Floor Statements

Well, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas both for relinquishing of some time and also for the leadership that he has shown by hosting this hour for the Blue Dog Democrats each Tuesday night this year.

Before I get started in my prepared remarks, I wanted to just acknowledge something that came to mind. The previous presiding officer, the gentleman that was acting as Speaker a few moments ago, is my former colleague from the legislature in California, a wonderful man, John Campbell. And it struck me that when we were in the legislature together in California, every year we had to balance the budget. We could not leave Sacramento, we had to stay in session until we had a balanced budget. It is so unfortunate that here in Washington, as we have both graduated up the ladder, that we don't have that same kind of fiscal accountability and the same responsibility.

And sitting here with my colleague, Jim Costa, who used to be one of the leaders in the California State Senate, we took it very seriously. In fact, it was mandated in law that every year, and I believe almost every State in the country has to do that, but here in Washington, in our Nation's Capital, we cannot find the fiscal responsibility to balance our Nation's budget and get our fiscal house in order.

The Blue Dog Coalition has made repeated calls for responsible budget reforms that will put our country back on this path of fiscal responsibility and fiscal sanity that I have discussed.

As moderates and as fiscal hawks, we have tried to reach across the aisle to engage in real debate on fiscal responsibility. For years now, our appeals for commonsense, bipartisan reforms have been brushed aside by both the White House and this Republican leadership.

Instead, this Republican Congress and the White House have pursued policies that have resulted in exploding deficits and over $8 trillion in debt. Rather than taking this fiscal mess seriously and putting forward a plan to change course, we are being fed more of the same in this year's budget. The Republican budget resolution is a rehashed version of misguided policies that have gotten us into this mess in the first place. It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over yet expecting different results. That is exactly how I feel about the Republican leadership's fiscal policies. No matter how deep they dig this fiscal hole, they want to keep shoveling, they want to keep digging; and we have to make it stop.

The administration has requested and Congress has provided for four increases in the debt ceiling since 2001. This budget resolution does not fix the broken budget; it actually makes it worse. The Budget Committee passed a budget resolution that includes a deficit of $372 billion for the fiscal year 2006 and a deficit of $348 for 2007. This means that under this Congress and this White House, Republicans totally, we will have seen the five biggest budget deficits in American history in 5 consecutive years. Under this budget, the statutory debt by 2011 will go up another $2.3 trillion, leaving the statutory debt at a record level of $11.3 trillion. Ladies and gentlemen, this is unacceptable.

The Blue Dog Coalition has put forth a comprehensive 12-step plan that is designed to cure our Nation's addiction to deficit spending. Our proposal will include commonsense measures such as reinstating the pay-as-you-go rules such as what you use to balance your own budget at home. Every American understands that they need to balance their own checkbook; so does America. These pay-as-you-go rules are the first step.

In the 1990s with PAYGO rules on the books, we saw deficits disappear. We had record surpluses and rapid economic growth. In 2001, the Republican-controlled Congress abandoned PAYGO, and we have been awash in red ink ever since. It is time for Congress to bring back PAYGO and bring back some fiscal sanity for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ross for having us here tonight and thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4882, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center Deadline Enforcement Act.

I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), and also our ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.

In 2003, Congress authorized the construction of a visitor center for the Vietnam Memorial to help provide information and educate the public about the memorial and the Vietnam War.

Unfortunately, over the past three years, progress in selecting a location for the visitor's center has stalled due to bureaucratic red- tape. The legislation we are considering today will bring the site- selection process to a close by designating both a location for the center's construction and a deadline for its completion.

I believe an Educational Visitors Center will serve as an important learning tool for the millions of visitors who visit the Wall each year, especially those too young to remember Vietnam.

I strongly support this effort to at last make the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center a reality and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of S. 2120, the Milk Regulatory Equity Act. For those familiar with dairy policy, there is never an easy fight in dairy policy, and this legislation is no different; it will be familiar.

Throughout the years, there have been more obstacles thrown in the path of this worthy legislation than I can count. I am grateful to my friend and colleague, Devin Nunes, for his tireless leadership and pursuit of correcting this problem. I also want to thank Senator Feinstein and the chairman and ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee for their support in moving this legislation forward.

Our dairy industry is extremely regulated and for good reason. Dairy products are both highly perishable and critical to the dietary requirements of Americans. Without a formal process for pricing, pooling and processing, the entire chain of production from producers through consumers is at risk. Dairy policy works because all players, including processors, producers, co-ops, distributors and buyers adhere to the same rules. Rules and regulations keep the dairy markets stable and allow orderly distribution of high-quality milk, cheese and butter products.

This bill will close a dangerous loophole that allows a few large producer handlers to escape all these carefully crafted Federal and State regulatory requirements. It would require those operations physically located in a Federal order, but shipping entirely into a State order, to comply with the regulations governing dairy policy in the order where their plant is located.

Do these individuals who are exploiting this loophole want to maintain it? Absolutely. However, due to the unique characteristics of a commodity like dairy, it cannot be allowed to continue. The foundation of this legislation is that all dairy organizations should be governed by the same rules. One group should not have an unfair competitive advantage over another.

