Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I recently met with tribal chairmen/representatives from the tribes in Arizona with timber interests, the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona. They had come to thank me for cosponsoring the Healthy Forests Act and to let me know that they supported the legislation and hoped for its passage. Unfortunately, for several of these tribes, they are already facing the devastating impacts of forest fires and insect infestation, two results that the Healthy Forests Initiative is meant to help prevent. The chairman of the White Mountain Apaches recounted for me the mass destruction that the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire of 2002 had on the forest resources of the Fort Apache Indian reservation. This fire raged across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and the Fort Apache Indian reservation, burning some 469,000 acres. It grew to 15 acres in the first 13 minutes of its life and continued to expand at a rate of 1\1/ 4\ acres a minute. Timber harvesting and processing was the main industry of the White Mountain Apache tribe, and it will be years before the jobs and income generated by that industry will be seen again. Even their burial grounds and the graves of their ancestors are in danger as a result of the environmental damage from the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire. The bark beetle has decimated the forest resources of several of the other tribes, with the San Carlos Apache tribe having lost 40 percent of their forest due to the damage of this pest. The question before us today is whether we are willing to learn from our mistaken belief that the best way to protect our forests is to leave them alone. We made a decision a long time ago to manage our forests. Having made that decision, we now have a responsibility to manage them using the best science we have available. Well-managed forests can withstand fire. In fact, forests that have been preventively treated to reduce hazardous fuel loads can benefit from periodic fires. These fires create forest openings for new growth, provide a variety of wildlife habitat and reduce fuel buildup. The bill before us today will help us improve management of our forests in several important ways. The bill authorizes expedited approval of forest thinning and cleanup projects on 20 million acres of Federal lands. It authorizes applied silvicultural assessments on 1,000-acre plots to test treatments for insect and disease infestations. It provides grants for biomass energy production from the debris produced by the projects. And it establishes a new conservation easement system to protect ecologically important forests on private lands. The cumulative effect of these changes will be healthier forests that are less likely to produce the catastrophic wildfires that have destroyed millions of acres of private and public forests in recent years. These catastrophic fires burn hotter, spread faster, and cause long-term, severe environmental damage, sometimes even sterilizing the soil. Last year, 23 firefighters lost their lives fighting wildfires; and taxpayers spent about $1.5 billion to contain record-setting fires. In the rural communities nearest to forests, tens of thousands of people were evacuated from their homes, thousands of structures were destroyed, and tourist-dependent economies suffered significant financial losses. Let us untie the hands of our forest managers and let them begin using the management practices that are best suited to prevent the wildfires that have already taken so much from us. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1904 and oppose the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in the distribution of time, I heard that, I believe, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, yielded his time for management to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). Did anyone claim the time on the Democratic side for the Committee on the Judiciary?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the charge that the Healthy Forests Restoration Act cuts the heart out of the National Environmental Policy Act. The fact is, this bill requires the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to conduct environmental reviews of forest thinning projects in accordance with NEPA. The most important element of NEPA is the environmental review of the proposed project, the project that is to be implemented; and that review is retained under the bill. The bill also gives agencies discretion to limit environmental review to the proposed project only, which means an agency would not have to consider multiple alternative project options that are not likely to be implemented as is currently required under NEPA. Under current law, land management agencies are required to analyze multiple alternatives, devoting scarce resources to hypothetical projects instead of to developing additional projects in other vulnerable areas of our forests.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the Healthy Forest Restoration Act increases protection for communities from wildfires by speeding up the implementation of forest thinning projects. That is true. That is why we keep hearing it. To my friend, the gentleman from Washington, and his response, that little, bitty red dot, many of us who have spent considerable amount of time studying this problem believe that by reallocation of current forest services we can deal with this. It does not require all of the new money that some propose if we in fact readjust the manner in which we regulate the forests of our country. Even the critics of this bill acknowledge, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) states in his dissenting remarks to the Committee on Agriculture report, that streamlining of the administrative appeals process would be appropriate for high-priority fuel reduction projects. In a Dear Colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) argues that his substitute provides for expedited treatment of Federal lands that pose a risk of wildfire to local communities. Under the bill, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management would have to conduct a full environmental analysis of each proposed thinning project, but the agencies would not have to analyze a full range of alternatives to the proposal, as current law requires. The bill would set a 15-day time limit for filing lawsuits challenging the fuel reduction project once the agency has formally announced a final decision and would urge the courts to the maximum extent possible to rule from within 100 days from when the suit was filed. Critics of the bill seem to want it both ways. First, they argue that the bill does not do enough to implement these projects. Then they argue in favor of continuing the unnecessary and time-consuming analysis of alternative projects under NEPA and against reasonable time limitations on legal challenges. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I quarrel not with the intentions of anyone who has spoken here today. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation because I believe it does what needs to be done in order to break an impasse on how we deal with our Nation's forests. We have heard the arguments against for year after year after year. The bottom line is the situation is not getting better. It is getting worse. I have read carefully this legislation, the specific points that seem to be coming under the most attack, and I do share the belief of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that it does all of the bad things that they allege it does. Is it perfect legislation? Probably not. But I have traveled and visited some of our forestry areas, and I have seen the results of good management and sound science. Some of those, not my colleagues, but some of those organizations who oppose time and time again legislation like we have on the floor today, oppose it not from the sound science and good management but from a deep visceral feeling of how our Nation's natural resources ought to be cared for; and I respect that, but I differ very strongly with that because I do not believe that we can do those things necessary to maintain and improve our Nation's forests without applying sound science and good management. The public should not be left out, and the public is not left out. But those who have learned to use the law in ways that keep things from happening by constantly and consistently going to the courts are not doing our Nation the service that they allege that they are doing. I urge support of the basic bill. I urge opposition to the amendment. Let us give those in charge of our Nation's forests a chance to do a better job than what is done under current law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank my friend for yielding. I will just make a few additional points. How many times have we heard, it's your money, we're going to give it back to you? How many times have we heard this from this side of the aisle? Let us clarify the record. Borrowing money on our grandchildren's future in order to give it to us today in a tax cut, is that really your money? Or is it their money? I happen to believe it is their money. That is why the Blue Dogs have been begging and pleading, arguing, taking Special Orders, presenting an alternative budget. Sometimes we get to vote on it. Other times we do not. But we have been trying to point out the seriousness of the direction of the economy of this country. The Secretary of the Treasury has announced this week that they have used all of their legal tools to avoid default and will run out of borrowing authority by June 2. I remember a few years ago when the previous administration did this, used all of the legal tools available to avoid default, we had cries of impeachment, impeach Secretary Rubin for doing what Secretary Snow is doing, perfectly legal; but this week now the Senate is going to have to vote. We were so brave when we passed the budget in the House that we hid it in the budget. No one in this body wants to vote on increasing the debt ceiling by $984 billion. The Senate is going to have to vote on it. There will be 12 amendments on the floor of the Senate which our fellow Senators on the Democratic side have got an opportunity to amend this debt ceiling. I hope they amend it. I hope they send it back. I would like to see them do what we are prepared to do on this side and, that is, offer unanimous consent to increase the debt ceiling by $375 billion effective immediately, provided the President will resubmit a budget that will balance by 2008, unified balance. Resubmit the economic game plan for this country instead of blindly following the borrow-and-spend policies that we are now under. How I remember the tax-and-spend Democratic cries that came over and over and over again. What is the difference between borrow and spend? To those that suggest that this economic game plan that we are under is working, why will we as a Nation owe $13 trillion by 2013, 2012, if everything works exactly like the economic game plan supporters say it will work? Not worse, not better. Why will we owe that much? Do we realize that in 2012, this country owing $13 trillion, it will require taxes of $520 billion just to pay the interest on this debt? $520 billion. That is assuming 4 percent interest. But anyone that believes that interest rates are going to stay low with the United States conducting our fiscal policy like we are conducting it has got to be dreaming. One of the happier times of my life is when I stood on this floor and we passed the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995. One of the saddest times was standing in the back of the Senate when it went down by one vote. If we had passed the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995, we could not have the tax cut on the floor in Congress, in conference going on right now. That is another thing. We are going to have another vote on the balanced budget amendment. I am for it. But I do not see how we stand the laugh test from this side of the aisle unless we submit a budget that balances. The Blue Dogs did. We submitted a budget that balanced by 2008. We did. Those who are listening and looking right now, saying, well, there they go, there's those big-spending Democrats. Let me make it very clear, the Blue Dogs that you are hearing from today, we say the President's spending numbers are adequate. We will not propose spending one dime more than the President asked us to spend. Spending is not the issue. It is the economic game plan that we are under. The tax cuts with borrowed money on our grandchildren's future is what the problem is all