something about reducing spending. Members have little incentive to offer amendments that reduce spending when they know that the money the amendment claims to save is automatically given to other projects. If Members have the option to direct savings to relief of deficit reduction or incentive to go after other waste and fraud, they will actually do so.

Budget Protection Accounts allow Members to be for savings and fiscally responsible, rather than always against projects or programs.

Let us give the House the opportunity to save the taxpayers some money when we are going through spending bills and the opportunity to use those savings for the benefit of the taxpayers. As many have said today, and I continue to say, Mr. Chairman, we do not have an income problem, we have a spending problem, and I believe that the Budget Protection Accounts help us with that problem.