Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it has been 803 days since President Bush and the Republican Party embarked on their economic plan for our country. During that time the national debt has increased by $1,082,452,325,550. According to the website for the Bureau of Public Debt at the U.S. Department of Treasury, yesterday at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, the Nation's outstanding debt was $6,722,777,711,908. Furthermore, in fiscal year 2003, interest on our national debt, or the ``debt tax,'' is $277,768,492,816 through June 30, 2003.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to the interior appropriations bill.

Much of the Hoosier National Forest back in Indiana is in my congressional district. Many of my constituents enjoy hiking, horseback riding, and all the other pleasures and natural beauty of the Hoosier National Forest.

I have enjoyed the forest as well. I have visited there many times, most

recently just in May; and while there, I spoke to many of the rangers and forest employees tasked with protecting and overseeing the forest.

The rangers I spoke with indicated that opening roads could lead to increased environmental degradation, including forest fires. Why? Because of people. The employees at the forest were terribly concerned with the possibility of forest fires, as many of them volunteer to go out West to fight the country's largest forest fires.

By weakening the roadless rule, we will be increasing the likelihood of forest fires in our national forests. There is natural disagreement over the issue, and it will be undercutting forest protections thoughtfully established over many years.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we have assembled a team of Blue Dogs. First of all, we want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for agreeing to debate us. We think that it is good for the American people and good for this institution. Honest disagreements and spirited debates are sometimes put aside just for the sake of political bickering, and we hope tonight we can carry on a dialogue that will be fruitful for the American people.

We would like to begin our opening remarks, and I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, Southern Indiana is blessed with natural beauty, and the Hoosier National Forest in my congressional district is an important source of this beauty. I have greatly enjoyed my visits to this national forest over the years.

Today I voted against passage of H.R. 1904, The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. I decided not to support this legislation after giving it careful consideration and weighing its effects on my constituents.

I have many constituents who regularly visit the Hoosier National Forest. They enjoy hiking, fishing, horseback riding and mountain biking in the forest. My constituents also feel strongly about the right to comment on and participate in the management decisions that are made regarding this beautiful national forest.

I voted against H.R. 1904 because I am very concerned that it would result in my constituents having fewer opportunities to comment on forest policy proposals. H.R. 1904 would expand the use of ``categorical exclusions'' by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and reduce the opportunities for the public to comment.

I have consistently supported efforts to ensure the public has meaningful opportunities to comment on national forest policy proposals, and I will continue to support the public's right to comment. I voted against H.R. 1904 because it could limit the opportunities the public would have to participate in forest policy- making decisions.

Mr. Speaker, the Blue Dogs are going to be taking this hour to talk about the debt ceiling. And for those who are listening, the Blue Dogs are about 35 Democrats in the House of Representatives who believe that we ought to be fiscally responsible. The debt ceiling, for those who are listening, too, is a process by which we pass a budget and we say that we are going to pay for items in the budget. And if we do not have the money to pay for the items in the budget, then we have to borrow the money.

That takes an act of law. About 7 or 8 months ago, we did not have enough money, so we raised the debt ceiling by approximately $450 billion. Now 7 or 8 months later, to fast forward to today, we are going to have to do it again. We are going to have to raise it $984 billion. This is at the same time that a conference committee in these halls of Congress are debating a multi-billion dollar tax cut. Many of us are not in agreement with that, but there are many in this body and the other body that believe that we should borrow the money in order to do a tax cut.

In President Bush's State of the Union address, the President said, ``This country has many problems. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents and other generations.'' I am quoting from the President of the United States. But that is precisely what we are doing in our current budget and economic policies.

The House majority is trying to hide a $984 billion increase in the debt limit, the largest increase in the debt limit in history. This comes less than 8 months after we raised the Federal debt ceiling by a whopping $450 billion. When the President proposed his initial budget in the year 2001, the administration actually claimed there was a danger that the government would pay off its debt by the public too quickly. The administration's request for the second increase in the statutory debt limit is less than a year and shows just how farfetched those warnings were. The majority no doubt hopes that this increase in the debt limit is large enough to avoid dealing with the issue of our increasing national debt until after the election next year.

If the majority honestly believes that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, they should be willing to vote to increase the national debt to pay for their tax cuts, instead of relying on undercover, parliamentary tricks.

