[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1172-H1178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           BLUE DOG COALITION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, this evening, as on each Tuesday evening, I 
rise on behalf of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, a group 
of 37 of us that are fiscally conservative Democrats that are concerned 
about the state of affairs in America. We are concerned about the debt, 
the deficit, the budget; and we are committed to trying to restore some 
common sense and fiscal discipline to our Nation's government and our 
Nation's budgeting process.
  Ever since I was a small child growing up in Prescott, Emmet and 
Hope, Arkansas, I always heard it was the Democrats that spent the 
money. And yet it was a President named Bill Clinton from Arkansas, 
from my hometown of Hope, Arkansas, in fact, that gave this Nation its 
first balanced budget in 40 years. From 1988 through 2001, America 
enjoyed the prosperity that came with having its fiscal house in order. 
America enjoyed the prosperity that came with having a balanced budget.
  It is hard now to believe that from 1998 through 2001 this country 
had a balanced budget, because, as we all know, for the sixth year in a 
row this Nation, under this Republican-led Congress and under this 
President, this administration, has given us the largest budget deficit 
ever, ever in our Nation's history for a sixth year in a row.
  As a matter of fact, as you walk the Halls of Congress, it is easy to 
spot a fiscally conservative Democrat because the 37 of us who belong 
to the Blue Dog Coalition have this poster outside our office in the 
Halls of Congress. As you can see today, the U.S. national debt is 
$8,365,525,832,151 and some change. That is a big number.
  Let us put it in a way that we all can understand it. For every man, 
woman and child, including those born this past hour, every citizen of 
America's share of the national debt is $28,000 and some change.
  Mr. Speaker, where I come from, very few of my constituents can 
afford to write a check for $28,000 and yet it is this kind of debt, 
this kind of deficit that we are saddling on our children and 
grandchildren and expecting them someday to pay back, and I believe it 
is morally wrong.
  I raise these issues because, you see, my grandparents left this 
country better than they found it for my parents, and my parents left 
this country better than they found it for my generation, and I believe 
we have a duty and an obligation to try and leave this country just a 
little bit better than we found it for the next generation. But 
instead, for the sixth year in a row, we have the largest budget 
deficit ever in our Nation's history.
  This administration, this Republican Congress, continues to pass tax 
cuts for those earning over $400,000 a year. Just in the last few 
months, this Congress passed the so-called Budget Deficit Reduction 
Act. Here is what it did. It cut Medicaid, the only health insurance 
plan for the poor, disabled, and elderly. It cut student loans and a 
program for orphans to the tune of $40 billion. And then they passed 
another tax cut to the tune of about $90 billion.
  I was not real good in math in high school or college, but you can do 
the math on that. Some $90 billion in tax cuts for those earning over 
$400,000 a year, $40 billion in cuts to Medicaid, to orphan programs 
and to student loans. That amounts to $50 billion in additional debt, 
and yet the Republican leadership in this body had the nerve to call it 
the Deficit Reduction Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time for those of us in the fiscally 
conservative Blue Dog Coalition to rise up and hold this 
administration, this Congress responsible for these kinds of reckless 
spending habits that destroy future generations.
  The budget the President has submitted for fiscal year 2007, some 
$2.8 trillion, you have to give it to him, he has managed to cut all of 
the programs that matter to people: health care, education, 
infrastructure, economic development, and yet give us the largest 
budget deficit ever in our Nation's history all at the same time. How 
does he do that? Because he continues to propose to borrow money from 
foreign lenders, foreign central banks, foreign investors to fund tax 
cuts for those earning over $400,000 a year. What has it given us? It 
has given us a debt of $8,365,525,832,151.
  By the time we complete this hour, Mr. Speaker, the national debt 
will have risen more than $41 million.
  Every Tuesday night those of us in the Blue Dog Coalition, we are 37 
members strong, we come here to talk about the debt and the deficit and 
what it means, not only to today's generation but to future 
generations, because you see, Mr. Speaker, these are big numbers. They 
are big numbers, but let me put it in perspective.
  Not only is our Nation borrowing about a billion dollars a day; we 
are sending $279 million every day to Iraq, but do not dare ask the 
President how he is spending it or if he has a plan for how it is to be 
spent because he will tell you that you are unpatriotic. Some

[[Page H1173]]

$57 million is going every day to Afghanistan. And on top of that, our 
Nation is spending the first half a billion we collect in your tax 
money each and every day simply to pay interest, not principal, just 
interest on the national debt.
  We need I-49 in my congressional district. I need $1.5 billion to 
complete it. Give me 3 days' interest on the national debt, I can build 
I-49. On the eastern side, we are waiting on I-69. Give me 3 days' 
interest on the national debt, and I can complete I-69' and with these 
two interstates, we can bring economic opportunities and jobs to one of 
the most depressed and distressed areas of the country.
  These are the kinds of priorities that should be America's priorities 
that continue to go unmet until we get our Nation's fiscal house in 
order and restore some common sense to our government.
  Mr. Speaker, if you have questions for the Blue Dog Coalition, I 
would invite you to e-mail us at [email protected].
  Mr. Speaker, we are very privileged this evening to have a special 
guest join us, that is, the whip of the Democratic Caucus, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank both Mr. Ross and the Blue Dog Coalition for focusing on what I 
believe to be one of the most critical problems confronting our 
country. I am going to speak a little bit about that.
  I lament the loss of one of the great leaders of the House, one of 
the great leaders of the Blue Dog Coalition, Charlie Stenholm. No 
Member with whom I have served over the last 25 years, a quarter of a 
century, has been any more focused on trying to instill fiscal 
responsibility in the policies of this House than was Charlie Stenholm.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition for 
organizing this important Special Order hour. The Blue Dogs have long 
been focused on this issue of fiscal responsibility, and I believe 
there is no more important issue in our Nation today.

