[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13531-13538]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     DEMOCRATIC BLUE DOG COALITION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Courtney). 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, I rise this evening on behalf of the 43 
Members that make up the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog 
Coalition. We are conservative Democrats, we are commonsense Democrats 
that want to restore fiscal discipline to our Nation's government.
  Mr. Speaker, as you walk the halls of Congress, as you walk the halls 
of this Capitol and the Cannon House Office Building and the Longworth 
House Office Building and the Rayburn House Office Building, it's not 
difficult to know when you're walking by the door of a fellow Blue Dog 
member because you will see this poster that reads, ``The Blue Dog 
Coalition''. And it will tell you, it serves as a reminder to Members 
of Congress and to the general public that walk the halls of Congress 
that today the U.S. national debt

[[Page 13532]]

is $8,807,559,710,099. And I ran out of room, but if I had a poster 
that was just a little bit more wide, Mr. Speaker, I would have added 
85 cents.
  Your share, every man, woman and child, including the children born 
today in America, if you take that number, the U.S. national debt, and 
divide it by the number of people living in America today, our share, 
everyone's share of the national debt is $29,174.38. It is what those 
of us in the Blue Dog Coalition refer to as ``the debt tax,'' d-e-b-t 
tax, which is one tax that can't go away, that can't be cut until we 
get our Nation's fiscal house in order.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the first bills I filed as a Member of Congress 
back in 2001 was a bill to tell the politicians in Washington to keep 
their hands off the Social Security trust fund. The Republican 
leadership at the time refused to give me a hearing or a vote on that 
bill, and now we know why; because the projected deficit for 2007, 
based on the budget bill written when the Republicans controlled 
Congress, they will tell you is only $172 billion.
  Not so. It's $357 billion. The difference is the money they are 
borrowing from the Social Security trust fund, with absolutely no 
provision on how that money will be paid back or when it will be paid 
back or where it's coming from to pay it back.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, when I go down to the local bank in Prescott, 
Arkansas, and sit across from a loan officer and get a loan, they want 
to know how I am going to pay it back, when I am going to pay it back 
and where the money is going to come from to pay it back. It is time 
the politicians in Washington keep their hands off the Social Security 
trust fund.
  The national debt, the total national debt from 1789 to 2000 was 
$5.67 trillion. But by 2010, the total national debt will have 
increased to $10.88 trillion. That is a doubling of the 211-year debt 
in just a decade, in just 10 years. Interest payments on the debt are 
one of the fastest growing parts of the Federal budget. And the debt 
tax is one that cannot be repealed.
  People ask me, why should I care about the fact that our Nation is in 
debt? Why should I care that we continue to borrow billions of dollars? 
After all, it's future generations that are going to be stuck with the 
bill.
  I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it should matter for a lot of 
reasons. But here is a good one right here: interest payments. Our 
Nation is borrowing about a billion dollars a day. We are spending 
about a half a billion a day paying interest on a debt we've already 
got before we borrow another billion dollars today.
  I-49 is important to the people in Arkansas in my congressional 
district. I need nearly $2 billion to finish I-49, an interstate that 
was started when I was in kindergarten. That's a lot of money, at least 
for a country boy from Prescott and Hope, Arkansas. But I submit to 
you, Mr. Speaker, that we will spend more money paying interest on the 
national debt in the next 4 days than what it would cost to complete 
Interstate 49 in Arkansas, creating with it all kinds of economic 
opportunities and jobs.
  That's on the western side of my district. I represent about half the 
State.
  On the eastern side of my district, I-69 is very important. I need 
about $2 billion to finish I-69. I-69 was announced in the State of 
Indiana, in Indianapolis, 5 years before I was born. That was 50 years 
ago. And with the exception of about 40 miles in Kentucky in a section 
they are now building from Memphis to the casinos, none of it has ever 
been built south of Indianapolis. $2 billion is a lot of money, but we 
will spend more than that in the next 4 days paying interest on the 
national debt.
  As you can see from the chart here, in red, that is the amount of 
money, of your tax money, Mr. Speaker, that we will spend paying 
interest on the national debt this year. Compare that to how much we 
are spending on our children and their education.
  You know, folks in this country come up to me all the time saying 
that English should be the official language. And I personally don't 
necessarily disagree with that. But let me tell you what people should 
be equally concerned about; they should be equally concerned about the 
fact that we have got more young people today in India learning English 
than in America. We've got more young people today in China learning 
English than in America. And it is not because they love America, it is 
because they want our jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that we provide our young 
people with a world-class education, and yet you can see we are 
spending a fraction on educating our children of what we will spend 
this year paying interest on the national debt.
  You hear a lot of talk about homeland security. We all take off our 
shoes when we go through the airports. And I guess we feel a little bit 
safer, but look at what our real commitment as a Nation is to homeland 
security compared to what we are spending paying interest on the 
national debt. Homeland security is in the green, the red is the 
interest we are paying on the national debt.
  And finally, veterans. We can talk about patriotism all we want, but 
I will tell you what, the rest of the world can look at America and 
determine how much we value our soldiers by how we treat our veterans.
  And a whole new generation of veterans are coming home from Iraq and 
Afghanistan. How do we value them? The dark blue shows how much we are 
spending of your tax money, Mr. Speaker, on our veterans compared to 
the red, which is the amount we've been simply paying interest on on 
the national debt.
  Where is this money coming from that we are borrowing a billion 
dollars a day? I have already told you, Mr. Speaker, a lot of it is 
coming from raiding the Social Security trust fund. Where is the rest 
of it coming from? Foreign central banks and foreign lenders.
  That's right, Mr. Speaker. In fact, to put it another way, this 
administration has borrowed more money from foreigners in the past 6 
years than the previous 42 Presidents combined. Let me repeat that. 
This administration has borrowed more money from foreign central banks 
and foreign investors in the past 6 years than the previous 42 
Presidents combined.
  Foreign lenders currently hold a total of about $2.199 trillion of 
our public debt. Compare that to only $623.3 billion in foreign 
holdings in 1993. Who are they? The top 10 list.
  Japan. The United States of America has borrowed $637.4 billion from 
Japan to fund tax cuts in this country for people earning over $400,000 
a year, leaving our children with the bill.
  China, $346.5 billion.
  The United States of America has borrowed $223.5 billion from the 
United Kingdom.
  $97.1 billion from OPEC. And we wonder why gasoline is $3.25 a gallon 
today in south Arkansas.
  Korea, $67.7 billion; Taiwan, $63.2 billion; the Caribbean banking 
centers, $63.6 billion; Hong Kong, $51 billion; Germany, $52.1 billion.
  And get a load of this. Rounding out the top 10 countries that the 
United States of America has borrowed money from to fund tax cuts in 
this country for folks earning over 400,000 a year and to fund the war 
in Iraq: Mexico.

