Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express some concerns about H.R. 3039. I do so reluctantly, but for several reasons. My first concern is the role of the Department of Agriculture in this effort. A great deal of the focus and efforts involved in getting to a cleaner and healthier Chesapeake Bay are on its upstream tributaries, and a great deal of farmland is included in these watersheds. I am particularly concerned that it appears neither the Committee on Agriculture nor the USDA were consulted in regard to this reauthorization. We have heard how this bill simply puts into statute what is already taking place. I believe as it is part of a reauthorization, a thorough discussion should take place regarding the best ways to accomplish the goals of the program and whether the current structure is accomplishing that. That leads to my questions about why current authorized programs are not being utilized or modified, if necessary, to accomplish the outlined goals, as opposed to putting forward a new program or authority. This has led to a number of programs out there, and in the case of conservation and environmental protection, a number of authorities that are not interconnected and do not have adequate resources to meet the demands for assistance.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say in conclusion, I encourage our colleagues to support this bill. We have heard from the gentleman from Illinois all of the reasons why this is needed. The disappointment is that we have not been able to move it faster within USDA, but it is certainly my hope that all of those who may be in the category of ``foot-draggers'' within the various agencies and various employees of USDA might take this legislation and the support of many at USDA and recognize that we will have some additional opportunities this year to do more in this area of information technology, and, in doing more, we will be able to serve our farmers more efficiently. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of those who have been involved in this legislation; and I urge the support of it. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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 S. 777 as amended by H.R. 852, the Freedom to E-File Act. H.R. 852 was sponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), and I, too, commend him for his leadership in this area. It was approved by the House Committee on Agriculture on March 29. It would require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an Internet-based system to allow farmers and ranchers and other persons to complete and submit program applications electronically and to have electronic access to all relevant economic and administrative program information and data. The legislation before us today also contains a provision that will ensure that the Secretary of Agriculture maintains the confidentiality of persons, and ensures that that information is released only in accordance with current law. Mr. Speaker, I have long been a proponent of initiatives at USDA to provide better service to farmers and ranchers through streamlining and the use of new technologies, while at the same time saving taxpayer dollars. To date, USDA's progress in the information technology arena has been disappointing. For example, a February 2000 General Accounting Office report states that USDA's progress in implementing its initiatives, reorganization, and modernization efforts has been mixed. The report then identifies two primary reasons for its lack of success, the lack of a comprehensive plan to guide the modernization effort and the lack of a management structure with the accountability and authority to resolve differences among the agencies. These findings give me little confidence and further validate my concerns that USDA cannot overcome its stovepipe culture without the intervention of Congress. USDA recognizes this, and, at certain levels, supports this bill. Growing numbers of farmers and ranchers are using home computers. This fact, coupled with budget demands, is putting enormous pressure on USDA's field service employees. It is, therefore, imperative that USDA take advantage of the Internet for the efficiencies it can offer. Doing so will benefit overworked field service staff, save taxpayer dollars, and allow farmers and ranchers to spend more time on their operations and less time visiting USDA offices. For these reasons, I believe USDA must improve electronic access to its programs and services. Consequently, I support the goals of S. 777, as amended, otherwise known as the Freedom to E-File Act. While I would prefer a more comprehensive look at USDA reorganization and modernization needs, it unfortunately appears that changes at USDA are only going to be made on an incremental basis. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding to me to talk tonight about the general subject we have already heard our colleagues from California and Florida speaking about, and that is encouraging, Mr. Speaker, encouraging all Americans to fill out the form and to send it in. I guess one of my disappointments tonight is that we do not have the time equally divided between Democrats and Republicans so that we might all stand up tonight and encourage people to fill out the forms and to send them in, instead of some divided voices that we have been hearing from lately, Mr. Speaker. I think that is not in the best interest of this House of Representatives. I hope that we, under the Speaker's leadership, will find ways to encourage all Americans to return their census forms. As we have already heard, current figures indicate that 61 percent of all citizens have returned their forms. This is good news. But that means 39 percent have not. In Texas, unfortunately, we are running a bit behind the national average. As of last night, 57 percent of Texans have responded. I want to single out a few counties in my district back home that are not doing as well as California was doing a moment ago, but we are exceeding the national averages: Hood County, Taylor County, Tom Green County, and Young County. So to those people living in towns like Granbury and Tolar, and Abilene and Merkel, and San Angelo and Graham and Olney, I commend you and encourage you to continue to publicize and to work to see that your neighbors in fact send their forms