Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have served in this body for 25 years, and I said last year it was just amazing the budget debate that occurred in this body. I said the same in 2001 when so-called conservatives on this side of the aisle continued to bring budgets to this floor that proposed deficits as far as the eye can see. Here again in 2004, with the baby boom generation on the horizon reaching age 65, once again my friends on the majority side bring a budget to the floor that does not balance and make no pretense of balancing the budget. We will hear a lot of rhetoric about it, but it does not balance. It does not have a chance of balancing. The Blue Dog budget, we put our money where our mouth is. We say pay as you go. If you are going to cut taxes, cut spending to pay for those taxes or raise some other taxes to pay for it; do not increase the deficit. That is the budget we submit, and we will balance in 8 years. We have borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2.5 years, added it to our children's tax. There is a lot of rhetoric; I keep hearing do not vote for the Blue Dog budget because it is going to raise taxes. Yes, it will raise taxes on the people who will pay it today, but what about our grandchildren? How long can we continue to ignore the fact that once we put a tax in place, we cannot repeal that debt tax? The interest must be paid. I do not understand those economics. Not only have we borrowed $1 trillion, and spent it, borrow and spend in the last 2.5 years; we are going to borrow another $1 trillion and spend it in less than a year and a half. No one on this side of the aisle seems to worry about that because they have a philosophical bent that says cut taxes, cut taxes, raise spending and do not worry about the deficit because they are only worried about the people that can vote November 2. I am worried about my three grandsons that cannot vote on November 2. I am worried about the baby boom generation. We ought to be debating what are we going to do about the future of Social Security. That is what we should have been doing last year and the year before. I am prepared to work in a bipartisan way with those on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I have a bill that we have proposed. It is not perfect, but at least it is something that is in the right direction. As a member of the House Committee on Agriculture, I can take the $2.3 billion in cuts and reopen the farm bill, which you are going to force us to do. If you pass the Republican budget, it will reopen the farm bill. With this budget, $2.3 billion in cuts from the House agriculture bill, we could do that, and I would do that working bipartisanly if at the end of those 5 years the deficit would be going down and not up. But we are going to cut agriculture; we are going to reduce conservation spending, rural development spending, crop insurance spending. We are going to reduce all those, for what, so we can borrow another $260 billion while we are making those kinds of budget decisions. It makes no sense to me.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing listening to my colleague from Texas. One would think that we Democrats are still in control and that his party has not been in control of this House for the last 8 years. It is amazing listening to these speeches. It is amazing to see the budget that came out of the committee which he serves on, that next will propose to borrow $377.6 billion, including all of the Social Security trust funds, all of the Civil Service trust funds, all of the Federal military retiree trust funds. In this same budget he supported today, the debt limit will be increased to $8.88 trillion, and yet the finger-pointing stills goes on. He had a chance today to vote for a budget enforcement bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) offered that would do something about the deficit. He voted ``no,'' but he comes to the floor and makes a wonderful speech that sounds good, but does nothing to deal with our Nation's fiscal problems. The Blue Dog philosophy and the budget we will offer next week begins with a simple wisdom: when you find yourselves in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging. Stop pointing the finger at the other side of the aisle and let us see how we might work together to deal with the most serious economic problems that have faced this country, perhaps in our history. Strong budget enforcement rules are an important component of restoring fiscal discipline and making sure the budget remains in balance once we have done the hard work necessary to bring it back into balance. The budget enforcement rules Congress enacted in 1990 with bipartisan support, and that is when we Democrats were in control, and I worked with my friends on the other side of the aisle to do something about the deficit, and we did; it was an important part of getting a handle on deficits in the early 1990s and getting the budget back into balance with discretionary spending limits. I want to make it very clear: the Blue Dog Democrats support President Bush's spending request to this body, not one penny more. So do not talk about spending when we talk about alternatives. If you do not have one that will work, do not come to the floor and speechify, unless you are just trying to make a good impression with the folks back home. Unless we renew our budget discipline in this body, Congress will continue to find ways to pass more legislation that puts still more red ink on the national ledger. If we are truly serious about restoring fiscal discipline, budget enforcement rules must apply to all legislation that would increase the deficit. Through increases in spending or reductions in revenue, all parts of the budget must be on the table. It is irresponsible and politically unrealistic to propose budget rules that apply to one part of the budget, but not the other. Borrowing for tax increases that do not contribute to growth in this country are just as irresponsible as the spending the gentleman was talking about a moment ago, if one is worried about the future of this country. Those