                              {time}  1815

  Our country has borrowed $38.2 billion from Mexico to fund our 
government.
  So debts do matter. Deficits do matter. And in this case, I submit to 
you, it is a national security issue.
  So what do we do about it? As members of the fiscally conservative 
Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, we have got a plan. We have got a plan 
for budget reform. We have a plan to demand accountability in Iraq. We 
support our soldiers, and as long as we have soldiers in harm's way, we 
are going to make sure they are funded.
  But this administration has acted like if you challenge them on how 
they are spending your tax money in Iraq, then you are unpatriotic. We 
are not going to stand for that anymore, because, Mr. Speaker, we 
believe that this administration and the Iraqi Government should be 
accountable for how

[[Page 13533]]

$12 million of taxpayer money is being spent every hour in Iraq.
  That is right, our Nation is spending $12 million of your tax money, 
Mr. Speaker, every hour in Iraq, and it is time that the Iraqis be held 
accountable for how that money is being spent. It is time we demand 
that they step up and accept more responsibility for training the 
Iraqis to be able to take control of their police and military force. 
And, yes, it is time that we demand more accountability from this 
administration on how this money is being spent on Iraq and ensure that 
it is being spent on our brave men and women in uniform.
  John Grant of Pearcy, Arkansas, brought to my attention the fact that 
our soldiers may very well not be equipped with the most advanced and 
the best body armor that is made. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we 
must ensure that the very best in body armor is being provided to our 
men and women in uniform. We have learned a lot about that in the last 
few days through an NBC investigative report. I am proud to tell you 
that over 40 Members of Congress, including a lot of my Blue Dog 
friends, have signed on to a letter to the administration, to the 
Pentagon, demanding that further tests be done, and that our men and 
women in uniform be provided with the very best in body armor.
  I am joined by a number of fellow Blue Dogs this evening, and it is 
with great honor that I introduce at this time my friend, an active 
member of the Blue Dog Coalition from the State of Colorado, Mr. John 
Salazar.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the gentleman from Arkansas and his 
work with my Blue Dog colleagues in demanding more fiscal 
responsibility in Iraq. I believe that Congress has now approved nearly 
$510 billion for military operations since 2001, with nearly no 
oversight on spending. Operation Iraqi Freedom alone has cost American 
taxpayers $51 billion in 2003, $77.3 billion in 2004, $87.3 billion in 
2005, $104 billion in 2006, and in 2007 we are in the process of 
funding Operation Iraqi Freedom once again with a supplemental. Now we 
are spending over $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan just on 
government contractors working on reconstruction. All of this is 
unchecked, and that is why I am so proud to join my Blue Dog colleagues 
as a supporter of H. Res. 97.
  H. Res. 97 was introduced by the Blue Dog Coalition to call for 
transparency on how Iraq funds are spent. We have a plan for 
accountability in Iraq. Our plan calls for, first, transparency on how 
war funds are spent. Second of all, it creates a commission to 
investigate awarded contracts. Third of all, it stops the use of 
emergency supplementals to fund the war.
  Everything that I have read over the past several years indicates 
that this is the first administration that has used supplementals to 
fund a war after the first year, after initiation. In January we passed 
what was called the PAYGO rule. It is my understanding that with 
supplementals, you don't have to follow PAYGO rules. I think it is 
critical that we as Blue Dogs continue to move forward and push for an 
honest budget.
  Number four, it uses American resources to improve Iraq's ability to 
police itself. I believe that this is of critical importance.
  Mr. Speaker, you cannot push democracy on someone who does not want 
it. Over 65 percent of the Iraqi population now says it is okay to 
shoot at American soldiers. The Iraqi Parliament a couple of weeks ago 
voted 144 out of 275 members to tell Americans that it is time for us 
to come home. We cannot force democracy on someone who does not want 
it.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that today what is important is that we turn 
