Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here this evening to talk about the budget, to talk about the debt and to talk about the Blue Dogs' Iraqi accountability legislation. This is a very, very important time for us, and we hope that this hour will be illuminating and be very informative for everyone.

We are accustomed having my good friend, Mike Ross, in this position. Mike Ross is from Arkansas, and, as we know, there was a tornado that went through there. Mike Ross and a group of us just came back yesterday from Europe. Mike Ross had to jump on a plane and go down to Arkansas to see about his constituents, and we want to make sure that we send our prayers down to the folks in Arkansas.

Of course, Mike knows that we stand ready to help in every way we can to make sure that they get the services that they need. So we are here to carry on.

We have a great lineup and array of Blue Dogs here tonight to carry on and to talk about the budget, we want to talk about the debt, we want to talk about our Iraq resolution that we have before us, and the whole issue of accountability.

Mr. Speaker, as we get started, I want to call your attention to our chart. As you know, one of the hallmarks of the Blue Dogs is fiscal responsibility and accountability. Let's look at the national debt and what it is today.

If we look at it correctly, it is now $8.773 trillion. The share for each individual in this Nation is $29,000, and it continues to go up. We want to talk about that tonight. The Blue Dogs have a plan. We want to talk about our 12-point plan to bring down this debt. It is one of the most horrendous areas that we have to deliberate on.

We want to get started with some of our Blue Dogs that are here. First, I

want to recognize our distinguished cochair from the great State of Tennessee, Representative Cooper. I yield to the gentleman.

Thank you much. Would the gentleman share with us that document, where it came from, who wrote it and what it means?

The gentleman mentioned what happened today in the stock market. It is very interesting to note that this whole change happened and started early in the morning in China. When you look at how much money we are borrowing from foreign governments, needless to say China with $360 billion in debt, the interconnectedness of this, and our liability to these other countries, make us so dependent on them. In some cases when they sneeze, we are getting a cold, which is what happened today.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. You brought some very significant wisdom, that our debt burden is $50 trillion, and a very important piece of information from the Treasury Department which gave great expanse to what our burden is: $8.73 trillion in national debt, and our share for each individual in this country is $29,000.

I would like to call on a distinguished Blue Dog, one of our hardworking Blue Dogs, and one of my fellow travelers. We just returned from an extraordinary trip abroad with NATO, had some very interesting meetings there, Ben Chandler, a Representative from the great State of Kentucky.

If the gentleman would yield, you bring up a very good point. The waste that has happened in Iraq with our military is just astounding. It is very important that the American people realize this is the trust of our legislation. We are going to support the troops. We are going to have a military and we are going to spend more on our military. We are going to enlarge our military. Under our Democratic leadership, we are going to make our military stronger.

In order to do that, there are two important points, as the gentleman pointed out, in our legislation that will address and act as a catch to stop some of this waste, and that is under our legislation, we will require that the Inspector General in the Defense Department report to Congress quarterly on exactly how the money that Congress is allocating is being spent. And the Inspector General in Iraq for the Reconstruction of Iraq will also report to Congress on how that money is being spent.

So our financial accountability act for Iraq accountability is very important, and I want to just take a minute to point those things out that address how we are going to respond to the concerns of waste and fraud that you have just spoken about.

Oh, yes.

You are absolutely right, my friend.

It is a word that is very familiar to me.

And it comes directly from this administration's Treasury Department. That is why I wanted Mr. Cooper to make sure he pointed out the authorship. This is not our report to Mr. Cooper. This was put together by the Treasury Department.

Mr. Chandler, I want to make sure that the American people got what you just said. Now, just to make sure that they get it, what you said was that in the last 6 years under this administration this country has borrowed more money from foreign governments than all of the previous administrations going all of the way back to 1789, counting all of the wars, counting the Depression, World War I and World War II, all of the way up to now. From 1789 to 2001, we didn't borrow as much money as we have borrowed in the last 6 years. That is very important.

And the other staggering point about that is just the interest that we are paying on this loan is the fastest growing segment of our budget, and just the interest that we are paying to these countries is more than we are collectively spending on our veterans, on homeland security, and on education. That is a remarkable state of financial irresponsibility; and the Blue Dogs are providing the leadership, have been for many years, and finally we got a first step into this process during the first 100 days under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in passing the PAYGO legislation.

Thank you, and the gentleman brought up some very interesting points. We are going to talk a little bit more about that, but I know the Americans may be asking, well, what are the Blue Dogs going to do? What is their plan?

We have a 12-point plan for budget reform. I want to briefly hit the points right quick. One, require a balanced budget; two, do not let Congress buy on credit; three, put a lid on spending; four, require agencies to put their fiscal house in order; five, make Congress tell taxpayers how much they are spending; six, set aside a rainy day fund; seven, do not hide votes to raise the debt limit; eight, justify spending for all projects; nine, ensure that Congress reads the bills that it is voting on; ten, require honest cost estimates for every bill that Congress votes on; eleven, make sure new bills fit the budget; and twelve, make Congress do a better job of keeping tabs on government programs.

Now, I want to yield to my distinguished friend from Tennessee who is just one of the hardest working Members up here and a leader in the Blue Dogs, Congressman Lincoln Davis from Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman.

You make a very good point, and I think it is tantamount and the American people have seen through and are seeing through the rhetoric of the Bush administration. They are not buying cut and run. The American people went to the polls in November and they did not go to the polls to cut and run. They went to the polls to change direction, a new direction.

There is no question about the fact that we have a vital interest in the Middle East. We know that for the foreseeable future, clearly 45 percent of all of the known oil reserves would be under that region and certainly under Iran alone. All of the geologists have pointed out that 25 percent is under that region. There is a great responsibility for us all there. Nobody is talking about cut and run.

We are talking about what is happening here is a civil war, and these Iraqis have got to fight that out for themselves, just as surely as it would not have been right for Germany or France to come and plop a hundred or 200,000 troops in the middle of our civil war. That had to be settled by us. They have got to settle their civil war. We have got to contain the situation, and that is how this new direction needs to evolve.

I yield back to the gentleman.

Well, thank you. The gentleman from Tennessee brings a lot of depth to his thinking, and we appreciate his contribution tonight.

Now I want to recognize and yield time to my distinguished friend from the great State of Ohio, the sixth district. He serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Science and Technology, my good friend, Congressman Charlie Wilson. I yield to the gentleman.

If the gentleman will yield for a point. I think it is very important, you pointed out that in 2004, if I heard you correctly, $24 billion of Federal Government spending went absolutely unaccounted for. But the other point of that is that this Congress, or the Republican-controlled Congress during that time, did not hold the executive branch accountable for the omission. So not only was the money unaccounted for, there was no means of putting forward accountability by the executive branch.

I certainly thank the gentleman for his observations. They have been very illuminating to us especially on the budget. We have a number of other Blue Dogs here we want to bring into this.

I want to now recognize my good friend from Illinois and one of my fellow travelers. We just returned together from NATO, and she has some refreshing observations, I am sure, from that trip of how it relates. She is a good friend and one of the hard-working Blue Dogs who is making a great contribution to this Congress, and that is Ms. Melissa Bean of Illinois. I yield the young lady as much time as she may need.

