Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 549, the National Bombing Prevention Act of 2009. However, I have some concerns about language included in this bill regarding the enhancement of explosives detection canine resources and capabilities. I'm concerned and worried that this provision could unintentionally harm established Federal canine training facilities and even weaken existing training standards.

Currently, the Customs and Border Protection agency runs two world- class canine training facilities under its Canine Enforcement Program, in addition to a USDA facility in Florida. One of these facilities is located in my congressional district in Front Royal, Virginia, in what is viewed as the Shenandoah Valley. I strongly encourage Members to visit this exceptional program, staffed by dedicated Federal employees, before making any comprehensive reforms to this model program.

The Canine Enhancement Program already serves the needs of the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies. It is so highly regarded that many of our closest international allies--and I was out there. Egypt had their people out there training and many others--send their canine program officials to the Front Royal facility for training.

Mr. Speaker, rather than reinventing a program that already demonstrates exceptional results, I hope that we can work with the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection to address these issues as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. Chairman, I think this bill really ignores the major issue that we are really facing. Our Nation is fundamentally broke, but we have $57 trillion of unfunded obligations. The Ways and Means Committee, with all due respect, is doing nothing about dealing with this issue.

I have a bill in with Jim Cooper and Senator Conrad, Senators Conrad and Gregg have it over on the Senate side, that creates a bipartisan commission similar to what we did on the Iraq Study Group with every spending program, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and tax policy. Some on my side won't like that, a tax policy on the table, and we give the commission 1 year to go around the country holding public hearings, coming up with a proposal to require, to require this institution that has fundamentally failed to do its responsibility.

Now, China holds a large portion of our debt. People talk about it, but yet nobody does anything about it. If the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee gets on the train in Washington and takes it to New York City and looks to the right and to the left, the factories are in decay. There is graffiti all over the walls, the windows are broken. You come through my old neighborhood in Philadelphia, and it's in decay.

By doing this, by getting control of our spending in a way that would honestly do it in a bipartisan way, I would tell the Chair of the committee, we would bring about a renaissance in this Nation whereby we would have the ability to invest in Alzheimer's research and autism research and cancer research and manufacturing to create new jobs that really show that America is back. So I think the failure of this bill is that this provision is not in it.

The last issue is, I call it the father amendment or the mother amendment or the grandmother/grandmother amendment, all of us at some time are going to get an opportunity, and we are going to leave here. And our grandkids are going to say, you know, Dad, when you were there, or Mom, when you were there, or Grandpop, when you were there, or Grandmom, when you were there, did you know that China was buying our debt up? Did you know the Saudis were buying our debt up? Did you really know, Grandfather or Grandmother, that our factories were in decay? Did you know that they controlled our debt? Did you? Did you, Pop? Pop, did you do anything about it? Dad, did you do anything about it?

And the answer is, as of now, this Congress, and let me just say, both political parties, have fundamentally

failed. So you are going to have to tell your kids and your grandkids, no.

When I was there, as of January of 2009, we did nothing, and we allowed our country to fall into decline. This amendment ought to be, it ought to be in the Republican substitute, and it's not, and I voted against the Republican substitute. It ought to be in this, and it's not, and I voted against this. And if this does not pass, Barack Obama will preside over the decline of this Nation when he is running for reelection as President of this Nation in 4 years.

Madam Speaker, I know that each Member of this body, Democrat and Republican, understands that our country is in trouble. The CBO recently projected that the Federal budget deficit for the fiscal year, which started last October, will balloon to $1.2 trillion. This number, which Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad called ``jaw- dropping,'' does not include the $825 billion stimulus plan we are scheduled to consider in the House this week.

David Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General, has said, ``We should not just engage in timely and targeted stimulus. We need to put a process in place that will enable elected officials to make a range of tough decisions,'' and this institution does not make tough decision, ``that have been delayed for too long.''

Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, has called our situation ``catastrophic,'' noting that ``doing deficit math is always a sobering exercise. It becomes an outright painful one when you apply your calculator to the long-term fiscal challenge posed by entitlement programs.''

Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke has said, ``The quality of the future we will endow to our children and our grandchildren will depend in important measure on how well we rise to that occasion.''

I could stand here all day quoting different experts about our Nation's grave long-term outlook. I believe that most Americans know that our country is facing dire economic conditions that will continue to deteriorate unless we change our current course. The fact is the American people are ahead of the Congress.

As elected officials and Members of the 111th Congress, we have an obligation, a moral obligation, to find solutions to the long-term nightmare that our children and grandchildren will wake up to should we choose to do nothing. We are talking about over $56 trillion in unfunded obligations through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the national debt nearing $12 trillion, and China now holding the paper on 1 out of every 10 American dollars. America is now being sold to China. Does that make this Congress feel very good?

By letting the stimulus legislation pass the House without addressing the underlying problem of out-of-control spending, we are evading our responsibility as Members of Congress. David Brooks said this package has no ``strategic vision.'' He said it has a relatively modest short- term impact, and then he said ``there is no sunset.''

Is it right for us to ignore the fact that we are mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future? We must set up a difficult bipartisan mechanism to deal with the underlying problem of autopilot spending and show the American people that we can make the difficult choices.