                              {time}  2030

  I do not make that statement lightly. It is not hyperbole. I realize 
that our Nation is at war. Our gulf coast is still reeling from the 
worst natural disaster in American history. We are struggling, nearly 5 
years after 9/11, to address our homeland security vulnerabilities.
  Forty-five million Americans have no health insurance. Health care 
costs, gas prices, and college costs are all up for our citizens; and 
median household income, at the same time, as you know, Mr. Ross, is 
down. These are many of these critical issues that we face today. 
However, what the Blue Dog Coalition knows, and what every American 
needs to know, is that these issues that we face will all be impacted 
by the dangerous fiscal policies that we are embarked on.
  Why? Because the record Federal budget deficits and exploding 
national debt that have been instigated over the last 5 years will 
affect our ability to address virtually every issue confronting the 
American people. That is why this matters.
  This is not just some pie-in-the-sky issue that Mr. Ross and I are 
talking about. Mr. Ross made it very clear what he could do with just 3 
days' interest in terms of bringing economic vitality to an area that 
needs growth and jobs and help with prosperity. Other issues such as 
the war on terror, homeland security, health care, education, Social 
Security and Medicare are all going to be impacted by these incredibly 
huge deficits that we are creating.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I know you are interested in these comments, but 
here is what David Walker had to say, the Comptroller General of the 
United States. He told the Senate Budget Committee on February 15, and 
I quote, ``Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually 
erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living and, 
ultimately, our national security.'' Now, that is the gentleman whom we 
have appointed as the watchdog for the Congress on the finances of this 
country to make sure we don't waste money. What he is saying is, these 
policies are unsustainable, dangerous and will undermine our national 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to say this, but I believe it is 
an undisputed statement of fact. This administration, through its 
insistence on unaffordable tax policies, is the most fiscally reckless 
administration in American history. Just listen to former Republican 
House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, who told the Wall Street 
Journal in January of 2004, and again I quote, ``I'm sitting here and 
I'm upset about the deficit, and I'm upset about spending. There is no 
way I can pin that on the Democrats. Republicans own the town now.'' 
That was the former Republican majority leader saying, Republicans are 
responsible for this reckless, irresponsible fiscal policy that worries 
Dick Armey.
  Simply look at the facts. When President Bush took office in January 
2001, he inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. 
That is what he said. It is not what we said. He said that in a 
statement to the Congress.
  President Clinton reduced the budget deficit every year during his 
first term, and then, Mr. Speaker, in his second term, presided over 
four straight budget surpluses. That hadn't been done for 70 years 
prior to that time. The first time that happened was 70 years ago. In 
fact, the Clinton administration paid down the national debt by $453 
billion during that second term. In fact, the surpluses were over half 
a trillion dollars. But we paid down the debt by $453 billion.
  So, not surprisingly, President Bush issued this bold prediction on 
March 31, 2001. Before I get to that, my friend has put up on the 
board, Mr. Ross, the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas, has put up 
on the board the deficits over the last 25 years. Now, I have been in 
Congress every one of those years, Mr. Speaker. 17 of those have been 
with Republican Presidents, 17 of those years. Eight of those years 
have been with a Democratic President.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, some say, oh, well, 9/11 happened. It did. It cost 
us. It was serious. We needed to respond to it. But, very frankly, from 
1982 to 1993, 9/11 didn't happen. Did we go to war in Iraq? Yes. And 
the good news was President Bush and Jim Baker went around the world 
and said, this is an international problem, and the international 
community paid for it. We didn't.
  But if you will look at those figures that Mr. Ross has put up, every 
year, every one, without fail, under a Republican President over the 
last 25 years has been a deficit year.
  And then you get to the Democratic year. Now, frankly, Mr. Ross has 
them in blue, but the first four numbers are, in fact, red numbers. We 
ran deficits. Why? Because we were pulling ourselves out of the deep 
debt that had been created by the prior two administrations. And then 
when we did that, it then took us into surplus for 4 straight years. 
But here's the good news.
  Seventeen years, it is the bad news first; 17 years under Republican 
administrations, $4-plus trillion of deficits. Under Bill Clinton, 
$62.2 billion of surplus. That is an amazing record.
  But here's what President Bush issued, a prediction in March of 2001 
inheriting these surpluses, quote: ``We will pay off $2 trillion of 
debt over the next decade.'' That is what President Bush said, over the 
next 10 years. He has now been here 6 years. Two billion dollars of 
debt over the next decade; that will be the largest debt reduction in 
any country, ever. Future generations, President Bush said, shouldn't 
be forced to pay back money.
  Now, I want, Mr. Speaker, I know you will be interested in this and 
others will be interested, other colleagues. President Bush said this: 
``Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have 
borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and 
grandchildren.''
  Tragically, although President Bush said that, his policies have led 
to exactly the opposite and have placed, if you add--Mr. Ross says 
$28,000, but if you add the added debt limit, $30,000 per child, per 
grandchild, per wife, per husband, and depending upon the size of your 
family, if it is four, $120,000.