about. Just as the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Florida said a moment ago, borrowing money by itself is not a sin. Everyone does that. We borrow to build a home, we borrow to farm, we borrow to conduct our small businesses. We go to our banker. We explain the rationale for why we are borrowing the money. If we have a good story, they loan us the money. That makes sense. I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee. Take a look at Mr. Buffett's comments today. One of the best rhetorical answers to what the Blue Dogs are talking about that you could possibly have, the best that you could have, questioning the makeup of the tax cuts. And then you have got the Concord Coalition, bipartisan, that has been saying over and over and over again to this Congress, get your fiscal house in order, quit borrowing money on your children's and grandchildren's future. I do not know what it is going to take, because in this body everybody on the majority is just hoping and hoping that the Senate will not amend the debt ceiling so we do not have to vote on it. But let me issue a little warning tonight to those that believe we are going to escape. Based on current figures, the deteriorating situation of the budget of this country, the deteriorating condition of the economy of this country that has caused this problem indicates that $984 billion is not going to be enough to get us to November 4, 2004. I take no satisfaction in that. Because if in fact that is true, that is a serious matter. We believe it to be true. We are not here to be critical without offering a constructive alternative, which we have over and over and over again. Back off from this rhetoric, back off from this rhetoric that says it is their money. It is not their money. They are borrowing on their grandchildren's future. It is not their money. And just as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) made the statement a moment ago, and it bears repeating, these are the first wars, and I say wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, the war on terrorism, these are the first wars since 1812 that Congress did not raise taxes in order to pay for the war. No one is suggesting raising taxes. No one. But many of us are saying why and under what circumstance can we afford to have additional tax cuts under this situation? I do not know what it is going to take. I do not know what it is going to take to get people to start focusing. I do not know how long we are going to be able to buy $500 billion of materials and products from the rest of the world more than they buy from us without the law of economics or the law of politics taking over. I do not know. And of course we know the reason we have been able to do that is others are reinvesting in the United States. How long are foreign investors, now approaching 35 percent of owning all of our debt, scheduled to go to 40, how long are they going to continue to invest in our country if we run our country as we are now running it? Borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, spending, spending and spending. Increasing, increasing, increasing our Nation's debt.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I start again referring to our grandchildren. 2011 is when the baby boomers begin to retire. Everyone knows there is no disputing that the economic pressures on this country in 2011 and 2012, when the baby boomers begin to retire and begin to draw their Social Security and begin to qualify for Medicare, the pressures on this country are going to be tremendous. That is why we think balancing the budget before we get there so that there will be the money in order to pay off the obligations to those which have been promised under current Social Security law. So first off to those intending to retire in 2011, it is in their best self-interest that we honor the pledges that were made to them. Then we back off to the grandchildren, and of course they are not old enough to answer this question. They are not old enough to wonder. My two grandsons right now, seven and five, they would not have a clue what I am talking about right now. But the young working men and women just graduating from high school, going on to college, just graduating from college, about to get a job, they understand. They already know that they wish that Congress would make the changes today in the Social Security system so they might have something that is not just promised but that can be reality. If we do not deal with the fiscal problems of this country today, they will not be able to get that which they are promised to receive. What does it mean to the average family having dinner tonight? Some of them remember 15 percent interest, 20 percent interest, trying to buy a car, 15 percent interest. Some of them remember what it was like when we had let our economic game plan get out of control. Many of them I would hope would see today that, with the decline in interest rates, they have had a tax cut. An increase in interest rates is going to be a tax increase, just as sure as we are standing here tonight. There is a balance involved in this. Home building, homeownership, that is something that we pride ourselves in, rightfully so. We support the policies, and we hope we allow more and more families to gain homeownership. We let interest rates get out of control, we will see that dream vanish in a puff of smoke. So this is something I know what the gentleman is getting at and something that I struggle with at home. How do we relate this? I do not take pleasure in opposing the President of the United States in anything. I have served now with five Presidents. I do not take joy, as some of my colleagues have said, in opposing the President. Basically, the only major area of difference that I have is on this economic game plan because of what I honestly and sincerely believe it is going to mean to the average working men and women. But my dedication to this and the simple answer I give to the gentleman's question is do not forget about our grandchildren. About 10 years ago, of the 10 largest banks in the world, nine of them were in Japan. All nine of them today are in deep trouble. Deep trouble. We have an obligation, and somehow, some way the American public is going to have to realize that our country is no different than that family that we are talking about having dinner tonight, that when they sit around and decide how are we going to spend Dad's raise that he did not get? How are we going to spend Mom's raise that she did not get? When one gets to that point in which they do not get the raise, they make readjustments. And this surplus that is our money, we are going to give it back to them, is kind of like their not getting the raise. The money is not there, and therefore if the money is not there, they readjust, and they certainly do not spend money they do not have unless they are willing to take the chance. Or put it another way. Would their banker really lend them the money for the tax cut that we are talking about today? Is it really going to benefit the average working family, as our colleagues on the other side say every day? Mr. Buffet says no. Mr. Buffet is right. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate his taking this Special Order today. I hope that somehow, some way as we repeat this, the Senators will find a way to amend this debt ceiling and send it back over so that we might pass a debt ceiling without bringing our country to the point of default. We are willing to do that by unanimous consent tomorrow; and we should do it tomorrow, quite frankly. We ought to do it right here so we do not go to brinksmanship with the Senate. We ought to do it. We are willing to do it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is with very mixed emotions that I join in tonight's Special Order to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) on his departure from the halls of Congress. I say mixed emotions because, while it is more than fitting for the House to recognize him for his many years of service to this body, both as a staff member and as a Representative, I am sorry to see the departure of a colleague, a neighbor, and a friend. Many times over the past two Congresses I would, sometime during my speech, say, well, at first it was the first Congress in the history of our Nation, then it was the second, this would have been the third Congress in which one State, Texas, had the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. At no time in our history has this ever happened. Not only were we from the same State, but we were neighbors and we were friends. That is the spirit in which I come tonight. Since Larry came to Congress in 1985, we have had many occasions to work together for the mutual benefit of Texas, our Nation, and particularly our Nation's agriculture. In fact, it was a year ago this month that the 2002 farm bill was enacted into law, and about a year and a half of the time and effort of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) went into writing that bill. It was a collaborative effort, very typical of the bipartisan manner for which the Committee on Agriculture is recognized. As much as I would have enjoyed being the chairman during that period of time, that was not to be; but Larry made sure that, as ranking member, I was a full participant throughout the legislative process, and I greatly appreciated the opportunity of riding shotgun and working side by side with him in that endeavor. I do not believe it would be an overstatement tonight to say that without Larry's devoted work on that farm bill in a bipartisan way, it would not have become law. I think that is a very fair and accurate statement. Many times we might stretch it a little bit; but knowing as much about the inner workings of what happened in that bill, without the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), we would not have gotten it done. I think the colleagues on the gentleman's side of the aisle agree and those on my side agree. Larry's departure from the House of Representatives marks the end of a very distinguished record of service to the folks of the 19th Congressional District of Texas. Larry throughout this time has been a man of great character and sound judgment who has served his constituents well. I personally will miss his company, his counsel, and the true spirit of bipartisanship with which he conducted himself throughout his tenure in Congress. Sadly, such bipartisanship and good will has increasingly become a rare commodity in the halls of Congress, but not on the House Committee on Agriculture. Larry, Cindy and I wish you and Sharon all the best as you embark upon a new chapter in your lives. I hope and trust there will be many more occasions for our paths to cross in the future. It has truly been a pleasure to work with you. We will miss you; but we know, suspect highly, that those paths will cross again in some constructive way. Good luck and God speed to you and Sharon.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 856. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their speedy bringing of this legislation to the floor. It is my hope that the Senate will also act and that we can get this bill to the President in order that it might have a timely effect on the farmers in Tom Green County that the chairman and the ranking member have already adequately explained. We have had persistent drought, particularly in Tom Green County, for the last 7 years; and it is very difficult to pay for water that you do not get. The farmers are not asking that the loan be forgiven. What they are asking is that the length of time to pay the money be extended until such time as the Good Lord sends the rain and that we might use the project for that which it was created originally. So, without further ado, I thank, again, the chairman and ranking member for their bringing this bill up. I thank them for their support, and I urge support for this bill. I rise in strong support of H.R. 856, legislation I introduced to extend a repayment period for the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1. The Tom Green County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1 has an outstanding loan with the Department of Interior for the construction of an irrigation canal. The remaining balance is approximately $2.4 million. The farmers in the District have made diligent efforts to make timely payments on the contract. They have paid 38 percent (about $1.5 million) of the original debt owed to the Department of Interior despite the fact that they have yet to receive a fair return on their investment. In West Texas, there is virtually nothing of a higher daily concern than the availability of water. In