Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the protection of our national security from terrorist threats is a serious and sober matter. Since the events of September 11, 2001, we have all labored under a heightened awareness of the weight of that responsibility. This legislation represents an attempt to balance a wide array of far-flung government duties against one most-significant federal duty, the protection of the life and the liberty of each U.S. citizen. It is my hope that this legislation will help our government to more effectively execute that supreme trust, while not compromising lesser responsibilities that are, non-the-less, critical to our nation's welfare. With that hope in mind, the House Committee on Agriculture acted earlier this year to mark up provisions of the Homeland Security legislation that impacted the duties of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Two areas of concern were the transfer of the Plum Island Animal Disease Laboratory to the new Department of Homeland Security, and the transfer of certain USDA border inspection functions to that same new agency. Our intent as included in House Report 107-609 accompanying H.R. 5005 is as follows: Sec. 310. Transfer of Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Department of Agriculture. Transfers the Plum Island Animal Disease Center from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security and requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Homeland Security, upon completion of the transfer, to enter into an agreement providing for continued access by USDA for research, diagnostic and other programs. The Committee recognizes the critical importance of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center to the safety and security of animal agriculture in the United States. The Committee expects that the transfer of this foreign animal disease facility to the Department of Homeland Security shall be completed in a manner that minimizes any disruption of agricultural research, diagnostic or other Department of Agriculture activities. Likewise, the Committee expects that funds that have and continue to be appropriated for the maintenance, upgrade, or replacement of agricultural research, diagnostic and training facilities at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center shall continue to be expended for those purposes. The Committee shares the goal of expanding the capabilities of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Likewise, the Committee supports the accompanying goal of building agro-terrorism prevention capabilities within the Department of Homeland Security. With this in mind, the Committee fully expects that in the absence of alternative facilities for current Department of Agriculture activities, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall make every possible effort to expand and enhance agricultural activities related to foreign animal diseases at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Sec. 421. Transfer of Certain Agricultural Inspection Functions of the Department of Agriculture. (a) Transfers to the Secretary of Homeland Security the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry inspection activities. The committee is aware that the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Program of the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service conducts numerous activities with respect to both domestic and international commerce in order to protect the health of agriculturally important animals and plants within the United States. Within the Department of Homeland Security will be created a mission area of Border and Transportation Security. In order that the new streamlined border security program operates efficiently, the Committee has transferred to the Department of Homeland Security the responsibility for certain agricultural import and entry inspection activities of the Department of Agriculture conducted at points of entry. This transfer will include the inspection of arriving passenger's luggage, cargo and means of conveyance into the United States to the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security. In addition to inspections at points of entry into the United States, responsibility for inspections of passengers, luggage and their means of conveyance, at points of departure outside the United States, where agreements exist for such purposes, shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The provision allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise authorities related to import and entry inspection functions transferred including conducting warrantless inspections at the border, collecting samples, holding and seizing articles that are imported into the United States in violation of applicable laws and regulations, and assessing and collecting civil penalties at the border. The Committee intends that the Department of Agriculture will retain the responsibility for all other activities of the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Program regarding imports including pre-clearance of commodities, trade protocol verification activities, fumigation activities, quarantine, diagnosis, eradication and indemnification, as well as other sanitary and phytosanitary measures. All functions regarding exports, interstate and intrastate activities will remain at the Department of Agriculture. (b) Delineates the laws governing agricultural import and entry inspection activities that are covered by the transfer of authorities. The Committee is aware that the authority to inspect passengers, cargo, and their means of conveyance coming into the United States is derived from numerous statutes that date back, in some cases, more than 100 years. The Committee does not intend that the reference to these statutes should be construed to provide any authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security beyond the responsibility to carry out inspections (including pre-clearance inspections of passengers, luggage and their means of conveyance in such countries where agreements exist for such purposes) and enforce the regulations of the Department of Agriculture at points of entry into the United States. (c) Excludes quarantine activities from the term ``functions'' as defined by this Act for the purposes of this section. While agricultural inspection functions, as well as those related administrative and enforcement functions, shall be transferred and become the responsibility of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the legislation retains all functions to quarantine activities and quarantine facilities within the Department of Agriculture. Although the Committee has excluded quarantine activities from those functions transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the Committee does not intend to preclude the Secretary of Homeland Security from taking actions related to inspection functions such as seizure or holding of plant or animal materials entering the United States. These authorities fall within the purview of inspection related enforcement functions that shall be transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. (d) Requires that the authority transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security shall be exercised in accordance with the regulations, policies and procedures issued by the Secretary of Agriculture; requires the Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security whenever the Secretary of Agriculture prescribes regulations, policies, or procedures for administering the covered laws related to the functions transferred under subsection (a); provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, may issue guidelines and directives to ensure the effective use of personnel of the Department of Homeland Security to carry out the transferred functions. One intention of this legislation is to create a streamlined Border and Transportation Security program at points of entry into the United States. With regard to the protection of animal and plant health, the Committee does not intend or expect the Department of Homeland Security to make the determination of what animals, plants, animal or plant products, soils, or other biological materials present an unacceptable risk to the agriculture of the United States. Policies and procedures regarding actions necessary to detect and prevent such unacceptable risks shall remain the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture. Likewise, policies and regulations defining restrictions on movement into the United States of substances that would pose a threat to agriculture shall continue to be the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Committee has provided authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue directives and guidelines in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture in order to efficiently manage inspection resources. When exercising this authority, the Committee expects that the agricultural