of us who want to extend expiring tax cuts or make the tax cuts permanent should be willing to put forward the spending cuts or other offsets necessary to pay for them. Similarly, those who want to spend more in certain areas need to be willing to say where they would cut or how they would raise revenue to pay for their proposals. Let me again repeat, I am part of the Blue Dog organization that will not vote to spend one dime more than President Bush asked us to spend this year, and let that be very clear. The Blue Dogs support spending caps, limiting total discretionary spending to no more than the spending levels in the President's budget. If it is the will of the majority to pass legislation that will make the budget situation worse, we should be forced to step up and take the responsibility for doing so. Under the Blue Dog plan, a separate vote would be required to waive the pay-go requirements or increase the discretionary spending limits. Congress could pass new spending or tax cuts without the offsets, but we will be held accountable for increasing the deficit by waiving budget rules. The recognition that budget enforcement is an issue that needs to be addressed and the announcement that the Committee on the Budget will be considering budget enforcement legislation tomorrow is a positive step forward. But I am very, very disappointed that the Committee on the Budget in their wisdom chose to leave most of the issue off the table. If we really want to do something about deficits, we have to begin to address them, yes, on the spending side, no question about that. But we cannot continue to cut taxes with borrowed money unless we are willing to say to our grandchildren, I do not give a rip about your future. Mr. Speaker, we can continue to vote for tax cuts and have the greatest tax increase, which is exactly what the majority is doing. You are voting to have the greatest tax increase in the history of this Nation by continuing to borrow as you are now borrowing, we are borrowing. I am part of it. I am part of the Members of Congress. But we will have a constructive alternative that we will be putting forth next week, and I hope sincerely that we can find some bipartisan support to put meaningful enforcement into place, so that we do something about the deficit other than come to this floor and speechify.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I want to begin by acknowledging the tenacity of my friend from New York in continuing to attempt to pass what is basically an animal rights question. We have had this discussion many times. It is interesting listening to the debate on this, because as a cosponsor of this base legislation today, I am opposed to frivolous lawsuits. But we make a mistake when we leave the impression with our colleagues that there is a connection between a downed animal and a diseased animal. That in itself is grounds for a frivolous lawsuit, because a downed animal is not necessarily a sick animal. And a downed animal is not necessarily a BSE animal. That is what, if this amendment shall pass, is intended to do, is to make a tie between the two. Now, I am sure the gentleman knows that a lot has transpired since we had this discussion on the floor last summer. USDA has already banned all downer cattle from the human food supply, period. His amendment, though, includes all livestock; and this would provide the grounds for a lawsuit under the general argument I have heard from too many of my colleagues over here today, that any firm that could be accused of slaughtering a hog that could not walk, and if you have ever raised hogs you know that many times something happens to their body physique that will cause them to just drop and you cannot get them up for any other reason other than just pick them up and carry them. Now, what that would have to do with adulterated food, I do not know; but if this legislation should pass with this amendment in it, that would be grounds for a lawsuit. It is not fair or just to exclude some manufacturers from these legal protections who are processing food legally and in accordance with USDA regulations simply because some folks have an unrelated animal welfare concern about downer animals. That needs to be thoroughly understood by my colleagues on the floor. There is no connection whatsoever between a downed animal and a food safety concern, it is only after examination of a downed animal that shows that it is, in fact, a sick animal and should and must be excluded. And as I said this last summer, any firm that puts a diseased animal knowingly into our food chain should be hung to the nearest tree. That, as the chairman has explained, is what this legislation is all about. It does not take away the right to sue for those things that are so clear. I conclude by again saying, please, please do not continue to attempt on this bill or any other bill to associate downed animals with diseased animals with BSE. That is not a fair comparison. It is not. There is plenty of attention being given to the issue of animal health and welfare in other arenas. The House Committee on Agriculture has held one hearing on BSE, a field hearing on animal identification was held last Friday in Houston; and we will be holding more hearings on these issues in the months ahead. No one is more interested in seeing that our food supply remain as safe as it is today. We are making progress. We will continue to make progress. But it is not in the best interest of anyone to continue to make the tie between downers and food safety.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the gentleman from New York keeps talking about BSE and mad cows and downers in the same breath. We are not arguing that today. With all due respect, the argument that the gentleman has just made, we have stock shows going on all over the country. A young boy or girl has raised this calf. They have shown it. Unfortunately, it breaks its leg. Under the gentleman's thinking, that calf immediately goes to the dump. It is unfit for human consumption no matter what because it is a downer and it cannot walk.