The Milk Regulatory Equity Act ensures production and price of milk is fair and equitable. This is an extremely important bill for my home State of California, but also for the entire country. History has shown that things that happen first in California then spread east.

This loophole has the opportunity to affect every milk marketing order across the country. Let us stop it now before that happens. This is a good bill and one that deserves our support.

Thank you, Mr. Ross. It is great to be here again with you as we talk about the fiscal challenges that face our country.

I was glad to hear you talk about how the Blue Dog Coalition has tried to, in a bipartisan nature, work with the other side of the aisle to bring about some fiscal responsibility. In fact, the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to the Speaker and to the President asking for a bipartisan working group to try and get to the bottom of balancing the budget and dealing with this fiscal irresponsibility. We have yet to hear from the President. We would certainly like to sit down with him and discuss our ideas to bring fiscal accountability to our Nation's government.

As moderates and fiscal hawks, the Blue Dogs are just trying to do the right thing for America. We are trying to get engaged in a real debate on fiscal responsibility because we need to return honesty and accountability to our Nation's finances.

I am deeply concerned with the continued deficit spending and the complete disregard for fiscally responsible policies and really a fundamental dishonest budget process. The President's proposed $2.7 trillion budget will decrease domestic spending, yet still leave a massive $355 billion budget deficit for this fiscal year. But the $355 billion is not the whole story. The President's figure deliberately leaves out the cost of the effort of Iraq and Afghanistan and the potential future costs of rebuilding of the gulf region and fixing the alternative minimum tax that is plaguing more and more middle-class Americans every year.

All of these issues that were left off the budget are all known costs that will drive up the deficit more than what has been stated in the President's document.

Some would say that the President's budget is a nice break from reality television. The President's budget does nothing to make the Federal Government more accountable for taxpayer dollars.

Every year, the President issues two vital budgeting documents, the budget and the financial report of the United States. You have heard of the first but probably not of the second, and why is it completely ignored? The budget is widely distributed to every Member of Congress and the national press. The financial report, however, is distributed to fewer than 20 Members of Congress with no press release.

The budget says that the deficit is $319 billion in 2005, but the financial report says it was $760 billion, over twice as large as the budget that was distributed to all Members of Congress. The difference is that the budget uses a cash-based accounting which only the smallest businesses of America use because it hides future obligations, thus, painting a potentially unrealistic and misleading picture of the Federal Government's overall performance.

According to David Walker, the comptroller of the General Accountability Office, his statement was that it is painting a potentially unrealistic and misleading picture of the Federal Government's overall performance.

The financial report of America uses accrual accounting, the method required by law for every business in America with revenues over $5 million. The financial report takes into account future obligations of the Federal Government and presents a clearer, more understandable picture of Federal finances.

So when Mr. Ross is talking about the problems in our budget process, that is one of the things that the Blue Dogs want to highlight is that the true deficit, as you have on your poster down there, is $760 billion for 2005, double what was in the President's budget.

The Blue Dog coalition believes that both the House and Senate should use a more realistic financial report number for its budget, rather than budget numbers that we talk about because it is a truer accounting, and this is not even taking into consideration some of the other spending like we know we are going to have to spend to take care of some of the problems in Katrina and some of the devastated areas of the gulf coast.

I really appreciate you taking me down to Hope, Arkansas, to the airport down there a few weeks ago to see these trailers. I do not know if you have talked about them tonight since I just came down on the floor.

The reality is that there is nearly $1 billion in trailers throughout Arkansas, half a billion dollars in your district. It is really wasted. Those trailers should be used for folks who are in flood zones and need them, not sitting sinking in the mud in Hope, Arkansas. So I appreciate you highlighting this fact once again.

I appreciate those in the gallery being able to see the pictures of just wasted tax dollars, $1 billion in your home State, and thank you for having me here tonight, once again, and for leading this hour, and I will be happy to engage with you as we go on.

I believe if you take all the 20,000 throughout the entire State of Arkansas, it is about $800 million.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that my constituents ask me when I go home is how we got into this mess, and they say, well, it was just a few years ago in 1997, we actually started paying down the national debt. Then when Mr. Clinton left office in the year 2000, we were actually making good progress paying down the debt and we had 4 years a row in balance and paying down.

But there is one very critical thing that happened in 2001, and that was that the PAYGO rules were suspended. Those rules were put in place by a bipartisan Congress in 1997, and those PAYGO rules said that you had to pay for what you spent, just like we have to do in our home budget.

And if you were to spend more money, you had to either find a budget cut someplace, or you had to find tax revenues to pay for it. So for 4 years, on a bipartisan agreement negotiated between Newt Gingrich and President Clinton, the country lived within its means. Then in the year 2001, those rules were suspended.

Since that has happened, we have amassed some of the biggest deficits in the history of our country, all financed, or virtually all financed, unfortunately, through deficit spending. And that is being financed by foreign governments. In fact, our colleague, John Tanner, is very often quoted as saying that we have borrowed more money from foreign governments in the last 5 years than in the rest of the history of the United States combined.

