[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1258-H1264]
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 18, 2007, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I rise on behalf of the 44-
member-strong, fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, as
we demand from this Government fiscal accountability as well as fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, as you walk the halls of Congress, it is easy to know
when you are walking by the door of a fellow fiscally conservative
Democratic Blue Dog Coalition member, because you will see this poster
as a welcome mat to his or her office to remind Members of Congress, to
remind you, Mr. Speaker, to remind me, and to remind the American
people and all of those who walk the halls of Congress, that the U.S.
national debt today is $8,696,414,214,377.65.
For every man, woman and child in America, their share, our share, my
share of the national debt is $28,900.92. That is a big number.
A lot of people think, well, it really does not matter what the debt
is, our Government can simply print more money. I wish it was that
simple.
Our Nation today is spending the first half a billion dollars it
collects in taxes not to improve veterans' health care, to protect our
troops, to build roads, to fund health care, to protect Social Security
and Medicare, to ensure the 47 million folks without health insurance
have access to it. No. The first half a billion dollars that we collect
every day in taxes from the hard-working people in this country go to
simply pay interest, not principal but interest, on this number, the
national debt.
And those which should be America's priorities will continue to go
unmet until we get our Nation's fiscal house in order. This is
something that affects every man, woman and child in America. We have a
plan, a 12-point plan for budget reform to ensure that we can live
within our means, that we can pay down this debt and restore fiscal
discipline and common sense to our Government.
One of those 12 points, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is what we referred
to as PAYGO rules, which means pay as you go. And I am real proud that
the leadership under this Democratic Caucus in the first 24 hours, not
100 hours, but the first 24 hours, the Democratic leadership
reinstituted PAYGO rules on the floor of the House. Which means, quite
simply, if you want to fund a new program, you got to show us where the
money is coming from.
Now the Republicans tend to think that that means that to fund new
programs you raise taxes. I find it quite interesting that the
Republicans think that PAYGO, pay as you go, means raise taxes to pay
for new spending. It does not mean that. It means cut programs. It
means make the tough choices to put an end to the waste in Government.
I got some 8,000 brand new, fully furnished mobile homes sitting at
the airport in Hope, Arkansas, that were destined for Hurricane Katrina
storm victims but never reached them. That is $400 million right there.
We are not talking about raising taxes to pay for a new program. But
I can tell you what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. We are talking
about putting an end to the days of the Republican leadership borrowing
money from China to fund a new program creating this large number,
making it go up daily. It is still going up nearly a billion dollars a
day under the Republican budget that was approved last year.
No more of that, Mr. Speaker. No more borrowing money from China to
build a rain forest in Iowa. We are demanding that you show us how you
pay for your projects and your programs. We are going to restore fiscal
discipline and accountability to our Government.
This week, the President came out with his budget; and we will be
visiting more about the President's budget during this hour.
But another thing that the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog
Coalition is doing is we have gotten together and we have written and
endorsed what is referred to as House Resolution 97. And House
Resolution 97, we have 39 cosponsors. It is providing for Operation
Iraq Freedom cost accountability.
Put quite simply, we are demanding accountability on how your tax
money, Mr. Speaker, and the tax money of the hard-working people of
this country is being spent in Iraq. You ask 100 different people what
they think about this Iraq policy, you will get about 100 different
answers. You will find some Members of the Blue Dog Coalition that are
for the surge, some are against. I am against the surge. I think the
American people want us to go in a different direction in Iraq.
But one of the things that unites us as a coalition and the things
that we have endorsed and that we have written and we are trying to put
in place is House Resolution 97, which has four crucial points that
demand fiscal responsibility in Iraq.
Point number one, a call for transparency on how Iraq war funds are
spent. The American people are sending some $9 billion a month to Iraq.
That is about $12 million an hour. And the American people in this
country that work hard and pay taxes deserve to know how their money is
being spent in Iraq.
Number two is the creation of a Truman Commission to investigate the
awarding of contracts. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to put an end to war
profiteering in Iraq.
Number three, a need to fund the Iraq war through the normal
appropriations process. Play by the rules. No more of this so-called
emergency supplemental appropriations to hide from the American people
the true cost of the war.
Finally, number four, use American resources. This is America. We are
the leader of the free world, and we should
[[Page H1259]]
be using our resources to improve Iraqi assumption of internal policing
operations. In other words, it is time for the Iraqi people to step up
to the plate and buy into this and take more responsibility and
accountability.
I am joined this hour by a number of my Blue Dog colleagues, Mr.
Speaker. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Chandler).
Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all that the gentleman from
Arkansas is doing to bring these issues to the forefront, to the
American people, because I believe they are extremely important and I
know all Members of the Blue Dog Coalition believe that accountability
and responsibility to the people of our Nation is of the utmost
importance.