recent years, Texas has been devastated by drought. As a result, the farmers have received a full year's allocation of irrigation water only 50 percent of the time. Moreover, for the other 50 percent of the time, they received either less than the annual allocation or no irrigation water at all. Payment on the debt has never been forgiven, even in years when the District received no water. Deferments have been granted seven times; however, those payments still have to be made. They are added to the remaining balance and the payments continue to get higher annually because the original contract end date does not change. To make matters worse, the concrete lining placed in the canal in 1960 has started to deteriorate after forty-two years and repairs are necessary. These repairs are very expensive. Farmers simply cannot sustain paying the costs of the annual operation and maintenance costs due to the irrigation district, the Bureau of Reclamation annual payment, and extensive repair costs when little or no water is available. The Bureau of Reclamation has stated that the increased payments, as a result of continued deferments due to the drought conditions, are making it increasingly difficult on the farmers' ability to repay the annual payments. The increased annual payments place additional financial burdens on the District and increasing these payments further will only lead to future difficulty that the Bureau of Reclamation cannot remedy. Only Congress can remedy the long-term problem, which is why I have introduced H.R. 856 to get this loan restructured. This legislation would allow the Secretary of Interior to revise the repayment contract (No. 14-06-500-369) by extending the period authorized for repayment of reimbursable construction costs of the canal from 40 to 50 years. These Tom Green County farmers have been doing their part to meet their responsibilities. When year-after-year the water was unavailable, their only recourse was to ask for an extension on the loan. I'm glad Tom Green County Commissioner Clayton Friend brought this to my attention and I'm very appreciative of the speedy Resources Committee action. I have high hopes that we will be able to get this bill to the President within the next few weeks. On behalf of the farmers in my district, I urge members to support H.R. 856.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice of explanation to what is happening in Texas and Oklahoma this week. It seems to be high drama. We Texans pride ourselves on a good old-fashioned, blood-racing, heart-pumping showdown at the OK Corral. It is no wonder the Nation's media has joined the audience for the show. But if anybody thinks this week's actions are nothing more than a real-life alternative to the afternoon TV soaps, they need to look a little closer and understand just what principles are motivating both sides in this showdown. From the Republican side, it is the principle that says to the winner go the spoils. I am willing to go with this idea to a point, as my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) mentioned a moment ago. We Democrats certainly enjoyed our spoils for decades when Texas was already a one-party State. It just happened the one party was Democrats rather than Republicans. Acting within the rules and dedicated to the best outcome for its citizens, the majority party would be foolish not to maximize its power to accomplish its goals. The key phrase of what I just said was ``acting within the rules and dedicated to the best outcome for its citizens.'' That is where I believe the Republicans' principle has become unprincipled. For the past 2 days, reporters have been asking me if I think it is the right thing for Texas legislators to go on the lam in Oklahoma rather than doing their jobs in Austin. Of course I think that would have been preferable, and so do they. But when legislators do not have a prayer of doing their jobs not because they do not want to, but because the rules have been abused and rigged against them, I do not see what alternative those legislators have but to bring as much sunlight as possible into the rigged process. Do not forget the context in which this is taking place in Texas, a $10 billion plus shortfall. I know the State House must be hearing from schoolteachers, health care providers, social workers, and dozens of other worried citizen groups, because I am hearing from them. A normal taxpayer would think with problems like we have in Texas, you would not have needed to pick another fight. But rather than grapple with those major problems affecting millions of Texans, our State legislators got harassed and harangued so long by Washington that they finally gave in. Mr. DeLay finally convinced them to buy the kind of partisan poison, single-minded, rule-rigged brand of leadership that he has perfected here in Washington in this House of Representatives. I understand the frustration of the 53 in Oklahoma, and I understand how it feels to be prevented from having their voices heard; to have their ideas kept out of the arena, for they would not prevail as we Blue Dogs have time and time again. I understand hearings hastily called at inconvenient times, witness lists unnecessarily shortened. I understand the frustration. Mr. DeLay knew how to advise the Texas legislature because he is practicing effectively the same tactics right here in this body. I will admit that so far in Washington my wife has not yet been trailed by Federal officers or my daughter followed to the hospital as she gives birth to my grandchild. I find this extreme use or abuse of power particularly distressing. Mr. DeLay is quoted as saying, ``I have never turned tail and run.'' But neither have the Democrats in Ardmore, Mr. Speaker. When their hands have been tied, their mouths have been gagged and their eyes blindfolded, they had to be creative in finding a new way to fight under the rules. They are standing and fighting for what they believe in a far more courageous way than are required by rigging the rules of the game. They are playing by the rules. History has shown that ``might makes right'' is a philosophy which might work in the short term, but ultimately is brought to its knees for one simple reason. In a democracy the people eventually will rise up and have their way. That is the bottom line here. It is not whether Charlie Stenholm is a Congressman