If the gentlewoman would yield for a moment. I would like very much to engage you in the feeling of that trip. And it was so important to gather with representatives of those 26 other nations and 13 associate nations with NATO, because we have got to understand, we can't go it alone.

One of the fundamental charges I felt and responsibilities I felt going, and you did, too, we talked about it, was we have got to improve the image of working with other nations to move forward. But I think that the highlight to me and I think to you was that visit with the soldiers.

And you and I have talked about that, and I just want to share for a moment the touching experience that we shared going and flying into Ramstein Air Base and going to Landstuhl to the medical center and going from room to room. We went and we talked with soldiers fresh off the battlefield in very serious conditions, and it was a remarkable experience. And I know you joined me in saying that on the floor, we salute those soldiers.

And we just want to say thank you personally to those soldiers for their sacrifice, for their service, and express to them a great gratitude for a very, very grateful Nation.

We are so proud to do that.

We certainly thank you. And I hope you might hang around a little bit. We may get into a little soliloquy here.

I would like very much to now recognize one of our longstanding Blue Dogs, certainly established as a leader in this Congress, one who befriended me, one who makes a sterling contribution as a leader of the United States Congress, the young lady from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez. I yield the young lady as much time as she may need.

If the gentlelady would yield for a moment, I think it very important for us to realize, you also alluded to it, you might want to hit on it a little more, the unfairness of it all, the war being paid on borrowed money. Every dime we are spending in our government, for our services, on borrowed money, it is not going to last that long. Many civilizations and nations have gone down because of ballooning debt.

If you look at all of them that have gone down, ballooning debt is what played such a great part, and the selfishness of the tax cuts, the war, whatever we are doing, and we are selfishly doing that and putting the burden, as you alluded to, on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. I think you make an excellent point there.

Especially what was most disheartening was the buildup to that war, to use the credibility of General Colin Powell, and then to abandon what you refer to, with the huge number of troops, the Powell doctrine. You are going to go in, you go in with force.

We thank the young lady from California for your excellent insight on this, and your commentary was certainly well received, and it helped to shed the light on the debt and the importance of it.

So we appreciate this hour, the Blue Dog hour, as we continue each Tuesday night to talk about the budget, to talk about bringing fiscal responsibilities and being good stewards to the taxpayers' money. It has been a good evening.

Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished colleagues from Georgia and other Members of Congress who are here, this is indeed a sad occasion.

Charlie Norwood led an extraordinary life. He was a combat veteran. He was a dentist. He pulled himself up by his own bootstraps, truly a son of the South, a son of Georgia.

He is a person that cared about all of the people of Georgia. Let me give you an example, if I may. I remember when I was serving in the Georgia legislature as a State senator, and we needed some help for the Morehouse School of Medicine's National Primary Care Center. The person that led the fight up here to secure the Federal dollars for the Morehouse School of Medicine's Primary National Care Center was Charlie Norwood. And we thank him for that.

Mr. Speaker, as I think of Charlie Norwood, and I think of so many of the great debates and the battles that we have had up here that we have shared, I am reminded of a great conversation that took place between two great men, Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee. It was at a time when this Nation was going through its great Civil War and how to fix that. That conversation went like this. Robert E. Lee said, it is not incumbent upon us to complete the task. And Abraham Lincoln said, nor are we free to desist from doing all we possibly can.

That was the essence of Charlie Norwood. We might not have to complete this task, to make America a better place, but neither are we free to desist from doing all we possibly can.

Charlie, we appreciate you. You fought the good fight. You stayed the course. And for you, God has put up an extraordinary crown of righteousness. We thank you, and we thank God for passing our way.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. It is indeed an honor to stand before this House as a very proud member of our Foreign Affairs Committee under our distinguished Chairman Lantos and also to stand as our co-chair of our Democratic Group on National Security, as well as a voting member of the NATO parliament.

I have been to Iraq. I have been to Afghanistan, been to Pakistan, been to Kuwait. I have been there with our soldiers and our generals, and what I am about to say is based upon my experience in this whole arena.

Now, a lot has been said and I think it has been misguided, very unfortunate. So allow me, if I may, to state for the record exactly what this resolution does.

There has been talk up here about this resolution is here to cut funds. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no Democrat in this Congress who would dare cut the funds from our soldiers who are in harm's way, and any Member that continues to say that is doing a disservice to this Congress and to the people of the United States.

This resolution does not say we are pulling out troops. We know the situation in the Middle East. We know this region is vital to our interests. The issue here is not pulling out troops. The issue here is a vote, up or down, on a policy that says two things, 57 words. Allow me to read them to you.

It says that the ``Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.''

Then it says: ``Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.''

That is what it says. Those two things. Let us not mislead the American public anymore, certainly not on what we are going to vote on here today. I stand as a proud member who has cosponsored, who supports this resolution 100 percent because of four important reasons.

The first reason is that this 21,500-man escalation, number one, is deceiving in and of itself, when we know from the CBO account that it is not 21,500. It is more like 48,000 when you put the support troops involved. I am here to tell you, this is a dangerous strain on an already overstrained military.

Let me share with you what the National Security Advisory Group is saying. It says this: nearly all of the available combat units in the U.S. Army, Army National Guard, Marine Corps, have been used in the current operations. Every available combat brigade from the active duty Army has already been to Afghanistan or Iraq at least for a 12-month tour, and most are now in

their second or third tours of duty. There is a strain here, and some are on their fourth tours of duty.

Approximately 95 percent of the Army National Guard's combat battalions and special operations units have been mobilized since 9/11, and there is very little available combat capacity remaining in the Army National Guard.

All active duty Marine units are being used on a dangerously tight rotation schedule, but here is another.

We often forget that these are soldiers with families, with mothers, with fathers who are out there, separated from their children. Listen to this. This is why we are against this 21,500, or 48,000, surge. Between 2001 and 2004, divorce rates among active duty Army officers have tripled, and rates among Army enlisted soldiers have gone up.

Let me conclude by saying this: on the bleached bones of many great past nations and civilizations are written those pathetic words, ``too late.'' They moved too late. The American people are watching us and they are hoping and they are praying that we not move too late, and let us get our young men and women out of this crossfire of a civil war

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Thank you so much. And thank you for those kind words you said about me. I appreciate it. And I would have called my mom, because she would have loved to hear those words, too.

You know, over this weekend, I did a couple of things when I was home. One was that I really got into the Constitution of the United States. I really got into that section in article I, section 8, that clearly gives us the exclusive responsibility as Congress to raise and support armies.

It is clear as a bell there. It gives it to us, it does not give it to the White House or the President or the executive branch. It gives it to Congress. And up until now we have failed the American people. The large measure of this--you touched upon it earlier, Mr. Ross, but this Republican-led Congress has just completely rolled over and allowed this President to fund this war on emergency supplementals, which means that we in Congress cannot conduct the constitutionally required oversight to do what the Constitution wanted us to do.

Now, that is why we are in this situation we are in, and I would like to talk for a moment on two points.

When I was home, the other thing I did was I got around and I had some great interaction with my constituents out in Cobb County and Douglas County and in Clayton County and in Henry County. We all had town hall meetings, we had my office open. I mean, we had Chamber of Commerce annual dinners.

