Floor Statements

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida and both of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I am just so pleased to be here this evening joining with my 30-something fellow Democratic women in honor of Women's History Month.

I look forward through the course of the next partial hour to talk about sufferage, such an important part of women's history, and getting our right to vote so that the three of us can be standing here today having the support of so many women in the constituents that we represent; being able to exercise our voting privileges on this House floor because of the importance of the sufferage movement in this country.

I also look forward to talking about some unique perspectives I would like to share, representing a rural district, about rural women and the role that they played in sufferage for women's history and getting the right to vote, some of the unique challenges they face for employment opportunities, health care for rural women, and also to spend some time talking about Title IX and its importance for all women.

I am very honored to be here tonight, as I mentioned, and I want to reiterate the thanks that Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Ms. Sanchez gave to our leader, Nancy Pelosi, who herself became such an important part of women's history in being elected the first woman as the Democratic whip, followed by the first woman to be elected leader of one of the political parties represented here in this House of the people. To be joining all three of them tonight is particularly important as we share our ideas on issues important to women in honor of Women's History Month.

I also think it is important throughout the next few minutes for each of us to share what brought us here in the first place and how we benefited from the women who paved the way before us. I am a farm girl from South Dakota. The small town near where I grew up on the farm, population less than 100, Houghton, South Dakota, is a long ways from the House of Representatives. But I would venture to

guess that some of my experiences reflect some similarities of my two colleagues and other women that we work with here in the Congress. Many women serve in the Senate and our State legislatures, our county commissions, school boards and city councils, and we hope one of these days, the White House.

Now, I was born on a farm and ranch, third generation in the family, and my dad, like his dad before him, continues to work and farm a ranch in the northeastern part of South Dakota. But while farming and ranching were our livelihood and our profession, we had another passion, and that was State government and politics. My grandfather served as Governor in the late 1950s, my grandmother served as Secretary of State in the 1970s, and my dad was in the State legislature. As my mom likes to say, it wasn't just in the blood, it was part of the genetic code.

And so when we share these experiences, either with our own children or our nieces or our goddaughters or our cousins, I think it is important that we make it part of the dinner-table conversation, as I would imagine the three of us had in many respects. It is one thing that I think has substantially changed for our generation. I think for earlier generations of women, they maybe didn't have the exposure or the influence and the encouragement to be part of the debate about public issues and to be encouraged to seek public office.

As I travel across my district, as I am sure my colleagues do, you see these young girls, 8 years old, 9 years old, 10 years old, and they come up and they want their parents to bring them to an official meeting or some other public event and they tell you they want to serve in Congress someday or they want to run for Governor. And it is so heartening because it reminds us of the importance of so much of what we are doing for them and for younger girls and women to know that they can do it too.

Now, when I was first getting involved, so much attention was given to my dad and my grandfather, but it was my grandmother who was the first to get involved, before she ever became a Herseth. She ran in the Great Depression for superintendent of county schools, back in the mid- to late 1930s. She paved the way. She wasn't going to let conventional wisdom get in her way. She ran at a time when it was so difficult and she used her salary, it was an elected position in South Dakota, and she used that salary to help put her two nieces through college. She would share with me stories about serving as superintendent of county schools, the importance of education, and then serving as first lady and secretary of state, and she had an extraordinary influence on my life.

That is why I think it is so important for all of us to know that these are precious gifts we have been given by women who have paved the way before us, and that for those of us with children or sisters or grandchildren and nieces, we need to make sure that we are talking to them about the importance of what we have done to continue to help pave that way, to keep the door open, and to open new doors for women to have an influence in public policy and in public life and government at all levels.

Let me just share a quote when we talk about some of the women that have paved the way. I want to sort of selfishly focus on some of the women who were from my area of the country in the late 1800s and early 1900s and part of the women's suffrage movement.

But Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now the only woman serving on the United States Supreme Court, noted, ``I think about how much we owe to the women who went before us, legions of women, some known, but many more unknown, and I applaud the bravery and resilience of those who have helped all of us, you and me, to be here today.''

Well, among some of these women is Esther Morris, the first woman to hold a judicial position, who led the first successful State campaign for woman's suffrage in Wyoming in 1869.