There is a bipartisan plan already on the table to review Federal spending in every area, entitlements and tax policies. It garnered the support of 110 Members in the last Congress, Republican and Democrat. You have heard me talk about it many times. It is the Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission plan, similar to a Senate effort led by Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and Ranking Member Judd Gregg.

We offered the bipartisan SAFE Commission as an amendment when the Appropriations Committee marked up the stimulus last week. It failed on a mostly partisan vote. I will go to the Rules Committee on Tuesday to ask that the amendment be made in order so that it can be voted on by the full House during the stimulus debate.

If we look the other way now, Congress will have fundamentally failed the American people. Congress will have to explain to the American people that when it had the chance to act in the best interests of future generations, meaning children and grandchildren and existing generations, it chose to do nothing.

Make no mistake. This could well be the toughest economic issue our Nation will be faced with, but we can't afford to wait. The future of the children and grandchildren hang in the balance.

I will end with President Obama's words from his inaugural address. He said that the current state of affairs is the result of ``our collective failure to

make hard choices and prepare the Nation for a new age.'' He went on to say that ``our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions, that time has surely passed.'' I could not agree more. For years I encouraged the Bush administration to adopt this process. They did not. We have also reached out to the new administration and his economic team.

This is an economic, moral, and generational issue, and I am astounded as we prepare to debate the stimulus on the floor that we are doing so without having bipartisan entitlement reform as part of the underlying package.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to acknowledge what the gentleman is saying is accurate. I have here a $100 billion bill, a Zimbabwe bill, which was printed by the Federal Reserve in Zimbabwe in June or July of 2008.

So what the gentleman is saying, this $100 billion will not even buy a loaf of bread.

Mr. Speaker, ``The Christian owner of a car repair shop was killed execution-style in Mosul, police said Saturday, raising concerns about the possibility of new attacks against religious minorities in the northern city.'' This chilling excerpt was taken from a recent AP story, which went on to say that the attack ``followed a pattern of violence and intimidation that sent thousands of Christians fleeing from their homes in Mosul this fall.''

This is not the first time that we have seen targeted killings. We need to look no farther than the 2008 kidnap and murder of Archbishop Rahho of Mosul, an Assyrian Christian of the Chaldean Church, or Youssef Adel, an Assyrian Christian priest who was fatally shot in a drive-by attack in April of 2008.

These high-profile killings are indicative of wider-scale persecution and fear experienced by this suffering community. The numbers tell the story.

According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Iraqi's Christian population has fallen from as many as 1.4 million in 2003 to between 500,000 and 700,000 at present. The report says that, ``While Christians and other religious minorities represent only approximately 3 percent of the pre-2003 Iraqi population, they constitute approximately 15 percent and 20 percent of registered Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria respectively, and Christians account for 35 and 64 percent, respectively, of all registered Iraqi refugees in Lebanon and Turkey.'' What we are witnessing here is the tragic extinction of an age-old faith community.

The patriarch Abraham came from a city in Iraq called Ur. Isaac's bride, Rebekah, came from northwest Iraq. Jacob spent 20 years in Iraq, and his sons, the 12 tribes of Israel, were born in northwest Iraq. A remarkable spiritual revival as told in the book of Jonah occurred in Nineveh. And the events of the book of Esther took place in Iraq, as did the accounts of Daniel in the Lion's Den.

For months, I unsuccessfully urged the Bush administration to develop a comprehensive policy to address the unique plight of Iraq's struggling ethno-religious minorities, specifically the Christian community. We have pressed for one person in the embassy to work on these. The Religious Freedom Commission has also asked for things like this, but now we are seeing that the creation and filling of this position must be, must be, among Secretary Clinton's first priorities.

In July of 2008, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration & Refugee Services said this about the minority religious community: ``These groups, whose home has been what is now Iraq for many centuries, are literally being obliterated, not because they are fleeing generalized violence but because they are specifically and viciously victimized by Islamic extremists and, in some cases, common criminals.''

These minority communities face marginalization or even extinction. U.S. policy must reflect the unique political and security reality of these minority communities. I urge Members of

Congress, and I want to compliment Congresswoman Eshoo from California who has been very active on this, but other members, to weigh in with the newly confirmed secretary and ask her to take dramatic action to save the Iraqi Christians.

An article in Christianity Today by Philip Jenkins described what is happening in Iraq this way: ``What we are seeing then is the death of one of the world's greatest Christian enterprises.''

Just this week a delegation of Chaldean bishops urgently appealed to Pope Benedict XVI for the church to create a strategy to prevent Christians from leaving the region. I urge people of faith to stand, and I urge Members of Congress to press the secretary to appoint one person to deal with this issue.

And, lastly, I say where, where; oh where, oh where is the church? Oh where, oh where is the Christian church in the West when the Christians in Iraq are being slaughtered?

[From the Associated Press]

Christian Killed in Northern Iraqi City

(By Sameer N. Yacoub)

Baghdad.--The Christian owner of a car repair shop was

killed execution-style in Mosul, police said Saturday,

raising concern about the possibility of new attacks against

the religious minority in the northern Iraqi city.