  The reality, of course, shows that notwithstanding what Mr. Bush said 
he was going to do, the President said he was going to do, he has done 
exactly

[[Page H1174]]

the opposite. In 5 years, the Bush administration and this Republican 
Congress, Mr. Speaker, have created the four largest budget deficits in 
American history: As Mr. Ross pointed out, $378 billion in fiscal 2002, 
$412 billion in fiscal 2003, $318 billion in fiscal 2005, and a 
projected $371 billion in fiscal 2006. And the Congressional Budget 
Office, Mr. Speaker, is projecting deficits as far as the eye can see.
  So not only did this administration not reduce the deficit by $2 
trillion, it has added $3 trillion. That is a $5 trillion mistake.
  As far as paying down the national debt, the administration and this 
Congress have been forced to raise the statutory debt limit four times 
in 5 years. As Mr. Ross knows, and my good friend, Mr. Matheson knows, 
during the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, we never raised 
the national debt, not once. And, in fact, during the entire 8 years, 
we only raised it twice.
  This administration has raised the statutory debt limit four times, 
for a total of $3.015 trillion, with a T. The national debt limit now 
stands at $9 trillion, which means that every man, woman and child in 
America owes about $30,000 of debt, as I said.
  Consider, as the gentleman has pointed out, and he talked about it in 
terms of a day. We are borrowing $600,000 per minute, $600,000 per 
minute. In the last years of the Clinton administration, we didn't need 
to do that because we had responsible fiscal policies that we were 
pursuing.
  Consider, the first 42 American presidents borrowed a total of $1.01 
trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions over 211 
years. This administration, in 5 years, now in their sixth, has 
borrowed from foreign entities, China, Saudi Arabia and others, $1.055 
trillion. In other words, this President, in 5 years, has borrowed more 
money from foreign governments, foreign banks, foreign financial 
centers than all of the other Presidents America has had, combined.
  Mr. Speaker, you don't need a doctorate in economics to appreciate 
that our Nation's economy and its security is more vulnerable when we 
are deeply indebted to foreign creditors.
  Our deteriorating fiscal condition also has other serious side 
effects, Mr. Speaker. For example, the interest payments on the 
national debt are exploding. This is just like the interest consumers 
pay on their credit cards. In fiscal 2007, those interest payments will 
total a projected $243 billion.
  Now, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, $243 billion is more money than 
every bill we will pass appropriating money for health, for education, 
for infrastructure, for environment, for crime prevention, for fighting 
terrorism, except the defense bill. So of the 11 appropriations bills 
we will pass, only one is larger than the interest we have to pay on 
the debt because we are mortgaging our future. In fact, interest 
payments on the national debt over the next decade are projected at $3 
trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, our children and grandchildren won't be able to buy 
anything for that. As a matter of fact, that sum is so large that just 
with the interest we are paying, we could pay all of Medicare expenses 
over the next 10 years. Think of that. These interest payments 
constitute resources that could have been used for national and 
homeland security, for Social Security and Medicare, for health care 
and education, and yes, Mr. Speaker, for tax cuts.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying it is highly ironic that 
President Bush traveled the country last year warning of Social 
Security's imminent demise, while at the same time he was spending 
every single nickel of Social Security surplus over the last 5 years. 
$817 billion of Social Security surpluses we have spent. And, in fact, 
what we have done is, we have taken those FICA taxes from working men 
and women and given it to some of the richest people in America in 
their tax cuts. My, my, my, what responsible policy. And, in fact, 
under the Republican budget policies every nickel of the Social 
Security surplus will again be spent over the next 5 years, a total of 
$1.148 trillion in total.
  Consider that just a few years ago the chairman of the House Budget 
Committee, Mr. Nussle of Iowa, confidently predicted, now, this is Mr. 
Nussle of Iowa, our colleague who chairs the Budget Committee, who 
talks about fiscal responsibility, he said this: This Congress will 
protect 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, 
period.
  This is Mr. Nussle. No speculation, no supposition, no projections.
  That statement of course, Mr. Speaker, proved absolutely, undeniably 
false, wrong. We have spent every nickel. We haven't saved 1 cent of 
that Social Security surplus. And I hope the Members of this House and 
the American people will keep this representation and others made by 
our Republican friends in mind as we prepare to consider this coming 
budget because they are going to say a lot of things, as they have in 
the past.
  We will likely hear many more confident, bold predictions in the days 
ahead, predictions that are simply unmoored in fiscal reality. Every 
single Member of this House knows that the one tried and true method of 
restoring fiscal discipline is to reinstate the common-sense pay-as-
you-go budget rules that were adopted when the Democrats were in charge 
in 1990. And George Bush I joined in that bipartisan agreement to get a 
handle on our fiscal posture in America.
  Our Republican friends allowed those paygo rules to expire, Mr. 
Speaker, in 2002. We urged them to keep them. We have offered them in 
our budget resolution every year. They have been rejected. And our 
Nation has rued the day that that rule was changed.
  I urge my colleagues, join Democrats in supporting pay-as-you-go 
budget rules. Let us end this cycle of deficit and debt that threatens 
our Nation's security and future.
  And I thank my friend, Mr. Ross. I thank Mr. Matheson, who cochairs 
the Blue Dog Caucus, for continuing to focus on this issue which, in my 
opinion, is the most important that confronts our country because every 
other issue will be impacted by our fiscal irresponsibility.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the whip of the Democratic Caucus, for joining the Blue Dog 
Coalition this evening as we hold this Republican administration and 
this Republican Congress accountable for this reckless spending, for 
this record deficit, for the record debt, and for this out-of-control 
budget that truly does not reflect America's priorities.
  The gentleman from Maryland raised an excellent point when he talked 
about the Social Security trust fund. And I am beginning to understand. 
The first bill I filed when I got to Congress back in 2001 was a bill 
to tell the politicians in Washington to keep their hands off the 
Social Security trust fund. And the Republican leadership refused to 
give us a hearing or a vote on that bill. And now I understand why, 
because when we talk about the fiscal year 2006 deficit at $318 
billion, that is not right. The real deficit is $494 billion because 
the $318 billion is counting the Social Security trust fund.
  Now, when I go to the bank to get a loan, they want to know how I am 
going to pay it back, when I am going to pay it back, where the money 
is coming from to pay it back. And yet our government, this Republican 
Congress, continues to borrow billions of dollars from the Social 
Security trust fund with absolutely no idea, no provision on how or 
when or where the money is coming from to pay it back. And I believe 
that is morally wrong, as we have a duty and an obligation to protect 
Social Security for today's seniors as well as future generations.
  I am also pleased to be joined this evening by one of the co-Chairs 
of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, a real 
leader within the group, Mr. Matheson from Utah.
  Welcome.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Ross.
  And it is great to have the minority whip join us. He has often been 
described as an honorary Blue Dog, and he has always recognized and 
been a voice in support of fiscally responsible policy. And I just want 
to emphasize a point that the minority whip had made in his comments 
about this notion that we should live with the set of rules that you 
have got to live within your means.
  It is going to take some tough decisions to bring back fiscal 
discipline to this government. Balanced budgets are not going to be 
easy to achieve. If it