That is a great opportunity for folks to just come up to you and let you know exactly how they feel. And I can tell you, Mr. Ross, they are proud to see us on this floor, offering this bill. This is not just a resolution that is nonbinding. We are going to have those that voice our opinion about this war, they are going to be voted on up or down.

Everybody knows my personal feelings about the mistake of this surge, but this resolution that we have carries a tremendous amount of weight. That is why I care about it so much. And I want to share with the American people exactly what it is in this resolution that we are doing and why it is needed and why, finally, this resolution provides a direct link and connection with what the Founding Fathers wrote in article I, section 8, of the Constitution over 200 years ago that we have the exclusive right to determine how we will manage.

Now, why do we need that?

The other thing I did over this weekend was, I read my home newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution. And in there there was an extraordinary article by the Associated Press that I would like to make a part of this Record because this article points out the very need for this measure that we in the Blue Dog Coalition are pushing.

This article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution was written John Heilprin with the Associated Press. The title of it was this: Contractors Investigated After Army Fraud Alleged. Just listen to this, America. ``From high dollar fraud to conspiracy to bribery and bid- rigging, Army investigators have opened up to 50 criminal probes involving battlefield contractors in the war in Iraq and the U.S. fight against terrorism.''

What an opening sentence, what a declarative issue we have here.

It goes on to say, senior contracting officials, government employees, residents of other countries, and in some cases U.S. military personnel themselves have been implicated in millions of dollars of fraud allegations. ``All of these involve operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait,'' Chris Grey, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, confirmed just this past Saturday. ``The agents will pursue leads into truth wherever it takes us. We take this very seriously.''

Here is the point. Battlefield contractors have been implicated in allegations of fraud and abuse since the United States invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003. Any wonder why this has happened? Because the Congress did not apply the oversight, because this Republican Congress just simply rubber-stamped everything.

The Special Inspector General's Office, focusing solely on reconstruction spending, has developed cases that have led to four criminal convictions. The problems stem in part from the Pentagon's struggle to get a handle on the unprecedented number of contractors now helping run the Nation's wars, and these contractors are used in battle zones to do nearly everything but fight. But they can war-profiteer, they can commit fraud, they can commit bribery, and they can abuse the taxpayers' money on the backs of our good, brave soldiers that are putting their lives on the line for much less than what these contractors are making.

They run the cafeterias, the laundries for the troops. They move supplies, run communication systems and repair weapons systems.

Special agents from the Army's Major Procurement Fraud Unit were recently dispatched to Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait where they are working closely and sharing information. One case involves an Army chief warrant officer accused of taking $50,000 in bribes to steer a contract for paper products and plastic flatware away from a government contractor to a Kuwaiti company, according to an indictment.

The Government Accountability Office reported in December that the military has been losing millions of dollars, and contractors are being investigated because it cannot monitor industry workers in far-flung locations. It summarizes this way: Commanders are often unsure how many contractors even use their bases or even require the food and housing protection, according to one report. One Army official quoted said, ``The service estimates losing $43 million each year just on free meals that are provided.'' That is why this bill is important.

Let me just mention specifically how this bill will help prevent and address this glaring situation that was reported in the Atlanta Journal Constitution by the Associated Press, John Heilprin, who I commend for doing an excellent job. Our bill will require, within 30 days of passage, that every 90 days hereafter the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction shall prepare and transmit to Congress an unclassified report, but with a classified annex, if necessary, that will contain the following:

One, a detailed accounting of how military and reconstruction funds in Iraq have been spent thus far;

Two, a detailed accounting of the types and terms of contracts awarded on behalf of the United States, including the methods by which such contracts were awarded and contractors selected;

Three, it will require a description of efforts to obtain support and assistance from other countries during the rehabilitation of Iraq;

Four, an assessment of what additional funding is needed to complete military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, including a plan for security of Iraq, a detailed plan for how any future funds will be spent, and a statement of how those funds will advance the interests of the United States in Iraq.

If either inspector general fails to submit a quarterly report, the Government Accountability Office shall conduct an audit and report to Congress. Sanctions will be imposed against contractors who have engaged in fraud or abuse or war profiteering, and we will create the Truman Committee that Mr. Chandler spoke to earlier.

Funding requests for operations in Iraqi Freedom in fiscal year 2008 and

beyond must come through the regular appropriations process and not through these emergency supplementals that are explicitly designed to bypass oversight. That is why we have the problems we have here; and also, that is why there was not enough money put in the budget when we sent our Armed Forces over there 3 years ago, as you recall, the news reports where many of our soldiers were digging in dung heaps and landfills trying to get body armor for them.

No. No more. This Blue Dog resolution addresses that, and I would expect an extraordinarily large vote in getting it passed.

And it is so good to be on the floor with my good friend, Mr. Ross, and also my good friend, Mr. Israel from New York, who we serve together, both as cochairs on our Democratic Group on National Security. And we have been addressing these issues. So it is just a pleasure to be on the floor with you. I hope with this story and this Associated Press Atlanta Journal Constitution report, it will show the American people why we need the specific legislation and the importance in getting some accountability passed concerning our war funding.

I want to build on the point that my good friend from New York (Mr. Israel) talked about.

It was very important when James Madison wrote into the Constitution the words, ``Raise and support the Army is the exclusive domain of the Members of Congress.''

There was a reason for that. The reason was because Members of Congress, unlike the President, unlike the Senate, my good friends in the Senate, it is the Members of Congress that are closest to the people. Every other year we must run, and that is why they put it in there that if we are going to war, yes, we will spread this authority, some of that as Commander in Chief to the executive branch, but we must have a check and a balance. They put that in the bosom of the Congress, which has to go back before the people every other year and be accountable.

I am here to tell you the people of the United States are looking to this Congress. They are looking for us to bring some accountability to it. They are looking for us to be fair and understand what is at the core of this.

You know what is at the core of this is the soldier. When is somebody going to look at this war from the standpoint of that soldier that we are sending to Iraq now and placing in the cross hairs of a civil war, a questionable gambit at best?

The President of the United States does not have to run again. He can have all the surges he wants. He can do everything he wants. His concern now is building his legacy. He has his right to do whatever he wants to do, but the one thing he does not have to do, he does not have to go and face the American people again. We do. That is why Madison gave us the arbitrary decision to raise and support the military.

So when the Bush administration made the decision to use large numbers of these private contractors that were talked about on the battlefield in Iraq, it now has had somewhat of a perverse effect of incentivizing highly trained special operation force personnel to leave the Armed Forces. They are there voluntarily, in order to work as some of these contractors for much higher pay.

There is so much just built into this for war profiteering, but here is a statistic that we have got to be concerned about. We have got to look at this hardship on the soldier. These are not 21,500 other soldiers just sitting over there waiting. These soldiers are going, many of them, on their third and fourth tour of duties. We have a situation where we are running the military in the ground, and no more pointed example of that is this startling, disturbing and tragic information that has been handed to me by the National Security Advisory Group. Listen to this:

Between 2001 and 2004, divorce rates among active duty Army officers tripled and rates among Army enlisted soldiers grew, divorce rates by 50 percent, as deployments lengthened and with increased frequency as they are doing now. These divorce rates have served to underscore the severity of the strains on the active duty personnel and their families, and similarly, incidents of domestic violence increased over the same period. There is wear and tear not just on the equipment that we talked about, not just on not having the bulletproof vests or the Humvees riding around; it is wear and tear on the hearts and souls of our soldiers. It is too much of a strain, and we have got to correct this situation.