In fact, he is also fond of saying that if we were going to have to go in, if there was a war between China and Taiwan, and we went in to defend Taiwan like our treaties obligate us to do, we would have to borrow the money from China to defend Taiwan against China. That is how crazy this system has now gotten.

So we can see how dangerous this foreign obligation has become for our country. And I thank the gentleman for highlighting the budget problems in his speech, and I yield back.

We haven't heard about it, for sure.

One of the things that you said that I want to dig in a little deeper to is it really precludes our options in times of crisis. If we were to have another September 11 hit tomorrow, and 2 weeks later another Hurricane Katrina hit someplace on the gulf coast, could we afford the $200 billion we spent after September 11 again on top of everything else? And would we be so willing or even able to bail out another gulf coast situation?

We know that calamities are going to happen. In fact, that is one of the 12 points in our Blue Dog plan is to put away a rainy day fund because we know, as sure as the next drought or the next monsoon comes, the next rain storm, there will be another calamity that will befall us. It may be wildfires in the West or a flood in the Midwest. We have challenges that will continue to face our country, and, frankly, the world. And oftentimes the world looks to our country to solve these issues, like the tsunami and other things.

But we are becoming stretched thinner all the time; and the point you raise, Mr. Matheson, on not being able to have the options because we are running out of dollars, is one that I think we have to think about as a country.

Madam Speaker, I was going to say, one of the things that I like about being a Blue Dog and fighting for fiscal responsibility with the Blue Dogs, we do not just criticize but we also have a plan. Mr. Matheson gave the first two planks in our 12-point plan to restore fiscal sanity to the United States, which is to have a balanced budget and don't let Congress buy on credit. We call it PAYGO, pay as you go.

There are a number of other things that we have like the third plank in our plan is to put a lid on spending, to have a freeze on additional spending until we can get our fiscal house in order.

Fourth, we require Federal agencies to put their fiscal house in order. As you said, 16 or 17 of the Federal departments cannot balance. They cannot even tell you where the money is going.

The fifth plank of the plan is make Congress tell taxpayers how much they are spending in the bills we pass. We do not tell taxpayers how much we are continuing to authorize every year.

The sixth point in the plan is we are going to require a rainy day fund so we set aside money for the natural disasters that befall our country on a regular basis.

Number seven, and this is really important because we are getting ready to do this as we speak, and that is do not hide the vote to raise the debt limit. Right now under the rules of this House and in the Senate, we are going to raise the debt limit without taking a vote of this House on a recorded vote so each Member of Congress has to put their voting card in and be recorded on raising the debt limit. That is just not appropriate.

Number 9 is to ensure that Congress reads the bills it is voting on. What a novel concept. We actually believe each bill should have to sit on the Speaker's desk for 3 days to give us time to prepare and actually know what is in legislation. It was 2 years ago that we passed the Medicare prescription drug bill. We got that bill 20 hours before we were voting on it and that bill was 680 pages, 678 pages long. I can tell you one thing for sure, no Member of Congress was able to read that bill and know what was in it. And that is probably why it cost the American people double what they told it was going to cost.

The next plank is to justify pet projects. We believe that every earmark passed in this Congress should be justified by the Member of Congress that is asking. There should be a paragraph written about every request and that the Member should have to sign it and say they stand by that earmark.

We would not have the scandals of Mr. Abramoff and all of the other problems that are befalling this Chamber if every Member had to justify their pet projects and earmarks.

Number 10, we require an honest cost estimate for every bill.

Number 11, be sure that every bill fits within the budget that we pass at the beginning of the year. We pass a budget, and we never look at it again. We continue to pass bills that most likely will not fit into that budget, so we just keep expanding the budget with every bill that comes through here after the budget is passed.

The final plank is that we do a better job of oversight. Right now, Congress passes oversight and frankly, we never go back and look at what we have passed to make sure that it is doing the job that we intended when we passed that legislation.

Those twelve points are just the first step in restoring fiscal accountability and making sure that we live within our means.

As I said before, in September, I joined my colleagues in the Blue Dog Coalition in writing a letter asking President Bush to host an emergency bipartisan budget summit to put our Nation's fiscal house back in order. Unfortunately, our genuine effort to engage the Republicans in a reasonable discussion on the budget was brushed aside. We have yet to receive a response to our letter. I think even this White House should be able to pen a letter back to us in the months since we sent it to them. I know they have gotten it. We have talked to them about it on this floor. We have talked to our colleagues in this Chamber on a regular basis requesting cooperation to get together and work together to solve the problems facing this country, and we have not gotten a response.

Would the gentleman yield?

I just want to highlight that there is precedent to doing it a different way. During World War II, then-Senator Truman formed a commission that actually did an audit and went after wartime profiteers and, in fact, did a great job at getting to the bottom of the fact that there were people trying to profit irresponsibly on the backs of our soldiers during World War II. So he went in and got to the bottom of the overcharging and the contracting fraud and really cleaned up those who were trying to take advantage of the situation that the world found itself in.