this over to the Iraqi Government. Our soldiers can become the 
advisors. They should not be on the front lines.
  The gentleman talks about the Social Security Trust Fund. Two years 
ago I introduced the Social Security Protection Act, which would not 
allow any politician in Washington to touch that trust fund. I think 
the gentleman raises a critical point there.
  He also talks about the veterans. I am the only veteran in the 
Colorado delegation. I am proud to be a Blue Dog, and I am proud that 
this legislation addresses the lack of oversight and accountability in 
Iraq. But I am also very proud that this resolution stands for 
veterans' issues.
  Government reports have documented waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq. 
Contractors are being paid billions of dollars by the United States for 
their services in Iraq. Most of these, Mr. Speaker, are no-bid 
contracts. Where is the accountability in that? I believe that if their 
work is resulting in unsanitary conditions, potential health hazards, 
poor construction methods or significant cost overruns, then Congress 
has the right to know about it. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is time 
to stop this waste.
  Congressional oversight is desperately needed. This administration 
should be held accountable for how reconstruction funds are being used. 
This Blue Dog bill is a commonsense proposal that ensures transparency 
and accountability. We bring oversight back to Congress. We start 
showing improvement in Iraq, and accountability leads directly to 
success. Iraqis must begin progress towards full responsibility for 
policing their own country. Without progress, it is a waste to continue 
U.S. investment in troops and financial services.
  Mr. Speaker, I visited Iraq twice. While I have seen some 
improvements in some areas, I have also seen the increase in insurgent 
attacks not only on American troops, but on other Iraqis.
  We all support our troops, and we will do everything within our power 
to make sure that they have the equipment and the funding that they 
need. However, Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to write blank checks to 
the administration. I firmly believe that until our last troop is 
returned home, the American people deserve to know how their money is 
being spent.
  Accountability is not only patriotic, it often determines success 
from failure. The Blue Dog bill gives an opportunity to regain 
oversight responsibility. This is the responsibility that we have to 
all of our men and women in uniform, to their parents and to the 
American taxpayer who is footing the bill.
  The gentleman brings up another valid point. He talks about how the 
budget is a moral document. I, frankly, sir, could not run my household 
and put my farm into debt and pass the debt on to my children. That is 
exactly what has happened over the last 5 years. We had a surplus in 
the budget. The economy was doing great.
  Democrats have a plan that by 2011 we will balance this budget. It is 
with the help of the Blue Dog Coalition, with the help of gentlemen 
like the gentleman from Arkansas, who is so committed to make sure 
there is accountability, that we will figure out a way to truly be 
honest with the American people in our budgets.
  We want to put the Iraqi war supplemental back into the regular 
budget process so that we have a true, accurate picture of what our 
national debt is, what our deficit is. The gentleman was showing that 
we have $8.8 trillion in debt right now. Well, I can assure the 
gentleman from Arkansas when I came into Congress in the last Congress, 
our national debt was $78.045 trillion. Your share of that debt, your 
children's share of that debt, was back then $26,000. I believe the 
figure you show now, Mr. Ross, is some $29,000, I believe $29,174 and 
some cents.
  I believe, Mr. Ross, that this is morally wrong, and I believe that 
it is time for Congress to start being honest and report to the 
American people what troubles the last 5 years Congress has moved the 
American people toward. I have heard that by the year 2040, every 
single penny that comes in in Federal revenues will go to pay just the 
interest on the national debt. That is without running government. I 
believe that is morally wrong.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask this Congress, I would ask this 
Democratic Congress and the Blue Dog Coalition, to continue fighting 
for balanced budgets, to continue fighting for accountability, because 
that is what the American people want.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his 
active

[[Page 13534]]