The body of the 36-year-old man, who was shot in the head,

was found Thursday, according to police and hospital

officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they

were not authorized to talk to the media.

Another Christian man, an engineer in the city's water

department, was kidnapped in early January but was released

four days later after his family paid a $50,000 ransom.

Nobody claimed responsibility for the killing or the

kidnapping, but they followed a pattern of violence and

intimidation that sent thousands of Christians fleeing from

their homes in Mosul in the fall.

Bassem Balu, an official with the Democratic Assyrian

Movement, sought to maintain calm, saying the motives for

this week's killing were not yet known. The movement is the

largest Christian party.

``For the time being, I do not think that this will slow

the return of the Christians to Mosul,'' he said. ``I hope

that this murder won't signal the start of a new campaign

against the Christians in Mosul.''

Some Mosul residents have filtered back since the fall

exodus, but others remain with relatives in the safer

countryside or have sought refuge in neighboring Syria

despite government pledges of financial support and

protection.

Reflecting the continued fear, Christian candidates running

for the Jan. 31 provincial elections have not been

campaigning in Mosul but were limiting their activities to

Christian areas outside the city.

Saad Tanyous, one of the candidates seeking a seat on the

provincial council, said Christians were not even putting

posters on the walls in Mosul.

Christians have frequently been targeted amid the fierce

sectarian fighting that broke out after the 2003 U.S.-led

invasion, although the attacks have ebbed with a sharp drop

in overall violence.

Churches, priests and businesses of the generally

prosperous, well-educated community have been attacked by

militants who denounce Christians as pro-American

``crusaders.''

In an exodus which began after the 1991 Gulf War and

escalated dramatically after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003,

Iraq has lost more than half its Christian population of some

1 million.

The body of Paulos Rahho, the Chaldean Catholic archbishop

of Mosul, also was found in March following his abduction by

gunmen after a Mass.

Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, remains one of the

most dangerous cities in Iraq despite security gains.

Gunmen also killed two Iraqi soldiers on a foot patrol in

the city Saturday afternoon, police said.

Tensions have been rising ahead of the provincial

elections, which are aimed at more equitably distributing

power and stemming support for the insurgency.

Haider al-Ibadi, a Shiite lawmaker from Prime Minister

Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party, condemned Friday's

assassination of candidate Hashim al-Husseini south of

Baghdad.

``This crime should not go unpunished and we call upon

security forces to chase the killers as soon as possible and

put them on trial,'' he said, calling for stepped-up

protection for candidates.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues an editorial in the New York Times highlighting the case of Iranian human rights activist, and Nobel Prize laureate, Shirin Ebadi, who faces harassment and intimidation at the hands of the Iranian government.

She is not alone.

According to the most recent State Department Human Rights Report, ``[Iran's] poor human rights record worsened, and it continued to commit numerous, serious abuses . . . Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals and held political prisoners and women's rights activists. There was a lack of judicial independence and of fair public trials. The government severely restricted civil liberties, including freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, movement, and privacy. The government placed severe restrictions on freedom of religion. Official corruption and a lack of government transparency persisted.''

We must continue to stand with human rights defenders like Shirin Ebadi, who is bravely confronting her own government's injustices.

[From the New York Times, January 2, 2009]

The Woman the Mullahs Fear

(Editorial)

Men hold all of the meaningful levers of political power in

Iran, but it is a woman they fear. If not, why is the mullah-

led government trying to shut down the operations of Shirin

Ebadi?

Ms. Ebadi, a lawyer and her country's leading human rights

activist, is the first Muslim woman to win a Nobel Peace

Prize. On Monday, the authorities stormed her private office,

seizing her computers and her clients' documents. A week

earlier, they closed her Center for Defenders of Human

Rights, a coalition of human rights groups and other

activists whose members had planned to celebrate the 60th

anniversary of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of

Human Rights.

When she was awarded the peace prize in 2003, the Nobel

committee called Ms. Ebadi ``a courageous person'' for

standing up against Iran's bullying government. In the years

since, she has endured repeated death threats from radical

groups and regular government intimidation. That courage has

never faltered.

With presidential elections scheduled for June, President

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies apparently decided they

could not risk letting Ms. Ebadi continue the work she has

done with distinction (and without pay) for the past 15

years--exposing government violations of human rights and

defending human rights and democracy activists.

No doubt the authorities were unhappy with a report

produced by her center that was cited recently by the United

Nations' secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, when the General

Assembly approved a nonbinding resolution condemning Iran's

human rights record. But we suspect their ambitions go far

beyond trying to suppress one report. They are clearly hoping

to intimidate Ms. Ebadi and all other independent voices in

Iran. That must not be allowed to happen.

We condemn Tehran's mistreatment of this woman of

extraordinary honor and courage. We urge the United States,

Europe and other major powers to keep pressure on Iran to

ensure that no further harm comes to Ms. Ebadi and that she

remains free to do her essential work.

If Tehran wants relief from international criticism about

its human rights record, it must start by adhering to the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and respecting the

rights of all of its citizens.