Also we have Carrie Chapman Catt. She revitalized the National American Women's Suffrage Association and played a leading role in its successful campaign to win voting rights for women. In 1920, she founded the League of Women Voters upon ratification of the 19th amendment to the Constitution.

Carrie Lane was born in Wisconsin, and at the age of 7, her family moved to rural Iowa where she graduated in 1877. She graduated from the Iowa Agricultural College and model farm in Ames, Iowa. I make note of agriculture here because I am the only Democratic woman serving on the Agriculture Committee, and only three of our Republican colleagues serve on that important committee. She then became the first woman in the Nation to be appointed superintendent of schools. This was in 1883.

In addition, the first woman ever elected to the United States Senate was Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1919. And in South Dakota the first woman we ever elected to the United States Senate was 1938, Gladys Pyle. And 66 years later, in 2004, they elected their first woman to the United States House of Representatives, and I shared that year with Cecilia Firethunder, a constituent of mine who became the first woman to be elected president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.

So we are making strides every year, more to be made to be sure. But I think it is very important as we celebrate and talk about Women's History Month and the challenges that remain that we make mention of some of these women that went before us and the influence they had on the entire women's movement and Women's History Month, but some of the closer people that served as role models and influenced our lives.

I am curious to hear more about both of your experiences and what brought you to the United States Congress.

Just to make a note on the health care issues and child care, in South Dakota we are among the highest percentage per capita of women who work outside the home. Many of those women are single mothers, and those who are a second income earner, either off the farm or in town, then struggle not only with the child care costs, but access to a child care provider in many of our small communities. So the cuts to assist individuals but also some of the community development funds, the economic development funds that have been used effectively by rural communities to support entrepreneurs, many of whom would like to provide child care services for healthy communities, have been jeopardized, and one of the most egregious things that we have seen from this administration as it relates to health care is they will sacrifice rural health care grants at almost every opportunity.

Many rural women are older. Many are eligible for Medicare and Social Security. But even young moms in smaller rural communities, we are talking about rural health care grants that go a long way to keep clinics open. And as she is struggling to also maintain a job and raise her children, you tack on to that the challenges to having health care services, especially in smaller communities that are working to revitalize themselves, but the budget situation and the priorities that have been so misplaced have jeopardized and make it harder for rural women to even get access, let alone the affordable health care that they need.

If the gentlewoman would yield, back to the point that Ms. Sanchez made about Head Start, Mr. Speaker, I think this is so important as it relates to Women's History Month and the importance of the Head Start Program, the women that have been a core part of this program, I represent nine sovereign Native Tribes in the State of South Dakota, and tribal women are among the strongest advocates for Head Start, in both the in-home program as well as the traditional Head Start Program.

So I could not agree more that any budget, whether it comes from the administration or the majority in this House, that would slash or freeze or not adequately fund Head Start programs to meet school readiness is inexcusable, as well as what had you both mentioned, and Ms. Sanchez, I too am paying off those student loans, how important it is to have access to ways to finance one's higher education to become that productive citizen, a taxpayer in one's community, giving back and finding good opportunities.

But when you look at the impact of the egregious budget reconciliation bill that this House passed by two votes earlier this year, that found a third of its savings from Federal student loan programs, it is also inexcusable. And when you tack that on to what is happening as I mentioned with Head Start in Indian country, we have very high up employment rates, so you can imagine what Native women are faced with.

But the one thing I want to mention, because we have been focusing on a number of the challenges, especially as it relates to the budget and the misplaced priorities, when we talk about Women's History Month I want to highlight what will always stand out as a hallmark, one of the most significant achievements of women banding together and being advocates, and that is in the area of breast cancer research and awareness.

My grandmother that I was mentioning earlier, she was a breast cancer survivor. One of my aunts is also a breast cancer survivor. I think that is a model of advocacy in all of women's health and how we find creative ways to adequately fund the research, as we have done through the Department of Defense programs that have existed for that research, and to continue it in other areas, and to applaud the women, to applaud the women that were the strategists, that were the activists, that brought this to the attention of so many here in the halls of Congress to make sure that this serious health issue was addressed that paved the way for us to address other health issues for women that we know are continuing to be challenges for us.