[[Page H1175]]

was easy, I would like to think it already would have happened.
  So what the Blue Dogs believe is that you have got to put in a set of 
rules and a structure that helps encourage fiscal discipline. And one 
of the rules that the Blue Dogs have been strongly supportive of and 
the minority whip has mentioned in his comments is this notion that you 
pay as you go. And this is a concept that is pretty basic when you 
think about it.
  If you have something new, a new program where you want to spend some 
money, you have got to pay for it. You have got to pay for it by taking 
money away from something else or finding a source of revenue to pay 
for it.
  But the other piece of that puzzle is, if you want to do a tax cut, 
you have got to pay for that with corresponding cuts in spending or 
finding revenues elsewhere. It is really a pretty basic concept. I 
think people, when they look at their own household budget, look at it 
that way. They have so much money coming in and out that if they want 
to do an adjustment somewhere, they have got to do an adjustment 
someplace else to accommodate for that. And that is all we are asking.
  And what is interesting, and I may want to ask the minority whip to 
describe this for me, he was here in 1990 when this was put in place, 
when the first President Bush was in office. I was not in Congress at 
that time, but those rules were in place starting after 1990, and I 
think among many factors, they were the critical factor in moving us 
toward the surpluses that we enjoyed by the end of the 1990s. And I 
find it unfortunate, and we should all find it unfortunate, quite 
frankly, that those rules were allowed to expire at the end of, I 
believe, 2001.
  I know legislation has been offered and introduced to restore those 
rules. We cannot seem to get a vote on restoring those rules. I would 
love to have an up-or-down vote here in the House of Representatives on 
restoring those rules. I would love to see anyone, really, stand up and 
vote against that type of common-sense approach to encouraging fiscal 
discipline here in Congress.
  I think that that is such a crucial point, I want to reemphasize what 
the minority whip had mentioned because I think that people are looking 
for solutions.
  It is easy to step back and just complain about the problems we have 
here, but there are solutions out there to help us get our arms around 
this problem, and one of them is, let us look for these pay-as-you-go 
rules so that we all live within our means and we make responsible 
decisions.
  The Blue Dogs actually have a 12-point plan, and I just want to talk 
about one other of those points in this segment where I am talking 
right now that I think is important, because along with trying to have 
fiscal discipline and making sure you live within your means, you have 
also got to make sure that money is being spent wisely, and that means 
you need accountability. And we do not have accountability right now in 
many, many agencies within the Federal Government. Do you realize in 
the Department of Defense, there are 63 different agencies and only six 
of them can give you a clean audit of their books and the other 57 
cannot tell you where the money is being spent?
  Now, I think it is Congress' job to ask the questions about where 
that money is being spent. I do not think this Congress has been very 
aggressive in its oversight function and asking where the money has 
been spent. The most recent year for which we have this data is 2003, 
and the government cannot account for $24.5 billion that was spent. And 
we throw a lot of numbers around here; $24.5 billion is a lot of money. 
That is more than the budget for the entire Department of Justice for a 
whole year, and right now we do not have the ability to have Federal 
agencies tell us how that money has been spent.