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am proud tonight to stand and take these 5 minutes in support of the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act of 2003 introduced by my good friend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). I am just happy to say I am glad to be in his line-up tonight. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue that is very important to me, the health care of rural veterans and the challenges that these patriotic Americans who have so proudly served our Nation in times of war today face. I am proud to address their concerns about access to health care and the unique obstacles they face for medical treatment. Why is this so important? The answer is very simple. We owe these brave men and women who fought for our freedom and defended our liberty, including those who are doing so tonight as I speak. Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans, and we have those in Iraq and Afghanistan doing once again their duty in order that we might remain this free and proud Nation. Mr. Speaker, I come from a very rural district. To say that my district is rural is an understatement. The 17th District of Texas is 33,836 square miles, in fact larger, than six States. This talk about the size of my district can also give my colleagues an idea of how far it is to drive for a veteran to receive health care, in fact how far it is to get anywhere. In the 17th District, there is no subway to take a person from one end to another. A taxi ride would take a few hours and be outrageously expensive, and bus lines do not run from the bedroom community of Ft. Worth to the outskirts of Lubbock. So what does all of this size and magnitude have to do with rural veterans? Well, it has a lot to do with them. If anyone here has been to my district, they know how long it takes to get from point A to point B, but to veterans in need of health care in West Texas, a 2-hour drive is not just a jaunt down the road or a time to think and reflect. For these folks, a long drive is a very big challenge. I am proud to stand by the veterans of my district, and again I say, stand as a cosponsor of the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act of 2003. The gentleman from Nebraska's (Mr. Osborne) bill goes a long way to helping to alleviate some of the difficulties faced by rural veterans. I am glad he is stepping onto the field to fight for rural veterans, and I am proud to be standing with him. I endorse his idea that no less than 5 percent of appropriations to VA health care should be used to improve access to medical services for highly rural or geographically remote veterans. Last year, I was deeply disappointed by the leadership's implicit acceptance of using veterans' resources for political expediency. The VA appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 broke a promise made to our veterans. The measure contained $1.8 billion less in veterans' health care than was promised last year by the Republican leadership in the budget resolution. We all know that the leadership's first priority during the budget negotiations last year was achieving large tax cuts. Along with several of my colleagues, we warned that the commitments made for increasing funding for veterans' health care, along with large tax cuts, could not be kept. For this reason, I supported a smaller tax cut that would allow the promise to be honored. We were later informed that the commitment would be honored, but when it came time to act, the leadership found they could not keep this promise, along with the large tax cut after all, but that was last year. I am hopeful that 2004 will bring greater sense to those in power. I pray that 2004 will bring greater loyalty to those who were told that they will be remembered. I think it is important to remember that today's fighting men and women are tomorrow's veterans. A recent issue that highlights the challenges facing rural veterans is the CARES Commission's recommendation recently that the West Texas VA health system, the VA hospital in Big Spring, Texas, should be closed. I represented Big Spring up until the redistricting in 2001 removed it from my district, but now my interest in this issue is just as strong today as it was when I represented Big Spring. Most of the population that uses the Big Spring VA center is to the east, specifically in the population areas around Abilene and San Angelo where two Air Force bases fuel the veteran and retiree residents. Given this fact, it only takes plain common sense to see that the Big Spring VA is well-positioned to keep the promise made to our veterans and military retirees for health care. I have had some folks ask me why we are in such the forefront of this challenge. My answer to them was threefold: So many of the veterans in my district are treated in the Big Spring VA hospital; all the veterans and military retirees of this country deserve the best health care and benefits we can give them; and that we are in very much dedicated to seeing that just that happens. I was pleased to participate in a meeting with VA Secretary Anthony Principi that was called by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. The meeting was very productive and allowed me to assert my belief that the Big Spring VA needs to be both kept opened and strengthened for rural veterans of West Texas. I understand the need for our government agencies to periodically review missions, goals and facilities, but such reviews need to be deeper than number crunching. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of the bill. I believe it goes a long way to getting more people to recognize the importance of health care for rural veterans, as well as all veterans.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today we owe the country $7,078 billion, being swept under the rug every day. Foreign holdings of our debt now total $1.5 trillion. Foreign investors financed 70 percent of our record $373 billion debt last year. In January of 2002, foreign investors held $1 trillion of our U.S. debt; today it is $1.5 trillion. Japan holds $545 billion, and China holds $149 billion of our debt. By far, the United States' largest foreign aid program is our interest payments to foreign investors, yet we continue to not want to change our economic game plan to do something about it. The largest single debt tax increase in the history of our country is being perpetrated on us today. Mr. Speaker, $7,078 billion, that is what we owe today.