involvement in the Blue Dog Coalition and for his words this evening.
  Some people may be saying, what is the Blue Dog Coalition? The Blue 
Dog Coalition was founded back in 1994 shortly after the Republicans 
took control of Congress by a group of conservative Democrats, 
Democrats that used to be Yellow Dog Democrats. The saying in the South 
is that a Democrat is so Democratic that they would vote for a yellow 
dog if a yellow dog was running for office. That is where the saying 
comes from.
  There was a group of conservative Democrats back in 1994 that felt 
like they were being choked blue by the extremes of both parties. That 
is what the Blue Dog Coalition is all about. We are a group of fiscally 
conservative Democrats that want to restore common sense and fiscal 
discipline to our Nation's government. We don't care if it is a 
Democrat or Republican idea. We ask ourselves, is it a commonsense 
idea, and does it make sense for the people who send us here to be 
their voice in our Nation's Capital?
  An active and leading member of the Blue Dog Coalition, an 
independent voice within the Congress from the State of Georgia, is Mr. 
David Scott. At this time I yield to him.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Ross. It is a pleasure, as 
always, to be on the floor with you and my fellow Blue Dogs.
  I want to talk about two issues here that relate. One, of course, is 
the debt, the deficit that we have; the lack of accountability, 
financial accountability. But I would like to talk about it from the 
standpoint of what is really on the minds of the American people today, 
and that is the situation that faces us in Iraq and what we desperately 
need to do.
  We need to do two things: One is be honest with the American people; 
and, two, be honest with the money that the American people send up 
here for us to apportion. Nowhere is that more significant than with 
military affairs.
  As I stand here, Mr. Ross, I am trying to think of the best 
illustration I can come up with that would kind of paint a picture for 
where we are. I think if we look back in history, a certain event took 
place around 1952 when we were in a similar position of debating this 
issue of who has control of military affairs or how do we deal with the 
issues in time of war. Is it the executive branch, or is it the 
Congress, and what is the role therein?
  This debate is heated on those two things today. The President says 
Congress has no role in this. Congress says we definitely do. And we 
are right that we do.

                              {time}  1830

  It was borne out in a case in 1952 when there was a decision made by 
the Supreme Court when this issue came up on who had the right to 
determine whether the steel mills would be seized during a time of war, 
during the Korean War.
  And it got so hot and heavy in that debate it went to the courts. Is 
it the Congress or is it the President? Well, the Supreme Court ruled 
on that which brings us to a point here today. But in the concurrence 
that was written by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, he said some 
very important, significant and prophetic words.
  He said that this is a case that clearly fits within the realm of 
Congress's responsibility in a time of war. And in his concurrence he 
said that when the executive branch operates in tandem with the 
congressional branch, with congressional authority, he said that is a 
time of maximum power for the President. He said, but when the 
President acts counter to the express constitutional authority of the 
Congress, he said, we enter into what he referred to then as a zone of 
twilight, or in essence a twilight zone which, quite ironically, is 
where Rod Sterling got the name for his television program ``The 
Twilight Zone.''
  That is where we find ourselves here, in the twilight zone.
  He went on to say, when we enter this twilight zone, the Presidency 
in at its lowest ebb when it does not recognize the authority of the 
Congress.
  Our authority rests with the purse. Our authority rests with making 
sure that we raise and support the military. Our authority rests with 
legislation. And when you wrap those two things together, that is what 
is the embodiment of what we have captured in our resolution for 
financial responsibility and accountability in a time of war to make 
sure that the money is accounted for; to make sure when our troops are 
going into war, that they have the money for the armor.
  That is exactly why when they were sent into war by this President 
and this administration without the body armor, we had to amend the 
appropriations bill with over $200 million to get it in there, led by 
Democrats, led by Blue Dog Democrats, if you recall, to get the money 
in the budget for that.
  The reason that happened is, up until January, this President has had 
the luxury of a rollover Congress that did exactly what he wanted them 
to do without even a whimper or a bang. They just rolled over, gave the 
President everything that he wanted, and we did not do the 
constitutional function of oversight, of making sure that there is 
financial accountability and responsibility in the actions that we are 
giving.
  That is why it is important what we do today. Now this is 
incorporated into our presentation, into each of the bills that we have 
put forward. The status is now that these efforts are being worked 
between the House and the Senate. But I think it is very important for 
the public to also know that in this bill we have the accountability 
features in. But we also have the responsibility where we are not going 
to cut off any funds as long as our troops are in danger on the 
battlefield.
  It is our hope, however, that we will be responsive to the American 
people and bring this matter to a close in terms of the loss of life of 
our soldiers that are caught in the cross hairs of a civil war.
  Now, the Middle East is a region of vital interest, and there is 
absolutely no way we will ever be able to completely disappear from the 
Middle East, nor is that our intent. Nor is it the intent of the 
American people.
  The point is our nose has been poked into a civil war, a civil war 
that has been festering for thousands of years between the Sunnis and 
the Shiites. That is their civil war. It is not right to have our 
soldiers in the middle of that. That needs to be brought back and we 
need to enter into a more reasonable support of containment and 
redeployment of our troops, and in a manner that pays attention to the 
wear and tear on our military.
  Mr. Ross, it is shameful when we have to say that so many of our 
troops are over there for the third or fourth time. That is not right. 
The American people are against that. It is my hope that we will bring 
financial accountability and responsibility to this matter. The 
American people, who are very much engaged with us on this Iraq 
situation, are looking to Democrats; and quite honestly, they are 
looking to Blue Dog Democrats. They are looking to people who have 
fiscal responsibility and also understand that we know we are in a 
dangerous world.
  The most important thing we need for our advancement right now is to 
make sure we have a strong defense and we have got that, but we also 
want our policies to be responsive to the American people. That is what 
the Democrats are putting forward as we move forward on our way out of 
this terrible civil war that our Nation finds itself in. We are going 
to do exactly that.
  Mr. Ross, it is a pleasure to be here, and I am sure the American 
people fully support our efforts and understand exactly what we are 
talking about when we say it is time to bring financial accountability 
and transparency to our efforts here on Capitol Hill, and nowhere is 
that more important than dealing with our military affairs and the men 
and women serving in harm's way overseas.
  Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for joining 
us, as he does most Tuesday evenings.
  At this time we are honored to be joined by a veteran of the Iraq 
war, a new Member of Congress, and I yield to Congressman Murphy of 
Pennsylvania.