Mr. Speaker, the President sent a $2.9 trillion budget to Congress
yesterday. That is quite a lot of money. And you would think that among
those trillions of hard-earned tax dollars the President would find
resources for the most essential services like education for our kids
and health care for our veterans. But, once again, those who need our
help the most are the very people who have been pushed aside.
If we follow this budget, Medicaid and Medicare will be cut by $101
billion over the next 5 years; health care for our veterans will be
slashed by $3.5 billion over 5 years; Perkins loan funds for our
college students will be recalled; and No Child Left Behind will be
underfunded by some $15 billion. The President, in addition, would have
us cut State preparedness training programs and firefighter and law
enforcement grants, depriving our first responders of the funds
necessary to operate in this post-9/11 world.
These policies make no sense. They rob our children of opportunity,
make our communities less safe, and dishonor those who have sacrificed
while wearing our Nation's uniform. I could understand some of these
cuts if they were being made in the name of fiscal responsibility, but
they are not.
If we were truly making an effort to reduce our public debt, I could,
and I believe the American people could, accept some pain. Because the
cause that we would be fighting in that case would be a good one, and
it would be about our future.
But that is not the case. This budget is not trying to reduce the
debt. The President's budget will drag us even deeper into debt, to the
tune of $3.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Trillion. That is a lot
of money. Burdening future generations with mountains of debt, not of
their own making.
Mr. Speaker, when I talk with my constituents back home in
communities rich in values and common sense, they ask me a simple
question over and over again.
{time} 1615
Where is their tax money going?
If we are cutting all of these programs, yet going deeper into debt,
what value are we getting for our tax dollar?
We owe it to our constituents to answer these questions. And it
starts with ending the black hole of waste, fraud and abuse that is
plaguing our reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
Here are the facts: we have already budgeted some $108 billion on
reconstruction. Yet, the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction is
telling us that we haven't come close to recovering the level of basic
services that Iraqis enjoyed under Saddam Hussein.
Here is the return Americans are getting on their over $100 billion
tax investment: only 25 percent of Iraqis have access to clean water;
access to modern sewer facilities remains an incredible problem for
most Iraqi families; Iraqis now have electricity for only 4.3 hours per
day; and oil production is down almost one million barrels a day since
the levels before the war.
How long are we going to let this farce continue?
We can argue all day about spending priorities. But can we not at
least agree to make sure that our tax dollars are being efficiently
spent to accomplish good? Because right now the only thing I see these
tax dollars are doing efficiently is lining the pockets of government
contractors.
How many reports of jobs being billed that were never authorized;
jobs being started without permission; individuals admitting to
stealing millions of reconstruction dollars, and private contractors,
such as Halliburton, being awarded unprecedented numbers of no-bid
government contracts do we have to put up with before we do something
about it?
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is my belief and the belief of the Blue Dog
Coalition that we must demand accountability. The President, with his
proposed budget, is telling our seniors, our students, our veterans,
and our working families that our country doesn't have the money to
help pay for their health care or for their education.
I say we will come closer to having the money for health care and
education if we stop mismanaging funds in Iraq and greasing the pockets
of contractors who are failing, in many instances, to get the job done.
That is why our coalition, the Blue Dog Coalition, has introduced the
House resolution for the Operation Iraqi Freedom Cost Accountability.
In the spirit of the Truman Committee, which defeated so much
corruption and saved our country in excess of $15 billion during World
War II, this resolution outlines the critical steps this body must take
to hold the administration accountable for its neglect of taxpayer
dollars.
It is our constitutional obligation, as Members of this body, to
provide oversight for war spending. And Congress has neglected this
duty for far too long. We owe it to the taxpayers of this country, to
the troops who are fighting this war, and, yes, we owe it to future
generations who are going to be financing this war for many, many, many
years to come to stop the wasteful spending of this administration and
war profiteering by contractors.
We need a modern-day Truman Committee. And we need transparency on
how Iraq war funds are being spent. The days of offering the President
a blank check are over. We need to ask the tough questions, and we need
to send a message that waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq reconstruction
just simply will not be tolerated.
I thank all of my fellow Blue Dogs for the work that they are doing
on this issue, for continuing to raise awareness, and I hope that my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join forces to restore
fiscal integrity to this war.
Thank you, Mr. Ross. I appreciate the time. I appreciate the job that
you are doing.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his valued insight
into H.R. 97, which is the Blue Dog-endorsed House resolution to demand
accountability and fiscal responsibility in how tax money is being
spent in Iraq, some $9 billion a month; put another way, some $12
million an hour.
Let me be clear that as members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we support
our troops 110, 120, 130 percent. We can't do enough for our troops.