Madam Speaker, I continue to be deeply concerned about America's mounting deficit spending and Federal debt and have been working for the past several years to engage this administration in embracing a bipartisan plan to reverse course and get our country on a sound and sustainable financial path.

I introduced the SAFE Commission concept for the first time during the 109th Congress on June 7, 2006. In the 110th Congress I teamed with Jim Cooper, and we introduced the bipartisan SAFE Commission legislation again. A similar Senate effort was led by Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and ranking member Judd Gregg.

Following the SAFE bill's introduction, I reached out to Treasury Secretary Paulson about getting our fiscal house through more than a dozen letters from July 12, 2007, to April 10, 2008, updating the administration on progress that was being made with the bill. I submit for the Record a sample of that correspondence.

I have been encouraged with the growing support for the SAFE proposal from leading newspaper editorials to think tanks to syndicated columnists to business organizations. I

remain deeply disappointed that this idea was not embraced by Secretary Paulson. I hope that the Obama administration will understand the urgency for bipartisan action to address this nation's long-term budget challenges, especially as we deal with the current financial crisis, for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2007.

Hon. Henry Paulson,

Secretary, Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Paulson: As you know, Senator Voinovich and

I reintroduced the Securing America's Future Economy (SAFE)

Commission Act in January. I wanted to follow up with you and

share the enclosed letter I wrote to the president asking

that the administration embrace this idea.

I think about our children and grandchildren and it is

disheartening that critical issues are falling by the wayside

because Congress today is so polarized. I believe that a

bipartisan commission operating outside the halls of Congress

that would mandate action is the answer to getting our fiscal

house in order and diverting financial crisis in this

country.

The SAFE Commission bill has 32 cosponsors to date. I am

committed to continue working with my colleagues to enact

this legislation on a matter of such importance to our

nation's future.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, our financial situation is at a critical mass. Everywhere you look, everything you read, more bad news, no end in sight. Of massive budget shortfalls President-elect Obama has said, ``If we do nothing, we will continue to see red ink as far as we can see.''

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office projected the Federal budget deficit will balloon to $1.2 trillion this fiscal year, and that does not include the economic stimulus package proposed by the incoming administration. These staggering numbers are deeply troubling today and pose a dire choice for our children and our grandchildren.

Simply put, our Nation is slowly going broke. Without a change of course initiated by Congress, we will follow what Comptroller General David Walker characterized as a financial ``tsunami strong enough to swamp the ship of state.'' It will sweep our children and our grandchildren off their feet, leaving far less opportunity for future generations.

Out-of-control spending is not just an economic issue, it is a moral issue also. Is it right for our generation to live very well, knowing that future generations of Americans will inherit a broken system in the form of massive debt, Social Security and Medicare obligations, unsustainable spending and commitments that cannot be kept?

Entitlement spending has such a tight grip on the rest of the Federal Government that every day the 111th Congress waits to act is another day that vital discretionary programs, domestic and international, are in jeopardy. That is what we are facing today.

Everyone, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, should be alarmed. As parents and grandparents, we should care that without adequate resources our children won't receive the first-class education they need to compete in the global market. Already the tests show that one-third of U.S. students lack the competency to perform the most basic mathematical computations.

People should care that scientists at the National Institutes of Health who

are so close to finding cures for devastating disease might not have the funding they need for medical research and breakthrough clinical trials that will change the way we live. Cancer, Alzheimer's, autism will all remain shortchanged if we do not have the discretionary funding necessary to put together the pieces.

Think about the roads, the highways, the bridges. Our children and grandchildren may wake up in a dismal scene. These scenarios only scratch the surface on how concerned we should be about America's future.

The ramifications of out-of-control spending reach far beyond our shores. I have always believed in the biblical admonition that to whom much is given, much is required, and have supported efforts, as have many in this Congress, to fight global hunger and poverty and disease. For example, U.S. Government funding for global HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria was nearly $20 billion over the last 5 years. The recent 5-year reauthorization commits $50 billion.

While that is good news for millions hurting around the world, it places America in the position of fulfilling a moral obligation to keep these vulnerable populations alive. Yet where will the money come from if America's foreign assistance dollars continue to shrink because the mandatory spending is taking a growing piece of the pie?

Ecclesiastes 5:5 says, ``It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it.'' I fear, Madam Speaker, that the vow will not be able to be fulfilled because of the deficit spending that we have no way to deal with.

The economic stimulus being shaped by the administration offers an opportunity, and Jim Cooper and I have a bipartisan bill, eight Republicans and eight Democrats, that puts all spending on the table and forces, and forces the Congress to act.

Many Members of the Congress go home and love to give the speeches at the Rotary Clubs talking about how bad the deficit is, but yet when they come back to Washington they do nothing about it. So next week, Madam Speaker, I will offer an amendment in the appropriations bill to put the Cooper-Wolf language into law whereby we can get control of this runaway spending.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to honor my constituent, Cadet Colonel Robert Wilson of Chantilly, Virginia, for his remarkable achievements as a member of the Civil Air Patrol. At a Pentagon presentation and award ceremony on January 5, Cadet Wilson was presented with the General Carl A. Spaatz Award. The Spaatz Award is the Civil Air Patrol's highest cadet honor, presented to cadets who demonstrate extraordinary leadership, character, fitness, and aerospace knowledge.