We Blue Dogs are firmly opposed to increasing the borrowing authority by $984 billion without efforts to restore fiscal discipline into the future and protect taxpayers from higher and higher debt. We understand that we have to borrow monies sometimes to pay our debts, and we feel like we should do the responsible thing and do that, but there ought to be some kind of road map put in place for the American people so we can see somewhere down the line how we are going to get out of this mess, and we are not doing that.

The one tax that cannot be repealed is the debt tax, the cost of paying interest on our national debt. The debt tax consumed 18 percent of all government revenues to pay interest on the $6.4 trillion national debt last year, including interest on debt held by government trust funds.

We are willing, as I said before, to support a short-term increase in the debt ceiling to avoid the impending risk of default, but we will not support an increase in the debt limit of nearly a trillion dollars to allow the government to continue on the course of deficits as far as the eye can see. It is irresponsible to provide a blank check for increased borrowing authority without examination of the conditions that make such an increase necessary. Just like a credit card spending limit serves as a tool to force families to examine their household budget, the debt limit reminds our Nation to evaluate taxing and spending policies.

A farmer or small businessman who needs an extension of their credit must work with the bank to establish a financial plan in order to get approval from the bank. We should be following that principle by working on putting our budget back in order before we raise our credit limit.

A thorough debate on lifting the debt ceiling is particularly timely as Congress considers tax cuts that could add more than a trillion dollars to the national debt over the next decade. Every dime of tax cuts being pushed by the majority will come from borrowed

money. Under the majority's budget, the national debt would exceed $10 trillion by the year 2009 and $12 trillion by the year 2013. The borrow and spend policies of this current majority will leave a crushing debt for future generations who do not have a say in what we are doing and do not benefit from the tax cuts and spending programs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) who has been an expert on this issue and a great spokesman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) for those thoughtful remarks and would like to now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for being a continued champion on this particular issue. I am into my third term here, Mr. Speaker. I came to know the gentleman from Tennessee right away. He has consistently been a voice of reason on this particular issue. He has not changed a bit, unlike others who have changed in this body, about the importance of managing our Federal deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the senior Blue Dog, of the 35 that are here, and has been the leading voice for the Blue Dogs on this particular issue. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman, of course, is a champion in this area as are the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), and all the Blue Dogs. We talk in terms of billions, sometimes trillions of dollars. For people who may be listening in their living room, maybe eating dinner to the debate that is going on here this evening, why is this an important issue to them? Why should they care about this?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his eloquence and leadership on this issue and for his explanation, and we look forward for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to continue to assert his leadership in this area.

One of the things that the gentleman from Tennessee was talking about was the debt tax that we cannot repeal. He talked about billions of dollars that we are spending in interest. Sometimes people's eyes glaze over when we talk in terms of billions of dollars. What that means to an average family is, if they pay $1,000 in taxes, approximately $175 of that goes to pay the interest that we accumulate. So if we would put our house in fiscal order, perhaps we would not have to pay such high interest payments; and that would be a tax reduction in a roundabout way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) who came into the Congress at the same time that I did. We became fast friends right away. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. He represents the State of Kansas very well, and I am honored to call him my good friend.

I thank my friend from Kansas for taking the time to talk about this very important issue and for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Blue Dogs, the gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his eloquence and his leadership on this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, that is the number of Blue Dogs who will be speaking tonight. We feel very strongly about this issue, as you have heard and the American people have heard. It is very hard to get the message out across because interest rates are very low right now, but there will come a day that, if we do not put our fiscal House in order, we could return to the days where interest rates were very, very high; and I do not think we want to do that, for the sake of not only this generation, but the next.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog plan that we are offering today combines short-term economic stimulus and immediate tax relief for all taxpayers with long-term fiscal discipline to balance the budget by 2009 and return to saving the Social Security surplus by 2013. The Blue Dog budget has nearly $2 trillion less debt than the President's budget from the year 2003 to 2013. The Blue Dog budget calls for tough spending limits by adopting the President's overall spending levels but does not rely on unreasonable or unrealistic spending cuts from the President's proposal.

The Blue Dog budget will hold Congress accountable for the increase in the debt tax by limiting increases in the debt limit and requiring regular votes by Congress to raise the debt limit until the budget is on the path towards balance.