That is the kind of accountability that we need today, Mr. Ross, and I appreciate that you are bringing this up. It is not unpatriotic to question how our taxpayer dollars are being spent. In fact, if we don't waste our taxpayer dollars, then there is more money available to actually spend doing the right thing by our troops. Thank you for raising that issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as they celebrate the 97th anniversary of their inception.

Since February 12, 1909, the NAACP has strived to promote their mission to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights for all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.

As the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the nation, the members of the NAACP have sought to remove all barriers of racial discrimination through non-violence and positive reinforcement.

The NAACP won one of the nation's greatest legal victories--the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education. The NAACP was also a prominent power that lobbied for the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act were also achievements of this longstanding organization.

In 2005, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People launched the Disaster Relief Fund to help Hurricane Katrina survivors in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Alabama rebuild their lives.

Today the NAACP is a network of more than 2,200 affiliates covering all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Japan and Germany. As a Californian, it is with honor that I note that our state contains 72 branches and youth units.

The perseverance demonstrated by members of the NAACP reflects the strength of this exceptional organization. Over the past 97 years, this national organization has provided communities around the United States with strong and passionate leaders who have fought for social change. I congratulate them on their successes and look forward to many more years of continued achievements in the future.

I commend the NAACP and look forward to celebrating their centennial in 3 years.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment before us today calling for a global meth conference.

I commend Mr. Baird for working to bring this amendment to the floor. The amendment closely mirrors the bipartisan ``Sense of the Congress'' resolution I introduced in November calling for an international methamphetamine conference to develop a global strategy to control the trafficking of meth and its precursor chemicals.

I also would like to thank Chairman Souder of the Drug Policy Subcommittee for his support from the beginning of a global meth conference and his leadership on the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act which is set to be signed into law as part of the PATRIOT Act.

In my district in California's Central Valley, the meth epidemic has exacted a brutal toll on the environment, our children, and our communities. In the past 5 years alone, 15,000 children have been found at meth labs, not to mention the unknown number of children subjected to meth related domestic violence, abuse, and neglect.

Mr. Chairman, controlling the global trade in meth and its precursor chemicals, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, is a critical part of any comprehensive strategy to fight the meth epidemic. A global meth conference is a logical next step that complements the international regulation provisions of the Meth Elimination Act.

It is about time that we develop a worldwide strategy to reduce illegal trade in meth and its precursor chemicals and stop the devastating impact that methamphetamine use is having on our children and our communities.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Madam Speaker, when the Bush administration learned that the American people wanted to allow the United Arab Emirates to operate U.S. ports, they were outraged. That outrage should be extended to this administration's pathetic record on securing our ports and our coastlines.

Since September 11th, according to the U.S. Coast Guard, the Republican Congress has shortchanged America's seaports by more than $4 billion in security improvements. It is because of this serious lack of funding that only 6 percent of the cargo coming into our ports is ever checked. Port security is so bad that in December, the 9/11 Commission gave this administration a

grade of D for checked baggage and cargo screening.

House Democrats have tried to increase port security funding on this House floor four times over the last 4 years, and House Republicans have defeated our efforts every single time.

They are not through. Once again this year President Bush is proposing eliminating port security grants by rolling them into the larger program. This forces port officials to compete for funding against rail and mass transit programs. It's time that Republicans wake up and see the serious threat that is existing at our port facilities in America.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4192, to designate the birthplace of our 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, as a national historic site and a unit of the National Park System.

Currently, the Clinton birthplace home is owned and operated by a nonprofit Clinton birthplace foundation. While they are doing an excellent job of maintaining this site for the public viewing and educational purposes, by becoming part of the National Park System the Clinton birthplace will now be able to take full advantage of the National Park Service's vast resources.

As a member of the Committee on Resources and at Mr. Ross' request, I have been down to southwest Arkansas to see the Clinton birthplace for myself, and I can personally attest to the great pride that fellow Arkansans feel for this site.

Not only is Mr. William Jefferson Clinton a source of pride for the folks in his home State of Arkansas, but he is also a representative of the symbol of hope for millions of both Americans and those throughout the world who have seen his work. And you just need to tour the Clinton library to see the respect he received throughout the globe by the tributes housed at the library.

I believe every Presidential birthplace should be preserved and protected as part of our Nation's history regardless of political party.

I would like to also recognize that Speaker Hastert and Chairman Pombo have brought this bill to the floor. And I want to commend them for doing so in a nonpartisan manner, not treating this issue as a political football, but one of worthy legislation that deserves our support.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4192.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to offer my amendment to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act.

H.R. 4167 creates two separate petition processes for States that may petition the FDA requesting approval for State labeling requirements. Under the first, the States are given a transitional period to request FDA approval of existing State regulations for food labeling. The second creates a process for States to petition the FDA to approve a national standard for new food labeling requirements, or to exempt a State from certain requirements of national uniformity.

My amendment deals only with the latter, the process for States to petition the FDA to approve national standards for future labeling requirements.

The bill sets strict timelines for FDA action on State petitions for future national standards. Petitions must be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of receipt and made available for public comment. The FDA must approve or deny within 60 days of the close of the public comment period, unless an extension is requested in order to gather more information. However, in all cases, final action must be rendered no later than 120 days after the close of the public comment period.