If the gentlewoman would yield further, we have been focusing quite a bit on where the budget issues have been placing new challenges upon us, because of the priorities that are so questionable as it relates to women's health and education and equal pay and employment opportunities. But it doesn't just stop there.

This administration will take any way it can it seems to take issues that have been so important to young women in particular to undermine some of those achievements through regulatory proposals.

Take for example Title IX, another phenomenal achievement as we celebrate Women's History Month. Title IX has been an enormous success. It is a standard that for over 33 years now has ensured equal opportunity for women in athletics and contributed to the athletic, educational and health, but educational and athletic achievements of hundreds of thousands of young women, and because of Title IX young women's participation, Mr. Speaker, their participation in athletics has increased 400 percent at the college level and 800 percent in the high schools.

Girls and women who participate in sports receive great physical and psychological benefits. I can attest to that. I was a basketball player in high school and ran track and cross country and tried to continue to be active, but wasn't quite good enough for the Georgetown women's basketball team back in the early nineties.

But when we look at how girls and women who participates in sport receive that kind of benefit, including higher levels of confidence, their stronger self-images and lower levels of depression, the importance of Title IX I think can't be overstated. Yet what does this administration do, but propose new rules to undermine it.

On March 17 of last year, the Department of Education, without any notice or public input, issued a new Title IX policy under the guise of clarification that creates a major loophole through which schools can evade their obligation to provide equal opportunity in sports. The policy will allow the schools to gauge female students' interest in athletics by doing nothing more than an e-mail survey and then to claim in these days of excessive e-mail spam that a failure to respond to the survey shows a lack of interest in playing sports.

The so-called clarification eliminates the school's obligations to look broadly and proactively at whether they are satisfying women's interests in sports and will thereby perpetuate the cycle of discrimination in sports to which women have been subjected.

So this new clarification violates basic principles of equality and it threatens to reverse the enormous progress women and girls have made in sports since the enactment of Title IX in 1972, when the three of us were awful young.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a problem of potentially catastrophic proportions. It is not a matter of foreign policy or national security, and it is not natural disasters like this past summer's hurricanes or the ongoing drought in States like my home State of South Dakota.

No. This is a man-made disaster. This debacle is of government creation and, in particular, legislative irresponsibility. This is a crisis that we, as elected representatives, have an obligation and a duty to address. I rise to discuss the crisis facing our community pharmacists, particularly those who serve rural communities.

As I mentioned on Tuesday of this week, of all the health care professionals struggling with the implementation of the new Medicare drug benefit, pharmacists appear to be the most negatively affected. This past weekend I spent several hours meeting with health professionals from South Dakota communities, small and large, to discuss their ongoing efforts to implement the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

These meetings proved incredibly beneficial to me and to my staff, and I have scheduled more of them in the near future. I encourage my colleagues to take the time to sit down with those administering the program in their districts. It is important that you hear from them first hand. But because of the urgency of this issue, I feel compelled to share with you now some thoughts on the crisis facing rural and community pharmacists.

Here is what is happening: PHARMACIES large and small receive no or inadequate compensation for the time they spend filling prescriptions. This is particularly troubling for those serving

``dual-eligible'' beneficiaries, those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid; and those in assisted living facilities who take large numbers of pre-packaged medication. Much of the responsibility of ensuring the drug benefit's implementation has been assumed by the pharmacist. To the extent that it is working at all, we have them to thank. In many ways for many of the pharmacists I spoke with, much of the damage has already been done.

On the horizon, however, are significant cuts to the Medicaid program that will be achieved primarily by changing the way we reimburse pharmacies for prescription drugs. That is right. The choices we made during the budget reconciliation process once again targeted our Nation's pharmacists, without asking for corresponding sacrifices from the insurance companies or the pharmaceutical manufacturers, which is outrageous.

It is truly shameful. And the implications will be significant. After absorbing significant losses during the rollout of the Medicare drug program, pharmacists will soon be hit by changes to the Medicaid program, and many simply will not survive. This one-two punch is not only bad policy, it is inexcusable.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt even praised pharmacists last week for their ``heroic'' efforts in shouldering the burden for implementing Medicare Part D. Their reward for their selfless and heroic behavior? Drastic pharmacy reimbursement cuts in the Medicaid program that will have a devastating impact on our communities, disproportionately impacting the poorest and sickest Americans and that will no doubt put hundreds if not thousands of small businesses out of business.