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from American Samoa for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2707. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I worked hard to push it through the House Committee on Agriculture; and I also want to commend highly my colleague from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for his diligent work on the Committee on Resources to make this issue a top priority and to shepherd this bill to the floor of the House of Representatives today. Again, I thank my friend from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for his work on bringing it to the floor today. My friend from New Mexico and I share similar constituencies, and we maintain the same concerns that we must act now to ensure the availability of fresh water in the future. This legislation is not about simply eliminating Salt Cedar and Russian Olive from watersheds. It is about controlling these plants to increase our supplies of fresh water in the Western United States. America's citizens should not have to compete with invasive pests for an already limited supply of drinking water. I have represented west Texas now for 25 years, and there is virtually nothing of greater daily concern out there than the availability of fresh water. Like much of the West, the 17th Congressional District of Texas has certainly experienced the consequences of drought. Stream banks and lakebeds continued to recede during the dry periods, while Salt Cedar proliferates in those areas. The devastating results can be seen all over west Texas as dense thickets of Salt Cedar have overtaken native plant species in the Colorado River basin. In fact, the Colorado River Municipal Water District estimated that Salt Cedar consumed more water in 2002 than the district's largest municipal customer, a city with more than 100,000 people. The combined capacity of the district's three reservoirs fell below 25 percent during 2002, and it became readily apparent that Salt Cedar was robbing municipalities of this precious resource. The water district has worked closely with many Federal, State, and local entities to begin brush control projects within the Colorado River watershed. They have implemented Salt Cedar control projects with reasonable success on both public and private lands. Further, private landowners have successfully partnered with the National Resources Conservation Service to employ brush control on their properties. In several cases, dormant streams and creeks have again begun to flow where those control programs were implemented. I am convinced that this bill moves towards real solutions to the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive invasion. It lays out the framework for private and public land managers to cooperate with the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, local soil and water conservation districts and State agencies to work together on the demonstration programs authorized in this bill. After all, it will take integrated control and management practices to significantly deter the further spread of these non-native species. I have worked tirelessly during my time in Congress to address the scarce water situation in west Texas, and I can attest that brush control efforts have produced the most lasting results in the 17th district. Most of our Nation faces an urgency to develop long-term plans to ensure that communities will have an adequate supply of drinking water. I truly believe this legislation will help public and private land managers across the Western United States take a giant step toward implementing more efficient and effective brush control projects that will result in better water conservation. I close by saying, unlike a barrel of oil, it is tough to put a price on clean, fresh water.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the energy bill that America has waited so long for. Like the original House version of this legislation, I intend to support the conference report on the floor today, but not without some reservation. Since being elected to Congress in 1978, I've carefully watched our federal spending and have advocated for a balanced budget. Under our current policies, America is facing a $400 billion budget shortfall, and we will continue to run deficits for the foreseeable future. This energy bill conference report continues on that path of fiscal irresponsibility. The Joint Committee on Taxation stated this bill will cost up to $23.5 billion dollars. I am very disappointed this conference report didn't include the offsets that the Senate version did. However, I truly believe this legislation provides the proper framework to diversify America's fuel sources. As Ranking Member of the House Agriculture Committee, I'm glad there are greater incentives for increased production of ethanol. I'm glad to see production tax credits for wind, solar and biomass energy, as well as nuclear electricity generation. Diversification of our nation's energy sources will help us meet our goal of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of fuel. More importantly, this energy bill provides the right tools for independent oil and gas producers to continue producing from our own fields, right here in this country. I've been fighting for these measures for years, and I'm glad Congress is finally going to implement them. The time is long overdue for Congress to recognize the importance for America to decrease our use of oil and gas from foreign countries and to capitalize on the resources beneath our own soil. And, contrary to what many groups will lead us to conclude, we can drill for oil and gas without doing damage to our environment. Former U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas once said that when America imported more than half of its crude and petroleum products, it would have reached a point of peril. Friends and colleagues, we have reached that point. Although I intend to support this legislation, I must express my extreme disappointment of the process in which this bill was considered. I have worked for years in Congress to promote equality and bipartisanship in this great institution. However, this bill was written behind closed doors with no input from the public. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues were not given the opportunity to offer significant amendments to the legislation. This conference report isn't perfect, and it could have been improved significantly if my colleagues were allowed to bring their ideas to the negotiating table and if we were allowed to offset the cost of this legislation.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. No, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the conference report.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act conference report, and I am pleased to be here on the verge of completing legislation that will give us a chance to return America's cherished forests back to a healthy landscape. For the last century, public land managers have suppressed all forms of wildfire, including natural small-scale fires that restore forest ecosystems. The unintended result of this policy is a decades-long buildup of forest fuel, woody biomass, and dense underbrush that is as close as the next lightning strike or escaped campfire from exploding into a massive fire. In some areas, tree density has increased from 50 trees per acre to as many as 500 trees per acre, according to the Forest Service and fire ecologists. These unnaturally dense forests are a small-scale ignition away from a large-scale wildfire. These natural small-scale fires burn at the ground level and at relatively low temperatures, allowing some trees to survive and, in the process, renewing the forest. The suppression of these natural small-scale fires, however, has resulted in an accumulation of fuel that supports catastrophic wildfires of unnatural intensity that burn hotter, spread faster and cause long-term severe environmental damage, sometimes even sterilizing the soil. America's forest ecosystems are being decimated at an alarming rate by large-scale catastrophic wildfire and massive outbreaks of disease, insect infestation, and invasive species. Federal foresters estimate that an astounding 190 million acres of land managed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are at unnatural risk to catastrophic wildfire. Of that, over 70 million acres are at extreme risk to catastrophic wildfire in the immediate future. During the second year of the National Fire Plan implementation, we witnessed the second largest fire season this Nation has seen in half a century. An early widespread drought, unparalleled since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, affected 45 percent of the country. On June 21, 2002, the national level of readiness rose to the highest level possible, 5 weeks earlier than ever before, and remained at that level for a record- setting 62 days. In fact, wildland fires burned 7.2 million acres, or nearly double the 10-year average. Colorado, Arizona and Oregon recently recorded their largest timber fires of the century. And then we saw the devastation in Southern California. Forest ecologists, professional land managers, and many environmental groups agree, the exploding incidence of catastrophic wildfire and disease and insect infestation pose a massive threat to the health, diversity, and sustainability of America's national forests. The Nature Conservancy, one of the world's largest and most acclaimed environmental groups, has been a leader in the environmental community in building public awareness about the environmental calamities that catastrophic wildfires cause. Of the three factors that most influence wildland fire behavior, weather, topography and fuel, land managers can effectively affect only fuel. Unless we take a proactive approach to fuel reduction, the remaining components of the National Fire Plan, which include firefighting, rehabilitation, community assistance and research, will only continue to increase in cost. Local governments, volunteer firefighters, professional foresters, conservationists, and labor organizations agree, it is time to act to protect our forests. Fortunately, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act addresses these concerns by giving Federal land managers the opportunity to restore our forests to a more natural balance while maintaining important environmental requirements. The conference report before us allows for authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects on Federal lands, helps communities in the wildland-urban interface prepare for wildfires, improves the NEPA analysis process, and augments public involvement and review. Additionally, the report includes titles allowing grants to use biomass, providing watershed forestry assistance, addressing insect infestation research, and establishing private forest reserves. In closing, let me remind Members that this is not a new issue to come before the United States Congress. We have been talking about this issue for years. I remember the tremendous work done by former House Agriculture Committee chairman Bob Smith and his efforts to reach out and find a compromise, only to go down in flames because of the inability of extreme sides of this question to come together. I am disappointed that certain Members of the House were excluded from the process that got us here today. That certainly has not been the case with the House Committee on Agriculture. I commend Chairman Goodlatte for his bipartisanship and leadership on this important issue. We all have differing opinions about the various components of the legislation before us; but in passing this legislation, we will restore America's treasured landscapes by reducing the risks of catastrophic wildfires and insect and disease infestations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give two of my remaining minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for the purposes of closing.