from west Texas. It is not really which party is going to win this high-stakes battle. It is about how the people are being represented, and I am hearing from the people all over Texas saying this is not right to do it as they are doing it. I realize Tom DeLay does not care a whit about how the people in rural west Texas are represented, but I do. I have become very passionate about not losing the rural focus of west Texas districts and under his plan, west Texas will lose one representative. Mr. DeLay is quick to express his belief that I am irrelevant. The rural constituents of the 17th district feel a little differently. In fact, all of my Texas colleagues whom we have heard from today, as we look at the plans, rural Texas is being shorted by this plan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 53 in Ardmore for the courage they have shown for standing up for what they believe. Pete Laney, David Farabee, I appreciate what they have done. Texas will be a better State because of the actions that they have taken on behalf of the people of Texas; and hopefully all of the legislature, both sides of the aisle, will come to their senses and will stop letting Washington determine how the Texas legislature should be run. Texans can take care of Texas.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we can shout down the gentleman from Mississippi, but the facts are the debt is going to go up $1.4 trillion in less than 2 years' time under the leadership of this side of the aisle. That is more than occurred in the first 205 years of this country. This tax cut that we vote today will borrow $800-plus billion over the next 10 years just to pay for it. I am standing up for my grandchildren today. The other side of the aisle can continue to ignore it; but let me point out all of the charts we have seen up here today, I assume for this moment they are all accurate, doing everything they profess to do over their economic game plan, we will owe $12 trillion at the end of 10 years' time. And some time between now and July 1, they are going to have to stand up and vote to increase the debt ceiling to pay for that which they argue for today. Do they really want to do that for our grandchildren? Or should we start looking into the future and not continue to look for what is good for us today? My vote today is with my grandchildren, not for us.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, January 26, 1995, I joined with the 135 remaining Members on this side of the aisle to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. It is one of the happier days of my now 24 years in this House of Representatives. One of the saddest days was watching it be defeated by one vote on the floor of the Senate. Had the Senate voted for the balanced budget constitutional amendment, this bill could not be on the floor today, could not be on the floor today. But it is on the floor today. Suddenly deficits do not matter. Balancing the budget does not matter. It is all on the myth and projections that we have heard over and over and over again, not only by this bill today, but also the one in 2001 and 2002. And the facts will speak for themselves. I rise today in this motion to recommit and urge the 135 of you still here, including the Speaker, the majority leader, and all of the leaders on this side who will bring a constitutional amendment back to the floor by the first of July, I ask a simple question: How can you support this bill and at the same time say you believe that fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget matters? Deficits no longer matter, Mr. Speaker. They matter to me. I am just as consistent today in my vote no on final passage and yes on this as I was when I joined with you regarding the seriousness of balancing the budget. And to those that argue that this is a growth package, your own economics do not support that this will be paid for. You will have to borrow not just the $550 billion but the 240 in interest to pay for this. But you are perfectly willing to do it. I heard a moment ago the Speaker talking about debt and talking about how we want to change the corporate behavior. I agree with him, but you have got to start with us here right now. You cannot just talk about them. You have got to talk about us. Under your own game plan that you are bound and determined to pass and take full credit for, and you will deserve it, you will deserve it, this country will owe over $12 trillion at the end of this game plan, exactly the time the baby boomers begin to retire. And at no time have we spent one second trying to deal with the problem of the baby boomers in Social Security and Medicare in the future. It is all about us today. Mr. Speaker, if you are consistent in believing that balancing the budget does matter, I submit to you there is no way with a clean conscience you cannot vote for this motion to recommit and go back to the drawing board and at least give those of us who are willing to work for a more sensible economic game plan the opportunity to do so. Please join me in support of this motion to recommit and show that we are, in fact, sincere. Or if you are perfectly willing to assume the borrow and spend Republicans of the future, vote with this package today. I am for balancing the budget. I am not for borrowing and spending. It is not going to be in the best interest of this country in the future.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hardin Simmons University women's basketball team from Abilene, Texas, who have achieved an incredible record including their first undefeated regular season in school history, a fifth straight American Southwest Conference tournament title, and a strong finish in the NCAA Division III tournament. The university community knew this team had a winning chemistry when the Cowgirls won all 24 of their regular season games and their fifth straight ASC tournament title which earned them a spot in the coveted NCAA Division III basketball championship and a number- one ranking in the Nation of the Women's Basketball Coaches Association. None of these victories could have been achieved without the incredible teamwork that these 15 young women have demonstrated. One player in particular, Kendra Anderson, has been named the Division III national player of the year, the American Southwest Conference most valuable player for the third straight year, the tournament most valuable player for the fourth straight year and the first-team all- American and all-South Region for the third year. Coach Briggs brings out the best from her players, sharpens their strengths and improves their weaknesses. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize my constituents from Hardin Simmons University.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend the Hardin-Simmons University 2003 women's basketball team from Abilene, Texas, who have achieved an incredible record, including their first undefeated regular season in school history, a fifth straight American Southwest Conference Tournament title, and a fifth consecutive ``Sweet 16'' appearance in the NCAA Division 3 Tournament. Our Cowgirls exhibited incredible determination and drive as they worked to set a new benchmark for their university. Their school, community, and district stand behind them and join in celebrating their accomplishments. When the basketball games first began the season, the university and the surrounding community knew this team had a winning chemistry. The Cowgirls won all 24 of their regular season games, a milestone in school history. Games at Maybee Complex were some of the largest attended events the Cowgirls had ever seen, and soon Hardin Simmons University led the division in home attendance. With great talent and wide support, the Cowgirls attained their first number one ranking in the nation since becoming an NCAA member. But the Cowgirls did not stop there. They soon played some of the most competitive teams in the American Southwest conference and triumphantly won their fifth straight AFC tournament title. And their win made them one of only two undefeated teams in the Nation, earning them a spot in the coveted NCAA Division III basketball tournament and a number one ranking in the Nation by the ESPN USA Today Women's Basketball Coaches Association. The Cowgirls fought a tough battle at the NCAA championships. In the end, however, they were unable to win the title. But as Vince Lombardi once said, ``The spirit, the will to win and the will to excel are the things that endure. These qualities are so much more important than the events that occur.'' Trophy or not, they have already won the most important prize, the pride, the joy, and the honor of representing their university and community for all of America to see. To me and those I represent, you, the Cowgirls, are already the biggest winners of all. None of these victories could have been achieved without the incredible team work that these 15 young women have demonstrated. From Abilene and San Angelo, Brady, and Stephenville, and all over the district, these women came from all areas, and through their hard work and efforts they became more than just teammates. They became life-long friends. Their names will be remembered with pride at their school and within our communities: Sarah Allen, Kendra Anderson, KraTaura Buckner, Diane Cox, Sara Dickey, Lauren Harris, Hannah Jones, Veronica Jones, Erika Keese, Diana Martinez, Leigh Ann Neal, Keila Remmele, Laura Ricci, and Terri Robinson. We will remember your victories in our hearts and our memories. The team as a whole has an incredible spirit, but one player in particular has achieved notable recognition for her abilities on the team and for women's basketball at large. Kendra Anderson has been named the Division III National Player of the Year by the Women's Basketball Coaches Association. She has been the American Southwest Conference's most valuable player for the third straight year, the conference tournament most valuable player for the fourth straight year, and the first team All American and All South Region for the third year. She was also a WBCA All Star Challenge participant with 17 Division I All Stars. She scored an average of 20.1 points and 10 rebounds per game this season alone. Kendra has forever raised the bar of excellence to a new standard for her friends and teammates to follow. We all know that a basketball team can have all the best players in the world, but without direction and guidance, strong leadership and vision, the team cannot develop and grow. That guiding force was first- year head coach, Shanna Briggs. Miss Briggs brought out the best in her players, sharpened their strengths and improved their weaknesses. The Hardin Simmons women's basketball program will continue in future years to prosper under her leadership and the dedication of its players. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to give the recognition today to the 2003 Hardin Simmons University Cowgirls, the hard work that the players and coaches have done to make this team the champions they are. They have learned, as Grace Lichenstein once said, that ``your opponent in the end is never really the player on the other side of the net or the swimmer in the next lane or the team on the other side of the field or even the bar you must high jump. Your opponent is yourself, your negative internal voices, your levels of determination.'' The 2003 Cowgirls are examples and role models for athletes everywhere and proof of the powerful and resilient nature of women's sports. Hardin Simmons University's 2003 Cowgirls, congratulation on a great year.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, the time is long overdue for Congress to enact a balanced energy policy that ensures reliable and affordable energy for all Americans. Our nation's citizens deserve a comprehensive energy plan that ensures the short-term availability of the energy supplies they need, while addressing long-term goals of increasing our use of renewable and clean sources of energy. The performance of the energy market of the last several years, with its wide price swings on both the producer and consumer sides, simply illustrates the need for America to take responsibility of our energy future. Congress needs to consider measures to help restore market stability with domestic crude oil and natural gas prices, maintaining a level where domestic producers can compete in a global market and help reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil. At the same time, Congress needs to ensure consumer protection measures to guarantee price stability and fuel availability when the demand is high. I truly believe that we can achieve equilibrium in the energy sector, thus