[[Page 13535]]


  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
Congressman Ross for yielding me this time.
  Just a few days ago we stood here, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, my chairman, Congressman Ike Skelton, who has two sons who 
are currently serving in the military, who is a great leader in this 
Congress. In the Defense bill, we did several things. We wanted to make 
sure that the troops knew that we supported them.
  When we stood there, Congressman Ross, we said thank you, Chairman 
Skelton, because you believe what all Blue Dogs believe, accountability 
and responsibility. It established those benchmarks, that oversight 
which is so needed right now.
  So in the Defense bill that gave the troops a 3.5 percent pay 
increase, a pay increase because there is such a gap, such a disparity 
between the private sector and our servicemen and women and their 
salaries. When they join the military, they are not trying to make a 
lot of money. But the fact is that those privates who are making 
$17,000 a year, those privates that are leaving their wives and kids at 
home, many of whom have to survive on food stamps, those privates who 
saw what we did in the Defense bill, who said that is great, 3.5 
percent pay increase, a couple hundred dollars a year. The President of 
the United States said, Private, thank you for your service to your 
country, but that is too much of a pay increase.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the people at home are watching. The President of 
the United States said a couple hundred dollars more a year to a 
private making $17,000 a year is too much.
  Now the Blue Dog Coalition believes in two things: one, fiscal 
responsibility; two, strong national defense.
  How do the soldiers feel that are running convoys up and down Ambush 
Alley, scouting on the streets for roadside bombs and looking for 
snipers on rooftops, when they hear their President back at home, the 
President of the United States thinks a couple hundred dollars more a 
year is too much. The President says, hey, it would add up over the 
next 5 years, $7.3 billion; that is a lot of money.
  But the same standard that the President uses where he says it is too 
much for the troops, it is not too much for the contractors who have 
proven that they mismanage over $9 billion of our hard-earned money, 
the contractors who don't want any accountability and don't want to see 
the light of day.
  The President has threatened to veto the pay raise of our soldiers. I 
believe that is morally wrong during a time of war, especially when you 
are saying we are not asking for a 10 percent or 20 percent or 30 
percent increase in their pay when they make $17,000, just a couple 
hundred dollars more a year, not even reaching $1,000 more. The 
President says no.
  In the Defense bill that we passed that the President has said he 
will veto, and this was not some sly comment he said as an aside, the 
President pointed to a document and said, a 3.5 percent increase is too 
much.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that everyone in America write the President of 
the United States and say 3.5 percent increase in pay for our troops is 
not too much to ask for; a 3.5 percent increase during the Memorial Day 
weekend when we honor their servicemembers is not too much to ask for.
  This is a pattern, Mr. Speaker, that upsets me greatly, a pattern of 
neglect that this White House has for our troops. See, when I was in 
Baghdad in 138-degree heat and this White House and the Secretary of 
Defense Donald Rumsfeld floated out the idea and said, Let's take away 
their imminent danger pay, their combat pay, a couple hundred dollars a 
month, because mission is accomplished. Let's take away their combat 
pay. It's over.
  Now, fast forward 4 years later, the President says, hey, 3.5 percent 
is too much. This is a pattern of neglect of our troops. It is okay 
when the President wants to use our troops as props for a fancy speech 
in the Rose Garden. But when it comes to budget time when budgets are 
moral documents, the President says, too much. I respectfully beg to 
differ.
  When we look at the debt of our country, just under $9 trillion, with 
$29,000 that every single man, woman and child in the United States 
owes towards our national debt. In March, 2007, we paid $21 billion in 
interest alone. Does it get any better? No. Why? Because there is no 
accountability. There is no tightening of the belt. It is wrong to pass 
this debt, this $9 trillion of debt, on to our children. That is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, when I know my wife, Jenny, and daughter, Maggie, are 
home in Bristol, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, when I know that they 
are watching on C-SPAN, I know that they know that their daddy and 
husband is fighting a good fight. They know that I cannot stand here in 
good conscience, Mr. Speaker, and allow this President to use our 
troops as props and yet can't give them a couple hundred dollars of pay 
increase to try to alleviate some of the pay disparity with the private 
sector.
  I can't stand here in good conscience and pay our good tax dollars, 
$21 billion a month, just to pay the interest, without cutting off the 
spending spigot.
  We need to rein in the spending of this country. The Blue Dogs are 
absolutely committed to doing that. We need partners from the other 
side of the aisle. We might be Democrats, and there might be 
Republicans on the other side of the aisle, but we are all Americans 
and we all owe $9 trillion in debt in America to foreign countries like 
Communist China and Mexico and Japan.
  Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Enough is enough, and the Blue Dog 
Coalition, my brothers and sisters in this coalition, are taking the 
floor of the House of Representatives and all across America. We need 
the help of the American people to make sure people understand what is 
at stake. What is at stake is the future of America. What is at stake 
is the security, the financial security, of our country and the country 
that our children will inherit.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time tonight.
  Mr. ROSS. I thank Congressman Murphy from Pennsylvania for his 
insight and life experiences as a veteran of the Iraq War, and for 
sharing his thoughts with us this evening as we demand accountability 
and common sense on how your tax money, some $12 million an hour of 
your tax money, is being spent in Iraq. It is important, we believe, 
that we make sure that it is being spent on our troops, to protect and 
support them, and that it be accounted for.