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) if he would like to engage in a colloquy on monitoring.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I will state I certainly agree with the chairman. I understand the benefit of multiparty monitoring. However, the chairman is correct in expressing that our intent with respect to projects conducted under title IV are to be scientifically conducted and multiparty monitoring is not a requirement of these projects. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking all who have worked so diligently for so long to bring us to this point to where we truly have a compromise that will move our forest policy in a desirable direction. I thank the staff, all who have worked on both sides on the aisle so diligently under somewhat trying conditions from time to time as we have had some of the internal strife that unfortunately finds its way into this House of Representatives. But that certainly has not been the case regarding the House Committee on Agriculture, and the bipartisan support there is something that I have enjoyed and working with the chairman and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and others as we have strived to put together what is basically a good bill. When you read the bill, much of the complaints about what we have heard today are not in the bill. If you are going to have sound forests, if you are going to have a sound forest policy, sound science, common sense has got to replace the opinions of many who have a difference of opinion regarding what is good conservation, what is good management, and how we do, in fact, manage our forests so that we do have lumber for housing and other projects. So all in all, this is a good sound compromise worthy of overwhelming support of this body. I thank all of those who have worked on it. It certainly has been something that I personally have worked on for many, many years. I am glad to see it is getting to this point. I urge a very strong vote in favor of the project.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 135, the Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act. One thing I've learned since being elected twenty-five years ago, is that Congress can't pass a bill and make it rain. This morning I look at the United States Drought Monitor again and I was reminded of a disturbing trend that several states have experienced for many years. Twenty-five states are suffering from drought conditions, and with no definite starting or ending point, droughts are extremely hard to predict. But, as a cotton farmer from West Texas, I am always optimistic that the rains will come eventually. In the meantime, we cannot afford to leave a single stone unturned in our efforts to ensure that our citizens have a safe and adequate water supply. Will my district be able to meet our water needs fifty years from Now? We aren't able to answer that question today, and we sure can't wait until that time is upon us to find out. This is why I joined my colleagues in co-sponsoring the 21st Century Water Policy Commission Act. This legislation does what so many communities in my West Texas district are already trying to do. It establishes commission to consider all aspects of water management, water supply and demand, and it recommends comprehensive policy for meeting our nation's water needs in the 21st Century. For these reasons, I'm glad to support H.R. 135.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 117, the Florida National Forest Land Management Act of 2003. This legislation was introduced by Senator Graham, was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent on March 4. The companion measure we consider tonight was introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). This legislation was drafted with the help of the U.S. Forest Service and supported by the Air Force and will aid the agency with fire prevention and protection in the area. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 6; the energy bill that America has waited so long for. Like the original House version of this legislation, I intend to support the conference report on the floor today. I truly believe this legislation provides the proper framework to diversify America's fuel sources. As Ranking Member on the House Agriculture Committee, I'm glad that there are greater incentives for increased production of ethanol. I'm glad to see production tax credits for wind energy, solar, biomass and nuclear electricity generation. Diversification of our nation's energy sources will help us meet our goal of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of fuel. More importantly, this energy bill provides the right tools for independent oil and gas producers to continue producing from our own fields. I've been fighting for these measures for years, and I'm glad Congress is finally going to implement them. The time is long overdue for Congress to recognize the importance for America to decrease our use of oil and gas from foreign countries and to capitalize on the resources beneath our own soil. And, contrary to what many groups will lead us to conclude, we can drill for oil and gas without doing damage to our environment. Former Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen once said that when America imported more than half of its crude and petroleum products, it would have reached a point of peril. Friends and colleagues, we have reached that point. Although I intend to support this legislation, I must express my extreme disappointment of the process in which this bill was considered. I have worked for years in Congress to promote equality and bipartisanship in this great institution. However, this bill was written behind closed doors with no input from the public. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues were not given the opportunity to offer significant amendments to the legislation. This legislation isn't perfect, and it could have been improved significantly if my colleagues were allowed to bring their ideas to the negotiating table.