creating a situation where prices are not so low that producers are put out of business but also not so high that they hurt consumers and threaten the economy. America can no longer sustain a situation where this nation imports almost 60 percent of its oil from foreign sources--putting our economic and national security at risk. I have been a long time supporter of domestic energy production in all arenas including: oil, natural gas, hydro-electric, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and the many others. I am certainly glad to see that H.R. 6, ``The Energy Policy Act of 2003'', includes provisions to insure further domestic production of these resources. However, these production incentives come at a cost and must be accounted for. It is entirely unacceptable to simply write off the cost of this bill and add it to the current deficit that America is facing. In fact, we are already expecting a $361 billion deficit this year, even prior to considering the costs of this bill, the Iraq war, prescription drugs, new tax curt or any other expenses being debated currently. This is a remarkable contrast from the $250 billion surplus that last occurred in fiscal year 2000. I cannot understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue their efforts to expedite tax cuts and not address Americas' financial health. The cost of this war could be well over $100 billion, yet we continue to promote over $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade. And this week the spending continues. This energy bill comes at a cost of $18.7 billion dollars and includes no provision to offset these costs. I have long championed for: Increased access to capital for domestic oil and gas production; more research in alternative fuels such as nuclear energy; advanced clean coal technology; a sound commitment to renewable energy, including a renewable fuels standards; and improved energy efficiency and environmental standards. As Ranking Member on the House Agriculture Committee, I was especially pleased to see the Renewable Fuels Standard increasing the required use of ethanol, made from corn, as a fuel additive by gasoline refineries to 5 billion gallons by 2015. There is no doubt I am glad to see these provisions in H.R. 6, but I am very disappointed that my colleagues on the other side made no attempts to offset some of the costs of this bill. This energy bill continues down the path of more deficit spending and makes no realistic attempt to justify this spending. America deserves a balanced and forward looking energy policy and therefore I intend to vote for this bill despite my reservations about its cost. It is my sincere hope that Congress will ultimately be responsible and pay for provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 2003 without burdening our children and grandchildren with continued deficit spending.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I see several Members on the floor, including the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. I think it is very critical for all Members to understand, when you vote for this rule you are setting in motion the passage of a budget that no one on this side of the aisle has read and I doubt very many on that side has read, and we are going to borrow 984 billion additional dollars. That is on top of $450 billion we have borrowed since we increased the debt ceiling 8 months ago. That is $1.430 trillion. Now, Mr. Speaker, I arrived in this body in 1979. In 1981 I watched our debt ceiling for our country increase through the $1 trillion mark. We are about to borrow and spend $1.400 trillion more than we have got, and we are going to do that within a period of 1 year following the economic game plan that we cannot get a majority on this side of the aisle to say is not working. Now, I respect the right of the majority, and I respect all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that for whatever reason find it impossible to change a plan that was put into effect last year. But I honestly do not understand when so many of you privately are concerned about this but publicly feel like, at 11:20 at night, you have got to have a martial rule, jam it through, pass it, which is every right of the majority to do; but when you do, you are going to be voting to increase the debt ceiling by $1.400 trillion in less than a year's time. Now, that used to bother folks on this side of the aisle and I used to vote with you. In fact, I have done it more times than I have the other way. But what has happened to you? Why is it tonight that you are not worried about borrowing and spending $1.400 trillion in a 1-year period of time? September 11, 2001. Changed a lot of things. It should change the economic game plan that we are under; but if you are bound and determined to do it, be my guest. But no one walk out of here tomorrow and complain that we could not do better. We could do better.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I think the spirit of the debate, and precisely what you have been arguing is why I so strongly oppose what you are about to do tonight because the very economic game plan that you have once again articulated by your own scorekeepers, if it works exactly like you have got it planned, if all of the things happen that you believe will happen with it, we are going to owe almost $13 trillion at the end of the 10 years. We are going to owe another $3 trillion almost at the end of 5 years if we do it just like you are doing it. That is why some of us are asking you respectfully, take a look at that rhetoric that you have been repeating since 2001 that you do again tonight. I know you believe it sincerely. I do not question that, but how can you continue to make that argument when the result of it in the budget that we are passing, we are going to have to borrow another trillion dollars almost in the next 12 months, and even if it works exactly like you have articulated so well, as you can do, tonight, we are still going to be borrowing that amount of money?

Mr. STENHOLM. But not for 10 years?

Mr. STENHOLM. So we are not exactly following House rules. Let me ask then, is it true that this resolution that will follow this same-day rule that will follow the other rule will increase our national debt by approximately $900 billion in the next 12 months?

Mr. STENHOLM. Nine hundred billion.