inspection function at points of entry into the United States shall not be diminished, and as a result, the Committee expects that Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that necessary resources are dedicated to carrying out agricultural inspection functions transferred from the Department of Agriculture. (e) Requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into an agreement to effectuate the transfer of functions. The agreement must address the training of employees and the transfer of funds. In addition the agreement may include authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to perform functions delegated to APHIS for the protection of domestic livestock and plants, as well as authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to use employees of the Department of Homeland Security to carry out APHIS functions. The Committee is aware of the unique nature and the specialized training necessary for effective and efficient border inspection activities carried out by the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Program. The Committee expects that the training of personnel and detector dogs for this highly specialized function will continue to be supervised by the Department of Agriculture. While a large proportion of the personnel employed by the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Program are permanently stationed at one of 186 points of entry into the United States, the Committee is aware that the Secretary of Agriculture commonly redeploys up to 20% of the border inspection force in order to manage agricultural pests and diseases throughout the United States. In completing the transfer of Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Program border inspectors to the Department of Homeland Security, the Committee expects that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Homeland Security will enter into an agreement whereby inspection resources, where possible, would continue to be made available to the Secretary of Agriculture in response to domestic agricultural needs. (f) Provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer funds collected by fee authorities to the Secretary of Homeland Security so long as the funds do not exceed the proportion of the costs incurred by the Secretary of Homeland Security in carrying out activities funded by such fees. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the unobligated balance of the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Fund will be transferred to other accounts within the Department of Agriculture and will be used to carry out import and domestic inspection activities, as well as animal and plant health quarantine activities, without additional appropriations. Fees for inspection services shall continue to be collected and deposited into these accounts in the manner prescribed by regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. In effectuating the transfer of agricultural import inspection activities at points of entry into the United States, the Committee intends that funds from these accounts shall be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in order to reimburse the Department of Homeland Security for the actual inspections carried out by the Department. The Committee expects that the Secretary of Agriculture shall continue to manage these accounts in a manner that ensures the availability of funds necessary to carry out domestic inspection and quarantine programs. (g) Provides that during the transition period, the Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security up to 3,200 full-time equivalent positions of the Department of Agriculture. (h) Makes conforming amendments to Title V of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 related to the protection of inspection animals.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I know the chairman of the committee did not intend to misspeak, because much of what he said I totally agree with. That is, it is not the Committee on Appropriations that has in fact got us to this point of impasse, but it is the leadership of their party that has us here. It is their unwillingness to bring the appropriation bills under the budget that passed the House, that everybody talks about. That is what is keeping us held up. The misspeaking, Mr. Speaker, was when he said no one on this side of the aisle offered a budget alternative. I do not know how many times I have to take to the floor to remind everyone, and Members can check this in the Record, we brought a substitute amendment, the Blue Dog Democrats, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), we brought an alternative budget to the floor of the House. We respectfully asked the majority to allow us to debate that on the floor of the House, and we were denied. So I would appreciate it if no further Members on the other side would say that no one on this side of the aisle offered an alternative, a substitute budget, because some of us did but were prevented by the same leadership that has got us into the impasse tonight; and it is not the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, they would have a much stronger argument if they brought the appropriation bills to the floor under the budget that they passed, and they would have had a much better argument tonight and last week and the week before that and next week if they had passed all 13 appropriation bills, because some of us on this side of the aisle will support them, regarding that budget that everybody talks about. I have been here 24 years, and I remember all of the years in which appropriators said, when I was on the Committee on the Budget, we really do not need you folks. We honestly do not need the Committee on the Budget, because we can do the job ourselves. It is amazing here now, suddenly listening, week after week after week, they now are suddenly saying that the only reason they cannot do their work is because the Senate did not pass a budget. Now everybody in here knows better than that. We had a very impassioned speech a moment ago from the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) talking about the transportation bill, et cetera. Well, if we just did our work, then we could point could point the finger to the other body, and there would be enough blame to go around. But I will say tonight, Mr. Speaker, the only blame that can honestly be affixed to why we are in this position tonight is on the leadership on the other side of the aisle that have refused to do that which they insist that the Senate do; that is, live by a budget. We could do it, or at least we could try. Why did they not bring the other eight appropriation bills to the floor of the House and allow them to be discussed and debated? Where are they? If they are going to point the finger of blame, it has to start right here, I believe.

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to agree with him totally regarding his statement on the discretionary spending. But I would also point out the record will show that the farm bill the gentleman talks about this year will save $5.6 billion from that mandatory spending as a result of the work of the Committee on Agriculture. But I agree with the gentleman on the general gist of it. It is ridiculous for us to be talking about discretionary spending being the culprit in the $400 billion. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we are really living under the budget that passed the majority in the House. We are really living under this budget. What has it given us? We have borrowed $400 billion over the last 12 months, enforcing the budget that passed the House, regardless of whether the Senate passes a budget or not because we are living under this one. That is what we are living under. It is amazing, the gentleman from Georgia who just spoke a moment ago, it was amazing what he said. Basically, we need to pass the appropriation bills. It has nothing to do with a budget. Pass the appropriation bills that my colleagues' budget called for and then send them to the Senate. Then they can have a quarrel with the other body, but yet we keep wanting to blame the other body for us not doing our work. I do not understand that, and I am on the floor on behalf of the budget. I have no quarrel with the appropriators, but I have a lot of quarrel with the leadership on the other side that has tried the blame game instead of dealing with doing our work. Just today, the same Blue Dog group asked that we be allowed to have in the continuing resolution the PAYGO and the spending caps. We want to enforce some level of spending. I am perfectly willing to live with the level in my colleagues' budget. I am perfectly willing to live with that. That is what the Blue Dogs said this year with one exception. We said, when the new estimates came in in August, if we were spending Social Security trust funds, let us sit down and revisit the budget to see whether or not we really want to continue down that road. That is what they refused to let us