                              {time}  1845

  That's what H. Res. 97 is all about, and we're very pleased, and we 
want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. 
Skelton, for including key provisions of our legislation, written in 
part by Mr. Murphy, in the Defense authorization bill this year.
  I yield to an active member of the Blue Dog Coalition, gentleman from 
the State of Tennessee (Mr. Lincoln Davis).
  Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Arkansas for the recognition. I'll be very brief, which is 
difficult for me to do, being from the mountains of Tennessee. 
Sometimes I get a little wordy. I had one of my folks back home tell me 
that after I'd been here for about a year, he said, Lincoln, you've 
gotten so windy as those folks in Washington, I believe you could blow 
up an onion sack. I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that, but I had 
to tone down my rhetoric somewhat after that.
  But it's good to be here to talk about accountability and, quite 
frankly, how the lack of accountability has gotten us in the situation 
we're in in Iraq, as well as in our budget management. When we take a 
look at how the growth of government grew through the 1980s up to the 
early 1990s, in 1992, we were spending roughly 22 percent of gross 
domestic product on national expenditures, on our budgetary process, 
Mr. Speaker.
  And through the 1990s, we saw a downsizing of government through the

[[Page 13536]]

Clinton-Gore years, where we were spending roughly 18.5 percent of 
gross domestic product. We now have seen that jump to the point to 
where it's somewhat over 20 percent in gross domestic product. We've 
seen government grow the last 6 years. We saw it downsized during the 
Clinton-Gore administration, and the 12 years prior to that we saw it 
grow to where it was well over 22 percent.
  So, when we talk about accountability, let's be sure that America 
understands, Mr. Speaker, that it has certainly not been the Democratic 
Party that has made that happen. Under our management, under our watch, 
we saw a downsizing of government expenditures.
  I want to move now to Iraq. I recently had an opportunity to visit 
the White House, Mr. Speaker, with our President, along with 12 or 13 
other Members. We had a very frank conversation. In one of the 
conversations, the comment was made that we have a strong commitment in 
the Middle East, and we do have a strong commitment there.
  We denied Hitler during World War II being able to obtain the oil in 
the Middle East. The tanks of Rommel ran out of fuel, and we were able, 
quite frankly, through the mass force we had, 16 million Americans, as 
well as help from Europe during World War II, the Allied Forces were 
able to eventually conquer Germany.
  We then continued to be there and have a presence all through the 
Cold War, which also denied the Russians from being able to obtain the 
oil that was there.
  There's no doubt in my mind that we're going to be in the Middle East 
for a long time when we leave the war zone and the hostile war zones of 
Iraq.
  And as we made that conversation, Mr. Speaker, our President 
certainly agreed with that, that we have a long-term commitment and an 
interest in the Middle East for many years to come, and we will have. 
It's kind of like 1953, in South Korea, when Eisenhower decided a 
cease-fire would be in order, and we signed a cease-fire and have been 
maintaining troops in South Korea since 1953. We'll be in the Middle 
East for a long, long time. After the first Persian Gulf War, we 
maintained a presence there in the Middle East, and we'll still do 
that. It's how we stay that determines whether or not we'll win.
  What my real concern is about this situation in Iraq is I don't 
think, Mr. Speaker, this administration, I don't think, Mr. Speaker, 
this President understands the gravity of what's going on in the Middle 
East.
  Every country in the Middle East, some our friends supposedly and 
some might continue to be our friends, during the 1950s, 1960s, and 
1970s, the Shah of Iran was also our friend. When the ayatollahs took 
over, we lost that friendship, and Iran no longer maintained our 
friendship. But in places like Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait, in the 
Emirates, when you look at Jordan, King Abdullah, a decree made him 
King, not an election. He is our friend, and I personally like King 
Abdullah, but he had an uncle named Prince Hassan that most folks 
thought would eventually go on to be King of Jordan. That didn't 
happen.
  So, when we talk about having a free-standing democracy in the Middle 
East, in Iraq, I'm puzzled somewhat that that becomes one of the major 
objectives to determine whether or not we win. We need to have 