These and other warning signs have caused some commanders to fear that personnel who were willing to undertake successive deployments as part of, and they use these words, part of the surge cannot sustain this tempo of operations over the long term. If they do so, it will be at the adverse impact on their families.

How much more do we want to ask of our soldiers? I would tell you one thing, this Blue Dog resolution is dedicated to giving our soldiers the respect that they are due. We are going to make sure that the money we appropriate in here goes to them, and we are going to make doubly sure that we can end this situation in Iraq quickly and bring our soldiers home to their families.

The final analysis of what we are saying is what the American people spoke to in November. They spoke to warning this Congress to stand up and demand accountability and be good stewards of their tax dollars, and that is the core of our Blue Dog resolution. I believe that and I hope that within the next couple of months we will have this resolution passed.

Might I ask for the benefit of our audience if I could ask Mr. Ross if we could give the number of our House Resolution in the event that there might be some individuals who are in the C-SPAN audience who might want to give us a little helping hand here to help us get this bill passed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ross very much. It is always a pleasure to be on the floor with you and my other colleagues in the Blue Dog Coalition.

I would like to maybe start just responding to what we are doing so that we can set the stage properly for the American people who are watching to understand why we are doing this and the important confirmation that we have for doing it that is embedded deep in the Constitution of the United States.

The question on what role does Congress have in this has been put before pundits and before commentators, news articles once the President made his statement about the surge, and I, too, want to go on record as saying that I oppose this surge, almost exclusively because of the strain that it is placing on our military, which is already overstrained, and taking our young men and women and not only just putting them in harm's way, but placing them in the cross-hairs of a civil war.

But fundamentally, as I mentioned earlier, what this legislation is that we are here to bring some transparency and to bring some understanding of how the taxpayers' money is being spent is embedded, as I said early, deep into the Constitution.

Now, I want everybody to understand that when we put forward this bill, we are not putting it forward based upon what we feel like today. We are putting this forward so that we can be responsive to the job that we were created to do.

In Article I in Section 8 of the Constitution, it states clearly, when that question was put to James Madison and to Alexander Hamilton at the beginning of the formation of the Continental Army, the fight for the freedom of this country at the very beginning, the question was this: Who has the authority to declare war; who has the authority to raise and support our military? Here is what it says in Article I, Section 8, that was written well over 200 years ago.

Article I, Section 8, gives Congress, not the White House, not the executive branch, not the President, it says clearly it gives Congress the power to ``raise and support armies.'' Those words are in there. In other words, it gives Congress the exclusive power to appropriate the funds for war and then to determine the manner in which those funds are handled and used.

That is what undergirds our resolution that we are putting forth as Blue Dogs and as Democrats and as Republicans, because I believe that we will get bipartisan support for standing up and finally allowing this Congress to do what the Founding Fathers put us here to do.

Just for a moment, our war in Iraq has been prosecuted at a tremendous cost to our Nation, a tremendous cost in terms of especially our soldiers' lives, and we cannot thank our soldiers enough for the sacrifice that they have given, but also the strain that it has placed on their families through repeated and increasingly hefty deployments, wear and tear on our equipment and, of course, the taxpayers' money.

That is what the Founding Fathers said when they said raise and support our Army. They just did not say tax the money. It did not say that. It said raise and support, which means put your arms around it and make sure you take care of your Army.

I will tell you, up to this point this Congress has not done so. The strain on our military is extraordinary. Our service members, as we know, are all volunteers. They and their families are more than willing to sacrifice, as they have and as they will continue to do, for the good of our Nation, and the American public at large is also willing to allow its tax dollars to be spent on a worthy cause. However, we in Congress owe it to the whole country to make sure that our service members are not sacrificing needlessly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that tax money is not being squandered.

The American public and Members of Congress have largely not been aware of exactly where the money is going, where the funding that we are providing has been going, and there is widespread reports of contractor fraud. There is bribery, there is waste, there is theft of reconstruction funds for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the reason it has been is because we have not fulfilled Article I in Section 8 which gives Congress the power to raise and support our armies and determine how this money is being spent, because this Congress, up to now, has rolled over and given this President everything he asked for without asking the questions because they have allowed him to use the emergency supplemental funding process.

For those in America and those on C-SPAN, what that means is that that is a type of funding that prohibits us in Congress from doing exactly what the Founding Fathers said we must do in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, and that is to raise and support armies and determine how this money is being spent.

It is because this administration has used the dubious practice of emergency supplementals to fund the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan away from congressional oversight, that is why we have had fraud.

That is why we have had bribery. Emergency supplementals do not go through the normal budgeting and appropriations cycle.

The administration has also not been forthcoming in providing the detail as to what specifically the funds in the supplemental budget request is being used for, and as a result, Members of Congress typically have not had the opportunity to scrutinize the request thoroughly. Supplementals are considered on an expedited basis and basically a sight unseen.

That is why what the Blue Dogs are doing with our resolution is so important. It pulls the covers off and it says let the Congress do the job that the Founding Fathers put us here to do.

One more point I want to make in the Iraq Study Group report that came

out, it recognized this problem, and it mentions briefly the issue of budgeting for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and specifically they recommended that funding be placed back in the regular budget process, away from the supplemental, saying that this should be done to increase transparency and accountability. The Blue Dogs are taking that recommendation and doing with it what was recommended, and for those of you that have that report, you might find that recommendation on page 59 and 60. It is recommendation 72.

So, to correct this problem, we in the Blue Dog Coalition are introducing this bill. As Mr. Ross said, we will be doing it later this week. This bill will allow the Members of Congress the time and the information required to provide proper oversight of defense spending and contracting, and it will allow us the time to apply the new PAYGO rules recently passed by the House of Representatives, and, most importantly, it will allow the American people, that is what this election was about, it was about this country and this country taking this country back and putting into practice those things that the Founding Fathers gave us to do, and in the process the American people will become more fully educated on the true costs of this war and the sacrifices they are making and make sure that this money goes where it is supposed to go, and will hopefully, prayerfully bring our sons and daughters, our husbands and our wives, our fathers and our mothers back home safe as soon as we possibly can and end this war.

Thank you to the gentleman from Michigan. It is a pleasure to be on the floor with you.

Madam Speaker, more than anything else, Dr. King was a man of God. You know, when I think of Dr. King, I think of three people. The first one was the great prophet Isaiah. As you recall, Isaiah cried out in the year that King Uzziah died, was the year that I also saw the Lord. He went on to say that there was a voice that came to him that said, who will go for us, and whom shall we send?

Like the prophet Isaiah, in 1956, as a young 26-year-old person down in Alabama, it was Martin Luther King, Jr., who said, Here am I, Lord, send me. Just like the prophet Isaiah. The second person is David the shepherd boy, who climbed up to go see about his brethren, and there was Goliath, issuing all kinds of threats.

They told him to go back, much as they did with Martin Luther King, Jr., but he didn't go back. Instead, he stood there and Martin Luther King, Jr., like David said, Is there not a cause. There is a cause for me, and there is a cause for you, and that is to beat down the Goliaths of racism, of prejudice and discrimination.