do. Next week, I am told we are going to have another tax cut. Where is that tax cut going to come from? Right out of the Social Security trust funds, period. Any additional spending that anybody wants to spend for any purpose is coming right out of the Social Security trust funds or the Medicare trust fund, but yet we will have that because the same leadership believes that is good politics, and, boy, the ads come out at home for the opponent as we talk about this. Let me repeat, and anyone that wants to challenge me, I would welcome almost a little bit of debate from the leadership on that side, because many times I make these statements and the phone starts ringing, this guy from Texas is just shooting his mouth off about spending and what have you, and nobody comes in and challenges it. Well, if what I am saying is not true, I would welcome and yield to the other side. We asked to put some restraints on it. The leadership said, no thanks, we do not want PAYGO. We want to pass another tax cut next week so that we can run on that, and we do not want to talk about that is going to come out of the Social Security trust funds, which is where it is going to come. The Concorde Coalition has warned that, unless we put some budget enforcement, we are going to run into bigger troubles. How much bigger can we get? The deficit has gone up $400 billion. One would not think so listening to the leadership on this side. One would think the deficit has come down in the brilliant leadership of the last 2 or 3 years. It has gone up in the last 12 months $400 billion, and it is going to go up another $300 billion in the next 12 months. That is the fact, and yet here we are trying to do our work, a CR. The appropriators are trying to do their work. They do not have a chance. They have got an 8,000 pound weight tied around their neck because of the lack of the leadership in this body to do what we should do, is do our work. If we do our work, my colleagues would be surprised at what might happen.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, often when we Members come to the House floor to make our arguments about public policy, our rhetoric differs significantly because we have sharply different visions. Our policies are aimed towards different goals and priorities, and those various goals dictate various approaches. Today, I do not believe we have different goals or hopes. I am convinced that every Member of Congress and, in fact, virtually every American citizen shares a common goal: protecting the safety and security of our Nation. Everyone I know would prefer to avoid war. Everyone I know hopes that diplomatic measures will cause Saddam Hussein to disarm. Everyone I know agrees that multi-lateral action which brings international allies to the side of the United States is far more desirable and effective than unilateral action. These goals and preferences are shared by every Member of Congress who speaks on the floor this week. I spent a great deal of time over the past few weeks listening to the concerns and anxieties of my constituents, the arguments of this administration, and the whispers of my own heart. Following that time of listening, these are the things I now conclude: First, the message of September 11, 2001, was undeniable. The United States has enemies who will stop at nothing to harm us in the most insidious and destructive ways possible. Their disregard for their own lives means that they can and will take the lives of thousands of innocent Americans on our own land. Secondly, despite this horrible truth, we must refuse to live in fear. If we allow ourselves to be intimidated, our enemies have conquered not only our bodies but our spirits as well. Thirdly, Saddam Hussein has left no room for doubt about his willingness to amass and use weapons of mass destruction. Knowing of his character and capacity, we simply give time for Hussein to become stronger and more dangerous if he believes there will be no consequences for his actions. Fourth, I do not believe the United Nations will take the action it must take to defend its own credibility and, most importantly, the safety of the world absent a forceful statement of conviction from the United States. This resolution which will pass the House of Representatives by a strong bipartisan vote tells the world of our resolve. Having reached those conclusions, I am now prepared to vote for the amended bipartisan resolution authorizing force against Iraq. Like every one of my colleagues who votes the same way, I reach this point with a great sense of somberness. The President made it clear that military action is not inevitable, but it is possible, and this means that some of our finest young men and women will once again risk their lives to protect our Nation. As the father of three and the grandfather of two, I have great empathy for every family whose young people will be at risk. I also have an enormous sense of gratitude for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line day after day. The vote we take this week is difficult because it acknowledges the hard and potentially painful work we have ahead of us. This is just one step of a very long journey towards national security. I am convinced, however, that we risk only greater pain if we do not take this step. Ignoring the threat Saddam Hussein poses will not eliminate that threat. It will not remove the potential pain. We must face Hussein head on so that he has no more time or opportunity to become stronger and more dangerous. I sincerely hope and pray that freedom-loving nations around the world will join us in that cause. President Bush, his administration, this Congress and the American people will need wisdom and strength for the days ahead. My prayer for all of us is that we might be granted just that as we continue down this path together.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, so we do not have pay-go and discretionary pay caps in this amendment. I understand that this is a CR that continues all programs at last year's levels; and, therefore, a pay cap is not necessary. I understand that. But I take this to the floor today to notice that the Blue Dog Democrats and I believe a large number of my other colleagues on this side are going to insist that when we get into a CR that takes us into a lame duck session or a CR that takes us into next year or a CR that takes us into the next century, based on the way this House is being run, we think there ought to be some meaningful pay-go rules, and they ought not be allowed to expire. And I would appreciate in the discussion if the finger pointing would stop and most of us, and when I point the finger at my friends over here, I always acknowledge three are coming back at me. But it is an interesting dilemma where it has gotten us to the point in which we are not doing our work on education, on any of the much-needed Medicare/ Medicaid rules; and yet all we can do here is point the finger at the other body. Let us do our work, and you will be surprised what kind of help you get if you allow us to debate these issues instead of stonewalling as you did on the budget.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who just stated that we Democrats had no budget. If the gentleman who is the chairman would listen for a moment, I believe he will agree that when I appeared before the Committee on Rules asking that the Blue Dog budget be made in order, we were denied an opportunity to bring it to the floor of the House because it did not meet the preconceived notion of what a budget ought to look like. I keep hearing this and we will hear it again today time and time again, but it does not speak the truth because some of us do want to bring a budget to the floor of the House.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly correct in the way he states it, but that is not the way this body should work. We should not have preconceived notions of what the budget ought to look like and deny the minority an opportunity to even have an amendment. And that is what has caused us to be in the position we are in today, in which we, the House, have not passed but five appropriations bills and yet my friends on this side stand up and blame the other body because we have not done our work. And I would ask that the gentleman on the Committee on Rules in this rule today, do we have a continuation of the pay-go rules and the discretionary caps, or have we allowed them to expire?

