[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5595-5596]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           BLUE DOG COALITION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. LINCOLN DAVIS

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 6, 2007

  Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, one of the benefits in 
being a Member of Congress is the privilege of working in our Nation's 
Capitol. The United States Capitol, in my mind, is among the greatest 
museums in the world--filled with fine art, intricate architecture, and 
amazing statues of our country's most important historical figures.
  Obviously, the Capitol is a place of great historical significance. 
One of the most important votes ever taken in this House was the 
declaration of war against Japan on December 8, 1941. This was followed 
3 days later with declarations against the Axis, Germany and Italy. 
This in turn was followed in 1942 by declarations against Hungary, 
Bulgaria, and Romania. My friends, this was the last time Congress 
formally declared war against any nation.
  For me, and I know for many of my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition, 
the opportunity to serve in this body is an honor bestowed on us by our 
constituents. Quite frankly, a great responsibility comes with this 
honor--a responsibility to represent the views of all our constituents, 
rather than the views of partisans on the left and right. This is why 
the Blue Dog Coalition advocates for a middle-ground in our policies, 
and I think the American people agree, the middle is the best place to 
govern. Madam Speaker, we have to be bipartisan, we have to be 
sensible, and we have to try and work together in a harmonious way to 
find solutions to the difficulties facing our Nation.
  When I first came to Congress a Member asked me what I wanted to 
change about America. I thought about this real hard, and I was 
surprised at how quickly I came to my answer. My answer was that I did 
not want to change America. No country in the world cares for its 
citizens and provides them with the amount of support as the government 
of these United States of America. While I do not want to change 
America, our country does have problems, and I think we can address 
these best by working together. So, I want to challenge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle, let us start being a little more civil and 
little more cooperative with each other.
  Two weeks ago the House debated a resolution honoring our soldiers 
and disagreeing with the President's proposal to send an additional 
21,500 troops to Iraq. Sadly, many of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle allowed the debate to disintegrate into questions about the 
patriotism of Members of Congress, as though you are only patriotic if 
we blindly follow the President's every decision lock step. How 
shameful. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of the idea 
that the President's policies shouldn't be question or criticized. 
Seems to me if that was the Founder's goal they wouldn't have created 
the Congress, a bicameral co-equal branch of government. Instead they 
would have suggested we create a new kingdom out of America, or perhaps 
advocated for a government very similar to the one we overthrew in 
Iraq. Thankfully, in their infinite wisdom the Founders understood the 
necessity of debate, of questioning the administrations' policies, of a 
representative Republic. How ironic that members of the Republican 
Party came down to the floor and questioned the patriotism of Members 
of Congress for doing exactly what the Founders intended--debate 
policies so you can arrive at the best decision for the American 
people.
  Now, one of the biggest challenges facing America, and something 
Congress debates every year around this time is our budget situation 
and our deficit. In 1980 I was elected to the State House in Tennessee. 
I remember one day traveling to Nashville from my home in Byrdstown 
when I heard on the radio that we had just increased our national debt 
to $1 trillion. That frightened me. A trillion dollars is a lot of 
money, but it was a particularly high amount in the 1980s. Back then it 
was a struggle to raise our debt limit by $15 to $20 billion. Now we 
raise our debt ceiling every year by hundreds of billions of dollars 
without even batting an eye. Many times we do it without having an up-
or-down vote on that particular debt increase.
  After I heard that report on the radio back in 1981 I began to pay 
closer attention to our national debt. Over the next 12 years I watched 
as our debt by grew by almost $3 trillion. I kept thinking to myself, 
how is this possible? It took almost 200 years for the debt to reach $1 
trillion, and yet, over a short period of time in the 80s and early 90s 
the debt tripled. Then in the 1990's we put in place pay-as-you-go 
budget rules that forced Congress and the administration to budget like 
every American family--meaning that the Federal Government could only 
spend what it took in. The result was a return to budget surpluses that 
helped us actually pay down a little bit of our national debt. Now, I 
know it was only a projection, but by the time President Clinton