For every 1,000 cadets, only 2 achieve this distinct honor. Robert first joined the Civil Air Patrol in January 2004 where he served with distinction in the Fairfax Composite Squadron of the National Capital Wing. Upon graduation from high school, he chose to attend Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona, to obtain his bachelor's degree in aerospace engineering.

Robert joined the Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps and is a member of the Arnold Air Society. He plans to continue his education and training to be of service as a U.S. Air Force test pilot. On December 18, 2008, Robert successfully completed the Carl A. Spaatz Exam, the final stage of a long and grueling journey through 16 rigorous skill tests. Having overcome this final obstacle, he now joins the ranks of the Civil Air Patrol's best and brightest as a recipient of the General Carl A. Spaatz Award for outstanding cadets.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Father Richard John Neuhaus who passed away on January 7, 2009. Father Neuhaus was a man of great intellect and a prolific writer who defined the terms of the modern debate regarding the role of religion in public life. His work inspired a countless number of individuals and his legacy which is grounded in his deep faith in God will live on for years to come. The following piece which appeared in the January 19 edition of Newsweek is a fitting tribute to the life and work of Father Neuhaus.

[From Newsweek, Jan. 19, 2009]

Richard John Neuhaus, 1936-2009--An Honorable Christian Soldier

(By George Weigel)

Father Richard John Neuhaus's work will be remembered and

debated for decades. As a Lutheran pastor, he was one of the

first civil-rights activists to identify the pro-life cause

with the moral truths for which he and others had marched in

Selma; he set the terms of the contemporary American church-

state debate and added a new phrase to our public vocabulary

with his 1984 bestseller, ``The Naked Public Square.'' As a

Catholic priest, he helped define new patterns of theological

dialogue between Catholics and evangelicals, and between

Christians and Jews. The journal he launched in the early

1990s, First Things, quickly became, under his leadership and

inspiration, the most important vehicle for exploring the

tangled web of religion and society in the English-speaking

world. All of this suggests that Richard Neuhaus was,

arguably, the most consequential public theologian in America

since the days of Reinhold Niebuhr and John Courtney Murray,

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to raise the issue of the dire financial situation facing our country.

We must come together to face the reality that America is living on borrowed dollars to the tune of $11 trillion in debt and $54 trillion, soon to go higher, in unfunded liabilities with entitlements. We must offer a bipartisan solution to these long-term financial challenges.

In recent days, there have been calls to consider the long-term budget controls in tandem with any economic stimulus package offered. The respected Heritage Foundation released a report last Friday, entitled ``Stimulus Legislation Must Include Budget Reforms to Address Long-term Challenges.''

The report offered support for budget control mechanisms that would be set up through the Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission legislation in the House and the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action effort proposed by Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and Ranking Member, Senator Judd Gregg, in the Senate.

The Heritage publication, which I submit for the record, notes that SAFE ``would have the advantage of a two-step process. Its first phase would be a series of nationwide public hearings to talk frankly about the long-term fiscal problems and the tough options for fixing it and build public support for congressional action on a broad plan of action.''

As our colleagues may recall, the SAFE process would culminate in legislative recommendations to Congress, and like the BRAC process for closing bases, Congress would be required to vote up or down on the plan.

I know there have been questions raised about incorporating long-term budget controls in a short-term stimulus aimed primarily at job creation, but I would argue--and many would argue--that the time is now here to begin to confront the underlying problem of autopilot spending. I don't know about other Members, but my constituents continue to share their frustration with Congress' seeming to know only how to spend money with no regard for the future.

We need to listen to the American people and show them that we can lead and that we can make the difficult choices. The longer we wait and the more consuming entitlement program spending becomes, the more draconian our choices will be. We are mortgaging the future for our children and grandchildren. The bottom line is we cannot deal with the short-term financial problems without thinking about and dealing with the long-term solutions.

The SAFE Commission is not a new idea. Over 110 Members of Congress cosponsored the legislation in the last year. The Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution and the Concord Coalition all helped draft the bill.

Jim Cooper and I joined bipartisan forces in the last Congress, and SAFE has continued to garner support from other leading voices, including the business community--the Virginia and Tennessee Chambers of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Federation of Independent Business.

We all know that it will take all of the political courage that we can muster to reject the partisan and special interest demands and to do what is best for the country. If other Members have a better bipartisan idea that can pass the House, they should be introducing it, and it should be included in the stimulus package.

Not acting on this issue is effectively supporting either the ``do nothing plan'' or the ``maybe this problem will fix itself plan'' or the ``let's just bury our heads in the sand plan,'' but the numbers don't lie. The Nation's future outlook is sobering. Just in the short term, CBO projects that the Federal budget deficit for this fiscal year alone, which started in October, will balloon to $1.2 trillion and perhaps higher.

We offered this SAFE idea as an amendment to the FY09 Financial Services spending bill last June. Unfortunately, we came up one vote short of passage. Congressman Allen Boyd, the founding member of the Blue Dog Coalition, spoke eloquently from his heart in support of the amendment, asking us to envision ourselves 20 years from now, sitting on the front porch and telling our grandchildren about the days we served in Congress.