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how we can rewrite history on the floor of the House, On the economy and the actions of this body that took place from 1990 until this year. Let me quickly review. The 1990 budget took Democratic support along with Republican support in a bipartisan way that laid the foundation on the budget rules and the economy that ultimately balanced the budget in 1993. The budget in 1993, not a single Republican voted for the 1993 budget, which put the walls up on the economy that we enjoy today. In 1997, it took Democrats to work with some Republicans to pass the 1997 budget that has gotten a lot of credit, much of which was not due, but it at least was part of the process. Every time we have made decisions that move the country forward, we have done it in a bipartisan way. I, again, have no quarrel with the appropriators, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), or the manner in which the chairmen and the ranking members are proceeding forward. My quarrel is with the economic game plan that has gotten us to the point that we have borrowed now $440 billion, $440 billion during the last year. The majority whip just stood up here and defended the economic game plan that he is proud of, that he is responsible for, for making certain that this Congress does not do anything other than what he wants to do, and he refuses to take the credit for that which he has wrought. What is interesting today is we look at corporate America and the unfunded liabilities of pension plans all over the country which corporate America is having to come up with the money to fund, but yet we in this House refuse to come up with the money to fund the unfunded liabilities of the Social Security system, the Medicare, the Medicaid, the veterans, all of this. We refuse to because that was not in the budget that everybody over here is so proud of. I wish Members would quit coming to the floor and saying there was no Democratic alternative, because they know it is not true; there was a Democratic alternative. We offered it. We lost. We lost. We did not have the votes. When we do not have the votes, we lose; but quit saying we had no alternative. We did have an alternative, and if we followed it, we would not be in quite as deep a hole as we are in today.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I love this House of Representatives, but I do not like us when we do not do our work. The reason we are here tonight is because we have not done our work. We have not passed the 13 appropriation bills in this body, and we would have all of the complaints in the world had we done our work. We have not done our work. It is amazing the speeches I have heard defending the budget and the fact that we do not have a budget on this side of the aisle. Some of us did. We were denied an opportunity to debate it on the House floor. Some of us had a budget. We did not like the budget that has now given us $317 billion of new deficits. Conveniently, the majority whip came on the floor and talked about 10 years ago. What about right now? We are here tonight discussing a budget that has given us $317 billion of new deficits and will spend Social Security trust funds for the next 10 years. Forget the last 40, worry about today. That is when we can do something about it. The other side is in the majority. Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) or the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), but the gentleman from Texas who stood down here a moment ago and made that eloquent speech of untruths reminded me of the Will Rogers quote when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much, it's them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.'' Mr. Speaker, we talk about the Reagan tax cuts. I was here. For the 12 years of Reagan-Bush, never did the big spending Democratic Congress, other than 1 year, spend more than Presidents Reagan and Bush asked us to spend; and yet, conveniently, the rhetoric tonight says it was us that did it. Conveniently, we are letting some of the real budget rules that allowed us to do some good things on budget expire September 30, and the same leadership that comes down and makes the speeches they made a moment ago are directly responsible for allowing pay-go to expire, to allow discretionary caps to expire. Let me make out one relevant point tonight when we talk about spending, as so many Members on the other side of the aisle keep talking about Democratic spending, the difference between the House and the Senate; the difference we are talking about on the appropriators is $9 billion. That is the difference that has kept the leadership from bringing the 13 appropriation bills to the floor of the House and letting the House work its will. We should at least keep the spending caps in. I feel kind of ridiculous arguing for that because we have ignored them all year, but if the other side had enforced the pay-go rules, we would have never passed the budget because we could not have passed the budget. Increasing the debt ceiling for our country was passed at midnight because the majority party did not want to stand up and acknowledge the fact that as they talk about paying down the debt and deficit elimination, the debt is going up. We are going to have to do it again, under the budget that everybody over on the other side is bragging about. If they are bragging about it, spend the appropriation bills out and pass them; but do not keep complaining about somebody else's fault. This House has not done its work. It is not the minority party's fault; it is the majority party's fault. As a child, I always knew that if I started criticizing some trait about one of my playmates, Mother would soon be talking about ``your own plank.'' Her shorthand reference was to the scripture which warns against pointing out the ``speck'' in someone else's eye when there was a huge ``plank'' in your own. I think we could use my mother on the House floor these days. There has been a lot of rhetoric about what the other chamber has not done but not much attention to some of our own shortcomings right here in the House. One of those shortcomings--the failure to renew budget enforcement rules--is very near and dear to my heart and, after years of defending those rules, I cannot remain silent today. Circumstances have changed dramatically since we passed the Republican budget last year. The projections turned out to be too optimistic, revenues are much lower than expected, and we face tremendous new expenses for homeland defense and the war on terrorism and a possible war with Iraq. Now that those projections have proven to be nothing more than empty hopes and unfulfilled promises, some of us think we should look honestly at our economic situation rather than continuing to view the world through faulty rose colored glasses. But the leadership on the other side of the aisle refuses to consider any adjustments to their budget policies. At the very least, we should take action to make sure we don't dig the deficit hole still deeper. Instead, the Republican leadership is allowing the existing budget enforcement rules which impose some fiscal discipline on Congress to expire. Over the previous decade, the budget enforcement rules were one of the more successful tools for establishing fiscal discipline and helping bring about budget surpluses. These rules set limits on the amount of discretionary spending Congress can approve and prohibited legislation which would have increased the deficit. When these rules expire five days from now, there will be no limits on spending and no restrictions on the ability of Congress to pass legislation which makes the deficit even worse. Considering spending bills during a lame duck session after the election without any rules imposing budget discipline is a recipe for runaway spending and higher debt. Unless we renew our budget discipline, Congress will continue to find ways to pass more legislation that puts still more red ink on the national ledger. Alternatively, enforceable spending limits would serve as a fiscal guardrail to help keep our spending within our means. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Budget Committee that ``Failing to preserve (budget enforcement rules) would be a grave mistake . . . the bottom line is that if we do not preserve the budget rules and reaffirm our commitment to fiscal responsibility, years of hard effort could be squandered. Leon Panetta, who served as Chairman of the House Budget Committee and Bill Frenzel, the former Ranking Republican on the Budget Committee wrote a letter on behalf of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warning that: ``The expiration of Budget Enforcement Act constraints on spending and revenue legislation is an open invitation to fiscal irresponsibility and an embarrassment to all that care about the budget process. . . . To let them expire now would send a terrible signal to an economy that is struggling for stability.'' The Concord Coalition has warned that allowing budget enforcement rules to expire is ``an open invitation to fiscal chaos.'' Despite these warnings about the harm that could be done to the federal budget and the economy if we allow these rules to expire, the House leadership has resisted any efforts to extend these rules. In my book, that's a mighty big ``plank'' in the House's eye.