And as long as we have troops in harm's way, we are going to be there
to ensure they have what they need to get the job done and to get it
done as safely as possible, and hopefully get on back home to their
families.
This has impacted every family in America in one way or another. My
brother-in-law is in Kyrgyzstan now, which is the entry point for
Afghanistan, just as Kuwait is oftentimes the entry point for Iraq. My
first cousin was in Iraq when his wife gave birth to their first child.
Before coming down here today, I visited with a Ms. Watson in Pine
Bluff, Arkansas, whose son, and she is so very proud of him and I am
too, Lt. Colonel Watson, continues to serve us today in Baghdad. We
thank him. We thank all soldiers for their dedicated service to our
country.
This is about accountability. This is about having responsibility and
oversight on how our tax money is being spent in Iraq.
Not only that, but this hour is dedicated to talking about this new
Bush budget that was delivered to Capitol Hill yesterday. Thank
goodness that, as Members of Congress, we get a vote on this budget,
that we can ensure that funding is there for education and for our
veterans. And, yes, we are creating a new generation of veterans in
Afghanistan and Iraq today. And we have got to be there for them.
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, a former cochair of the Blue
Dogs for policy, Mr. Cooper.
Mr. COOPER. I thank my good friend from Arkansas, and I thank my Blue
Dog colleagues.
[[Page H1260]]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus for a minute on the release of the
President's budget. As has been mentioned, it just came out yesterday,
and today, as a member of the Budget Committee, we had our first
hearing with Rob Portman, the director of the Office of Management and
Budget and former trade ambassador and former Member of this House.
This is what a part the budget looks like. It is available online. It
is about 150, 200 pages. This looks like a very credible document. But
that is what I would like to discuss today.
One of the first claims in this budget is in the second paragraph, it
says: ``The budget I am presenting achieves balance by 2012.''
Hallelujah. Wouldn't that be nice, if it were true.
Now, if you look deeper in the budget, you will see that they claim,
after years of deficits in the Bush administration, remember, we had a
surplus in the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, but after
years of Bush deficits, they claim that by mid-term of the next
President, we will have a surplus. Well, that would be good news if it
were true. They claim that the surplus in that year will be $61
billion. And I hope that a number like that would be true.
But if you look at page 168 of their document, you will see that that
$61 billion surplus is really a $187 billion deficit disguised by
borrowing $248 billion from the Social Security trust fund. In other
words, we would have a sizeable, large deficit if it weren't for the
money they are planning on taking from the Social Security trust fund
in that year.
And this isn't just a once-a-year practice. They are planning on
doing it every year between now and then. In 2007 they took $183
billion from Social Security. In 2008 they are taking $212 billion from
Social Security. In 2009 they are taking $226 billion from Social
Security. In 2010, $245 billion from Social Security. And in 2011, $264
billion.
So, basically, what this budget says, although it looks very
respectable and credible, it says we are going to take over $1
trillion, close to $1.25 trillion from Social Security so we can
disguise the budget deficit and make it look like a surplus 5 years
from now. Mr. Speaker, that doesn't sound like honest budgeting to me.
But don't take my word for it. Look at this other document. This came
out about a month ago. This is from the U.S. Treasury Department. This
uses a different and better method of accounting to tell us where we
are financially in this country. And it says, basically, we are at
deficits as far as the eye can see. And the deficits are far, far
larger than what the President admits to in this document.
But even if you don't believe any of these government documents,
either the President's or the Treasury Department's, look at a private
sector organization called Standard & Poor's. They are on Wall Street.
They are probably the top credit analyst agency in the world. They
projected this last summer that the U.S. Treasury Bond, the most
important financial instrument on the planet, would lose its triple A
credit rating by the year 2012, just 5 years from now.
So in other words, S&P, the leading credit analyst, said that
although this document says we are going to have a surplus then, they
say we are going to have continuing deficits as far as the eye can see,
in fact, deficits that damage and possibly destroy America's credit
rating.
Standard & Poor's went on to say in their analysis, they said that by
the year 2025 the U.S. Treasury Bond wouldn't have just lost its triple
A credit rating. They say that the U.S. Treasury Bond would actually
become junk debt by the year 2025. Below investment grade. That would
be a true tragedy for our Nation. We cannot let that happen. And that
is why we need to examine the credibility of the numbers in this
document. We need to make sure that they are correct.
And if you look at the assumptions in this document, you will see not
only trouble with the terrific borrowing they are planning on doing
from the Social Security surplus; you will see trouble in the fact that
they are planning on the AMT tax taking a bigger and bigger bite out of
the middle class in America for the next 4 or 5 years. They do nothing
to remedy that in this document.
There are so many other features of this document that make it almost
completely unrealistic as a starting point for our budget debates.
Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of work to do. It is not easy putting
together budgets. I have done it because I had the privilege of serving
back in the majority days, over 12 years ago here. It is a very
difficult process to come up with a proper budget. But that must begin
now. And I would just wish that the President's offering were going to
be of more help to us. It is not all bad. There are some good elements
of the President's budget. But if you look at the overall promise of a
balanced budget by 2012, I am not sure anyone in the administration
really believes that. It is here on paper, and it sounds mighty good.
But if you look at the assumptions underneath it, whether it is
borrowing from Social Security or whether it is taking the big bite out
of the middle class with the AMT tax, it looks like the President's
budget is not standing up to scrutiny.
But I thank my friend from Arkansas. I thank my Blue Dog colleagues.
This is the day that we start the budget debates. Over the next 2
months we will be trying to bring this to a conclusion.
I hope that all Americans will download these documents off the
Internet, will participate in the debate, and let me and other Blue
Dogs know your opinions on what we should do on those budget matters.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) for his
valued input and insight into this budget process. The President has
done the annual ceremoniously bringing of the budget, if you will, to
Capitol Hill. And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, here is a copy of it. This is
the budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2008 from
the Office of Management and Budget. And it is quite a lengthy
document.
{time} 1630
But if you read over it, you will learn that the budget submitted
this week continues the same policies that helped create the fiscal
mess now facing our government.
While the administration's budget claims to reach balance in 2012,
unfortunately, this budget is in deficit every year under realistic
Bush policy assumptions. The budget continues to make the wrong choices
for the American people. It proposes substantial cuts to programs that
benefits seniors, working families and children, all to help pay for an
extensive tax cut for folks earning over $400,000 a year. It is about
priorities, Mr. Speaker; and the priorities found in this budget, this
budget as delivered this week by President Bush, are misplaced.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. Ross. It is always a
pleasure to be on the floor with you.
There is so much we need to cover. Sometimes, you wonder where to
really begin. But I think today we need to begin with what the
President brought over here in his budget. I have had a chance to look
at it, to go through it, and I am just astounded. I truly am astounded
at the recklessness of the President's budget, at the irresponsibleness
of the President's budget.
Here we are at a time when this country is crying out for very
serious attention in health care, especially health care for those at
the lower income end and the middle class, and what do we get in the
President's budget but a tax increase for the middle class in health
care. What we get in this budget is a slash to Medicare and to
Medicaid.
I want to go through it just very quickly so the American people and
our colleagues who might not have had a chance to really get into this
budget can see how surprisingly irresponsible this budget is.
The President's budget that he just sent to us slashes Medicare and
Medicaid by about $300 billion, at a time when Medicare and Medicaid
are in greatest need, to slash those programs by $300 billion over the
next 10 years, with legislative and regulatory Medicaid cuts totaling
about $50 billion and Medicare cuts totaling $252 billion.
And rather than using these monies to reverse the growing number of
uninsured Americans, and, indeed, listen to this startling statistic,
since President
[[Page H1261]]
Bush took office in the last 6 years, we have added an additional 6.8
million uninsured Americans. This is not a time to cut the basic
government safety net program for insuring Americans when we are having
more. This is why I say it is reckless. This is why I say it is
irresponsible. And these monies are being offset, in his mind, by tax
cuts to millionaires. It is totally out of sync.
The Medicare cuts include premium increases for millions of
beneficiaries totaling $10 million over the next 10 years. And at the
same time the budget slashes Medicare funding, it protects special
interests. Here is how: It leaves untouched massive overpayments by
Medicare to HMOs under the GOP 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. And
many of the Federal Medicaid cuts will simply increase State costs or
lead to further restrictions in Medicaid benefits. Thus, instead of
assisting State efforts to reduce the number of uninsured, the Bush
budget will impede those efforts.
But in the area of health care, and I mentioned at the outset that
there would be in here this hidden tax increase for the middle class.
Here is where we find it. Under the President's budget, employee health
benefits would, for the first time, be treated as income and would be
subject to income and payroll taxes, just like wages. This is new, for
the first time.
Listen carefully. At the same time, the President would create a tax
deduction for health insurance of $15,000 for families and $7,500 for
individuals. This proposal would fail to reduce the number of
uninsured, and it would also mean a tax increase for millions of
middle-class families who have employer-sponsored health insurance
worth more than $15,000. You have to really look at the fine print.
And also, because the new deduction would reduce taxable income,
people's future Social Security benefits would be reduced as well; and,
as many health experts have pointed out, the President's proposal would
undermine employer-provided health insurance and would push people into
the individual health insurance market, a market where insurers are
able to refuse coverage to workers based on their health.