The third one is Jesus Christ, for when the Pharisees asked Jesus Christ what was the greatest commandment of all, Jesus said to love thy neighbor as thyself. At the bottom of it all, Dr. King's essence was love. As Jesus said, There is no greater love than that you would give your life for another. Dr. King paid that price and gave his life, love.

As the song writer said: Them's that got shall get and them's that not shall not lose cause the Bible says, and it still is news. Your mama may have and your poppa may have, but God bless this child. Martin Luther King, more than anything else, was a child of God, and we thank God for sending Martin Luther King, Jr., our way.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 188) to provide a new effective date for the applicability of certain provisions of law to Public Law 105-331.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I urge today that the House pass H.R. 188, which was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Pallone.

This bill has the simple purpose of addressing a glitch in the distribution of surcharges on the sale of commemorative coins that honor America's great inventor, Thomas Edison.

In 1988, legislation authorizing the production of the coin was enacted and the U.S. Mint minted and issued the coin in 2004. But as a result of some unclear language in the documents provided both the Mint and to recipient organizations, it was unclear that the matching funds required by law in the order for recipient organizations to receive the coin's proceeds must be raised entirely from private sources and that no other government funds could be used for this purpose.

This bill extends for a period of 6 months the amount of time in which the recipients of surcharges on the sales of the Thomas Edison commemorative coin are allowed to raise matching funds.

While the House passed the bill to remedy this problem by voice vote under suspension of rules last November, the Senate failed to act on this in a timely manner, so I would urge the House to consider the bill and immediately adopt the underlying text.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), someone who is truly a leader in this Congress and the sponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to one of our distinguished newer Members from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to also extend my deep courtesies to Mrs. Biggert. It is always a pleasure to be on the floor with her, and I appreciate her kindness and consideration and the work she has put into this bill and the Republicans on the other side.

Madam Speaker, Thomas Edison is truly an American hero, and this bill will go a long way to helping to fix just a minor problem and give just a little bit more time for the people to do a fitting commemorative to him.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 391) to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to continue to insure, and to enter into commitments to insure, home equity conversion mortgages under section 255 of the National Housing Act.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may need.

First of all, H.R. 391 is a bill sponsored by my good friend and colleague from Utah (Mr. Matheson). H.R. 391 would prevent any shutdown of the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, reverse mortgage program. This program is also known as the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program, or the HECM program.

As we are all aware, the Federal Government is currently operating with temporary funding authority that expires on February 15, 2007. The FHA can insure no more than 275,000 FHA reverse mortgages cumulatively nationwide under this authority.

A reverse mortgage is a unique loan that enables senior homeowners to remain in their homes and remain financially independent by converting part of their home equity into income without having to sell their home, give up title, or take on a new monthly mortgage payment.

Reverse mortgage is an apt name because the payment stream is reversed. Instead of making monthly payments to the lender, as with a regular mortgage, the lender makes payments to the homeowner. Payments to the borrower come in the form of a lump sum, monthly payments, a line of credit, or a combination thereof. Thus, the funds can be adapted to the financial needs of the senior taking out that particular loan.

Mr. Matheson's bill is necessary because surging FHA reverse mortgage loan volume could result in this current national volume cap of FHA reverse mortgage loans being reached before February 15.

The FHA HECM program is the oldest and most popular reverse mortgage product, accounting for 90 percent of the total market. It has been available since 1989 to homeowners aged 62 or older. HECM loans are insured by the Federal Government through the Federal Housing Administration at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD.

The HECM program was created to serve our seniors who are cash poor but equity rich. The majority of loan recipients are elderly widows. The funds from a reverse mortgage can be used for anything: daily living expenses; home repairs or modifications; health care expenses, including prescription drugs or in-home care; existing debts; and other needs. This is extraordinarily important and timely legislation for our seniors.

The HUD HECM program has proven to be a growing success, serving its mission, while actually making money for the Federal Government. Its rapid pace of growth created a near crisis in 2005 when the number of FHA reverse mortgage loans began to near a statutory volume cap on the number of reverse mortgages that FHA could insure, leaving the program on the edge of suspension.

However, emergency appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2005 raised the volume cap from 150,000 to 250,000. Last fall, in the face of a similar concern, the limit was increased a little further to 275,000. However, current projections show a very real risk that the cap will be met before February 15.

In 2006, the House passed a bill that included a provision eliminating the FHA reverse mortgage volume cap, but unfortunately, the Senate did not act on this bill. As a result, in the short term, the statutory cap needs to be kept above the actual number of loans, or HUD will be required under law to suspend the program. That is why we need this very important piece of legislation passed.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), who has provided sterling leadership on this issue and is an outstanding leader in the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time.

Let me just say in concluding, this is vitally important, this is vitally important to all Americans, but it most certainly is extraordinarily important to our seniors, and especially those that are widowed, so that we can lift this cap to save this program. It is a very, very important program.

Again, I commend Mrs. Biggert and all of those on the House Financial Services, and Mr. Matheson for the brilliant leadership he has provided us with, and the fact that we all stand ready to assist Mr. Matheson when he brings the other bill back so that we can permanently solve this problem.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ross, for yielding. And to my fellow colleagues, it is such a pleasure to join you once again.

When we were here last, we were in the minority, and we said some things. We said what we wanted to do. We said some of the first things we would do when we got here, and one of those was to address this serious problem of financial and fiscal responsibility.

I had some time to reflect on our history, and as we looked at the very first move that we made when we came back last week, one of our first measures was to establish pay-as-you-go, PAYGO. It is very interesting that this is not a new phenomenon. Not only did we have it in store when we had the Clinton administration and prior to that, but from the very foundation of our country, it was Thomas Jefferson. First, Thomas Jefferson was so against government debt and its inherent dangers that, back in 1789, in a letter that he wrote to James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, Framers of our Constitution, in that letter, Thomas Jefferson wondered in the letter as he wrote to Madison and Hamilton, he wondered this, whether, quote, ``one generation of men has a right to bind another.'' And he came to his answer with an exclamation point in the letter: ``No.'' He said that ``the Earth belongs in usufruct to the living.''

Jefferson concluded in this letter with these words. He said no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. In other words, financial responsibility. Fiscal responsibility was at the cornerstone of this great Republic, of this great Nation, the cornerstone of a lasting and free Nation.

One generation of consumers borrowing and spending then hands that bill to the next generation, that get the benefits of spending the money in the present while passing on the debt to future generations, that is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. And each generation as we move through our history paid down its debt before it moved on, oftentimes marked by war. In 1812, the debt was paid down. The Civil War, borrowed money, the debt was paid down. And into World War I and World War II when the debt really amassed up to $62 billion, and yet over time and those generations those debts were paid down. All of the way up through the Cold War, even into the Reagan years, and up to Clinton, up to the year 2001.

But then after 2001 when this Republican administration took hold, in the 5 years that ensued, this President and the preceding Congress, controlled by Republicans, borrowed more money from foreign governments and foreign nations than the entire preceding 218 years of this country. From 1789, the year Thomas Jefferson wrote these words to caution us and set the pattern to pay as we go, here we are now with that big situation hanging over us of the borrowing from our debt.

