Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Then just about the time I think that I have seen every most unusual political circumstance on this floor, we get another one that is real interesting in this regard. But if I understand the gentleman from California correctly, this provides for a clean increase of $450 billion in the debt ceiling, so all who vote for this are voting to borrow an additional $450 billion clean. It is not going to be added to the military construction. It is a simple take-up of the Senate bill; and if 218 Members vote to borrow that money, it is clean.

Mr. STENHOLM. So it is not a motion to recommit?

Mr. STENHOLM. But I would say to the gentleman that I would feel a whole lot better about the procedure if you allowed the Moore-Spratt bill as a substitute amendment so that we might have a true expression; and then after we have had that true expression, then I certainly would intend to join with the majority in seeing that we do not bring our country to the edge of default. My problem is with the procedure, but it sounds to me like you are getting there.

Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I think you are getting very close to satisfying me.

Mr. STENHOLM. No, the gentleman is correct; but not in the manner in which the gentleman is proposing.

Mr. STENHOLM. But no amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. With all due respect, I understand why you are doing what you are doing. I continue to be extremely disappointed in the lack of consideration for minority views in this body. The last time I got into this exchange, I was reminded that at one time I was in the majority. And I would remind my friends on that side when we were in the majority I often sided with you on fairness. This again is not a fair rule, but I understand the rule of majority; and I appreciate the time and clarification because, as I understand it, we were about to vote on this with no debate, no discussion, there was going to be a lot of confusion regarding this; but now I think more people will have a little better understanding of the confusion.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring of the gentlewoman if she might explain the parliamentary procedure, this mystery motion, that the gentlewoman is about to offer as an addition to the rule that we are now talking about, military construction, which we are all in favor of. But I keep hearing rumors that we might suddenly be faced with a parliamentary situation where we are talking about increasing the debt ceiling. I yield to the gentlewoman for the purpose of explaining thoroughly to the body since there might not be any time to debate this.

Mr. STENHOLM. If I understood, this would be another one of the rules that provides for no debate and no discussion, no amendments. Debate for 1 hour, but no amendments.

Mr. STENHOLM. I misspoke. But if Members on this side would have an amendment of which we believe would be a better way to proceed regarding increasing the debt limit, which many of us are prepared to give the President what he has asked for as a clean debt ceiling increase, but we have a little different idea about how that ought to be done. But I understand the gentlewoman's rule that will be coming will again preclude Members on the minority side from having an opportunity to amend; is that correct?

Mr. STENHOLM. Looking at the rule, it says that there will be 1 hour of debate and one motion to commit. Commit to what?

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to make it very clear that this side of the aisle has been in favor of raising the debt ceiling clean since at least March. We have made repeated offers. What we are not in favor of doing is increasing the debt ceiling with a blank check to continue to borrow money without changing our economic game plan. I join with Chairman Thomas in his opening remarks because it is in the same spirit that he referenced back to 1946 that we attempted to have an offer of an amendment today to lower the amount of debt ceiling from $450 billion to a $150 billion increase. That is exactly the same spirit in which was done in 1946. We asked for that to be made in order, but the rule once again denied the minority an opportunity to have a clean up and down vote on an alternative. I do not understand why we continue to have the inability to have debate on issues as important as the debt ceiling is. I hope no one makes the argument that we are here as obstructionists. We are here today positively saying we will offer in the motion to commit-- recommit, commit, whatever the new terminology is--this bill back to the Committee on Ways and Means with an instant recall at $150 billion so that we might have another look at the budget prior to the end of this fiscal year when CBO re-estimates. It is fiscally irresponsible for this group, this House, to stand on this floor and increase by $450 billion without revisiting the economic game plan that we are under. Take a look at State after State after State in which governors are having to make tough decisions. Here we are no longer tax and spend, we are borrow and spend. That is exactly what this resolution will do. Those who vote for it today will be voting to borrow and spend another $450 billion with the exact same economic game plan that has gotten us into the problem that we are in today. I do not understand this. I do not understand why, once again, the chairman comes on, and no one comes over and debates. Where is the debate?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my Republican colleagues for tonight voting to borrow the money to pay for their policies. I am disappointed, though, that they did not come to the floor with the same enthusiasm defending the vote to borrow the money that they did when they passed the policies that put us into debt. With the exception of the majority leader; his enthusiasm for borrowing $450 billion is unprecedented. The need to increase the debt limit is not the result of September 11. In fact, the Secretary of the Treasury came to us last August predicting that we were going to have to borrow money when we were looking at the economic game plan that we were under. We agree on this side unanimously, well, almost unanimously, that we need to increase the debt limit by $150 billion tonight, and we will get over 400 votes to do it. What we object to is providing a blank check to borrow $450 billion to stay on the same economic game plan. Now, my friend from Arizona made the comments about the spending. I would point out that every single spending vote this year that has occurred has come under the Republican-passed budget that we supported in the Blue Dogs but that my colleagues would never allow us to have the trigger on. So do not blame us for the spending when it is the Republican budget that we are spending to. In fact, we agree that we should not increase spending more than the President has asked us to spend. That is not the issue tonight. The issue tonight is whether or not we are going to have a new economic game plan or whether we should borrow $450 billion with a blank check to continue spending. Now, I am perfectly willing to roll up my sleeves in a bipartisan way and work with the majority if they would just let us. But we will have a pharmaceutical bill on the floor later tonight in which we will be denied an opportunity to vote on. My Republican colleagues denied us an opportunity to have the Hill bill, the Moore bill on the floor today, and yet the chairman said a moment ago, where is the debate? I have been begging my colleagues to debate me on whether we should borrow $450 billion or $150 billion. When we vote for the bill, we are borrowing $450. We could do it at $150 and be fiscally responsible. That is the issue. Vote for the motion to commit.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I now inquire of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget if he would, by unanimous consent, agree, so that we might clear up the problems that the Speaker is having with this, what I consider to be, very fair request. I have heard objection.