As Karen Davis, who is head of the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund,
pointed out about the President's proposal, it is not solving the
uninsured problem and it is not solving the cost problem, so it is not
really advancing what we need to have happen.
Here at the most basic need, where government and people need the
help, soaring high health care costs, this budget not only fails but,
to add insult to injury, adds a tax increase to the middle class in the
process.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, a very active member of
the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, Mr. Scott. I
hope he will stay for the remainder of this hour as we discuss the
President's budget for fiscal year 2008, as well as the Blue Dog
Coalition-endorsed House Resolution 97 to demand accountability on how
the hardworking people of this country's tax money is being spent in
Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, in the 6 years of the Bush Administration, the
government has posted the highest deficits in the Nation's history. The
administration has squandered the budget surplus it inherited,
transforming a $5.6 trillion projected 10-year surplus into a deficit
of some $2.9 trillion over the same period, a swing of $8.4 trillion,
based on realistic estimates of the cost of the President's policies.
The President's new budget calls for a deficit of $244 billion for
2007, and $239 billion for 2008, marking 6 years in a row of deficits
of more than $200 billion.
This budget that the President delivered to Capitol Hill this week
includes $244 billion worth of hot checks for fiscal year 2008 and $239
billion worth of hot checks for fiscal year 2009. Unbelievable, Mr.
Speaker. That means that this Nation will continue to borrow about a
half a billion dollars a day every day, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Every day, under the Bush budget,
we will borrow over a half a billion dollars, and that is before we
spend a half a billion dollars each day paying interest on the debt we
have already got.
America's priorities will continue to go unmet until we get our
Nation's fiscal house in order. Meanwhile, this budget continues to
climb the climb of decline of our Nation's debt, which has already
grown by $3 trillion during this administration.
Put another way, this President, this administration has borrowed
more money from foreign lenders, foreign central banks than the
previous 42 Presidents combined. In fact, we had only borrowed $623.3
billion in foreign holdings in 1993. Today, foreign lenders currently
hold a total of about $2.199 trillion of our public debt.
I was with the President at a meeting Saturday morning. The gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) asked him about whether he believed
borrowing so much money from foreign central banks and foreign
investors was a security threat to our country. His response was that
he didn't know how much money we had borrowed from foreigners.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the President is listening to us today,
because, Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, what I
refer to as the top 10 list. This is the top 10 list of the 10
countries that we have borrowed the most money from: Japan, $637.4
billion; China, $346.5 billion; the United Kingdom, $223.5 billion.
Can I go back to China for a moment? You know, we don't do business
with Cuba because they are Communist, and yet we do business with
Communist China out of a spirit of international relations. And while
we are all focused on the Middle East and what is going on in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Cuba has hired China to drill for oil on their behalf 55
miles from Key West, Florida, when the United States does not allow
drilling within 100 miles of Key West. Can you imagine that? And yet we
have borrowed $346.5 billion from China to give folks who live in this
country who earn over $400,000 a year a tax cut and to leave our
children and our grandchildren with the bill.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield just a moment?
On the issue of China and our lending, we are now in debt to China
well over $350 billion. Now just to show you why this debt in the hands
of foreign governments is such a threat to our national security, just
this example. China is now engaged with Iran in building a, supposedly
building, a gas pipeline from China to Iran. The United States, in its
efforts to tighten certain screws, economic and political, on Iran, in
addition to the saber rattling we are doing, has begun to ask China if
they would desist from that relationship. To this point, China has
stonewalled; and in large measure it is because we don't have the
leverage. If you owe me $360 billion, that weakens my position.
The other area, in terms of our national security, is the situation
in Iran as we are dealing with it, because that is in the news now.
There are all kinds of questions and issues now of whether or not we
are going to attack Iran, which is why we have got to hurry up and get
our resolution passed and make sure that the President understands what
article I, section 8 of our Constitution gives the Congress the extreme
role, the exclusive role in determining the funding and the declaration
of war in that regard.
But the whole reason why this whole funding operation puts us in a
weakening position from our lending and our debt with our foreign
countries is this: Iran has to depend upon a tremendous amount of
lending from other countries to support them. It puts our Treasury
Department, our Secretary of Treasury, our Secretary of State, and I
plan to ask Ms. Condoleezza Rice tomorrow, we will have an opportunity
to meet with her, this specific question. The fact that we need our
partners, who we are working with, to stop lending to Iran, if we
tighten that financial economic screw, that is how you avoid this
unfortunate military clash that might be pending.
But the point I wanted to make is, as long as we are so overly
dependent and have this indebtedness in the hands of the foreign
governments, we lose the leverage we need to secure our Nation and to
secure a better peace in the world.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Point well taken.
Thanks for sharing that with us.