[[Page 5596]]

left office we were looking at having a 10-year surplus over $5 
trillion. Unfortunately, the next administration and Republican-led 
Congress allowed PAYGO to expire and the results were predictable, and 
$8 trillion reverse of fortunes. So now we find ourselves in a 
situation where our annual deficits, excluding the Social Security 
surplus, exceed $400 billion and our national debt is currently $8.8 
trillion, which amounts to $29,000 for every man, woman, and child in 
this country. Where is the fiscal responsibility in that? What happened 
to the Republican Party? The so-called party of smaller government just 
couldn't resist dipping into the Treasury's cookie jar to feed their 
spending frizzy. Sadly, the big losers of this policy are my 
grandchildren and the soldiers returning home from war. They will be 
the ones taxed with paying down our debt. That, my friends, is immoral 
and shameful.
  You know, my chief of staff recently had a baby they nicknamed 
Willis. The first thing Willis did when he came into this world was 
cry. Now I know why he was crying. He had just been born and he 
inherited his share of the national debt--$29,000. By the time he is 
old enough to have a job his share of the debt limit will be more than 
five times the cost of the first house I bought for my family in the 
late 1960s. We have got to do better than this. We have a moral 
responsibility to do better than this. This Congress has taken the 
first steps by reinstating PAYGO rules in the House. Now we must go one 
step further and make them part of the statute.
  Now, I would like to go back and talk about Iraq a little more. Too 
often I hear folks in this Chamber saying the Democratic policy is 
``cut and run'' and the White House policy is ``stay the course.'' Both 
of these are wrong. We can't stay the course, and we can't cut and run.
  Last week I saw that Vice President Cheney was in Japan thanking our 
troops, and I remembered that we still have troops in Japan following 
World War II. We also have military bases still operating in Germany 
from that war. Additionally, we have thousands of troops in South Korea 
even though the Korean War ended long ago. We still have soldiers in 
Kosovo and Bosnia and Serbia and the Balkans from our involvement there 
in the 1990s. You know, it is worth noting that our friends on the 
other side of the aisle criticized President Clinton in the 1990s for 
our involvement in that conflict, saying it was not our duty to 
``Nation build,'' and they wanted to set up a timetable for withdrawal. 
I believe our current President even lobbed those criticisms when he 
was a candidate. Sometimes I feel like hypocrisy is the currency of 
Washington.
  Continuing to look around the world you will notice we have a 
military presence in Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and 
Saudi Arabia. Of course some of them are there for our current war, but 
many were there beforehand as a result of the Persian Gulf war. The 
Persian Gulf war was U.N.-sanctioned, and it is my understanding that 
we overwhelmed Saddam Hussein with our troop numbers, and then we used 
no-fly-zone in the south and north to essential block him in his own 
country. But we had to keep our military in the area to protect the 
vast oil reserves in the Middle East region of the world.
  In my opinion, from looking at history, we will always have a 
military presence in the Middle East. The question is how will we stay 
in the Middle East?
  Quite frankly, we must stay in the Middle East in a manner that will 
help ensure the security and peace of the area. Of course we want the 
Iraqis to win the peace and control their own country, so the key issue 
is how do we help them in this endeavor? Since we destroyed the Iraqi 
army, one that was able to resist a larger Iranian army for 10 years, 
we must act as their army until we have trained enough of their new 
army to the point where they can take over. In the meantime, I believe 
we need to pull our troops out of the kill zone in Baghdad and move 
them to the border with Syria and Iran to cut off any support for the 
insurgency that may be coming from those countries. At the same time 
the Iraqi police forces and new military must engage and control the 
fight within the country. It is their country; they have to win the 
peace. However, we can and should support them in eliminating any 
terrorist cells that pop up in Iraq. I believe we can do this with 
quick-strike forces and our advanced weaponry with minimal American 
casualties.
  Twelve million Iraqis voted in December of 2005. This sent me the 
signal that they want their own country--not an American occupied 
country. They have established a constitution and set up their 
government with elected officials and various departments. Now they 
also have to fight those within their country who threaten their 
democracy. We can assist, but the will has to be theirs.

                          ____________________