in. It is all the more important for people in rural areas to respond to the census. In 1990, the census missed approximately 1.2 percent of all rural residents. We must have an accurate count for rural America also in order that we might receive our fair share of representation and tax dollars. It is very disturbing to me when I look at my rural district and see that when we get outside of the more populated counties that I mentioned, that we are way behind in our response rate. This is disturbing and something that I hope we will in fact be counting soon. The editors of the San Angelo Standard Times wrote about the importance of responding to the census in their March 15 editorial whey they wrote: Texas probably lost a congressional seat in 1990 because an estimated 483,000 Texans either refused to be counted or were missed by census takers. The State also lost nearly $1 billion Federal funding, which is the other primary purpose of the census now, to determine how much money each State will receive for roads, education, health care and other programs. Mr. Speaker, I would provide the full text of the editorial for the Record. Now, I know there are some citizens that are concerned about the long form. The data is extremely important to administering Federal programs, everything from housing programs and community development grants to highways, education and health care. The Census Bureau uses long-form data as a baseline for every single economic indicator. Without an accurate baseline, we cannot produce the economic information to better serve our citizens. The San Angelo Standard Times editors hit on this point as well when they wrote: It is helpful to have a detailed snapshot of the country and the conditions its citizens are living in, because such information can be useful to policymakers. While it may be annoying, there is no real down side. All census information is confidential and by law cannot be shared either with other government agencies or private entities. I think the important thing to point out to our constituents is the extensive privacy constraints that we, the Congress, have imposed on the census. Anyone who violates the law and discloses any individual household data will be subject to 5 years in prison and $5,000 in fines. The Census Bureau has a great track record of protecting this data. In 1990, millions of questionnaires were processed without any breach of trust. So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage all Americans, and in particular my constituents in west Texas, who have not returned their census forms to send them in today. It is not too late. You deserve to be counted, and it is in your community's best interest and it is in our Nation's best interest that we count every individual citizen of America so that our representation in this body and in the State legislatures around the country will be based on the most accurate information. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentlewoman from New York and submit herewith the text of the article I referred to above: [From the San Angelo Standard Times, Mar. 15, 2000] Take Time to Fill Out Census Questionnaire Some West Texans already have received their 2000 census forms, and the rest will be receiving them in the coming days. Those who are ambivalent about filling out the forms need to remember a couple of things: There are many reasons to participate and, aside from the time it takes, not a single reason not to. And considering that the short form--which will go to 80 percent of households--takes only about 10 minutes to complete, the time argument doesn't hold much water for most people. The census has occurred once each decade since the country's beginning. Originally the purpose was to ensure proper representation--that is, since congressional seats are apportioned based on population, it was necessary to know how many people lived in each state to determine how many representatives it would send to the U.S. House of Representatives. Texas probably lost a congressional seat in 1990 because an estimated 483,000 Texans either refused to be counted or were missed by census-takers. The state also lost nearly $1 billion federal funding, which is the other primary purpose of the census now--to determine how much money each state will receive for roads, education, health care and other programs. Both arguments for participating matter in San Angelo and Tom Green County as well. The local share of funding is lost for each person who fails to respond to the census. And with West Texas being tremendously outgrown by the rest of the state, our clout in this part of the state is diminished with each person that is missed. For the first time, a local committee will undertake an aggressive outreach effort to try to limit the number of people who fall through the census cracks. Plans call for having offices where people can go to get help in filling out their census forms, and interpreters will be available for those newer arrivals who need assistance. It's unfortunate that the Census Bureau got off to a bad start, putting an extra digit on addresses for letters that went out recently informing people that their forms would be arriving and erroneously sending out some information in foreign languages Still, that doesn't alter the importance of filling out and returning the forms, which, when compiled, will tell much about the nation at the turn of the century. Some 15 million homes will receive the long form, which does take longer to fill out (about 38 minutes, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates) and does ask some questions that will cause many to wonder why they are necessary. The answer is that it is helpful to have a detailed snapshot of the country and the conditions its citizens are living in, because such information can be useful to policy- makers. While it may be annoying, there is no real downside-- all census information is confidential and by law cannot be shared either with other government agencies or private entities. Consider it a civic duty that pays dividends--and that only has to be performed once every decade.