I encourage my colleagues to talk to their pharmacists, learn more about this situation, and work with me in a bipartisan manner to ensure that we are not sacrificing the health of our Nation and the good-will of our community pharmacists by taking the path of least resistance and caving to large and powerful interests.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor the life of SGT Jeremiah Boehmer, who died February 5, 2006, while serving in Iraq.

Every Member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, SGT Jeremiah Boehmer lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others.

The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Jeremiah's compassion and service. Jeremiah, who represented the best of the United States, South Dakota, and the military continues to inspire all those who knew him and many who did not. Our Nation and the State of South Dakota are far better places because of his service, and the best way to honor him is to emulate his devotion to our country.

I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of SGT Jeremiah Boehmer. His commitment to and sacrifice for our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor the life of SPC Allen Kokesh Jr., who died February 7, 2006, from wounds suffered while serving in Iraq.

Every member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, SPC Allen Kokesh Jr., lived that commitment to our Country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others.

The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Allen's compassion and service. Allen, who represented the best of the United States, South Dakota, and the military continues to inspire all those who knew him and many who did not. Our Nation and the State of South Dakota are far better places because of his service, and the best way to honor him is to emulate his devotion to our Country.

I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of SPC Allen Kokesh Jr. His commitment to and sacrifice for our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor the life of SPC Patrick Herried, who died February 6, 2006, while serving in Iraq.

Every member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, SPC Patrick Herried lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others.

The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Patrick's compassion and service. Patrick, who represented the best of the United States, South Dakota, and the military continues to inspire all those who knew him and many who did not. Our Nation and the State of South Dakota are far better places because of his service, and the best way to honor him is to emulate his devotion to our country.

I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of SPC Patrick Herried. His commitment to and sacrifice for our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the crisis facing our community pharmacists, particularly those in rural communities. Of all the health care professionals struggling with the implementation of the new Medicare drug benefit, pharmacists appear to be the most negatively affected.

Guess what? Pharmacists are facing another blow. The recently enacted cuts to the Medicaid program are achieved by changes in the way we reimburse pharmacies for prescription drugs.

The choices made during the budget reconciliation process once again targeted our Nation's pharmacists without asking for corresponding sacrifices from the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the PBMs.

This one-two punch is not only bad policy, it is outrageous. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt praised pharmacists last week for their ``heroic'' efforts in shouldering the burden for implementing Medicare Part D.

Their reward? Drastic pharmacy reimbursement cuts in the Medicaid program that will have a devastating impact on our communities, disproportionately impacting the poorest and sickest Americans that will no doubt put hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses out of business.

It is time this body quit taking the path of least resistance and base our health policy decisions on what is good for our constituents, communities and small businesses, not the powerful drug and insurance companies. I respectfully and urgently ask my colleagues to address this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding and for his long-standing commitment for health care issues facing this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4568, the Proficiency Testing Improvement Act of 2005, because this legislation reflects a thoughtful compromise, and I am extremely pleased we are going to have an opportunity to address the underlying issues concerning the clinical laboratory proficiency testing regime currently being implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

As I toured laboratories in South Dakota earlier this year and discussed the proficiency test with pathologists in my State, it has become clear to me that the science and practice guidelines for cytology have advanced substantially in the 13 years since the initial design of the proficiency testing program.

I have serious concerns with the possibility of qualified physicians and lab personnel being penalized as a result of a test based on outdated standards, and I have concerns about the access problems this may create in rural areas.

The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee, which is charged with advising the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the standards governing clinical laboratories, has recommended that the Department of Health and Human Services revise the outdated regulation to reflect the advances in the practice of cytology.

When it became clear that Secretary Leavitt intended to proceed with the January 1 implementation date, as Mr. Brown indicated, I joined with him and many others of this body to urge the Secretary to suspend the current testing program and make the necessary revisions to reflect the advances in science, technology and practice. But time grows short, and without any assurances that the flaws in the current regime will be addressed, it is necessary for us to act.