While I applaud the author for including these timelines, I feel it is important to have an even swifter resolution for those State petitions that may affect our most vulnerable populations. My amendment would further expedite consideration of State petitions seeking adoption of national warning requirements in three circumstances: first, where the proposed warning relates to cancer-causing agents; second, where the proposed warning relates to reproductive effects or birth defects; and, third, when the requested warning is intended to provide information that will allow parents to understand, monitor, or limit a child's exposure to cancer-causing agents or reproductive or developmental toxins.

My amendment will help ensure that when a State believes a warning should be provided against possible serious health effects or birth defects, FDA consideration of the State request must occur in the shortest period of time possible.

As a member of the California delegation, I stand by my support of the National Uniformity for Food Act, but I also recognize the importance of retaining a State's ability to advocate for their food safety warnings and that that be promoted nationwide. Ultimately, my amendment preserves the goal of H.R. 4167 to have uniform national warnings while also ensuring that Federal action on State requests for important health warnings is not delayed.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chairman how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the author of the bill.

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

This amendment will strengthen States rights, in my opinion, by forcing the FDA to review petitions expediently and quickly to make sure that their concerns are legitimately taken care of. I do not think anyone here believes that the FDA will purposely act in contravention to what is in the best interest of the people of the United States and their health.

I also agree with the gentleman's contention that the FDA needs to be strengthened and given increased funding. If they have additional work, they will need additional funding to do this work. But this amendment is only dealing with the underlying legislation. I would ask for the body's support of this amendment. I think it makes the bill stronger.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

In answer to the gentlewoman from California, it is my intention that there would be an expedited review. If there is 120 days, and a State requests a shortened period of time because they believe that a particular problem has, and let us just use an example, say there is a microorganism in seafood that has just occurred off the coast.

And this allows the FDA to act even quicker; in fact, mandates it.

In the underlying bill.

No, the underlying bill is 120 days.

It says that it must be the quickest possible.

Correct.

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

Thank you very much for recognizing me, Congressman Ross. It is truly an honor to be your friend and to have traveled with you to your district recently. It was a shame that we had to witness what we did when we witnessed those trailers sitting there, a government expenditure of nearly half a billion dollars with no person in America being benefited by that. It was really an outrage.

I am so pleased that I serve with you as a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. I am very pleased I am one of the Blue Dog co-chairs.

The Blue Dogs are a group of 37 conservative Democrats who are committed to fiscal responsibility and reforming the broken budget process in Washington. Our top priority is fixing the gross mismanagement of our Nation's finances. As moderates and fiscal hawks, the Blue Dogs have tried to reach across the aisle and engage in a real debate for fiscal responsibility.

The 2006 budget is something of a sham. We need to return to honesty and accountability in this budget. I am deeply concerned with the continued deficit spending, the complete disregard for fiscally responsible policies and a fundamentally dishonest budget process.

The President proposed, as you said, Mr. Ross, a $2.7 trillion budget which will decrease domestic spending a bit, yet leave massive $355 billion deficits. This $355 billion is not the whole story, though.

The President's figures deliberately leave out the cost of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the potential future cost of rebuilding this gulf region that we have talked about tonight that is in so dire need of our work. It also leaves out a growing problem for Americans and that is the alternative minimum tax. All these costs are going to drive up the deficit even further.

The President's budget is a nice break from reality TV, but it is a harsh reality for our Nation; and it does nothing to make the Federal Government more accountable to taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Ross, I just want to thank you again for your leadership and taking us down there and for having the gumption to bring camera crews down there and expose this national tragedy of these trailers in your district. I just hope that FEMA will listen to our pleas from that day when we talked about what needed to be done, what should be done. I applaud your efforts in this area and thank you for being such a worthy advocate for our Nation's fiscal policies.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) for organizing this on behalf of the Blue Dog Coalition. It is truly an honor to be one of the cochairs of the Blue Dogs and to serve on that illustrious body with you.

I want to start off tonight talking about not our priorities, but what I heard one of our respected colleagues talk about just before we went on. Mr. Paul talked about how he thinks that we are going in the wrong direction in the country.

I did not hear his whole presentation, but I thought it was an interesting indictment of his own side of the aisle, because he felt that we had not done the right thing by balancing the budget and going along. He does not like the direction of where we are going. I thought he spoke a lot of truth tonight. I just wanted to highlight that and say, as Mr. Boyd did previously, that we really are about trying to figure out bipartisan solutions to making a new direction for our country and a better direction, where we pay as we go, where we do not build up these huge debts, and do not leave a huge legacy of debt to our children.

Two weeks ago on this floor, you and I had a colloquy with regard to the debt and the priorities of our country. Two weeks ago we talked about a reconciliation bill that actually, instead of reducing the national debt, increased the national debt by $20 billion; but that is not even necessarily the worst part of this.

The worst part of it is when we are making the debt worse by what the Republican leadership is proposing, and we do not have the right priorities, the right family values, the right values for our Nation in the reconciliation package.