What will we tell our grandchildren--that we looked the other way, knowing that out-of-control entitlement spending would threaten the living standards of future generations?

The stakes for the country's future may have never been so high. This is clearly an economic issue, but it is also a moral and a generational issue. Abraham Lincoln once said, ``You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.'' I believe the moral component of this issue goes to the heart of who we are as Americans.

This is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. It is an American issue. If we can't find a way to come together on this fundamental issue, I will have serious questions about our ability to find bipartisan solutions that will work for the good of the country.

I am asking our colleagues today to come together, to know that while we served in Congress we did everything we could in our power to provide the kind of security and way of life for our children and for our grandchildren that our parents and grandparents worked so hard to provide for us.

This challenge, too, goes out to the leadership in Congress and to the soon-to-be Obama administration to make this a truly bipartisan effort. Put the SAFE Commission process in the stimulus package and on the fast track to enactment.

I have never been more committed to an issue and to helping to find bipartisan solutions to address our long-term financial sustainability of this country. The American people expect nothing less.

[From the Heritage Foundation, Jan. 9, 2009]

Stimulus Legislation Must Include Budget Reforms To Address Long-Term

Challenges

(By Alison Acosta Fraser)

Congress and President-elect Barack Obama have set their

sights on a massive economic stimulus bill crammed full of

spending projects intended to ``jolt'' the economy into

recovery. By some counts this package may reach $1 trillion,

or nearly 85 percent of the total of all budget bills passed

last year.\1\

This is not the way to spur economic recovery. But even if

it were, Obama already recognizes he faces a difficult

challenge: how to keep the stimulus focused on short-term

deficit spending and avoid a huge, long-term expansion of the

federal government--and with it a dramatic increase in the

staggeringly large unfunded obligations due mainly to Social

Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. To deal with that

challenge, Obama should work with fiscally responsible

Members of Congress to include four key budget reforms in any

stimulus legislation:

1. Put long-term obligations from Social Security,

Medicare, and Medicaid front and center in the budget

process;

2. Establish a bipartisan congressional commission to

develop a package of long-term reforms for entitlements;

3. Establish equitable policies for assessing and enforcing

spending and revenues changes in the budget; and

4. Create a long-term budget for entitlement spending.

Spending and Deficits Hit New Records. Federal spending is

projected to top 25 percent of GDP in 2009, according to the

Congressional Budget Office (CBE), the highest it has been

since World War II, and that is before any stimulus

legislation. The deficit is projected to reach $1.2 trillion

by the end of this year, and any stimulus would likely push

the deficit to more than $1.6 trillion.

Similar large deficits are projected to continue into the

future.\2\ Such deficits are a loud alarm to which

policymakers must listen: Federal spending is out of control.

But even they ignore the deeper fiscal problems of Social

Security and Medicare. These programs together, not even

counting Medicaid, have an unfunded obligation that is

equivalent to a mortgage of $43 trillion.\3\ Future

generations will be forced to pay for those obligations

through higher taxes unless the programs are modernized.

Budget Restraint. While making the case for his massive

short-term stimulus proposal. President-elect Obama

acknowledged the threat entitlements pose to the economy,

noting, ``If we do nothing, then we will continue to see red

ink as far as the eye can see.'' He called budget reform ``an

absolute necessity,'' and he has pledged to confront the

problems from Social Security and Medicare in his budget.

Budget writers in Congress are also alarmed. Senate Budget

Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), called the deficit

``jaw dropping,'' and House Budget Committee Chairman Jack

Spratt (D-SC) was suffering ``sticker shock.'' \4\ They

and their ranking member counterparts have encouraged

lawmakers to tackle the long-term budget problems posed by

these entitlement programs. Conrad and Senator Judd Gregg

(R-NH) have urged Congress to link the stimulus with

action to address the long-term budget crisis.\5\

If President-elect Ohama is serious about fiscal

responsibility, he and responsible Members of Congress must

insist on budget reforms to prevent further deterioration of

an already alarming long-term budget problem and require

action to tackle these challenges directly. To that end, he

and responsible lawmakers should insist on these four key

budget reform measures being included in any stimulus

package:

1. Put long-term obligations from Social Security,

Medicare, and Medicaid front and center in the budget

process, with an up-or-down vote on any budget that will

increase debts on future generations. Such a measure could

easily be incorporated into the annual budget resolution.

This would provide a more accurate and transparent assessment

of the federal government's commitments and provide all

Americans with a vivid picture of the problem. All major

policy changes should be scored over the long term to

indicate what impact they would have on the total unfunded

obligations of the government. That would provide lawmakers

and the public with a better understanding of the true long-

term costs of new legislation. And to put Members on record

on their attitude to burdening our children and

grandchildren, they should have to vote during the annual

budget process if the proposed budget will increase long-term

obligations.\6\

2. Enact a bipartisan congressional commission to develop a

package of long-term reforms that will make these programs

affordable. Bipartisan legislation to implement this type of

commission was introduced in the previous Congress: the SAFE

Act (H.R. 3654), co-sponsored by Representatives Jim Cooper

(D-TN) and Frank Wolf (R-VA), and the Bipartisan Task Force

for Responsible Fiscal Action Act (S. 2063), co-sponsored by

Conrad and Gregg. Under both bills, a commission would craft

detailed recommendations for a fast-track vote in Congress.