Let me just round out the top 10 current lenders. These are the
countries the United States of America is borrowing money from in order
to provide
[[Page H1262]]
tax cuts for folks in this country earning over $400,000 a year. That
is in the President's budget. That is what he is proposing to do. Here
is what he has done already.
In the past 6 years, our Nation has borrowed more money from
foreigners than the previous 42 Presidents combined. Again, Japan
$637.4 billion; China, $346.5 billion; the United Kingdom, $223.5
billion. OPEC. And we wonder why gas was approaching 3 bucks a gallon
in August. Our Nation has borrowed $97.1 billion from OPEC to give
folks who live in this country a $400,000 tax cut.
{time} 1645
That is exactly what the President is proposing to continue. Mr.
Speaker, I dare say that in this new Democratic majority, we will stop
that.
Korea, $67.7 billion. Taiwan, $63.2 billion. If China decides to
invade Taiwan, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Tanner, has made this
point before, our country and our fiscal house is in such a mess that
if China decides to invade Taiwan, we will have to borrow more money
from China to be able to afford to go assist and defend Taiwan.
The Caribbean banking center, $63.6 billion. Hong Kong, $51 billion.
Germany, $52.1 billion. A lot of discussion about our border, and I
believe we must secure our border, but are you ready for this: the
United States of America has borrowed $38.2 billion from Mexico in the
past 6 years to fund tax cuts for people who live here earning over
$400,000 a year, leaving our children and grandchildren with the bill,
which is the very reason why our Nation today is in debt
$8,696,414,214,377.
That is a big number. How do you explain it? If you divide it by
everybody that lives in America, some 300 million of us, every one of
us owes $28,900. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I can't
afford to write a check for $28,900 to the government. It is what we
call the debt tax, D-E-B-T, and it is one tax that can't go away until
we get our fiscal house in order and begin to meet America's priorities
again.
Today, the money is going to pay interest on the debt, and it is
going to borrow more money to fund the war that is costing us $9
billion a month, again, a big number, break it down, $12 million an
hour. $12 million an hour.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Ross, and thank you, Mr. Speaker,
for the opportunity to speak on the budget that has been sent to us
just as recently as yesterday.
I was elected by the people of eastern Ohio and sent to Washington to
try to bring a commonsense approach to what is going on down here. I
must say that the budget that we received yesterday and have looked
through today making different points, it is astonishing, the math that
is used. The budget doesn't add up, the numbers don't fit together, the
lack of real fiscal responsibility, the tax increases on the middle
class, the continued cutting of programs that are good for people, the
lack of oversight over our war that is going on right now. It is
frightening. It is frightening for everybody. There are several things
that are wrong, though, that I would like to talk about.
As I said, the numbers don't add up; they just don't come together.
There are assumptions that are made that are unrealistic, and it
provides us with an opportunity for real failure, more so than we have
now.
As Mr. Ross recently indicated, we are near $9 trillion right now in
debt, and with everyone's share, with 300 million residents of America,
we are looking at $29,000 per person. That is man, woman, child.
Looking at this, it is unfortunate that under this budget proposal
there are crucial investments that have been cut to programs that are
important to people. For example, they are cutting commodities for
seniors and people with low incomes and people who have disabilities,
but yet we are making real strong assumptions on the scenario of what
can happen for the right things to give more tax breaks.
I did an interview today, Mr. Speaker, with a newspaper in Ohio, and
was asked, how will you pay to restore the commonsense benefits that
are in this budget? Well, one of the ways would be to eliminate some of
the tax breaks for the people who need them least, and this would
certainly be a thing that we as the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition would
be supportive of.
We need to look at common sense. We need to find ways, such as PAYGO,
which we are putting forward, to say that no program goes forward for
more spending, Mr. Speaker, without eliminating a program that is
costing us in the present time. This is what PAYGO is about. It is a
direction that our country needs. PAYGO stands for common sense, and
that is really what we are trying to do.
When we look at this budget, we say that in the President's budget
this time for the 2008 series, it is more of the same, that there has
been no change. It takes many, many assumptions that it is going to be
a best-case scenario. But when you really look at the numbers, Mr.
Speaker, it winds up quite bad again.
We are moving in the wrong direction, doing the wrong things. The
unbid contracts in the war, the situation that we have where money is
being drained on a daily basis out of America, I can't help but wonder
all the good that could be done if we had fiscal responsibility, if we
had people that were looking at the realities of what this budget could
do.
So I am confident as a new Democrat in this Congress that we are
going to work hard to try to bring common sense to the budget to try to
benefit the American people. This best-case scenario assumption is just
not a fair way to go. It hasn't proven good in the last 6 years, and I
doubt very much it is going to prove good in the next 2 years.
