[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.

                          ____________________