  So one of the other points of the Blue Dogs' plan I just want to 
mention is, it would be a requirement that you have got to give us a 
clean audit of your books, and if you do not, your budget stays frozen 
at the previous year's level. I think that is a pretty good economic 
incentive for people to want to tell us how the money is being spent, 
and that forces accountability. So with fiscal discipline, of course, 
we want to have a structure that forces those tough decisions, but it 
is also important that we make sure we know how money is being spent. 
We need to have answers to those questions.
  So I wanted to stand up in response and reaction to the very great 
comments and great statistics and great information and history that 
the minority whip has laid out for this cycle of moving from debt to a 
period of surplus, and now we are moving deeply into debt again. I want 
to reemphasize his support of the pay-as-you-go that he mentioned. He 
mentioned another notion of accountability the Blue Dogs have been a 
strong advocate for. I think that is how we are going to try to get our 
arms around this situation.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Matheson), co-Chair of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, 
for his insight.
  And the gentleman is right. As members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we 
are trying to make some sense out of our Nation's government, out of 
the budget process, trying to restore some common sense and fiscal 
discipline. We are not here just to rail at the Republicans. It may be 
the first time in 50 years that they have controlled the White House, 
House, and Senate. But we are not here just to criticize or to hold 
accountable, but also to offer up solutions and ideas on how we can fix 
this thing for America and future generations, and that is why we have 
a 12-point plan.
  And the gentleman from Utah talked about accountability. And right 
here you will see an aerial photo of a hay meadow at the Hope Airport 
in Hope, Arkansas, a so-called FEMA staging area. It is my 
understanding that it has been about 7 months now since Hurricane 
Katrina, a terrible storm, devastated the gulf coast. We have folks in 
Pass Christian, Mississippi, living in military-style tents. We have 
got some 80,000 people living in camper trailers. We have got over 
10,000 families living in hotel and motel rooms spread out over several 
States. And yet FEMA has purchased and has stored in a hay meadow at 
the Hope Airport some 10,777 brand-new, fully furnished, fully 
furnished, manufactured homes, $431 million worth just sitting there in 
a hay meadow at the Hope Airport, some 450 miles from the eye of the 
storm, while people continue to live in hotels and military-style tents 
and in camper trailers.
  This is an example of the lack of accountability in our government. 
This is a symbol of what is wrong with this administration and what is 
wrong with FEMA. Their response is, they are concerned because, as you 
can see, they are literally just parked in this hay meadow, literally 
parked in the hay meadow.
  And now winter weather has come and set in and spring is here and the 
showers are here and it is starting to rain. So FEMA's response, you 
would think, would be to get these 10,777; and 300 of them have been 
moved, by the way, good for FEMA, so we are down to 10,477 brand-new, 
fully furnished manufactured homes. You would think FEMA's response is, 
let us get them to the people who lost their homes and everything they 
own, who so desperately need them on the gulf coast. But no, FEMA's 
response is, we are going to fix that. We are going to spend $6 million 
to gravel the hay meadow. That is FEMA's response.
  It is the lack of accountability that people are fed up with, Mr. 
Speaker. This is a symbol of what is wrong with this administration, 
what is wrong with this Republican Congress and what is wrong with the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  At this time, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, a 
real leader within the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, Mr. 
Scott.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. Ross. And, as always, 
it is indeed a pleasure to be with you on these special orders.
  I want to agree with our distinguished majority whip, who has 
distinguished himself in his years of leadership here, who has been 
fighting this fight for so long. And our whip pointed out an important 
point that is registering with the American people, and that is this: 
There is great concern all across the breadth and the depth of this 
country concerning the degree of foreign ownership of our country.
  Mr. Ross, we have time and time again been on this floor pointing out

[[Page H1176]]