I am happy to be part of the Blue Dog Coalition, to look for fiscal
responsibility and fight for the rights of what should be done in
America.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for joining us during this
Special Order to discuss the President's budget, which has been
delivered to Congress this week, as well as to talk about the War
Accountability Act, House Resolution 97, to demand transparency,
accountability and just good government, Mr. Speaker, in how we are
spending the hardworking people of this country's tax money in Iraq.
There are a lot of misplaced priorities in this enormous budget. Here
is the top ten list:
Number one, it includes tax increases for middle-class families.
Number two, it has cuts in it to health care and to seniors.
Number three, while it is very cold outside right now, while much of
the country is frozen, if you will, Mr. Speaker, it cuts home energy
assistance for those who need help the most with finding the money to
afford to heat their home in the winter months.
After 5 years following 9/11, it has devastating cuts to police and
firefighters.
In direct opposition to the wishes of the people of this country,
here it comes again, it has a plan to privatize Social Security.
The President's budget includes cuts to veterans health care. At a
time when we are creating a new generation of veterans coming home from
Iraq and Afghanistan, the President's budget includes cuts to our
veterans. We need to ensure that our veterans receive the health care
they so desperately need.
I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I get letter after letter
and call after call from veterans who have to wait in line weeks and
months at a time to be able to see a doctor. That is not the kind of
health care we promised America's veterans. We should honor them by
properly caring for them.
It includes cuts to education and cuts to housing assistance. And
with Iraq veterans returning with devastating injuries, it includes
cuts to the brain trauma research that is so desperately needed by many
of these returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Bush's budget says a lot, but it does very little. It is
filled with misplaced priorities. I will challenge you, Mr. Speaker, to
read it for yourself, make your own decision.
As members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we are not here to beat up the
President. He can't even run again. We are here to reach out across
that aisle and work with him and work with the Republican Members of
Congress, because the American people have sent a message very loud and
clear, they want us to work together. That is what the fiscally
conservative Democratic Blue
[[Page H1263]]
Dog Coalition is all about. We want to work in a bipartisan manner to
put this Nation on a track toward a balanced budget, to pay down the
debt, and to restore some fiscal discipline and common sense to our
Nation's government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Lincoln
Davis.
(Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, we often hear from our
friends on the right that when the Democrats question the war or the
strategy in Iraq, we are disheartening our troops and emboldening the
enemy. I guess it doesn't matter that there are many Republicans who
also ask the same questions about the war. This attempt by the right to
use fear and shame to quiet the administration's critics is distasteful
and, I believe, hurts America.
Those on the right who take the argument further, suggesting that
folks who don't agree with the administration's policies and don't keep
their views to themselves are being un-American, really saddens me. It
saddens me because it seems like those on the right are trying to
discourage the very actions that led to the founding of our Nation, the
very actions that allowed the United States to continue evolving toward
the never-ending goal of a more perfect Union.
Our country derives its strength from the diversity of views and
ideas that come from its people. If one idea isn't working, then
someone has the freedom to suggest another idea that is different and
might yield different results. In my opinion, the ability of the
American people to discuss differing ideas gives our Nation great
strength.
Additionally, I believe that when Iraqi people see Americans
exercising their right to freedom of speech, the Iraqi people are not
disenchanted by their prospects, but rather they are inspired to have a
country as free as ours. They see our freedom as a beacon of hope for
what their nation could become some day.
Frankly, it is the freedom we enjoy here that scares the enemy over
there so much, because they know that once the people taste freedom,
they will demand it for eternity for themselves. So we should not
stifle our freedom here for fear that it may be negatively impacting
the war over there, which I seriously doubt it is.
Furthermore, if the actions of Senators of both parties and House
Members of both parties embolden the enemy, then doesn't public opinion
also embolden the enemy? Since polls show a large majority of Americans
disagreeing with the administration's policy in Iraq, not the war, the
administration's policy in Iraq, if this is the case, then why don't we
see those on the right condemning the American people for expressing
their views and emboldening the enemy? It is because probably
politically they know they can't criticize the American public. It is
because it is easier to take pot shots at politicians than at everyday
men and women in American society.
Additionally, if the actions of the Senate and the House and American
public embolden the enemy, then I think we need to take a look at the
administration. I quote: ``Such statements give a morale boost to the
terrorists,'' Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, on remarks of the
Bush administration describing the Iraqi Government as being on
``borrowed time.'' In essence, the Prime Minister of Iraq is accusing
our President of emboldening the enemy by making such a statement.
I contend that the American people love America, that Democrats love
America, that Republicans love America and that President Bush loves
America. I contend that we all love America, and that the discussion
everyone is having on Iraq right now is not an extension of their love
for America, because we all want what we think is best for the country.
We want success and we want security. If only we also wanted civility
in Washington.