This legislation delays implementation of proficiency testing for 1 year to allow the Secretary to make the appropriate revisions and ensure a testing program that reflects medically and scientifically current standards for the

practice of cytology. This step is necessary to protect access to clinical laboratory services and to ensure the high quality of those services.

I want to express my sincere thanks to all those who have worked so hard in the last few weeks to bring this legislation to the floor before the end of the session. Ranking Members Dingell and Brown, Chairman Deal, Mr. Price, have all been diligent and thoughtful throughout this process. And I also want to extend my thanks to Chairman Barton for his flexibility and offer my prayers for his speedy recovery during the Christmas season.

I encourage my colleagues in the House to support H.R. 4568 and our colleagues in the Senate to act swiftly to pass this important legislation before we adjourn.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this important amendment to eliminate the Diversity Visa Program, otherwise known as the visa lottery. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia, for the time.

Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Sensenbrenner have effectively outlined the serious security risk posed by the visa lottery program and the flaws in the administration of the program, so I will not repeat them at this time. But I would like to address a question raised by some of my colleagues: whether it would be possible to reallocate the visas currently utilized by the visa lottery program and add them to the family-sponsored and employer-based categories.

Although the amendment we are offering today does not reallocate the diversity visas, I am committed to working with Chairman Goodlatte and our colleagues in the Senate to do just that.

I believe strongly that the elimination of the visa lottery program will strengthen our national security, that our amendment is an appropriate and necessary step towards resolution of this issue. I believe strongly that if our

amendment passes today, we can negotiate a compromise that will ensure reallocation of some or all of the immigrant visas available under this outdated and problematic program which has deviated from its original purpose.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 4473, the CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2005. As a resident of a farm State and a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I understand the critical role that futures exchanges play in the marketing of agricultural commodities. They are indispensable in providing price discovery and market transparency for producers and commodity users alike. That said, futures markets cannot perform these functions if they are being manipulated. Futures markets must be effectively regulated in order to ensure their integrity and protect the well-being of small investors. This bill strikes that balance.

Five years ago, Congress undertook a major overhaul of the Commodity Exchange Act, which my colleagues who have already risen in support of took a lead. By most accounts, the reforms adopted at that time have worked well, but there have been some issues that have arisen since the bill passed. I believe today's legislation makes important improvements to the act while maintaining a good balance between the competing goals of promoting robust futures exchanges and protecting market participants.

One provision of this bill that is particularly important is language on energy derivatives. This legislation would increase recordkeeping requirements on entities that hold large quantities of natural gas contracts, and give the CFTC access to these records so it can better investigate and prevent market manipulation. The bill also raises civil and criminal penalties for energy price manipulation. In light of today's high natural gas prices, this authority is needed.

Because of the balance that it strikes and because of the provisions that it leaves alone, I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to report the passing of SFC Richard Schild. He was killed while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Richard's goodwill and service. He inspired all those who knew him. Our Nation is a far better place because of his life. All Americans owe Richard, and the other soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom, a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service.

Every Member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, Richard lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others.

Mr. Speaker, I express my sympathies to the family and friends of SFC Richard Schild. I believe the best way to honor him is to emulate his commitment to our country. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to report the passing of SSG Daniel Cuka. He was killed while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Daniel's goodwill and service. He inspired all those who knew him. Our Nation is a far better place because of his life. All Americans owe Daniel, and the other soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom, a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service.

Every Member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, Daniel lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others.

Mr. Speaker, I express my sympathies to the family and friends of SSG Daniel Cuka. I believe the best way to honor him is to emulate his commitment to our country. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for yielding.

I rise today in support of S. 1234, the Veterans' Compensation Cost- of-Living Adjustment Act, which authorizes the annual cost-of-living adjustment for disabled veterans and their survivors.

I, too, would like to commend Chairman Buyer and Ranking Member Evans, as well as their staff, for their hard work and support of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill which will improve the quality of life for our disabled veterans and their families. It is very important that we provide for the basic needs of our veterans, particularly our disabled veterans.

Our Nation's disabled veterans rely on this annual cost-of-living increase and rightly expect us to provide it to them. I am proud to support this legislation, confident it will benefit the more than 3,000 veterans of my home State of South Dakota who received disability compensation last year, as well as disabled veterans throughout the country.