the danger of foreign investment that we are overwhelmingly dependent 
upon. We are not critical of being an open, free society in which we 
are open for investors from all around the world to come and 
participate in our great economy. We are certainly not against the 
trade policies that involve all of the globalization. That is very 
important. We are very much involved and in support of opening up free 
markets so that our goods and our products are being traded.
  But, Mr. Ross, it is a dangerous, dangerous situation when we are 
overwhelmingly now dependent for our wherewithal on foreign interests. 
The fact that now that foreign investors control and own over 52 
percent of our debt is not a healthy position for us to be in, for the 
mere fact that right now we are borrowing at a rate, that we are 
spending more just on interest to these countries than what we are 
spending on our own homeland security, our veterans, and our education, 
combined.
  Here is the question: What will happen if this dries up? What will 
happen, let us say, in our negotiations and our dealings with China, 
from whom we are borrowing and who holds $250 billion in our debt? Or 
with Japan, that controls over $658 billion of our debt? Or with 
Taiwan, who controls over $117 billion? Or Hong Kong at $80 billion? Or 
the OPEC and the Middle Eastern countries, who control, combined, over 
$75 billion of our debt?
  The issue here is that these are countries in which we have severe 
differences with who can use this at an inappropriate moment of 
strategic blackmail in so many financial areas and national security 
areas. Speaking of which, we cannot have any national security if we do 
not have financial security.
  Mr. Ross, I am glad you mentioned your trailers. I had a town hall 
meeting back home in one of my communities called Riverdale in Clayton 
County, and my Uncle Eugene said, You know, I was watching you all on 
television. I want you to ask your partner there, Mr. Ross, have they 
moved those trailers yet?
  Mr. ROSS. Three hundred of them.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Three hundred of them are moved. But they have 
still got so many there.
  Mr. ROSS. Ten thousand four hundred and seventy-seven remain in this 
hay meadow at the Hope Airport while people continue to live in hotels, 
camper trailers, and military-style tents. It is horrible.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. We are in a very, very delicate situation 
financially and a very insecure position financially, particularly as 
the world is looking at us.
  But the most important point that I want to make, as I turn it back 
over to one of my other colleagues, is this. In my office today I had a 
visit from a group of my constituents who run a program called TRIO.
  TRIO is the overlaying umbrella of a series of upward-bound programs 
that help young people who need a helping hand to get them into 
college. And that program is being axed by the President. I just left 
this morning, a group of us in a CODEL, with Congressman Jerry Moran, 
who is a good friend who is on the Republican side, but is a good 
subcommittee chairman of our commodities group.
  We had a hearing on the farm bill. And the two most important issues 
that they were saying is, please, Congressman, do not let the Bush 
administration cut our farm programs, our conservation programs. We had 
another visit from another group of folks who were senior citizens: do 
not let them cut our Medicare and our Medicaid programs. From the 
veterans themselves: please do not let them cut any more of our 
programs.
  So when we look abroad at the foreign situation and we look here at 
home, we see pressing concerns and threats to our financial security 
that is at the hands of this administration and its very, very 
unresponsive, irresponsible and reckless financial policies.
  And I am just proud to be here with the Blue Dogs this evening to 
point those issues out and make sure that the American people are aware 
of the great, great issues that we are faced with.
  Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia who raises an excellent 
point, that is, how the United States is becoming increasingly 
dependent on foreign lenders, foreign central banks, foreign investors. 
In fact, foreign lenders currently hold a total of well over $2 
trillion of our public debt.
  Compare that to only $23 billion in foreign holdings back in 1993. 
And who are these countries that we are borrowing billions of dollars 
from? Japan, $682.8 billion. China, $249.8 billion.
  As my friend from Tennessee, one of the founders of the Blue Dog 
Coalition, Mr. Tanner, has said before, if China decides to invade 
Taiwan, we will have to borrow even more money from China in order to 
defend Taiwan.
  This does directly impact not only our national security, but our 
monetary policy because they can call these loans.
  United Kingdom, $223.2 billion. Caribbean Banking Centers, I had 
never heard of such, $115.3 billion. Taiwan, $71.3 billion. OPEC, $67.8 
billion they have loaned us to fund our government, to fund tax cuts 
for those earning over $400,000 a year, and we wonder why we have got 
$2.50 gasoline.
  Korea, $66.5 billion. Germany, $65.7 billion. Canada, $53.8 billion. 
And Hong-Kong rounds out the top 10 lenders in loaning money to the 
United States of America at $46.5 billion.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Just to add to that point, just to add to that, 
in addition to all of what you just said, when you add the fact that 
this country is borrowing $2 billion every day from foreign 
governments, just to finance our trade deficits, we have just been 
talking about the budget deficits.
  But when you turn and you add our trade deficits to that, and Mr. 
Ross, again, a point that came out of my agriculture hearing just today 
in Valdosta, Georgia, was the point that now for the first time, just 
10 years ago, the United States, on our agriculture we controlled or 
held 17 percent of all of the world's exports on agriculture products.
  Now, do you know that that is down to less than 10 percent? And the 
fact of the matter is, we are now exporting more of our foodstuffs into 
this country than we are exporting out. This is not good for our 
national security, for this country, not only depending upon our 
finances from abroad; but, good Lord, if we get to the point where we 
are depending on our food from abroad, we are in serious trouble.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I am 
pleased to have him as an active member of the fiscally conservative 
Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. We are 37 members strong.
  Mr. Speaker, if you have questions, comments or concerns you would 
like to raise with us, you can e-mail us at [email protected]. 
That is [email protected].
  Another very active member, a leader within the fiscally conservative 
Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, is the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff). I yield to him for as much time as he may so desire.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Ross) for yielding to me. Once more I thank him for leading these Blue 
Dog hours each week and for the tremendous job he does in trying to 
balance our budget here in the Nation's Capital, as well as look out 
for those constituents back in Arkansas.
  I wanted to join the gentleman from Arkansas and raise a number of 
concerns with the way that we are handling the Nation's budget, talk 
about some of the reforms that the Blue Dogs have been advocating. Let 
me just start out by talking about the budget picture. The chart that 
you have put up, Mr. Ross, really tells the story of the trillions of 
dollars' worth of debt we have acquired, the fact that for every man, 
woman and child in the country, we now owe $28,000.
  I was out in my district last week talking to a group of school kids. 
They were asking me, what would I like to see different about the way 
the country is run. I said, well, for one thing, I would like to see us 
balance our budget.
  Right now, we are spending your money, I told this young man. We are 
spending so much of your money, that when you graduate from college, if 
you graduated tomorrow, in addition to your student loans, you would 
owe the