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the HEALTH Act of 2002 (H.R. 4600), which will improve health care quality and help ensure the availability of health care services and coverage. The failure of the medical liability system is compromising patient access to care. Liability insurers are leaving the market or raising rates to astronomical levels. In turn, more physicians and other health care providers are severely limiting their practices or are simply unable to afford to practice medicine. Physicians in Texas as well as Florida, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and other states are already in crisis. Skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums are debilitating the nation's health care delivery system in communities across the country. Physicians in Texas have experienced a 51 percent increase in malpractice claims between 1990 and 2000, and according to the Texas Medical Association, increases in physician malpractice insurance rates in 2002 ranged from 30 percent to 200 percent. Increasing numbers of physicians, hospitals, and other providers are curtailing their services, relocating to other states, or simply ceasing to offer medical services altogether. For example, obstetricians/gynecologists and surgeons in these states routinely pay more than $100,000 a year for $1,000,000 coverage. Some are paying more than $200,000. A physician facing these premiums is more likely to practice defensive medicine, order extra tests and use only procedures that limit risk. For some, it goes to the heart of their practice. For instance, many OB/GYN physicians have stopped delivering babies. The problem also has spread to emergency rooms where the crisis takes on life-or-death proportions. Especially in rural areas, health care services are likely to be unevenly distributed. Many rural residents do not even have access to a local doctor, primary care provider, or hospital. Increases in medical malpractice insurance have resulted in a further loss of patient access to health care. Without access to local health care professionals, rural residents are frequently forced to leave their communities to receive necessary treatments. Not only is this a burden to rural residents, who are often older or lack reliable transportation, but it drains vital health care dollars from the local economy--further straining the financial well-being of rural communities. Without federal legislation, the exodus of physicians from the practice of medicine will continue, especially in high-risk specialities, and patients will find it increasingly difficult to obtain health care. It is for these reasons that I joined my fellow colleagues as an original cosponsor of the HEALTH Act, which safeguards patients' access to care, promotes speedy resolution of claims, fairly allocates responsibility, compensates patient injury, maximizes patient recovery, and puts reasonable limits, not caps, on punitive damages. This bill alone will not resolve our health care costs or access challenges but it is one part of the solution. I urge my colleagues, especially those who represent rural America, to support H.R. 4600, stabilizing the nation's shaky medical liability system.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank my friend from Illinois, and I thank my friend from Indiana for their discussions tonight. I want to begin by building on the major points that they made in their conclusions. We are here tonight not for fingerpointing, but in an offer to work in a bipartisan way for a solution. We offered ours last year in the budget debates and we were turned down. That is perfectly the prerogative of this body. The majority can ignore the minority anytime you would like. You passed your economic plan. We thought it was poorly conceived, but you did not. And now we have the results. Today the stock market reached the lowest point that it has been in 6 or 7 years. Unemployment is beginning to move up. We have a lot of concerned people around this country, concerned about whether or not their jobs are secure, their savings are secure; and we still have the very real concern about Social Security, because we can talk all about, we can blame all we want to, and I am a little bit perturbed with both sides regarding the Social Security arguments that are taking place today, but the one thing we cannot say is that anybody is doing anything about it. If you are perfectly satisfied with running the largest deficit in the history of our country, then continue to come to this floor and demand to continue to follow the economic game plan that we are now under and that is a perfectly honest position to take and then assume the responsibility for what that policy brings. Because that is what is happening today. We cannot undo it, what has happened to this point; but we can make a difference in what is going to happen from this day forward. That is where I think the market is crying out for some direction and leadership and for us in this body to quit the finger pointing. We had two sense of Congress resolutions on the floor last week that were, with all due respect, ridiculous; us, we in the House of Representatives, who have only passed five appropriations bills, blaming the Senate because they have not passed a budget, and the only thing that divides us is $9 billion. $9 billion is what the finger pointing is all about, and this body and the wonderful leadership we have here is saying it is all the Senate's fault. Now, that is laughable. From where I come from in Texas and from where I think the gentlemen from Illinois and Indiana come from, if you are going to finger point, my people want me to say okay, then what would you do differently? Well, here we have offered and we will continue to offer what we would do differently. We need a summit on the budget. We need to sit down and put everything on the table and work ourselves out of a very difficult situation this country finds itself in, very difficult. But there seems to be no interest in that. You know, here we had some safeguards, some policy procedures, that were put into effect in the 1997 budget, even going back to the 1990 budget, in which we suggested that having caps on spending agreed to would be helpful to resolving our budget differences. Now, this year the Blue Dog Democrats said, in agreement with the majority, that the $759 billion number is a good number and we are prepared to support our colleagues on that number, or at least some of us are. Pay-go, we have had a pretty good little budget process in which if you are going to propose increasing spending, then pay for it. If you are going to propose additional tax cuts, pay for it. Do not borrow it on our children's and grandchildren's future. That expires September 30. I am told, and I hope I am wrong, and I would love to be proven wrong and have someone come to the floor of the House and say right now, Charlie, you are wrong; we are going to reimpose the pay-go rules. We are going to have those rules, and, by the way, instead of ignoring them, as this body has done for the last 2 years, we are going to live up to them. It is kind of amusing to me sometimes, we are out here arguing for pay-go rules, and we waive them every time a rule comes to the floor that has something to do with sense of Congress resolutions, or with spending resolutions, or the favorite is tax cutting resolutions. If we are going to have a rule of the House, live by it. We are prepared to back the majority party, and we will propose on the CR tomorrow, or the next day, when we have the continuing resolution, which is an indication of a failure of this body to do our work, when we cannot pass 13 appropriations bills and send them to the other body. If we passed our 13 and sent them to the other body and the other body did not act, then we would have the right to criticize the other body. But the gall of my friends on the majority side who will stand up and be critical of the other body when we have not done our work, it just defies my imagination. Mr. Speaker, we increased the debt ceiling earlier this year, and at the rate we are borrowing money now and with the projected additional spending over and above what is in current law, the gentleman from Indiana a moment ago stated it correctly, this Congress is going to preside over the largest single increase in our Nation's debt in the history of this country, and yet the majority claims they are conservative. Now, that, with all due respect, is argumentative, and I would love to see a serious debate on some of these issues, other than just the stone-walling and the blaming and the finger pointing that is going on and trying to blame the other body because of inability of this side to pass appropriations bills. Whatever happened to the legislative process in which you have differences of opinion and you sit down and work them out together? If you have got the votes, you pass them, and, if you do not have the votes, you fail them. That is kind of what the majority is doing today, I suppose. But yet you seem to not be willing to assume the responsibility of the actions that you continually vote out of this body, and you seem to be wanting to blame the other body. I do not understand that. I do not understand the logic