As wounded young service men and women return home from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is imperative that we work to provide this newest generation of veterans and

their families with the financial support they have earned and deserve. Providing adequate disability benefits is an issue that will impact these brave men and women for the rest of their lives as they struggle to cope with the scars of their sacrifice and should be considered an ongoing cost of war.

Again, I am proud to support the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his kind words and for his extraordinary leadership on this important issue within the Blue Dog Coalition and within the Congress on highlighting the impact of budget decisions over the last 5 years that have created perils, dangerous situations for the country now and into the future.

I would like to just share, if I might, and read from some quotes that have come out, quoting individuals recently within the last week or two, to highlight what Mr. Scott, Mr. Tanner, and Mr. Ross have already noted, that this is not a partisan issue. There are those on both sides of the aisle and those who do not have any affiliation with either political party that are expressing the concerns with the budget reconciliation package offered by the majority.

Let me first quote Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, from a statement he made just 2 days ago: ``This year's budget resolution calls for two reconciliation bills, a spending cut bill of $35 billion and a tax cut bill of $70 billion.'' He is referring here to Senate numbers. ``Simple arithmetic dispels the notion that this combination is aimed at deficit reduction. It is hard to rally support for a spending cut labeled the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 when it will be followed by a tax cut that, by the same logic, should be labeled the Deficit Increase Act of 2005.''

Or take a quote from our colleague on the other side of the Capitol, Senator George Voinovich, a Republican from Ohio, a statement made just last week: ``I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending last week to help achieve deficit reductions, we can now then turn around 2 weeks later to provide tax cuts that exceed the reduction in spending. That is beyond me, and I am sure the American people.''

Or let us take a statement from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan from 2 weeks ago: ``We should not be cutting taxes by borrowing. We do not have the capability of having both productive tax cuts and large expenditure increases, and presume that the deficit doesn't matter.''

Or take a quote from the editorial boards across the country, including one from the Des Moines Register: ``As a deficit reduction strategy, the House GOP plan is ludicrous. After passing the budget cuts, next on Congress's agenda is passing further tax cuts for the wealthy at a cost to the Treasury of $70 billion over 5 years. Cutting spending by $55 billion while cutting taxes by $70 billion will make the deficits worse, not better.''

The New York Times editorial board stated: ``An additional $70 billion worth of upper bracket tax cuts heavily backed by the White House are waiting in the wings and will drive the deficit even deeper across generations of taxpayers. The administration and congressional leaders arranged to separate votes on the two halves of the budget to obscure the full picture.''

Finally, from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution from last week: ``This proposed belt-tightening by Congress is not being driven by national security, deficit reduction, or hurricane relief. Instead, it has been proposed as a way to finance a $70 billion tax holiday for the wealthiest Americans. Congress can't tell the public one week that a dooming deficit is forcing it to cut food stamps and Medicaid, then turn around the next week and award the wealthiest Americans a generous tax cut.''

Mr. Speaker, that is really the bottom line here tonight, is it not? And what we are trying to share with our colleagues and our constituents is that if you do that, say one thing one week and turn around the next week and do something that obliterates the savings that you claimed that you were trying to achieve, that damages your credibility, it damages the credibility of the

work we do in this Congress. It damages the credibility of the budget process, which is why the Blue Dogs have offered the 12 points to reform the budget process.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many back home in South Dakota that budget cuts take courage. They do. They take a lot of political courage. Decisions to cut spending, especially from popular programs, certainly are not easy decisions. But I contend that it is cowardly not to be straightforward with the American people about the priorities reflected in the entirety of the reconciliation process.

As my colleagues have noted here earlier this evening, we can question legitimately the priorities within the spending cut bill, the spending side of the ledger in this reconciliation process. Take higher education, over $14 billion worth of cuts out of the 50 to $55 billion overall on the spending cut side of the package. This is a double whammy on our younger generation, because not only do they have to pay thousands more to finance their higher education, but they also have to pay the interest tax on our national debt that increases.