In fact, the Republican reconciliation package cuts out $600 million for foster children, orphans, and abused children. They are taken out of their families and put in homes, cuts of $600 million. We never have had more abused and orphaned children in this entire country. There are over half a million children in our country that are not living with their parents. They have been taken out of their parents' home either because their parents have gotten into trouble, cannot take care of them any longer, or have abused them. And they are living with someone else.

We are cutting the funds to provide programs for those children when we are giving tax cuts, or we are proposing tax cuts, we are not doing it, it is the other side of the aisle, tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, people who make over $1 million a year.

Now, I do not believe in class warfare. I believe in a society in America where we can raise everyone's ship, and I hope those orphans some day make $1 million a year. But we are not going to do it without education, without good homes for these children, without providing a way and a path for them to do better.

And as you said last time we spoke about this, Mr. Ross, I know a little bit about this, because I have two wonderful children, Joey and Elaina, who my wife and I adopted out of foster care. They are wonderful children. They have done very well in our home. But it is because we gave them a chance. And the reality is too many children in America are not going to get a chance if the Republican priorities of reconciliation are left to stand.

And I have got to ask a simple question tonight. Out of a $2 trillion budget, is it not possible for the Republicans to find a better place to cut than orphans and abused children right before Christmas? I have to ask the question: Is it not possible to find a place better to cut?

When I told my children that I adopted, my wife and I adopted, about these cuts, they said, Daddy, go back up

there and tell them not to do that. That is not the right thing. And if my children, who are 11 and 8, 12 and 8, I will get in trouble if I do not correct that because they are watching tonight, if they know at that age that there is a better place to cut, then certainly the adults in this Chamber should know there is a better place to cut than those folks.

I just have to say in this Christmas season, I certainly hope the ghost of Christmas past does not come and visit those Members who vote for this reconciliation package with that particular cut in it. You know, we can do better. We can have a new vision for America where we build up our educational system, where we take care of those who are most in need amongst us, and where we balance the Federal budget.

It is called the Blue Dog 12-step plan. I am just so proud to have been here with you tonight, my colleagues here, Mr. Ross from Arkansas, Mr. Tanner from Tennessee, and Mr. Boyd from Florida. They are really the backbone of our organization. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Tanner have been leading this charge for a number of years.

I am just so proud to be in their company. I think if we get the chance, we will provide a better and more direct path for America. Thank you, Mr. Ross, once again for leading this effort tonight. I am proud to be with you.

I have one last thing to say. There was a fellow from your district who became President, a man from Hope, Arkansas. When he left office, it was projected that we were going to have a $5.4 trillion surplus. And, instead, the current leadership has giving us an $8 trillion deficit.

That is a far cry from having a surplus and being on good financial footing. I just hope that you can help us lead the Nation, Mr. Ross, from your little community of Hope, Arkansas, into a better path. Thank you for doing this tonight.

That is exactly right.

$600 million.

That is exactly right.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like our country, or at least the Republican leadership and the leadership in the Senate and the White House, has totally turned what our priorities should be as a Nation on its ear. We are not balancing the budget. That is the first mistake. But the second mistake is we are cutting education. We are cutting those who are most vulnerable and who could build this country into something better. And it just seems to me that if we would just invest in education, invest in the future of America, try to make sure that these young kids who go into foster care do not go into gangs; it costs us over $40,000 a year to incarcerate someone who goes astray, and so many foster kids go astray when they are put into so many different homes. The average number of homes that most foster kids go to is 12. I have talked to kids who have been in 24 different homes. They are placed, placed, placed because we do not have money in the system and people drop out, and it is no way to live one's live. Twenty-four homes.

One young lady was a valedictorian in her class. I do not know how she did it, but she managed to break out of that system. She was in 24 different foster homes over her period of time.

We can do better, Mr. Speaker. And I know Mr. Ross is for that, and I thank him for highlighting that fact.

Thank you, Mr. Ross. You know, what you just spoke about is a matter of priorities. It is what I spoke about earlier when I was talking about the foster care system and was there not a better place to cut.

Number five on our planks of the 12 step program for Blue Dog fiscal responsibility is make Congress tell the taxpayers how they are spending our money. The American people want to know that their tax dollars are being spent on our national priorities.

I got to tell you, if you ask the folks around the country what our national priorities are, they are going to tell us they want to get those folks in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama back on their feet. That is a priority. Education is a priority. Fighting the war effort is a priority.

But what happens here in Congress is we pass these bills on voice votes. And today, just today in this House, on a voice vote they passed a continuing resolution for 30 days, until December 31, well, two weeks. And we are spending billions and billions of dollars on a

voice vote. I got to tell you, I know that if the American people knew all the money that is being spent in that continuing resolution, they would not be happy about it.

So the Blue Dogs have decided that we need to tell the American people what the priorities are. We need to tell the American people what we are spending their money on. We have proposed that no bill should pass Congress above the threshold of $50 million, which is a significant amount of money in anybody's book, without a vote of Congress.

We need to tell the American people where we are spending their money. If we are going to spend billions, we have to take a vote. Today we should have had a vote. It should not have been a voice vote, just agreed upon. We should have had a vote on that continuing resolution.