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the leadership of him and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) on this effort and other efforts regarding Social Security. I strongly support repeal of the Social Security earnings limit. In fact, repeal of the Social Security earnings limit has been part of the comprehensive Social Security legislation that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I introduced in the last two Congresses. However, I do want to take this time to reiterate my disappointment that we are considering legislation to increase Social Security benefits without even discussing the long-term financial challenges facing Social Security. We should have spent the last year working on a comprehensive plan to strengthen Social Security that would restore solvency, reduce unfunded liabilities, give workers greater control of their retirement income, improve the safety net, and reward work. But we, both the President and Congress, have ignored our opportunity to deal with the long-term challenges facing Social Security. Later this week, the Social Security trustees will issue their annual report which will show that the short-term outlook for Social Security has improved slightly. We cannot afford to let this good news distract us from the problems that remain. While the short-term outlook for the Social Security Trust Fund may be improved, the long-term problems and the pressures facing the rest of the budget may actually be worse. When the Senate considered this legislation, Senator Judd Gregg proposed an amendment which would have made a modest step in advancing the discussion about the challenges facing Social Security among policy makers and the public. The Gregg amendment would have required the commissioner of Social Security to provide the public and policy makers with easily understood and readily available information about the financial challenges facing Social Security. The purpose of the amendment was simply to encourage a more honest discussion of the challenges facing Social Security. Unfortunately, the Senate did not have time to discuss these issues when it considered the earnings bill. However, the Senate Finance Committee chairman did indicate his willingness to work with Senator Gregg on this issue later this year. I would respectfully encourage the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, to conduct hearings on these recommendations so that they may receive the attention they deserve. More importantly, I encourage all of my colleagues to remember that we still have serious financial problems facing Social Security that must be addressed. So while all Members should vote for the earnings limit repeal today for the reasons we have so eloquently heard made already, we should not forget that we still have much hard work to do in making sure that Social Security remains financially sound for our children and for our grandchildren.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the caps are right. The budget we will consider next recognizes the gimmicks in the budget that we are considering at the base bill. The reason my colleagues can claim all of the things that they claim regarding debt is they are back end loading. They are in fact double counting in areas in which many of them who have been speaking do not truly appreciate what their committee has done. They are back end loading. It is true when we talk about Social Security and our tax cuts, it is true, ours are puny compared to theirs. The problem is that theirs explodes in 2014 when the Social Security drain will become real. When the baby boomers become retirees and begin drawing Social Security, that is when their tax cut will become a problem that the Blue Dogs wish to avoid. I wish they would recognize that. We have been criticized for too much spending, but at the same time folks on this side have said we agree with your military spending. We agree with your defense spending. We agree with your spending for veterans. They cannot have it both ways. Ours is the most responsible.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend the CATs. I guess that is permissible for a dog to do because their budget enforcement mechanisms are something that I totally support. I think they are right on target and I think their criticisms of the base bill are right on target and we agree with them. We look at their defense numbers. They are making a move in the right direction there, and I appreciate the fact that they are talking about Social Security in a much more honest and realistic way than most folks have talked about it today. My concerns with their budget stem from their funding for agriculture at the committee level. I believe that is totally inadequate, given the problems of rural America and agriculture, and I happen to disagree with that. I also disagree in the area of veterans. As the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) so eloquently explained the Blue Dog position on military retirees and veterans, I happen to believe the CATs are inadequate in that area, but there again we can do as we have been doing all day. We can nitpick around. That is not nitpicking. That is serious. My primary opposition to their budget stems again in the area of the tax cut and the size of it. Here again, I commend them because they are honest in saying that theirs is $270 billion over the next 5 years, which amounts to something like over a trillion dollars over 10, and that is an honest presentation and they are very honest in coming forward with that and they believe in that. I happen to not believe in that, for a fundamental reason and it goes back to Social Security. I have joined with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), I have joined with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and others in working in a bipartisan way on a long-term Social Security reform bill, and anyone that has spent any amount of time whatsoever knows that every year we delay in fixing Social Security for the long-term, every day we delay it makes it that much more difficult. 