And I mention that because we are now faced with that situation where we are borrowing this money, over $1.5 trillion over the last 5 years, from countries in the most unstable regions of the world: $310 billion from Communist China; nearly $700 billion from Japan; and nearly $300 billion from the unstable OPEC countries in the Middle East which we are dealing with now. This is the background which we are having to deal with today.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we remind people that not only are we talking about the billions of dollars that we just articulated we are borrowing from these foreign governments, more than we borrowed over the last 218 years, but the interest, the money that these folks are making off of us now constitutes the fastest growing part of our budget. We are spending more just paying for the money on the interest that is being charged than we are spending on education, the environment, and veterans at a time when our veterans are making such fantastic contributions and at a time when there needs to be a greater emphasis placed on those who have been on the battlefield and are coming home, and we are spending more on the interest there.

Let me just finalize this for a moment, and I just want to mention because we are here and we talked about what we wanted to do. Pay-as- you-go was one of the deals we made. We passed earlier today the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We have worked on so many other things, but I do want to just mention the earmark reform legislation that we passed, and just to share with the American people what we have already passed in our earmark reform.

It will require committees to disclose the sponsors of any earmarks included in appropriations authorizing measures such as the highway bill and the tax or trade legislation that benefits 10 or fewer. We will have new rules that will prohibit trading earmarks for votes and require Members to disclose their earmark request and certify that they and their spouses have no personal financial interest in the requests. These provisions comprehensively require committees of jurisdiction and conference committees to publish lists of the earmarks, limit tax benefits, and limit tariff benefits, along with their sponsors contained in the reported bills and the managers' amendments and conference reports brought to the House floor for consideration.

A Member may make a point of order against consideration of any rule that waives this requirement. The rule defines an earmark as any Member-requested project that is targeted to a specific place and falls outside of a formally driven competitive process. Transparency, clearness: this is what the American people want. And I am proud to see us in our first week of action be able to pass these important measures that bring about good strong stewardship of the taxpayer money.

If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I would like to respond to your point, because we owe it to those generations. That is one of the reasons why I spoke out and set the stage for my remarks, to go back to the beginning of this country, when the foundation of this country was laid out. That is what has made us great. We honor our debts. That is what Hamilton and that is what Jefferson and that is what Madison were all about.

You talk about your parents and your grandparents. What would they say? What would my grandparents say? They would say, by George, we love this country. This is our country. We are hoping and we are praying that the Congress will stand and get it right.

As I looked at the polls in Georgia, we had a rainy day in the election down in Georgia, but when I looked over the precincts, I could see that it wasn't 25 or 30 percent turnout, in that rain there was 50 and 60 and 70 percent turnout. The people in this country love this country, and they know that we need a new direction, and the first order of this new direction is to get our finances in order.

Your parents brought you up, my parents brought me up saying watch your money, son. Work hard. Save it. Invest it. Make sure you honor your debt. That is what they would want us to do.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ross. It is indeed a pleasure to be here with everyone, as I said earlier.

I think in conclusion tonight it is very important that we let the American people know that we very soberly understand this charge that has been handed to us as Democrats to lead in this Congress, and we also understand why and we handle that responsibility with great care.

One of the things that it is important for us to point out, when they ask what can we do and what is expected of us, is to stand up for the American people finally at last and lift up our way of life.

We have two duties to do under the Constitution as Members of Congress and they are expecting us to use these tools and do them well, and these tools are, one, oversight. Through our ability to oversee this government we can make these changes happen. The other is appropriations, to handle their money as good stewards. These are the things that we are committed to do, and this is how we will get to the new direction that the American people expect us to get to.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. It is always a pleasure to join you as we talk about the important issue of getting our fiscal house in order.

Coming out of this recent election, the American people spoke and they spoke boldly, and the one thing they said was they want a new direction. A part of that new direction is to be fiscally responsible and to make sure we are spending the taxpayers' money wisely.

I want to talk about several aspects of this today, one of which I want to start off by talking about the aspect of our foreign borrowing. That is one of the most dangerous areas in which we are moving.

As you well know, we now are borrowing more money from foreign governments and foreign banks, foreign financial institutions. In the last 5 years, we borrowed more money from foreign interests than we borrowed in the whole history of this country up to 2001.

I want to make that clear because I know the American people are sitting there and saying, is he saying what I think he is saying, that since 1789, at the birth of this country, through all the way up to 2001, we have borrowed less money from foreign governments than we have borrowed in the past 5 years? That is a dangerous situation for us to be in. It is dangerous to the future of our country, and we must move to correct that.

When we look at Japan, we are borrowing nearly $700 billion from Japan. We are borrowing $368 billion from China, and we are borrowing $117 billion from Taiwan. We are borrowing over $200 billion from the OPEC nations. When you look at the Asian Basin and you look at the Middle East, you also find another occurrence that is troubling, and it presents some of the most unstable regimes and countries in our world today. It is a terrible situation for us to be in.

At home, we must act more responsibly by making sure that we are

spending our money and putting our priorities where they count the most. The American people are looking for help in terms of getting more of this money into their pockets, being able to help them with critical issues of education.

So, for a little bit today, I want to talk about what we are doing as Democrats, and I thank God because this is the first time that I am standing and you are standing in this floor on the House of Representatives with this debate when we can say to the American people as Democrats, thank you, thank you for giving Democrats an opportunity to lead this Congress. We are grateful and we are humbled because we understand the levity and the seriousness of this responsibility that the American people have given us to lead. Nowhere is that more crucial than in taking care of their money and taking care of our fiscal responsibility and being responsible for it.

So I think it is very important that as we talk this afternoon about this responsibility to let the American people know where we are going to work quickly to make sure we are paying attention to their needs, and one of the first places that we are going to start is to raise the minimum wage.

Why is that important, people say, the minimum wage? It is more than just a symbolic gesture. It is a timely gesture. We have had the minimum wage since 1938. There has never been as long a period where we have not adjusted the minimum wage as in the period since the last raising of the minimum wage. So it is important for us to show the American people, at least they will see, they are paying attention to us. Yes, we will pay attention to the world; yes, we are very much concerned about what is happening in the world; but we must immediately send a message to the American people that we care about you. We care about America first. That is why the importance of raising this minimum wage is so important. It sends that message. The American people say, oh, okay, I think they get it.

You are absolutely right, and it is so important I think as we talk this afternoon that the American people are well aware that they are in good shape with Democrats in control of the Congress.

Let me go on from the minimum wage. I mean, that is important. We are going to get that done and we are going to do it in a bipartisan way. We will reach out to the Republicans. We will work with Republicans. That is another thing that the American people want to see us do.

I can't tell you the number of times on the campaign trail that people will come up to me and say, Congressman Scott, for goodness sake, can you all stop the bickering? Can you just get along? To paraphrase our friend in California, can we just get along? And we are going to do that.

So we find common ground on the minimum wage and quickly pass that. Then we can find common ground, and let me just say something about the minimum wage as we go forward so people will know. We are talking about pay-as-you-go; we are talking about keeping financial and fiscal responsibility in and making sure we are accountable. This minimum wage is totally absorbed by the private sector, by the employment sector. We are simply making the adjustment to give a due raise to go in line with inflation and the other needs to bring the minimum wage up to the standard that we have.

Yes, I will.