You have to go see your banker and justify it.

I would be happy to, Mr. Ross.

Number 12 is to make Congress do a better job keeping track on government programs that it passes.

As Mr. Tanner said earlier, we have basically abdicated our responsibility in this one-party form of government that we have right now. We are doing no oversight. We are not keeping tabs on the bills that we pass. In fact, the last four planks in the Blue Dog program all sort of relate to the same kind of thing. It is about accountability. It is about making sure that we read the bills, that we require honest cost estimates, that we make sure that the new bills fit the budget that we have already passed, and that we make sure that Congress does an adequate review on the bills that we have passed.

They are just basic commonsense tenets. If you look back at the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, it is a perfect example of how this process has gone off the rails. And it has cost twice as much.

I remember Mr. Dooley had a competing bill, but I think it probably did more for seniors than the one that we passed. And he could not even get a score from the Congressional Budget Office to say how much his bill was going to cost. That is just wrong. A Member of the Congress should be able to get the score. We should all have the score. The American people should be able to get the lowdown on what a bill costs and have that up front 3 days at least before we pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ross for yielding to me. I have to say the citizens of the gentleman's district in Arkansas are certainly ably represented.

It is interesting that before, as he was talking here earlier and mentioned that we are spending in excess of a half billion dollars a day just on interest on the national debt, I was thinking I do not know how much his State budget is per year, but my State budget in California is around $100 billion a year. And if we were to take his State's budget and Mr. Scott's State budget and add them all together with my State's budget, I would bet that we would still be below the annual number of what we pay in interest alone. So if we think about all of the work that our local governments do in our States and we take three States, Georgia, Arkansas, and California, that is a huge, vast sum of money that we are paying just in interest on the national debt.

As you were taking about that, it reminded me that there was another fellow from your district by the name of President Clinton who had inherited this same kind of problem once before. In his 8 years in office he took an annual debt and made it into an annual surplus.

And he did that through sound financial practices. I recall that they eliminated a vast number of programs and commissions and wasteful spending in government. I believe Mr. Clinton assigned that task to the Vice President.

In fact, we took, as Democrats, a deficit budget and made it into a surplus budget in the 1990s. In just 5 years, we have gone in a different direction. I believe it is putting our Nation in serious jeopardy. I just thought it was appropriate that I acknowledge that there has been two fiscally conservative leaders from your area, both you and Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman was talking, I recall when I was an intern in this body for Congressman Martin Frost from Texas, 26, 27 years ago, I sat here and listened to the Republicans rail against the Democrats saying that they were fiscally irresponsible.

And yet since that time, their deficits, when they have been in control, the White House and now in control of everything, have just exploded. I wish they would go back and read those and listen to those old tapes, I am sure C-SPAN still has them back in the old archives, and remember what they said when they were in the minority.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for a great explanation of what the problem is. But as part of that, I also want to highlight the fact that the Republicans criticized the Blue Dogs for not supporting what they call the Deficit Reduction Act. I want to tell you just one reason why, just one out of many, but I believe the most immoral cut that was advocated by the Republican side of this Chamber, and, as you said, not one Democrat voted for that bill, was the $600 million cut to foster care programs. You cannot tell me that out of a $2.2 trillion budget, you cannot find someplace else to cut. But $600 million from orphaned and abused children who are put in foster homes, that to me is just unconscionable. And so what they are asking us to do is not a reconciliation but a changing of priorities. I do not believe that cuts to orphaned and abused children are American priorities. I certainly don't believe they are American family values. That is not what we learned in church. That is not what I learned in church.

Well, I do, Mr. Ross. In fact, I have two children that were adopted out of foster care. My wife and I are blessed to have two children from foster care. I just cannot believe that we cannot find a different place to cut. I know after dealing with the foster care system that there are a lot of things that do not work in that system, but it is not that there is too much money in the system, because having seen it up close, there is not too much money in the foster care system. We don't have enough resources. We can save kids from going into a life of crime or being victimized in other ways that cost society much greater amounts. Incarcerating one prisoner is over $40,000 a year. If we lose a young person because of the way they are treated in foster care and being abused a second time after they have been abused either in their home or abandoned or neglected like my children were, if we lose them in the system, it will cost society much more in the long run.

I have a word that I want to call this. I believe we should call this Scrooge-onomics, because I believe it is just the wrong priorities. The other side in my priority has adopted Scrooge-onomics. Just like in the movie and in the book written by Charles Dickens, I just hope that my colleagues on the other side don't wake up with a nightmare of the ghost of Christmas past when they sleep in their nice warm homes, in their nice warm beds on Christmas day, that they have totally forgotten about those children who don't have the same kind of advantages that they have in life. I would ask them to abandon Scrooge-onomics and adopt a vision for America that is much more compassionate, conservative but compassionate, truly compassionate, and adopt a vision that we can all be proud of instead of abusing our foster children a second time.

That is right, Mr. Ross. Not only does it cut those two populations but it is done to pay for tax cuts, to pay for additional tax cuts.