The SAFE Act would have the added advantage of a two-step

process. Its first phase would be a series of nationwide

public hearings to talk frankly about the long-term fiscal

problem and the tough options for fixing it and to build

public support for congressional action on a broad plan of

action.\7\

3. Establish equitable policies for assessing and enforcing

spending and revenues changes in the budget. Any budget

enforcement mechanism is based on changes in projected

spending and revenues. The CBO projects a spending baseline

by assuming that all the laws authorizing spending--such as

the highway or farm programs, or even appropriations--will be

extended year after year and spending levels will continue

even if they expire regularly under existing law. But when it

comes to taxes, the CBO's baseline is current statute, and

any rates reductions, deductions, credits. etc., that arc

scheduled to expire are assumed to do so. The lopsided result

is that spending is given a free ride under the baseline

while any reduction in the growth of taxes is assumed to be

temporary

This skewed baseline means current ``PAYGO'' rules are

biased toward tax increases. Thus, for any enforcement

mechanism to be considered fair and to be effective, it must

be based on the same baseline treatment for both spending and

revenues. Indeed, Obama's own advisors have already

criticized this lopsided policy treatment, which stacks the

deck in favor of higher spending and higher taxes.\8\

4. Create a long-term budget for entitlement spending.

Unlike ``discretionary'' programs such as defense and

education, ``mandatory'' entitlement programs like Medicare

and Social Security are not budgeted annually. Entitlement

spending grows on auto-pilot, in conjunction with the

programs' regulatory framework, so there is not an open or

transparent consideration of priorities or budgetary trade-

offs. And since spending levels are simply the product of

individuals using their entitlement, there is in a sense no

budget just a projection of likely total costs. And as they

grow unchecked, these entitlements crowd out other programs

and priorities.

This must change, by constraining entitlement programs with

a real budget. To be sure, retirement programs require longer

time horizons and planning than typical discretionary

programs so that beneficiaries will not face unexpected

annual changes in benefits. Therefore, Congress should create

a long-term framework for a constrained entitlement budget

that would be periodically evaluated to ensure that these

programs are sustainable and affordable over the long term.

This could be done by creating a long-term budget window--for

example, 30 years. All spending would be reviewed every five

years, and the commission could recommend measures for

Congress to ensure that the programs live within this budget

framework.\9\

There are many reasons to be concerned over the

unprecedented stimulus spending now being proposed, including

the ineffectiveness of Keynesian pump priming, the perils of

such an immense hike in government spending, and the creation

of new permanent government programs. With the first baby

boomers recently retiring, America is experiencing the first

waves of the entitlement tsunami. The stimulus legislation

could set the stage for a permanent sea of red ink and an

even larger tsunami of debt. Substantive budget reforms are

needed to prevent such a scenario from occurring.

Truly Serious? If President-elect Obama insists on a

massive spending bill, he must ensure it does not result in

huge permanent new government programs and thus potentially

trillions of dollars in new burdens on our children and

grandchildren. He must demonstrate his commitment to tackle

the long-term entitlement challenges by working with Members

of Congress to build sound budget process reform measures

into the stimulus legislation. If he does not do so, the

young Americans who voted for him should question how serious

he is about protecting their financial future.

endnotes

1. Estimated FY 2008 appropriations $1.154 trillion, prior

to all enacted supplementals. Office of Management and

Budget, ``Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year

2009: Historical Tables,'' Table 5.4, at www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/budget/fy2009/hist .html (January 9, 2009).

2. See Brian M. Riedl, ``CBO Budget Baseline Shows Historic

Surge in Spending and Debt,'' Heritage Foundation WebMemo No.

2193, January 7, 2009, at http://www .heritage.org/research/budget,wm2193 (January 9, 2009).

3. Department of the Treasury, ``2008 Financial Report of

the United States Government,'' December 15, 2008, p. 41, at

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html (January 9, 2009).

4. Lori Montgomery, ``Congress Urges Spending Restraint,''

The Washington Post, January 8, 2009, at http://www. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/ AR2009010701156.html?hpid=topnew (January 9, 2009.)

5. Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg. ``A Fiscal Battle

on Two Fronts,'' The Washington Post, January 5, 2009, at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/ 04/AR2009010401436_pf.html (January 9, 2009).

6. Alison Acosta Fraser, ``Federal Budget Should Include

Long-Term Obligations from Entitlement Programs,'' Heritage

Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 1004, June 22, 2006, at

http://ww.heritage.org/Research/Budget/em1004.cfm.

7. Alison Acosta Fraser, ``The SAFE Commission Act (H.R.

3654) and the Long-Term Fiscal Challenge,'' testimony before

the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives,

June 25, 2008, at http://www .heritage.org/Research/Budget/tst062508b.cfm.