And I will tell you why I am so pleased with our leadership and Leader Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn, and all of our great leaders. They have said that before this Congress gets another raise in pay, we will raise the minimum wage for the American people. That is leadership that the American people can be proud of.

As we move from the minimum wage, another area that we are going to work on very quickly: we know the high cost of education, we know what it costs for a young person to go to college. We have found a way in which we can get common ground. The Democrats will lead the way in cutting in half the interests that students will have to pay on their student loans. That is the kind of tax cut for middle-class America that is needed. It impacts everybody to have that. And we pay for it as we go. We can afford that, because that money that is saved is stimulated and goes right back into the economy. When you are able to get money back to the consumers and to the American people, they are able to use that money in every area; but it is recycled, it continues to go back into the economy to help the greater productivity of this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we put this in context because as we move forward with pay as you go, we at the same time must respond to the needs of the American people. But we are doing so in a very fiscally responsible way. Check the minimum wage, no Federal expenditure. It will be absorbed by the private sector, and indeed stimulating that private sector to produce more.

The movement to bring down prescription drugs by having the Secretary of Health and Human Services be able to negotiate using the bulk number of 55 million recipients of

Medicare to be able to bring down the cost that accrues to us.

And just now with the release of the Iraq Study Group report, and Mr. Israel and I share as cochairs of our Democratic group, as cochairs on national security, that we have been examining these issues. He is absolutely right. We must take better care of our military. The American people are expecting our expenditures to go there. And one of the great, I think, recommendations of this study group that is headed by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Baker that was just presented to the President yesterday is the realization, number one, we have to make some changes in this Iraqi situation because of the terrible drain that it is doing to our military. If we don't correct that, surely the security of our country goes down.

The other area that we talked about with regard to fiscal responsibility is the matter of halving the interest rate that our students pay on their student loans. That is money that goes back into the economy and a savings to our middle-class families.

Now the other area that we are going to move on in our first 100 hours is to begin to deal forthrightly with our problem of energy, our problem of energy dependence on the Middle East, that most volatile region. We are making great strides. One of our first efforts is to increase the incentives to go into renewable energy.

I just came back with a group of other Congressmen who are members of the Agriculture Committee. We went to Brazil. The reason we went to Brazil and South America, is because we realize here in this country we don't have all of the answers. But I will tell you one thing, they are doing something very special down in South America. We need to hurry up and do it here.

For example, in Brazil, 85 percent of their new automobiles that they are putting out in the market this year are flex fuels so that they will be able to use ethanol as well as regular gasoline.

I asked the Minister of Industry in Argentina and Brazil this one question about their trade relations with the Middle Eastern countries and what percentage of their energy they were getting from abroad: Argentina and Brazil, absolutely none. They are almost at the point of being energy independent because they had the foresight to move on this area.

I am so pleased with our leadership on the Democratic side to say among our first efforts will be to increase at a rapid rate our preparedness, our infrastructure, so that we can develop ethanol in this country from the primary two sources that we have, granular corn and soybeans, as well as cellulosic.

Absolutely. Again, energy and becoming independent is a reachable goal. It is a doable goal, and we can reach that conclusion within a matter of a few years with the kind of leadership we are putting forward.

I am proud to say we will be putting research grants into that to spur our country to move very rapidly and develop that infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, I thank very much my colleague Mr. Lewis.

This is indeed an extraordinary moment in the history of this country and history of American business. Let us see if we cannot set the stage properly so we understand exactly what is going on.

As my colleague Mr. Lewis has stated and given history of Delta Airlines' brilliant and hard fought effort to come out of bankruptcy, this is a great American story. It is perhaps one of the greatest business recovery stories in American history.

Delta Airlines was at the bottom, but that company came together. It made the sacrifices. Its pilots' union gave and gave. Its employees gave back raises. They combined their efforts. That company, under brilliant management and leadership, brought itself together.

We owe it to Delta to have their bankruptcy plan now go into effect, and they have a plan to come out of bankruptcy, which they will have and they will come out of bankruptcy within the next 6 months. Do we not owe it to Delta to give them that opportunity to make it work?

Meanwhile, lurching on the sidelines, almost like a vulture, is U.S. Airways. Let me take a moment to describe U.S. Airways at this point. Here is a company that is just coming out of bankruptcy itself, a company that has just gone through a merger, that is now problematic, a company that has a merger in which it is now dealing with two sets of pilots' unions, two sets of flight attendants' unions, two reservation systems and two scheduling systems. How in the world can we, in effect, for a creditor who has an indebtedness with Delta feel that that investment can best be met by investing in a company, an airline company that is beset with a ton of labor problems?

I want to deal with the other issue. Not only is it bad for the creditors, it is bad in terms of our own antitrust practices. In a previous case in which there was a United Airlines merger, the Justice Department's antitrust division ruled that that could not merge, and they did not nearly have the overlapping that this does.

So now we have a case here that with Delta in bankruptcy, even if this merger does proceed to a point, then it goes into bankruptcy, then the antitrust division of the Justice Department must rule.

That is why it is important for us in Congress to make this bold statement and urge the Justice Department and urge that we have hearings and do everything we can to stop this merger from going through on the grounds that it is anti-competitiveness, it is anti- consumer and it is anti-American for this important reason.

Another thing about U.S. Airways, they buy their airplanes from foreign governments, whereas Delta buys theirs from American governments.

If the gentleman would yield for a moment, you hit on a very good point. But not only in Georgia is this significant, but this is a national issue. And we have our distinguished gentleman, Mr. Bishop from Utah, who will tell how this impacts the Nation as a whole.

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important for us to make sure that we sum up these major points that we have made here this evening, and that is this: one, this planned hostile takeover, which hopefully we will arrest and stop in the next few days, is anti-consumer, it is anti-competitive; it is not in the best interests of the American traveling public, it is not in the best interests of the creditors to Delta, and it certainly violates, as the gentleman from Utah so eloquently stated point by point, it clearly violates the antitrust statutes of the Justice Department of this country.

So it is within the spirit of what is good and what is right about America, and let me say this to my colleagues and to you, Madam Speaker, that this country is grounded on justice. The American people are expecting justice. This is not just a case for Delta Airlines; it is not just a case for the airline industry. This is a case for the American people, and they are looking at this Congress to provide leadership, keep the feet to the fire, and make sure that this hostile takeover does not take place in the form of any kind of merger, and that Delta Airlines is allowed to stand alone and earn the right that they deserve to come back full flushed and be the outstanding airline that we know that they are.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an important milestone in the life of my constituent Mrs. Maggie Katie Brown Kidd. On December 8, 2006, Mrs. Kidd will celebrate her 102nd birthday. Many family members and friends will recognize this momentous occasion with a party on November 24, 2006.

Maggie Brown was the eleventh and youngest child born to William (Doc) and Lucy Brown. At an early age, Maggie learned the values of hard work and success as a laborer on her parents' farm, and continued in that tradition as an adult. She married Willie (Dock) Kidd, III on November 30, 1940, and raised two children, John and Rosalyn. Mrs. Brown is also a grandmother to four, and a great-grandmother to three children.

Mrs. Kidd believes her faith in God has contributed to her good health and longevity. Her family describes her as a loving and selfless member of the community. When she had little to offer, Mrs. Kidd shared anyway. She is a principled and honorable woman, and I am proud to represent her in the 13th Congressional District of Georgia.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life of Mrs. Maggie Katie Brown Kidd, by wishing her a very happy 102nd birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for yielding me this time.