I don't think you can call it anything but Scrooge- onomics.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my presentation, I want to just say I cannot believe the comments from the gentleman who just spoke.

Today, the national debt stands at over $8 trillion. That is more than $27,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. This fiscal mess is a direct result of the policies put in place by the leadership of this Congress and the Bush White House.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle want the members of the Blue Dog Coalition to join with them in their latest efforts to run the deficit even higher. Mr. Speaker, that will never happen. It is time for real reform, not more of the same. The Blue Dog Coalition has put forward a comprehensive 12-step program that would dig America out of its fiscal mess.

Remarkably, our Republican colleagues have criticized the Blue Dogs for not supporting their sham reconciliation program, even though several of their original programs are put in the Blue Dog 12-step program. After refusing to reach across party lines to negotiate a real deficit package, the Republicans now accuse the Blue Dogs of partisanship.

Are you all serious? My friends, you have abandoned fiscal responsibility and your way is not working. America has had enough. I have had enough. Each Member of Congress has a certain piece of these cuts that they hate the most, whether it be child support or Medicaid or food stamps. But ladies and gentlemen, for me it is personal. This bill includes several provisions that will reduce foster care assistance and services. This bill cuts foster care-related funding by $600 million a year. Our Federal budget is nearly $1 trillion a year.

Ladies and gentlemen on that side of the aisle, are you serious in telling me that you cannot find any budget cuts that do not affect abandoned children? Are you telling me that you cannot find anyplace to pay for your tax cuts that does not affect abandoned and abused and neglected children?

Ladies and gentlemen, I have two children that I adopted out of foster care. When I told them about these cuts, they told me, ``Daddy, don't let them do it.'' Ladies and gentlemen, they told me, ``Daddy, don't let them do it.''

This is not the right place to cut, ladies and gentlemen. You have not consulted with us. This is not the right package. You need to change the way and the direction that you are going.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ross. He is a fabulous Member who has led this effort in the House for a number of years, and I am very pleased he is leading this discussion here tonight. I am pleased he brought down a copy of our debt clock that sits in front of our offices. It truly outlines the fiscal irresponsibility that the current administration is engaged in.

I would also like to highlight one of the points Mr. Ross mentioned and ask a question. I know that in Arkansas you all are pretty proud of your university there and the Razorbacks. And if you are anything like the folks where I am from, we are building a brand new university, and we have the first class going through right now. And so you know how important it is for young people, especially first-generation Americans who need a start in life, trying to get themselves established to do better for themselves and their families.

I am the first member to go to college, and I can say without a doubt that I would not be standing here in the halls of Congress today had I not gotten the great education that I got at both the CSU schools I went to in California and the University of Maryland just down the street.

This past week when I was flying out here from San Francisco, I happened on the president of the University of Maryland, Dan Mote. He was on my plane. He came up to me on the plane, and he said, Mr. Cardoza, I know you are a supporter of education, but what you are folks doing to higher education, and these cuts to student aid? He said, This is going to devastate the young people that attend my college and the people that are going to attend the college in your hometown.

I said, President Mote, you are absolutely right. I cannot think of one Democrat who is going to vote in support of these cuts to student aid.

In fact, I told him a story about the legislature in California. When I served in the legislature, we actually lowered student fees, with the help of the Republican leadership there, because they felt that was one of the most important middle and upper income tax cuts that they could possibly do because most of the folks that were not on financial aid already due to need were their constituents.

Yet here in Congress, we see what they are proposing, and I believe it is a $1.4 billion student fee increase or the cuts in the student loans. Does the gentleman have that number?

Mr. Speaker, that is incredible. That is an unbelievable number. Really we could call this not the Reconciliation Act but the college student tax act because that is what we are going to be doing, we are going to be increasing the tax on those who can least afford it, those who are trying to

do better and increase their opportunity.

I would like to add that, under Bush, we have seen absolute record deficits. We have seen $2.5 trillion added to the debt. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) is fond of saying, we have borrowed more from foreign countries than all previous presidents combined under President Bush. And we are borrowing about 80 or 90 percent, the new borrowing that is taking place, is coming from China and countries that are competing with us in trade, and they are using that leverage to make our dollar less strong against their currency. It is just a shame what has been happening here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ross for participating in this tonight and being such a great leader within the Blue Dog Coalition.

Madam Speaker, just 2 weeks ago, the national debt passed the $8 trillion mark.

This unfortunate milestone was the direct result of policies put in place by the leadership of this Congress and the Bush White House. Now our friends on the other side of the aisle want the Members of the Blue Dog Coalition to endorse their latest push to run the debt even higher.

This budget package should be called the ``Deficit Expansion Act.'' It would continue drowning America in red ink in order to finance new tax cuts for the wealthy and privileged. It is time for a real strategy for fiscal responsibility, not more of the same.

The Blue Dog Coalition has put forward a comprehensive, 12-step plan that would dig America out of this fiscal mess. Our proposal includes commonsense reforms such as reinstating PAYGO rules and discretionary spending caps.

I strongly urge my colleagues in Congress to take immediate action on the debt by embracing real bipartisan reform.