stability in Iraq, stability, Mr. Speaker. My hope is that eventually a 
democracy will occur.
  For us to assume that the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds, in one of 
the most volatile mixed populations in any country in the Middle East, 
that we, you notice I say we, we're going to use that country as a 
model of how we democratize the Middle East, I think, is a flawed 
failure, will continue to be, and will be something that will be 
unsuccessful.
  If, in fact, this administration, led by our President, had decided 
that we ought to have democracy in the Middle East, maybe he should 
have started with this gentleman he's holding hands with, the monarchy, 
the royal family of Saudi Arabia. I wonder how many times this 
administration, Mr. Speaker, how many times this President, Mr. 
Speaker, has talked to the royal family of Saudi Arabia and say, 
wouldn't it be nice to have in Saudi Arabia a thriving democracy, a 
freestanding democracy.
  I wonder how many times, Mr. Speaker, this President, Mr. Rumsfeld 
and others, Mr. Speaker, asked the people of Kuwait after being 
liberated in 1991 that you should establish a democracy and not revert 
back to the royal families, to be dictatorial in the decisions that you 
made.
  Every nation in the Middle East has a strongman-type government, 
except for Israel and except for Lebanon. Whether it's Syria, whether 
it's Iran, Iraq had theirs, the Emirates, Qatar, every country over 
there has a strongman-type government, and we believe that for us to 
consider having one, that we've got to democratize Iraq. I think that's 
a flawed policy, and, Mr. Speaker, I hope our President engages with 
this Congress to try to find some solutions to how we establish 
stability in the Middle East and certainly in Iraq.
  I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his 
insight, and, Mr. Speaker, if you've got any comments, questions or 
concerns of us, you can e-mail us at [email protected]. Again, Mr. 
Speaker, if you've got any comments, questions or concerns for us, you 
can e-mail us at [email protected].
  This is the Special Order with members of the 43-Member-strong, 
fiscally conservative, Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. We are committed 
to trying to restore common sense and fiscal discipline to our Nation's 
government, and a former cochair of the group and active member of the 
group from the State of California (Mr. Cardoza), I yield to him.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas, and I 
appreciate him yielding.
  Today I rise because on Monday I reintroduced a bill the Blue Dogs 
had endorsed last year, H.R. 2402, the Public Official Accountability 
Act.
  The Blue Dogs just aren't fiscally responsible, Mr. Speaker, but 
we're responsible in a number of other ways, and one is accountability 
of the Members of this institution to make sure that we uphold the 
public trust.
  H.R. 2402 gives judges the discretion to increase the sentence for 
public officials convicted of certain enumerated crimes that violate 
the public trust. If a public official has been convicted of bribery, 
fraud, extortion or theft of public funds greater than $10,000, a 
sentencing judge should have the discretion to double the length of a 
sentence up to 2 years for those public officials convicted of such 
ethical violations.
  Unfortunately, recent scandals have somewhat tarnished the reputation 
of this great institution and have stretched the bonds of trust between 
the public and their government. This bill signals that breaches of the 
public trust will not be condoned and, therefore, will help to restore 
the bonds of trust that have been frayed.
  The 110th Congress has already taken steps to ensure that public 
officials adhere to the highest ethical standards and are more 
accountable for their actions. Banning meals, constricting 
congressional travel, and tightening the lobbying rules are all 
important first steps that have already been taken; however, much more 
needs to be done. It will take a concerted effort and some time to 
overcome the spate of negative examples of public officials abusing the 
trust conferred upon them.
  For government to function effectively, the public must be able to 
trust the people making decisions in this institution. My bill will 
help restore that bond of trust between public officials and the people 
they represent. By holding ourselves to the highest ethical standards, 
we are making clear that we have heard the message of the people who 
are demanding honesty and accountability of their leaders.
  I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort and to become 
cosponsors of my bill. A number of Members have already signed on, and 
I hope the rest of my colleagues will join them. Let's

[[Page 13537]]