We have had eloquent testimony and speeches dealing with the practicality of why this bill is unconstitutional. But more than that, let it be clear, let's pull the covers off of this, this is nothing but a bold attempt, a shameless attempt by the Republican Party to target those types of voters that they believe will not vote for them but would vote for Democrats. That is exactly what it is.

I am here to tell you the truth about this because I am from Georgia where this very same bill has been ruled not unconstitutional once, not unconstitutional twice, three times it has been ruled unconstitutional by a Federal judge, and just yesterday by the Superior Court of Fulton County, the largest county in my State.

It has been ruled unconstitutional. And the reason is this: The Constitution and the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear. They said that the right to vote shall not be abridged, shall not be infringed upon. That is the anchor. That is the basic thrust.

You come here and talk about needing a picture ID to get on a plane, to get on a bus. Well, the right to get on a plane must not be infringed was not written into the Constitution, but the right to vote was. And if Alexander Hamilton was right, if Thomas Jefferson was right, ought not we be right? If Madison was right, shouldn't we be right? If Abraham Lincoln was right, shouldn't we be right? If Martin Luther King, Jr., was right, shouldn't we be

right? When Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, he said the same thing. All throughout our history, and why?

Here are you, the Republicans, doing this dastardly un-American act. And if John Lewis, who got his head bloodied on Edmund Pettus Bridge, says it is right, then it should be right. And the right thing to do is to vote down this dastardly un-American bill.

Would the gentlewoman yield just for one moment?

Mr. Speaker, this is very important on two points. The poll tax, which is a very important point of our argument, it has been said this is not a poll tax. It has been said that this is not an unfunded mandate. However, it is important to know that at the same time they say that this effort will be paid for, but there is no funding in this bill to pay for it, that makes it an unfunded mandate. That puts the onus on the individual senior citizens, those without it. Therefore, this was the consideration for the Georgia ruling that it was a poll tax and unconstitutional.

It is also important to note within the case in Georgia it was pointed out that clearly there were 600,000 Georgians, and not just Georgians, but registered voters in Georgia, 600,000, who did not have either a driver's license or a birth certificate. In order for that to happen, they would have had to provide the costs for doing so, which was not in the bill.

Subsequently, the Governor of Georgia said, to solve this we will put a bus to travel, follow it around the State. The bus made it for 2 hours and broke down. I wanted to make that clear for the Georgia record.

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

First, let me extend my deep appreciation and thanks to our distinguished chairman, Chairman Oxley of Ohio. As many of us know, Chairman Oxley will be leaving us and I want to take this opportunity to recognize what an outstanding chairman you have been to our Committee on Financial Services. It has been a pleasure serving with you, and you have been an outstanding chairman.

It is also a pleasure to stand here as I represent our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who has provided outstanding leadership on our Financial Services Committee, and has led the way for this to be a strong bipartisan effort, to Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Certainly it is a pleasure to work with you on this measure.

I think this is a very important bill because of the timeliness of it, especially with so many of our military men and women in harm's way overseas, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we put forward a measure designed to help protect their financial security.

Senate 418, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act, the measure before us today, will address some serious problems of predatory lending and financial abuse targeted at our military men and women.

In 2004, the New York Times ran a series of very good stories which detailed misleading sales practices of financial products to members of the military. A few unscrupulous agents had made misleading pitches to captive audiences by posing as counselors on veterans benefits, and they solicited soldiers while on duty.

This issue is important to me, as it is to all of us in this Congress, but especially to me and those of us from Georgia, because so many of these reported scams occurred at Fort Benning in my State of Georgia.

So I joined with my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and we held hearings to investigate these predatory and abusive lending practices, and then we went to work on finding legislative remedies.

This legislation that we worked on is very similar to Senate 418. Our legislation was passed by a large majority in the House, but was not brought up for action on the Senate floor until recently. What we have before us as Senate 418 represents the final bipartisan and bicameral product in addressing these important issues. This is indeed the work of the House and the Senate.

What S. 418 will do, it will ban all future sales of periodic payment plans. It will require greater regulation of insurance sales on military bases. It will require the Department of Defense to create a registry of agents who are prohibited from selling financial policies on bases, and it will expand investor access to registration information for brokers, for dealers and advisers.

I would like to give just a little more detail about a few of the protections afforded our military personnel in this measure. Senate 418 will give State insurance regulators jurisdiction over insurance sales on Federal facilities and bases within the United States as well as abroad. Many of the abuses that occurred on bases continued because of confusion about regulatory jurisdiction, and especially at overseas bases. This bill resolves that. This provision clears up that concern.

Also my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), authored a provision contained in section 13 of this measure. This provision requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the appropriate State regulators when an insurance agent or financial adviser is added or deleted from a registry of agents or advisers banned from military bases. This provision will prevent unscrupulous sales agents from moving to other jurisdictions to avoid detection.

Further, insurance companies could not sell or solicit policies to military personnel on a base without first providing clear written notice that federally subsidized life insurance is available through the Federal Government, and that the sale of the private plan is not sanctioned or recommended by the government.

To ensure our servicemembers are capable of addressing their financial needs, we must first provide them with adequate compensation. At the same time, we must help our soldiers exercise financial responsibility. It is necessary that military personnel have financial literacy, something that I have worked very hard on since my first day arriving in Congress. These individuals can face financial questions from Internet-based sales, from sales off base, and from being faced with decisions in the civilian world. As we know, predatory sales practices are not limited to the base.

Our military folks have enough to worry about. They constantly live in a life-and-death situation. They certainly do not need these added financial insecurity pressures that are placed upon them by predatory lenders and financial abusers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman who has long championed the military, and on this issue has been at the forefront in providing great leadership on this issue, protecting our military from financial abuses, and that is the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

I just want to extend my feelings of great appreciation to Mr. Davis from Kentucky, the distinguished gentleman, who has truly provided the leadership on this bill. And you could tell from his eloquent statements earlier of his own experience in this issue that really clearly points to why we need this bill.

And I thank you, and it has been a pleasure working with you on this, Mr. Davis.

I again want to echo when he said about the chairman. I am very fortunate on this committee to have two mentors, Democrat and Republican. And as a Democrat, I am not ashamed to say one of my mentors is a Republican, and that is Oxley. Chairman Oxley. I call him ``Oxley.'' On top of everything else, he is a great baseball man. And, of course, with Ranking Member Frank, it gives a great balance to the bipartisanship on that committee, which I think enables us to deal with ticklish matters like this very appropriately.

As far as the payday situation is concerned, we will visit that another day. There is no question about that. We want to make sure that we get the good apples out of the way of the bad apples and move forward. But this bill here clearly gives us a very important statement. And it is with this statement that we are saying to these predators, keep your grubby hands off of our soldiers. We have got 18- and 19-year-old kids who are just getting out of high school, many of them, and there these predators are, waiting on them at a time when they are faced with such life-and-death issues as going into harm's way, all of those pressures. It is not right. It is not fair. And this is why we are moving on this very important legislation, so that we can protect our fighting men and women against unscrupulous investment sales.

I urge the House to move to pass this important bipartisan measure today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.