of that. That is why the Blue Dogs are going to be on the floor day after day after day until we are adjourned asking the simple question, what is wrong with a budget summit? What is wrong with sending a message to the investment community, the investors of this Nation, saying we are going to sit down and actually work on some new solutions, or come to the floor and say we have the perfect solution and we want to continue and we want the results to be our responsibility. Social Security: I have been in this body now for almost 24 years. When I was first elected in 1978, 2011 was a long time away. Today, 2011 is 9 years away. 2011 is when the baby-boomers, the greatest generation, those that we rightfully pay homage to on a regular basis for their tremendous patriotism and support in the winning of World War II, it is when the baby-boomers begin to retire, that the largest single drain on the economy of the United States in paying off the debt to the trust funds that we must honor will begin to come due. Instead of us dealing with that as the Blue Dogs asked and pleaded last year when we were talking about a $5.6 trillion projected surplus, we were emphasizing that is projected; do not spend money that is not there. But we were not heeded. We suggested taking half of that projected surplus and paying down the debt, then the other half of that surplus divided equally between tax cuts targeted for purposes that will benefit the economy and the other one-fourth or half of the remaining projected surplus, increased spending in priority areas which started with defense and then veterans and then healthcare and then education and then rural America. That was our priorities. But we also said before we do any of that, let us sit down as a body, Democrats and Republicans, and work out the answers to the future of the Social Security system and the Medicare system and the Medicaid system. We have got a crisis out there in our nursing homes all across this Nation, in my home state and in every other state, and instead of us dealing responsibly with trying to come up with policies that will answer the nursing shortage and the tort reform and the malpractice reform and all of the things we need to be doing, what are we doing? We are going to pass a CR, a continuing resolution, and we are going to punt into the next election, and we are going to poison the well on all of these issues that will make it even more difficult to deal with it next year. We said, let us deal with it last year, but, again, the majority said, no, we have got a better idea. And that is the prerogative, Mr. Speaker, of the majority. Many times I come to the floor and I will get a few calls that will come in and say, you Democrats are just spouting sour grapes. Well, if that is your opinion, I respect everybody's opinion. But we are sincerely here tonight, as we were last week, as we will be tomorrow, saying we have got a problem. No one, no one in the entire United States today, argues that there is not a problem with the Social Security System, in the future. No one. We all agree. We have got different solutions. I have got mine. I worked with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for the last 6 years on a proposal. We know what we are for, or what we think we are for. But I respect anyone that has got an opinion. If we would just spend some time in this body in the committees dealing with that problem, instead of bringing sense of the Congress resolutions to the floor of the House saying that it is really all the other body's fault, and doing that with a clear, unsmiling face. We are this body. We are the House of Representatives. We are the people's House. We are the ones that are elected by a majority of the people within our district. And, just as my colleague from Indiana said a moment ago, the people in Indiana are asking us to come up with a solution. Why are we not? What is it about politics today that has all been turned over to our promoters and issues, and no one ever, ever asks us to be accountable for our actions except the blame game? Well, Social Security and the trust fund and the trust fund problem are very, very real, and I venture to say that not a single one of the 435 of us in this body tonight, both sides of the aisle, would disagree with that very calm statement. But when you are in the minority, you cannot effectuate the direction of policy. Only the majority can determine what can come to the floor and how it comes to the floor. Yes, we are a little bit testy on the Blue Dog side, because when we come to the Committee on Rules and ask to have some of our ideas considered and voted upon, we have been denied and denied and denied. What is it that the majority party of this body today that calls itself conservative is suddenly afraid of ideas and letting ideas come to the floor and be voted upon? What is it? I do not know. But I am a little bit frustrated. But that comes with being in the minority, I am told, and that is the way our system is supposed to work. We are living in some very trying times, and I will predict that there is going to be tremendous support for our President when we deal with matters of tremendous importance and seriousness regarding international affairs. We certainly will find strong bipartisan support for standing with the young men and women that were mentioned a moment ago that we will send perhaps into harm's way, as we already have in Afghanistan. And, yes, there is a cost, a tremendous cost. War is not something that should ever be taken for granted or expressed in simplistic terms. It is one of the most serious matters to come before this body, and we will deal with it in this body, and I have every confidence that this is one issue that will have adequate airing and discussion in the people's House. But tonight we talk about the lack, the lack, of allowing serious debate of a change of economic policy for this country. Again, if we are wrong and we do not need this change and we do not need a summit, then so be it. Obviously that is the answer coming from the majority side. That is obviously the answer. ``We like the game plan we are under and we are perfectly willing to stand up to that game plan because it is working.'' Well, that is the kind of debate that we ought to have in a little more open way, instead of the blame game. I hope tomorrow and the day after that that we will get away from these sense of the Congress resolutions, trying to blame somebody else for the inability of this House to deal with our own problems. I will not call us a do-nothing House, because we have done something. We have passed some resolutions. We have done some good. But it is the big undone good that we have tonight that we focus on as Blue Dogs, because by not facing up to the economic problems of this country, by not facing up to the ticking time bomb of 2011, by ignoring the interests of those who cannot vote, our children and grandchildren, those who do not have a vote today, by continuing to insist that the economic plan that we are under is good and that they should be the ones to pay for the debt that we are building up today, and standing on the floor as some are tempted to do and saying the debt really has not gone up, when we know it has gone up and will go up this year, the largest single increase in the Nation's debt in one year in the history of our country, is coming under the economic game plan that we seem unwilling or unable to make any changes in. The gentleman from Illinois, I thank him for taking this time tonight, and I look forward to hopefully in the days ahead joining in a spirited debate. Tonight, since we cannot seem to do it in the regular hours of the day, we cannot seem to find it in our heart to be in legislative session on anything but after 6:30 on Tuesdays and going home on Thursdays, and yet we are blaming the other body for not doing their work, that maybe we could have a little time in these hours at night to have a serious discussion, and perhaps maybe some of our friends from the other side of the aisle, and we have many, and there are many more agreements in this body than there are disagreements, but it is the call of the leadership that determines the manner in which we debate it. That is my frustration. So if we get another hour tomorrow night, I hope maybe we will be joined by some of our colleagues, and we can have a good discussion as to why it is somebody else's fault that we are not doing our job.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4708, which includes 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 and 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. 4910 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 you to support H.R. 4708.