Mr. Speaker, our knowledge base has been this country's way of staying ahead of the rest of the world and maintaining our competitiveness in a fast-changing global economy. But yet they take student loan programs that represent 1 percent of the overall Federal budget and make it 30 percent, roughly 30 percent of the spending cuts that they targeted in the spending cut side of the reconciliation equation.

Then take agriculture and rural development. We cut all of these programs out of agriculture and rural development that not only go back on the deal we cut with farmers and ranchers in the farm bill in 2002 which, by the way, has saved billions more than what was projected at the time it was passed; but then we leave rural America behind at a time of skyrocketing fuel costs, cutting value-added marketing programs, cutting programs intended to expand broadband technology in rural America.

Then, take Medicaid. Medicaid, a program designed to help children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Now claims that the growth of Medicaid spending is out of control cannot be supported when you compare the growth in spending in the private sector. It is about half in Medicaid as to what it is in premiums paid out and the growth of the spending in the private sector for health care insurance.

So when you look at the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid, that really requires a different approach and different solution, like making it easier, not harder, to finance a higher education and making it easier to get a higher-paying job. These cuts also in Medicaid affect long-term care facilities, the residents, the staff, the communities; and it affects the workforce, health and productivity issues that we face in this country.

I also think we can raise serious questions as well about the priorities within the preferential tax treatment portion of the reconciliation bill, which extends provisions that are now secure until 2008, rather than providing a fix for the alternative minimum tax, which is affecting more and more middle-income taxpayers.

The final point here, we need to seriously question, as we have done tonight, with our colleagues in the next couple of days, with the American people, the overall result of this reconciliation package, which makes the deficit worse, as we have demonstrated, which increases the country's level of borrowing further, as Congressman Tanner pointed out with the statistics of the foreign ownership of our national debt, and the increasing percentages of that. The Treasury is set to borrow $151 billion in the first quarter of 2006 alone, not to mention that this is simply an interest tax on my generation, the generation following me, and future generations of Americans.

Let me conclude by saying, let us stop the recklessness. I think the American public wants us to stop the recklessness, to reform the budget process as the Blue Dogs have proposed, restore the credibility in managing the Nation's finances by taking action that reduces the deficit and puts us back on track towards balanced budgets.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote no, oppose these reconciliation proposals for both sides of the Federal Government's ledger, for which the bottom line is even more red ink.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of 2005.

The origins of the bill stretch back to The Flood Control Act of 1944 which authorized a 190,000 acre irrigation project surrounding the Oahe dam and reservoir. As part of this project, the Bureau of Reclamation acquired approximately 19,000 acres of land in two South Dakota counties before organized opposition halted the project in 1977. Since then, the Bureau of Reclamation has retained ownership of the land and, even today, the original landowners continue to lease the land from the department.

Recognizing that the project will not be restarted, the State of South Dakota initiated talks to resolve the ownership situation. Working with the South Dakota Department of Game Fish and Parks, local stakeholders, the Bureau of Reclamation, and others, a general consensus emerged that the best way to deal with the associated economic, tax base, wildlife mitigation, and public access concerns would be to allow the original landowners to buy back the land. Years of negotiations and meetings led to the bill I am introducing today.

Under this bill, former Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal landowners would be allowed to repurchase their former lands, on which they currently hold preferential leases, from the Bureau of Reclamation. The bill also will transfer non-preferentially-leased lands and unleased lands to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, GFP, as part of its broader plan to restore wildlife habitat that was lost due to the construction of the Missouri River dams.

The proposals in this legislation were included in an identical bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year. This legislation is an important opportunity to resolve a land ownership issue left open for over 3 decades. I urge my colleagues in the House to give this bill their swift consideration.

Madam Speaker, I too stand united today with my fellow Blue Dog Democrats in opposition to the majority's budget reconciliation decisions. Blue Dogs have consistently stood for fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, and an honest, open, and accountable budget process.

So why would Blue Dogs support a proposal that is part of a budget reconciliation package that will increase the deficit, not lower it? Why would we

be in support of a budget reconciliation package that is part of a broken budget process in need of serious reform? And why would we support a budget reconciliation process that is part of an overtly partisan failed strategy, a strategy that will fail the House majority leadership and would fail the American people if Blue Dogs did not stand firmly against it.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand firmly against it as well and vote ``no'' on the budget reconciliation bill.