[[Page H1177]]

country $28,000. By the time you actually graduate from college, it 
will probably be, on the present course, much more than that.
  Now, why is it that we have this debt? Well, the bottom line is, we 
are spending money faster than it is coming in, and you can't vote. We 
are spending your money, because you cannot object. That just is not 
right.
  Now, how did we get to this situation? I think we got here through 
some very creative accounting. It used to be that when we calculated 
our debt, we looked at a 10-year window. But the 10-year picture got so 
bleak, we decided that, no, we will start looking at, instead, a 5-year 
window. We won't look at what happens beyond 5 years because the debt 
just grows so large.
  In fact, what we started to do is we started to craft some of the 
revenue and tax measures here so that they would balloon in the 
outyears, so the impact on the budget would take place in the outyears, 
so that if we only looked at the narrow 5-year window, we didn't see 
how bad the picture got when the full effect of our policies took place 
5 to 10 or 15 years from now.
  But we did more than that. When the administration, for example, says 
that their plan will balance or cut the debt in half over the next 5 
years, they are taking great poetic license with certain assumptions 
about what will happen in the next several years. For example, the 
administration's budget, the one they say that will get us to cut the 
deficit in half in the next 5 years, ignores the costs of the Iraq war 
after the end of this year.

  That makes an assumption I think we would all like to make that there 
won't be any further war costs after December 31, but that is not a 
realistic assumption. Even if the last troops have come home by then, 
there are still billions and billions of dollars to repair, to 
maintain, to replace the equipment that has been degraded in Iraq.
  More than that, we have to prudently expect that the expenses of the 
Iraq war are not going to come to an end on December 31. Even if all 
the troops came home, those expenses would not come to an end then.
  What other fictions are we using in the budget process? Well, we are 
assuming that nothing is done about the alternative minimum tax. This 
tax that was started in the 1970s and was designed to apply to only a 
few families in the country was never indexed for inflation.
  The basic theme behind that, or the theory of that, wasn't a bad 
theory, it was that several of the largest, wealthiest families in the 
country shouldn't escape any form of tax because they used a clever 
combination of tax loopholes. There ought to be some alternative 
minimum calculation. What was designed to and did apply only to a 
handful of families in the 1970s, because it was never indexed for 
inflation, now is applying to millions of people.
  This cannot be left unchecked. If the AMT is not fixed, then all of 
the tax cuts that were given in the last several years will be 
completely wiped up and replaced with a very large middle-class tax 
increase.
  Now, the administration knows this is a problem that has to be dealt 
with, but it is very expensive to fix this problem. It is going to 
require that we deal, very frankly, with some of the different budget 
priorities that we haven't been willing to deal with.
  But by ignoring the impending AMT problem, by ignoring the ongoing 
costs of the war in Iraq, by narrowing the budget window that we are 
looking at from 10 years to 5 years, by engaging in these kinds of 
smoke and mirrors, by taking certain costs off the books, we can 
present to the country a budget picture which is not reflective of 
reality.
  It doesn't show what dire fiscal straits we are really in. It is one 
of the reasons why I am so grateful for the work you are doing, Mr. 
Ross, to point out to the country just how bad it has got in terms of 
our fiscal picture to promote the Blue Dog's 12-point plan, part of 
which is very simple, that is, when you are in a hole the way we are, 
stop digging.
  That is part of our PAYGO proposal that says that we want to stop the 
hemorrhaging, that when we agree to new spending on this House floor, 
we should find a way to offset that cost so that we do it in a revenue-
neutral way. When we agree on new tax cuts, we should find a way to do 
that in a revenue-neutral way, either by cutting spending or raising 
revenues somewhere else.
  PAYGO, pay-as-you-go, basically says there is no free lunch, and, 
indeed, there isn't, as you can see by the fact that every man, woman 
and child in this country now owes $28,000. From 2001 to 2003, just a 
couple-year period, the total government spending soared by 16 percent. 
We are trying to put a lid on those kinds of increases.
  We are trying to urge that the Federal Government simply use 
accounting practices that the biggest and the best firms in the country 
have to use. The GAO did a study that showed that 16 of 23 major 
Federal agencies can't do a simple audit of their own books. Can you 
imagine, Mr. Ross, if one of the companies back in your district or 
mine did their accounting, if they were a public company, they did 
their accounting the way that the Federal Government does, how long it 
would be before they were indicted before a Federal grand jury? It 
wouldn't be long at all.
  Now, why is it that we can require transparency and accountability 
and honest bookkeeping among our private firms in the interests of 
their shareholders, in the interests of their employees, but we don't 
seem to require it of the country itself? We haven't set aside funds 
for a rainy day.
  It is something that most businesses do, it is something that most 
families do, so that when these tragedies occur, when we have natural 
disasters, when we have man-made disasters, we have some reserve to go 
back to. It makes infinite sense.
  The economy is a cyclical phenomenon. We ought to have something 
stored away for a rainy day for when we are in a down part of the 
cycle. That is only prudent planning. That is part of the Blue Dog 
plan. We shouldn't hide the votes on this House floor when we are going 
to raise the debt.
  Most Americans are unaware of the fact that the national debt is a 
little bit like a credit card debt. When we want to raise the national 
debt, that is when we want to authorize the administration to borrow 
more money. We have to vote to authorize it the same away that when 
people want to borrow more on their credit card they have to contact 
the credit card company and ask them to raise the limit.
  How do we do that around here? Well, do we have an up or down vote 
where we can force people to go on the record and vote either to raise 
the national debt or against raising the national debt? No, we do more 
of that smoke and mirrors. We make it a procedural vote on top of a 
procedural vote on top of a procedural vote. Unless you are a sleuth, 
there is no way to find out that we have, in fact, voted to raise the 
debt on all Americans.
  We shouldn't hide those votes. We should be open about those votes. 
We should be held accountable for those votes; and maybe, maybe, if 
each and every Member had to come to this House floor and defend a vote 
to raise the debt, we could compel the adoption of sound fiscal 
practices like pay-as-you-go.
  I would love to see that. I would love to be able to join my Blue Dog 
colleagues and offer an amendment to a motion to raise the national 
debt that says, all right, we will agree to a short-term increase in 
the national debt provided that we adopt pay-as-you-go rules, provided 
that we come back here in a short period of time, we see what action 
the administration, the Congress are taking, that we don't raise the 
national debt by great leaps and bounds that let us off the hook for a 
year at a time, but, rather, give us only a short leash to get our 
fiscal house in order to show that we are diligently working on it.