I know that once folks cross into the District of Columbia or read
about something in Washington, it seems there is something triggered in
their brains and our rhetoric is raised to a sensational point. We need
to stop and ask ourselves, is this rhetoric helpful to the end goal, or
just hurtful?
There certainly have been plenty of failures in Iraq and there is
plenty of blame to spread. We should have sent in more troops, some
say. We should have not disbanded the Iraqi Army. We should have kept
better track of how our taxpayer dollars were being spent. We should
have squashed the militias before they built a strong following, some
say, and on and on.
{time} 1700
I will tell you who has not failed: Our soldiers on the ground. The
American soldiers won in Iraq. They defeated Saddam's Army, deposed a
dictator and tore down the statue. They gave the country to the Iraqis.
Sadly, in my opinion and many others, the leaders in Washington have
failed our soldiers because those in charge of Iraqi policy have been
weak in dealing with the new Iraqi government, have not pushed them to
find political solutions to the problems they face. The lack of
political structure in Iraq falls squarely on the shoulders of the war
planners, and I for one will not let the reputation of our fighting men
and women be tarnished by the miscalculations of those in charge.
The question now must be, what are the next steps to bring success
and security? That is our goal, is success and security.
The Blue Dog Coalition has drafted a resolution that can help us
along our goals towards success and security. House Resolution 97 would
improve our accountability in Iraq so we can make sure our taxpayer
dollars are being spent wisely and going where they are needed to
achieve success.
In my opinion, this resolution is the first step of many steps down
the path to stability and success in Iraq. I, for one, stand with our
military men and women, ready and able to walk down the path of success
with them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, an active member of
the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition.
And the gentleman is exactly right. As members of the Blue Dog
Coalition, we are sick and tired of all the partisan bickering that
goes on in Washington. As members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we don't
care if it is a Democratic idea or a Republican idea. All we care about
is, is it a commonsense idea, and does it make sense for the people who
sent us here to be their voice? That is really what the fiscally
conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition is all about: restoring
fiscal discipline, accountability and common sense to our government.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I thank you, Mr. Ross.
I just want to make clear, as colleagues are saying, and I want to
make sure that this debate is within the right frame of mind. This is
not a debate that is personally against the President. The President is
a likeable person. It is just his policies. His policies are wrong for
the American people. Even the American people are rising up and saying
so.
We have, as Congress, the responsibility to respectfully disagree
with the President. That is what we are doing. We are simply saying it
is wrong to cut veterans', it is wrong to cut seniors' programs, it is
wrong to cut education, it is wrong to cut the COPS program out, from
getting folks in to be employed for first responders. It is wrong to
cut homeland security. It is wrong to cut every single basic domestic
program that is cut in this budget. It is wrong to do that.
It is wrong also for the President to say on the one hand that he is
going to have a surge of 21,500 more troops, when, in fact, we now know
that it is not 21,500. It is more like 48,000, according to the CBO
that has just corrected that.
So when we have these kinds of situations, this is what makes this
government what it is. This is what makes us the envy of the world.
This is why we have this House. This is why we run every other year,
why people hold us accountable, to come and to make sure that the
voters and the people of America and their tax dollars, that we are
good stewards of them. That is our responsibility.
And we have a right, more than that, we have a duty, to raise the
tough questions and to hold the President's
[[Page H1264]]
feet to the fire when he comes with such a wrong-headed budget as this
that goes right to the heart of where America is hurting. This is why
we are here today, and this is why the Blue Dogs are offering this.
This is why the Blue Dogs are also offering Resolution 98, to bring
this fiscal accountability and financial accountability, to stop war
profiteering, and to make sure the money goes to the soldiers so that
we can take care of them while they are on the battlefield and to make
sure we restore these cuts to make sure we take care of them when they
come home. This budget doesn't do it, and it is our obligation to raise
these questions and to make sure that this budget responds
appropriately.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, if you have any comments or questions or concerns, you
can e-mail us at BlueD[email protected].
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. I so often hear that cut and run is a
strategy from Democrats. That is not the case. When we finished the war
in 1945, military bases were established in western Europe, in Turkey
and other places throughout the world. They are still there. As we
finished our endeavors, as many people thought during the Korean War,
our military bases are still located in South Korea.
We will never leave the Middle East, if the American people think
that is the case. What we are talking about is being able to redeploy
and do certain other endeavors that have not been done to make sure we
win this war, win the peace, and have success in Iraq. We will be in
the Middle East for a long, long time. My great-grandchildren will
still see us be there. That is an area in which we have to defend
America's freedom and liberty.
But we have got to take another look at having success, because what
we are doing now is not having the success the American people demand,
expect and we should have for them, and our troops deserve better than
that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remaining portion of my time.
____________________