2014 is the magic day. That is when the surpluses we are all wanting to give away tonight, that is when they no longer are surpluses and that is when somebody in the Congress in 2014 is going to have to deal with it. That is why I think it is fiscally irresponsible. With all due respect to those that believe otherwise, it is fiscally irresponsible to give back money today that we are going to need in the Social Security system in 2014, particularly since we are talking about projected surpluses. How many times have we heard it, both sides of the aisle tonight, people talking about these surpluses like they are real? They are projected. They may or may not occur in 2006. If they pass their budget and it becomes law and we do have a tax cut that benefits today, the people today that we are now in the longest peacetime economic expansion in the history of our country, people are doing well, they are paying taxes, but what if that stops in 2006? More importantly, I ask all of my colleagues to start looking at the numbers of 2014. My primary opposition tonight to their bill is the 2014 problem that comes with tax cuts in the area of a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, which they advocate. Anyone that has spent any time looking at the long-term problems of Social Security know we really cannot afford that. That is why with all due respect, I say to those who advocate tax cuts in this area that we are talking about tonight, in my judgment it is the most fiscally irresponsible thing that we could be doing. They disagree. I respect that. I commend them for the things in their budget. They are honest. They are going at it. I just cannot bring myself to vote for this kind of a tax cut for two reasons. Their names are Chase and Cole, mine and Cindy's 4\1/2\ year old and 2\1/2\ year old grandsons. I resolved four and a half years ago that I did not want them to look back 65 years from tonight and say if only my granddad would have done what in his heart he knew he should have done when he was in the Congress we would not be in the mess we are in today. That is why I would strongly oppose the CATs resolution on that one issue. I commend them on the other areas where they are very honest, and am offering some potential bipartisan support.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, for 4 years, the Blue Dogs have offered an honest, fiscally responsible budget. We were the first to talk about balanced budgets without counting Social Security surpluses. We are the folks who consistently have hounded our colleagues about debt reduction. Why have we obsessed on this one topic? Because, just as tax dollars are your money, as is so often said by Members on this floor and at home, so is the $5.6 trillion debt your debt, and it is unconscionable to continue to pass that burden on to our children and grandchildren. In a release just delivered to my office, the highly respected Concord Coalition says, ``We believe the Blue Dog alternative provides the best overall budgetary framework for the next 5 years.'' Last year the Blue Dog budget established the 50-25-25 rule in dealing with any non-Social Security surpluses: 50 percent to debt reduction, 25 percent to tax cuts, 25 percent to spending priorities. This substitute we now consider continues that philosophy. We retire the debt by 2012, 1 year earlier than any other proposal considered in the House today. We reject all budget gimmicks, like unrealistic caps or baselines, insecure lockboxes, backloading, and directed scorekeeping. We protect 10 percent of the Social Security trust funds. We provide for fiscally responsible tax cuts. We also respond to critical program needs in agriculture, in defense, for veterans and military retirees, in education and health care, including Medicare. We are proud of this budget, and we are proud of the influence which we think our small band of relentless true believers have had on this body over the past number of years. We encourage Members on both sides of the aisle, regardless of your label, to listen seriously to the next 40 minutes of debate to see if you do not agree with us, and with the Concord Coalition, that this is the most reasonable and responsible and doable budget on the floor today.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be modified.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), the newest member of the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame. (Mr. HILL of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds. I would remind my friend from Georgia that our budget provides a better death tax than the budget that our Republican colleagues are supporting. Our budget does. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). (Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds to respond in saying that this was great rhetoric we just heard, but it has nothing to do with the budget we are now discussing. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to use this opportunity since it might appear to everyone listening to us that the Blue Dog budget has no tax relief. We do. We provide for approximately $250 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. We provide for a true and honest mitigation of the marriage tax penalty that we have talked about so much on this floor. But we truly attack the marriage tax penalty, not the added on $100 billion. We expand the earned income tax credit. We facilitate financing of school construction and renovation. We provide for increasing credits and deductions for tuition for postsecondary education. We have foster community development and combat urban sprawl relief. We reduce the death tax. Remember that one? This is one of which we provide that every small businessman or woman, farmer and rancher, with a $4 million estate would have immediate exemption from all death taxes. In this budget we are talking about, that is possible to do. And many others. So I do not want anyone to get the misimpression that we are opposed to all tax cuts. Remember the 50/25/25? We are saying any available surpluses, 50 percent should go to pay down the debt; 25 percent should be spent on priorities, of which the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) spoke so eloquently about, priority of defense, veterans' and military retirees, which we fully fund, at least the retiree part of it; and then we have 25 percent of the projected surpluses that can and will be and should be used for tax relief. That is in this what we are talking about.