pass this bill and restore the faith that our constituents have in 
their public institutions.
  As we're talking about accountability, you've raised the Blue Dog 
Coalition debt poster that we have in front of our offices. I'm 
disturbed, as we always are, that every single day that poster goes up. 
We've done a lot of work as Blue Dogs to restore accountability in the 
fiscal side. We have put into the House rules PAYGO rules that say you 
have to pay as you go. We need to work on statutory PAYGO yet some 
more. There's some more things that we need to do. We're not finished 
with this, but clearly we have been heard in this House, and we are 
changing the culture.
  This bill that I've brought forward today during our Blue Dog hour 
will also change the culture. It will send an important message that 
don't commit the crime if you can't do the time. We say that to common 
burglars and drug offenders all throughout our society. We also should 
say it to those same common criminals that perpetrate their crimes in 
the halls of Congress.
  So, today, I stand with my Blue Dog colleagues, as we always do 
during this Blue Dog hour, to ask for accountability in this Congress, 
accountability in our country, accountability with our finances. I'm 
just so proud to be a member of this organization.
  Thank you for yielding to me, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to get this bill inserted into the ethics bill that's going 
through the House this week or as a stand-alone measure later in the 
Congress.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California and 
could not agree with him more. There's a lot of folks that believe 
Members of Congress are held to a different standard, and they should 
be. They should be held to a much greater standard, a much harsher 
sentence than the average citizen on the street, because if Members of 
Congress can come here and make laws, they ought to abide by those laws 
they make. And if they can't, they should have additional time put onto 
their sentence.
  And I want to thank the gentleman from California for trying to work 
with those of us in the Blue Dog Coalition to clean up the mess here in 
Washington.
  I'm very pleased at this time to yield the time that is left if he 
would like it to the cochair for administration for the fiscally 
conservative Blue Dog Coalition, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend Mr. Ross for 
yielding, and I'm very proud of him. He's obviously one of our elected 
leaders of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition and does a 
great job. I'm very proud of him, and I'm very proud of the other 42 
members of the Blue Dogs who deliver this message to the American 
public that accountability and good stewardship of our tax dollars does 
matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Lincoln Davis) was here earlier talking about the 1990s and how we 
extracted ourselves from a fiscal mess where we were experiencing huge 
and systemic annual deficits, and how this government worked hard 
during the 1990s under a Democratic President and Republican-led 
Congress in a bipartisan way, worked real hard to pare down what 
government was doing and make the revenues come into balance with the 
expenditures.
  We did that during the course of the 1990s under a divided 
government, but, Mr. Speaker, none of us like taxes. We live in 
America, the greatest country on the face of the Earth. I talk about 
this regularly with my constituents back home in north Florida, that 
America is the greatest country on the face of the Earth. We're the 
most successful democracy. We're the most successful, greatest economy 
in the history of mankind. We have the greatest military machine in the 
history of mankind.
  I tell my constituents that 25 percent of the world's wealth is 
controlled by 5 percent of the world's population. That's what America 
is. One out of every 20 people live in America, and we control 25 
percent of the world's wealth. We have a gross domestic product that 
exceeds, I don't know, $13-, $14 trillion a year.
  And we have the greatest military machine on the face of the Earth 
ever assembled. You can amass the military of all the other 193 
countries. It will not equal, Mr. Speaker, the firepower that the 
United States of America can bring to bear.
  I tell my constituents that that great wealth and that great military 
power, with it comes a great responsibility in this world to use that 
wealth and that power in a responsible and careful manner.

                              {time}  1900

  Now, none of us like to pay taxes. None of us like to pay taxes. Our 
job, as Members of the United States Congress, House of 
Representatives, is to make sure that we are good stewards of the 
taxpayers' money that our good citizens send up here for us to run the 
country.
  Now, a great deal of that money is spent on our national defense, the 
number one priority of this Nation. None of us on this House floor ever 
like to vote against defense dollars that are being spent around the 
world where we ask our men and women to go put on the uniform and 
defend our values and our freedom and our causes around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 6 years, I think the greatest act of 
omission that has been perpetrated by this Congress is the lack of 
oversight that has been exercised by this Congress over the executive 
branch when it comes to how we spend those tax dollars.
  Six years ago, our national defense budget was in the neighborhood of 
$400 billion; today it is in excess of $650 billion. That's about 5 
percent of our gross domestic product. There are not many countries, if 
any, around the world, that spend that much on their military.
  Our American citizens, our people back home, don't mind us doing 
that. They like for us to do it. But they want to know that when they 
send that money to Washington, somebody is making sure that it's spent 
wisely, and we are good stewards of that.
  What has happened over the last 6 years, when we had one party come 
in control of the White House, and the House and the Senate, the 
oversight role by Congress has been abdicated. It's not the first time 
it happened. It happened before when the Democrats controlled 
everything.
  But in this case it was the Republican Party that was in the 
majority. As a result, we have seen systemic deficits built in. We have 
seen a situation where there has been no oversight exercised by the 
House of Representatives and the Senate over the administration, and 
the Congress just got in the mode of rubber-stamping everything that 
the administration wanted, and ultimately, we had some problems. Some 
arrogance developed, some corruption developed.
  That's basically when the American people stood up in November and 
said, no more, we don't want that any more. We think a divided 
government works best.
  As Blue Dogs, we want to work with the Members on the other side of 
the aisle in making sure that the American people's money, when it 
comes to Washington, is spent wisely and is accounted for.
  I wanted to remind our citizens back home that this chart in front of 
us that shows the $8.8 trillion national debt is for real, and that 
money has got to be paid back by somebody, or at least interest on it 
has to be paid back; and we ought to stop increasing that number on a 
daily basis. That's what the Blue Dogs are all about. Let's make sure 
that the tax money that we collect from American citizens is spent 
wisely, and that we exercise good stewardship as we see about the 
people's business of the United States of America.
  I am proud to be a Member of the U.S. House with my good friends on 
both sides of the aisle. I'm proud to be an American. I want to thank 
my friend from Arkansas for the time.
  Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
  In the hour we have been on the floor this evening talking about the 
need to

[[Page 13538]]

restore common sense and fiscal accountability to our Nation's 
government, we have seen the national debt increase by at least $40 
million.
  Today, the U.S. national debt is $8,807,559,710,099. And for every 
man, woman and child in America, their share of the national debt is 
$29,174. Every Tuesday night, those of us in the fiscally conservative 
Democratic Blue Dog Coalition take to the floor of the House to demand 
that we pass commonsense solutions to this problem, because it affects 
all of us. It's time that we restore common sense and fiscal discipline 
to our Nation's government.

                          ____________________