                              {time}  2115

  These are some of the reforms the Blue Dogs are advocating. They were 
good public policy. They would enjoy, I believe, bipartisan support if 
we had the chance to actually vote on these proposals. And I want to 
compliment my colleague for all of his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from California, a real active member 
and leader within the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, Mr. 
Schiff, for joining us in the discussion this evening as we outline the 
Blue Dog

[[Page H1178]]

Coalition's 12-point plan for curing our Nation's addiction to deficit 
spending.
  This is the first time in 50 years the Republicans have controlled 
the White House, the House and the Senate, and they have given us the 
largest budget deficit ever in our Nation's history for the sixth year 
in a row. The debt is $8,365,525,832,151 and some change.
  We will be updating that board here in just a few moments to show 
you, Mr. Speaker, exactly how much the debt has gone up since we 
started this hour-long discussion about trying to restore some common 
sense and fiscal discipline to our Nation's government.
  Each week it seems as we wind down this hour others come to the floor 
to refute what we have to say. And one of the favorite sayings each 
week that we hear from the other side is how we voted against the 
Deficit Reduction Act. And I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that 
everyone understand exactly what the Deficit Reduction Act was really 
all about.
  It was about cutting Medicaid. Eight out of ten seniors in Arkansas 
in a nursing home are on Medicaid. Half the children in Arkansas are on 
Medicaid. One out of five people in my home State will be on Medicaid 
some time this year. It is the health insurance program for the poor, 
the disabled, the elderly. Student loans, programs for orphans, those 
are the types of programs that were cut $40 billion to help pay for 
another $90 billion in tax cuts for those earning over $400,000 a year. 
Ninety billion minus 40 billion is $50 billion in new debt, and yet 
they had the nerve to call it the Deficit Reduction Act.
  We are running out of time. And I will yield as we begin to update 
this board, showing exactly how much the debt, let's just do it real 
quick. In fact, the debt has gone up $41,666,000 in this past hour. So 
that means it is now $8,365,567,498,151 and some change.
  Mr. Speaker, the minute we have left I yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I just want to say, because we are going to get 
ready for our Republican friends, some of them, to come and try to 
refute what we are saying, but as the good book, the Bible, says, ``Ye 
shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.''
  We have done that tonight. And even Mr. Armey, the Republican's 
former leader of this House, complained bitterly about the Republican 
leadership and the direction they were going when he said, ``They are 
in control. They control this town,'' he said.
  There is no reason for us to have these deficits. They cannot refute 
the fact that under this Republican administration, under this 
Republican-led Congress they have borrowed more money, they have run up 
this debt, they have borrowed more money from foreign governments than 
all of the last 42 Presidents and administrations combined. They cannot 
argue that point.
  They put forward a budget that slams right into the face of homeland 
and national security by cutting our veterans, by refusing to deal with 
the concurrent receipts measure, by cutting aid to veterans by a 
million dollars, and education up and down the line.
  So the truth is speaking tonight, Mr. Ross, and it has been indeed a 
pleasure for us to be here to tell the truth and set America free.

                          ____________________