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) for yielding to me. I thank him for his leadership on the budget and for his calling this special order tonight to talk about deficits and debt. The Blue Dog budget that will be hopefully eligible or allowed to be considered tomorrow is one in which we emphasize paying down the debt. We are going to hear a lot of rhetoric perhaps later tonight, and I know we will tomorrow, about surpluses. One thing that everyone needs to understand, Mr. Speaker, is when we are talking about $4 trillion in projected surpluses, they are projected. The lion's share of those surpluses are projected to occur in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Now, who among us can predict tomorrow much less predict 5 years, 6 years, 7 years from now? That is why the Blue Dogs have taken the position for the last 2 years that the conservative thing to do with projected surpluses is to apply as much of them to our debt as we can. That is the conservative thing to do just in case they do not materialize. That is why we have suggested that any non-Social Security, and let me emphasize that because the record will clearly show that both sides of the aisle are now dedicated to not touching Social Security surpluses or Social Security trust funds, and that is good. That is positive. It is the non-Social Security Trust Fund or surpluses or dollars yet to be achieved that we are talking about. Just for rounding off purposes tonight, we are talking about $2 trillion. Many people are going to contend that that is your money, meaning the American people's money; and, therefore, it ought to be returned to you. But some of us will be contending that it is also your debt. There are charts that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has just shown, the one that stands to his right right now showing the build up of the debt and then the building of the debt and showing that we now owe approximately $5.6 trillion. Now I ask all of you who are so exuberant about a tax cut so we might return it to those of you earning it today, what about your children and grandchildren? Why not take this longest sustained economic expansion in the history of our country that has occurred in the last 7 years, why not take this period in which a lot of folks are doing very, very well and use this opportunity to pay down some of that debt which this generation has built up? That is the message that we are going to continue to hammer on. We think it makes sense. We think it is the conservative thing to do. We do not think there is anything conservative about giving a tax cut and spending our children and grandchildren's future now, particularly when these surpluses may not occur. This is one thing that has really bothered me and why I have on occasion said that the trillion dollar tax cut proposed by some is the most fiscally irresponsible bill to come before the House of Representatives in my 21 years here. Many people almost get to fighting with me when I say that because they say I can point to others. I say, no, you are misunderstanding what you are saying. It is not the current effect of the tax cut that worries me. It is 2014. It is when this debt to our Social Security retirees, the baby boomers, are about to retire. It is in 2014 when we are going to see the surpluses built up by Social Security suddenly evaporate, and then that Congress in 2014 will either have to increase taxes or reduce benefits, promised benefits to that generation. Now, to me that is fiscally irresponsible. It is why we are saying that, when we look at tax cuts that start slow and then explode in 2010 to 2014 to 2020 at exactly the same time that the economy to pay off Social Security is going to require tremendous additional dollars, it is irresponsible for this Congress in 2000 to have a tax cut that ignores that debt and that deficit that will occur in 2014. No one disagrees with that. This is why, again, going back to the short term, and that is tomorrow and the budget, why the Blue Dogs have proposed a budget that will pay down the debt held by the public by 2012. Now that may not sound like much compared to 2013. The Republican substitute says that they will pay it down by 2013. We say we will do it by 2012, one year. But here is the significant thing about our deficit reduction package. We retire over 30 percent of the debt held by the public within 5 years, and 80 percent of the debt held by the public would be retired within 10 years because we have a plan that actually reduces the debt. I believe it was the idea of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) who came up with the 50/25/25. I do not remember. But I think it was. He came up with this proposal originally when we started down this path, taking 50 percent of any surpluses and using that to pay down the debt.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the reasoned statement of my colleague, the gentleman from California Mr. Cunningham) that he just made because that is exactly the tone in which we ought to be speaking today; not the continuous blame game that I have heard. That is why I rise to express my great disappointment in this legislation which pathetically fails to address any of the fundamental energy policy questions that Congress and the administration should be working on together to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources. Unfortunately, this legislation is a knee-jerk reaction which is targeted towards publicity far more than solving our long-term needs. Right now consumers are paying high gasoline and diesel prices at the pump and folks in the Northeast faced very high home heating costs this winter. These are very serious problems, just as critically low oil prices were serious problems only 14 months ago. Over a 2-year period, our Nation lost over 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil and gas production when prices were so low that it cost more to find and produce crude than could be made by selling it. When prices are so low that our domestic producers are forced out of business, our Nation's dependence on foreign oil inevitably increases. Now that we depend on foreign sources for almost 60 percent of our fuel demands, we begin to see the folly of our earlier inaction. We cannot afford to continue ignoring the desperate need for a comprehensive energy policy which encourages and promotes domestic production of oil and gas, provides for incentives for renewable energy sources, and reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Congress should act, and to my friends on this side of the aisle they would be surprised how many Democrats are willing to reach out and work with them.