Mr. STENHOLM. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STENHOLM. Again, from the rules that the Chair is reading, this is what I thought I was interpreting, that by unanimous consent we may adjust a rule, if there is no objection from the other side. I hear no objection.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that by unanimous consent this body may do almost anything if we all agree, all 435. The debate has been that we have no plan. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) offers a plan by unanimous consent. This seems to be or would be in order, unless there is objection from the other side.

Mr. STENHOLM. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 4858, which I have been pleased to work on and cosponsor with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran). I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for bringing the bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4858 reauthorizes and expands the State Conrad 20 program. The 2-year reauthorization allows States to continue to act as an interested government agency in order to sponsor foreign-born doctors to practice in medically underserved areas. The number of doctors that can be sponsored per State is expanded from 20 to 30. Since the mid-1990s, 42 States and the District of Columbia have been using the Conrad 20 program, processing an estimated 595 physicians per year. However, the demand for doctors continues to grow. Despite a continuing population migration to urban and suburban communities throughout the State, the vast majority of Texas remains rural, posing unique challenges to the delivery and accessibility of high-quality health care. Not only are health care services likely to be unevenly distributed, but many rural residents do not even have access to a local doctor, primary care provider, or hospital. Regrettably, a doctor would diagnose the health care problems in rural communities as chronic and persistent. The issues are not new, and we have tried a variety of medicines to remedy these problems, but we still have a long way to go before we achieve a healthy rural America. Consider the following state-wide facts: 77 percent of Texas counties are considered rural, and 88 percent of these are considered medically underserved; 2.9 million people, or 15 percent of the State's 19.6 million residents, reside in nonmetropolitan counties; 25 rural Texas counties have no primary care physician; an additional 29 counties have only one; only 11 percent of licensed primary care physicians practice in rural areas. For other health professionals, the figures are similar: pharmacists, 11.9 percent; physician assistants, 18 percent. Access to primary care promotes appropriate entry into the health system and is vital to ensure 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. 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 community, further straining the financial well-being of rural communities. It is imperative that we identify and expand those programs that provide physicians, pharmacists, nurses, dentists, and physician assistants incentives to practice in rural areas. The J-1 visa waiver program was expanded in 1995, allowing medical exchange graduates in U.S. residency training to extend their stay for 3 years, provided they practice in an underserved community. For certain rural, as well as urban, areas in the United States, the J-1 docs have been key providers. Since 1995, Texas alone has received the services of over 350 J-1 physicians. This represents service to a population of over 1 million people. One million people have received health care that they would not otherwise have received, or at least it would have been more difficult to receive, as a result of this program that we reauthorize today. However, on March 1, 2002, USDA made a unilateral decision to stop acting as a sponsor for international medical graduates in rural health services. Everyone involved in this program, starting with the Department of Public Health of every State, to the health care facilities who are desperately waiting for their recruited physicians to start work in their rural communities, to the doctor who needed the waiver to start work and have legal status, were shocked to learn of the elimination of this vital program. Through the quick efforts of the Rural Health Care Coalition, we were able to convince USDA at a minimum to process those doctors who already had an application pending. While I am pleased with USDA's decision to take a second look at the program, the affected health care facilities have lost several critical months during which they could have had a physician filling that void in their community. However, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage USDA, the State Department, and the INS to expedite those pending applications to the best extent possible, as our rural communities are in dire need and deserve every opportunity to access medical care. The J-1 waiver program is considered a lifeline for rural communities all over the United States. In the 17th district of Texas that I have the privilege of representing, I have three hospitals awaiting approval for a J-1 doctor: Fisher County Hospital in Rotan, North Runnels Hospital in Winters, and the San Angelo State School in San Angelo. These are doctors whose applications were pending at the time of the decision to stop the program. Coordination among agencies involved to expeditiously process these applicants has reached a critical stage in my district, as I am sure it has in many rural areas across the country. I am hopeful through the efforts of the Rural Health Care Coalition and the White House task force formed to look into reinstating the J-1 program, we can develop a workable plan to meet the ever-growing needs of access to quality health care in rural America. However, until we have an alternative solution at the Federal level, there is no other sponsorship program that can fill the void for our rural communities other than the Conrad 20 program. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4858 in an effort to fill that void.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend, the gentleman from Texas, for clarification to see if I understood what I think I heard him say, that he meant to say regarding the debt ceiling: that we do have a crisis that has been ascertained by the Secretary of the Treasury; that June 28 seems to be the last day that they can juggle the books without us doing what we are supposed to do, and that is, raise the debt ceiling, June 28. I believe I heard the gentleman say that it would be his hope that he could add it to the supplemental so that there would not be an up-and- down clean vote on it; but if that were not able to be done, then he would entertain the possibility of bringing the Senate clean bill of $450 billion to the floor for an up-and-down vote.