We strongly support the President in the war on terrorism and in keeping a strong defense. Our budget provides the President with everything he requested for defense and homeland security and sets aside a reserve fund for additional funding for homeland security if the administration requests it. The Blue Dog budget is good policy, plain and simple. For every $1,000 each taxpayer sends to Washington, an income tax roughly $180 goes to pay the interest on our national debt. The Blue Dog budget reduces that burden while the Republican budget increases that burden. That is what we call the ``debt tax.'' Eighteen percent of the Federal budget, over $2,500 per person, over $4,000 per family, and it only gets worse if we follow their plan. Bob Dole called it the stealth tax in 1996. It was mentioned in a 1995 Republican-authored resolution, and it was referenced in the first plank of the 1994 Republican Contract with America.

The debt tax is money that goes towards nothing, and it is a tax that cannot be repealed. It does not make our Nation stronger. It does not make health care more affordable. It does not make our schools better. It does not provide more jobs, and it surely does not make our economy more robust.

It is time to get back on the track towards balancing the Federal budget. We cannot and should not send our troops, our brave men and women, into battle, then saddle them with the bill. It is not the right thing to do, and everybody in this body knows it. The Blue Dog budget will restore fiscal responsibility, stability, and accountability to Federal budgeting process. A

great American from the great State of Tennessee once said that no nation has ever been free, strong, and broke.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), a new Member, and a fine one at that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a great American.

(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the strongest voice in this House about the era of Federal budget deficits.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Iowa for his hard work on the committee, and to thank him for allowing the Blue Dogs to make this presentation here today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, our Reserves make up more than half of the Armed Services. Clearly, they are a key part of our national defense. As of today, more than 175,000 National Guardsmen and Reservists from all over our country have been called to active duty. Much has been demanded of our National Guardsmen and Reservists since September of 2001, and much more will surely be demanded of them as we move forward, facing new threats, new enemies, and new challenges.

These men and women are involved in military operations ranging from peacekeeping and humanitarian relief to homeland defense and active combat. Every day they work side-by-side with those on active duty around the world protecting Americans at home and abroad. It is important to remember that these men and women, in answering their call to duty, have left behind spouses, children, parents, friends and jobs. Nearly every community in every State has been affected.

One such community happens to be in my district, in Dubois County, Indiana. It is the folks of Jasper who know firsthand about the commitment of these young people to our country. Therefore, I am here on the floor today to commend the service and sacrifice of the men and women of Indiana's 1st Battalion and 152nd Infantry. These National Guardsmen, known as ``Predators,'' come from not only Jasper but from many other towns in southern Indiana.

This battalion has a rich 150-year history. They defended the Union in the Civil War, they fought alongside our European allies in both World Wars, and now these Hoosier soldiers have once again answered the call of duty in a time of need. Nearly 650 of Jasper's finest are in Kuwait, and an additional 140 are preparing to depart.

Only one other National Guard unit in the country, also from Indiana, has sent more troops to Kuwait. The Jasper soldiers are also a part of one of the Nation's 15 elite reserve units. These elite units receive specialized training to ensure that they are ready to move rapidly to a war zone when needed.

I am proud that these men and women work to both protect the State of Indiana and, when asked, to defend the national security interests of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, I was having dinner with my good friend from New York (Mr. Weiner) and he posed the question, who was more influential in the country, Justices of the Supreme Court or United States Senators. I remarked that I have thought United States Senators, to his surprise, and probably to the surprise of some Members in this body.

But I say that because it was my Senator, my former Senator, Senator Birch Bayh, who did some astonishing and good things for the United States. One of the things that he did was push through Title IX, which afforded women and children all across this country the opportunity to compete as men compete in athletics and other curricular activities. I had a particular interest in Title IX myself, being the father of three daughters who were given the opportunity to play soccer, volleyball and other outside activities, the same as men.

Today, my good friend, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), introduced a bill to rename the Federal courthouse and government building in Indianapolis after the former Senator.

From his humble beginnings in Terre Haute to his 18 years of service in the United States Senate, Birch Bayh remains one of the most respected and beloved Hoosiers of all time.

He is the first person since the Founding Fathers to offer two amendments to the Constitution of the United States, amendments 25 and 26. His accomplishments are a point of pride for Indiana.

I mentioned title IX. His years since his Senate service have been marked by his championing of numerous social causes, including his advocacy for senior citizens, the handicapped, women, and minorities.

I am proud to support the dedication of a Federal building in Indianapolis in our State's capital. It is important and appropriate that this Congress honor the service and commitment Senator Bayh gave to Hoosier constituents and the institution of the United States Congress.