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Osteopathic Medicine Week, October 6-12, 2002, a week when the nation's 49,000 osteopathic physicians (D.O.s) are particularly dedicated to increasing the public's awareness of access to care issues. For almost 25 years now, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and its members have celebrated the osteopathic medical community's unified effort to educate the nation about issues influencing the American health care system. I am especially pleased the theme of this year's NOM Week is ``Access to Care.'' Access to care promotes appropriate entry into the health system and is vital to ensuring the long-term viability of rural health care delivery. Without access to local health care professionals, rural residents are frequently forced to leave their communities to receive necessary treatments. When D.O.s, student doctors and supporters of osteopathic medicine travel to Las Vegas, NV to attend the AOA's 107th Annual Convention and Scientific Seminar, nearly 8,000 will receive the latest information on access to care issues such as professional liability insurance (PLI), uninsured children, bioterrorism and mental health. I applaud the osteopathic medical community for emphasizing patient access issues, so important to the 17th District of Texas and the Nation. Take for example, access to children's health care. While nationwide participation in the State Children's Health Insurance Program has increased since its 1997 inception, many parents whose children qualify for the program have not yet enrolled them. And let's not forget the access to care barriers facing our minority populations. It is a proven fact that America's many racial and ethnic groups are frequently at a disadvantage on a wide-range of measures, including effective patient-physician communication, overcoming cultural and linguistic challenges, and availability of health care and insurance coverage. Access to health care can be established only when medical professionals are available to provide quality health care. Over the past few years, medical liability premiums and payments have escalated out of control causing health care quality, access, and cost problems. While some states have passed professional liability insurance (PLI) system reforms, not every state has effective laws in place. The osteopathic medical community recognizes many states face critical PLI system problems. For more than a century, D.O.s have made a difference in the lives and health of my fellow citizens in Texas as well as all Americans. Overall, more than 100 million patient visits are made each year to these fully licensed physicians able to prescribe and perform surgery. D.O.s serve the needs of rural and underserved communities and make up 15 percent of the total physician population in towns of 10,000 or less. D.O.s are certified in nearly 60 specialties and 33 subspecialties. D.O.s complete and pass: four years of medical education at one of 20 osteopathic medical schools; a one-year internship; a multi-year residency; and a state medical board exam. Throughout this education, D.O.s are trained to understand how the musculoskeletal system influences the condition of all other body systems. Many patients want their health care provider to have this extra knowledge as a part of their health care. In recognition of NOM Week, I would like to congratulate the over 2,500 Texas D.O.s, the 453 students at University of North Texas Health Sciences Center at Fort Worth, and the 49,000 D.O.s represented by the American Osteopathic Association. Your contributions to the good health of the American people are commendable.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on the general thesis of the concern that many of us have on this side of the aisle, that we seemingly have forgotten about budgets and balanced budgets and we seem to not be willing to talk about the deficits that are now occurring. That is very alarming. As you know, last year this body passed a budget, an economic game plan. There seems to be a great reluctance to change that plan, which means that we are now willingly going to be endorsing deficits as far as the eye can see. We on this side on the Blue Dog Caucus have repeatedly offered to work in a bipartisan way with our friends on the other side of the aisle and with the administration to come up with a new budget plan. But there seems to be no desire whatsoever to do so. We now are very concerned, because at the end of this month the few remaining budget rules that have worked fairly good over the most recent period of time when we did achieve a balanced budget, pay-go, simply saying if you are going to increase spending you have got to find some cut somewhere else, expire. If you are going to cut taxes, you have got to find somewhere else to pay for it. It has worked pretty good, when the spirit of this body was behind it. Now, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no willingness of the leadership of this House to pass these budget enforcement rules so that they might at least be enforced, and some would say so they can be ignored, which is basically what we have been doing in this body all year. The rules we have, we ignore them and we pass a rule over the objection of the minority. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget makes a very compelling argument that we should stop blaming the other body for what they are not doing and just us do our job. It would seem that it would make a lot more sense to all of us in this body if we passed all 13 appropriation bills. Then we would have something to be concerned about, whether the Senate does or does not pass a budget. But we seemingly are not going to be able to pass the 13 appropriation bills, but some of us seem perfectly willing to find somebody to blame. I was reminded a long time ago when you are pointing the finger of blame at someone else, there are always three pointing back at you; and we need to be reminded and we are going to take to the floor quite often over the next several days and remind everyone of the multitude of budget votes, lockbox votes that we voted in this body almost unanimously that no one was going to touch the Social Security surplus. We are. And as far as the eye can see, we are going to be doing it again. Running up debt, we increased our Nation's debt by $450 billion in a vote last year. We are going to have to do it again early next year because, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, our public debt outstanding has now gone to $6.210 trillion. That is an increase of $440 billion, and I said increase because seemingly when you read the press and you read the rhetoric of what we are attempting to be told that it is not that bad, it is that bad. It is a serious problem, and it goes far beyond the war on terrorism. CBO says the impact of September 11 represents only about 11 percent of the total deterioration of the surplus since last year, and now we are being told that we are going to possibly be in another war, that the estimated cost now ranges somewhere between 100 and $200 billion. We should spend some time, instead of doing what we seem to be doing here this week, very few votes of substance, very few discussions, no bills being proposed to put the pay-go rules and putting some budget discipline back into our budget, no one talking about a budget, no one talking about a new budget, which means that somebody ought to come on this floor and defend the budget that we are now under. Come on this floor and honestly talk about the fact that we have borrowed in the last 12 months $440 billion; $440 billion that we have borrowed. We owe the Social Security trust fund $1.3 trillion. We owe Medicare $263 billion. We owe the military retirement fund $164 billion. We owe the civil service retirement and disability fund $535 billion, and we are increasing that. I do not think that is the kind of a budget confidence vote that the markets are looking at or that anyone is looking at today. I would conclude my remarks by saying Congress and the President need to come up with a new budget and economic game plan to deal with the changes in our budgetary outlook and deal with the new circumstances facing this country. To do otherwise is fiscally irresponsible.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It has been said that ``Greater love hath no one than to lay down his life for a friend.'' Unless perhaps he or she lays down a life for a stranger. That is the love, the heroism, the patriotism that we pause today to remember and to honor. It is the love we witnessed on a large scale in New York and Pennsylvania, and Washington 1 year ago. But it is also the love that is practiced daily in communities across this great land. In some ways, September 11, 2001, is so indelibly imprinted on our minds and souls that it is difficult to believe an entire year has passed. As we recall each detail personally experienced on that day, we remember the horror, the anguish, the sorrow, and the fear. Certainly these emotions remain fresh to all of those who lost a loved one. But even for citizens in other parts of the country hundreds of miles away, our connection as fellow Americans meant that we all felt deep grief. As John Donne wrote more than 300 years ago, ``No man is an island, entire of itself. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.'' In the weeks following September 11, as we heard the bells tolling or the bagpipes playing Amazing Grace in funeral after funeral, each one of us did feel that a part of us had died. And so today, as we remember, we feel sadness, we feel grief. For those of us who were not physically present at one of the attack sites, perhaps our greatest wound came from the fear that gripped our chests and our country. Suddenly our sense of safety, of invulnerability, of carefree security received a vicious slash from a cruel and unexpected attacker. As a Nation, we face the question will we be paralyzed by this fear or will we overcome it? The answer to that question is where the story brings us today. From biblical times until today humanity has discovered three things which overcome fear: Love, faith and action. Some people are aware of that truth every day of their lives. Each community's firefighters, our police officers, our emergency and health care workers, our men and women in military uniform, every day these heroes set aside personal fear in order to do their job so that the rest of us might live safely. They risk the possibility of laying down their lives for both friend and stranger and in doing so they demonstrate some of the greatest examples of love in our society. The year that has passed since September 11 has also helped us find meaning in and through our grief. It has given us an ability to view both world events and our personal lives with a new perspective. And what we have seen is that one of the darkest days of our history gave birth to thousands of acts of goodness, creating perhaps one of our finest hours. Ordinary men and women across the country showed extraordinary bravery, kindness and compassion as we pulled together as one United Nations. As we look back, we learn that it was through our giving back that we are now able to move forward. So while we respect and honor those who lost their lives a year ago, and feel compassion for those who remain in grief, today is also a day of celebration. We celebrate the American spirit, the heroes who are gathered here today among us all over America, and the three antidotes to fear, love, faith and action. The marvelous thing is that every one of us has the capacity to bring to life these fear fighters. We cannot all rush into burning buildings or stop senseless acts of violence. Few of us may actually be faced with the opportunity to save another life. But we all can be heroes by loving, by believing, and by acting to strengthen our communities. As we honor our heroes, both living and dead, we are called to find the heroic urge inside ourselves. September 11 may have shown us the worst of humanity, but it also reminded us of the chance to become the best of humanity, by loving, believing and acting. May each of us today honor those who died by doing just that.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bill H.R. 5005, the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002.'' At the very outset, I want to express my thanks to the Members of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, from both sides of the isle, all of whom were very gracious in considering and ultimately accepting the recommendations from the House Agriculture Committee. I am convinced that through this cooperation we were able to make significant improvements to the sections involving the transfer of the Plum Island Animal Disease Laboratory and the border inspection functions of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). In addition, I want to acknowledge the support and cooperation of the Administration in our efforts to improve these specific provisions as well. Despite my support for moving the process forward today, however, I would not be fully honest if I didn't express serious concern about the accelerated pace at which we have developed this legislative package and about some of the uncertainties associated with it. Many in Congress are concerned that, in our haste, we may not have given adequate consideration to unintended consequences that could result from the current effort. Little that I have heard during this abbreviated process has reassured me that the American people will be significantly safer from terrorist threats as a result of the passage of this bill and its enactment into law. Of course, the vast majority of this bill is really not about creating new protections for the American Homeland. Rather, much of this bill relates to a gigantic reshuffling and potential expansion of the federal bureaucracy--the largest new federal bureaucracy created since World War II. This too is a source of serious concern to me. While I realize that efforts have been made to ensure that no important functions are lost or degraded by this reorganization, I would feel much more comfortable if we had been able to question the Administration about these matters during the hearings held by the House Agriculture Committee. Unfortunately, representatives for the Administration did not choose to accept our invitation to appear, and we consequently had to do our work with less information and assistance from them than I would have liked. Nonetheless, I do remain hopeful, that through our actions today, some improvements in inter-governmental communication and coordination may take place. I am also pleased that we were able to address the issues related to the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in a way that will preserve important agricultural functions, while assisting the effort to consolidate homeland security protections. Given these positive steps, I will be voting for the legislation before us today. I am hopeful that, as a result of this legislation, at least one American family will be spared additional loss and suffering at the hands of those who hate us and our way of life.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 352, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Federal land management agencies should fully support the collaborative 10-year strategy for reducing wild land fire risk to communities and the environment as prepared by the Western Governors Association, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Interior and other stakeholders. Mr. Speaker, the risk of wild land fires to the 192 million Forest Service acres is higher today than ever before. The potential for loss of life and property is also increased in areas where more people are building homes within the wild land urban interface. The local communities situated near our unmanaged national forests experience firsthand the ecosystem problems resulting from fires that cannot be controlled. As we consider H. Con. Res. 352, 29 forest fires are burning in our Western states and six of these fires are out of control. Our efforts to extinguish these fires are stretched to the limit because more than one area in the West is experiencing incidents that have the potential to exhaust all agency fire resources. I applaud President Bush for providing the necessary emergency funds to fight these fires. However, we must continue to think of long-term solutions with four essential goals in mind: The prevention and suppression of wildfires, the reduction of hazardous fuels, the restoration of fire-adapted ecosystem, and the promotion of community assistance. As we focus on these goals, Mr. Speaker, we must encourage the Federal agencies involved to work with the governors in their efforts to deal with the wildland fire and hazardous fuel situation. The Western Governors 10-year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan provides Federal land management agencies with a plan to reduce the overabundance of forest fuels that place national resources at high risk of catastrophic wildfire. In addition, the plan provides a national assessment of prescribed burning practices to minimize risks of escape. I urge my colleagues to support passage of H. Con. Res. 352. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in their tribute to Paul Ecke, Jr. and the Ecke family for their contributions to the floral and horticulture industries in this country and particularly for their devotion to the cultivation and improvement of the poinsettia plant. This is a case where the impact one family has had on an industry cannot go unmentioned, and the unfortunate passing of Paul Ecke, Jr., gives us the opportunity to pay tribute to him and to his father. Their ingenuity and hard work have made poinsettias a holiday tradition and the largest selling potted plant in this country. It is also an amazing feat when one thinks that over 80 percent of all poinsettia plants grown in the world can trace their origin to the Ecke Ranch. Paul Ecke, Jr., was a tireless worker on behalf of the entire floriculture industry and his efforts will truly be missed. I send my condolences to his family and to his industry.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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