8. J.D. Foster, Ph.D., ``Obama to CBO Revenue Baseline:

Nuts--and He's Right!,'' Heritage Foundation WebMemo No.

2019, August 11, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/ Budget/wm2019.cfm.

9. Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., Alison Acosta Fraser and Other

Authors, ``Taking Back our Fiscal Future,'' Heritage

Foundation White Paper, March 31, 2008, at http://www .heritage.org/Research/Budget/wp0408.cfm.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the entire Virginia Congressional delegation, the people of the 10th District of Virginia, and everyone who uses Washington Dulles International Airport, I want to thank Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters for her efforts in giving final Federal approval to the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project.

The Department of Transportation signed off on the project committing some $900 million in Federal funds to this project, which has been discussed and in the planning stages for decades. It is gratifying to see this project become a reality and it would not have been possible without Secretary Peters's bold leadership, personal attention, and ability to recognize the critical need for congestion relief in the Dulles corridor.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues a letter I sent yesterday to Secretary Rice regarding the plight of Iraq's struggling Christian community.

It is my hope that people of faith throughout the country contact both the incoming and outgoing administrations and urge immediate action to protect this ancient community, some of whom still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, January 8, 2009.

Hon. Condoleezza Rice,

Secretary of State,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Rice: Millions around the world just

celebrated Christmas. In churches and homes throughout our

own country children learned of Mary, Joseph, a census, a

stable--of Nazareth and Bethlehem and other far away places.

These lands of old that are found throughout the Bible are

still home to ancient Christian communities with deep

spiritual and cultural roots. In fact, with the exception of

Israel, the Bible contains more references to the cities,

regions and nations of ancient Iraq than any other country.

The patriarch Abraham came from a city in Iraq called Ur.

Isaac's bride, came from northwest Iraq. Jacob spent 20 years

in Iraq and his sons (the 12 tribes of Israel) were born in

northwest Iraq. A remarkable spiritual revival as told in the

book of Jonah occurred in Nineveh. The events of the book of

Esther took place in Iraq as did the account of Daniel in the

Lion's Den.

Tragically Iraq's ancient Christian community is facing

extinction on this administration's watch. According to the

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF),

Iraq's Christian population has fallen from as many as 1.4

million in 2003 to between 500,000 and 700,000 at present.

USCIRF also reports that ``while Christians and other

religious minorities represented only approximately 3 percent

of the pre-2003 Iraqi population, they constitute

approximately 15 and 20 percent of registered Iraqi refugees

in Jordan and Syria, respectively, and Christians account for

35 and 64 percent, respectively, of all registered Iraqi

refugees in Lebanon and Turkey.''

It is critical to note, as the figures above indicate, that

the violence and intimidation that Iraq's Christians and

other ethno-religious communities have faced is targeted. In

July 2008, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration

& Refugee Services said this about the minority religious

communities: ``These groups, whose home has been what is now

Iraq for many centuries, are literally being obliterated--not

because they are fleeing generalized violence but because

they are being specifically and viciously victimized by

Islamic extremists and, in some cases, common criminals.''

We need a comprehensive policy or even a point person at

the embassy in Baghdad to address the unique situation of

these defenseless minorities. An article in Christianity

Today by Philip Jenkins described what was happening this

way: ``What we are seeing then is the death of one of the

world's greatest Christian enterprises.''

I urge you, in your final days as Secretary of State, to

take dramatic action on behalf of this hurting population and

a good starting point is the recent recommendations put

forward by USCIRF. I respectfully request a response from

you, rather than the assistant secretary for Legislative

Affairs.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Presidential Library Donation Reform Act.

I have long been troubled by the fact that fund-raising for Presidential libraries is completely unregulated and therefore ripe for corruption.

By making information about donations publicly accessible--including the amount, date of the contribution and the name of the contributor-- through a free, searchable, database managed by National Archives, we take an important first step toward the accountability due these national landmarks.

However, I do not think that this legislation goes far enough as it does not limit donations in any way, it only discloses them.

While the majority of people who contribute to Presidential libraries do so for the right reason, there are some who do not, including those who do not share our national interests.

In fact, while donations to Presidential election campaigns are limited in amount, and restricted altogether from foreign governments, amazingly, foreign individuals and foreign corporations can donate to Presidential libraries even when the President is still in office.

In November I wrote to President Bush urging him not to accept any money from the Chinese government to help fund his Presidential library.

I did not want his library to be tainted by contributions from a government with such a deplorable human rights record. I am similarly concerned by the $41 million that former President Clinton's foundation has collected from foreign nations including the likes of Saudi Arabia, which is widely known to promote the radical Wahhabi interpretation of Islam within its own borders and in schools and madrassas around the world.

Transparency in government builds accountability. And accountability is good for our democracy. It is long overdue for the American public to know who is contributing to these libraries, and how much, especially when it involves sitting Presidents. This legislation will help--but we must do more.

Madam Speaker, we saw yesterday the CBO projection that the Federal budget deficit for this fiscal year, which started in October, will balloon to $1.2 trillion. A member of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, called it ``jaw-dropping.'' And our budget chairman, John Spratt, said he got ``sticker shock.''

President-elect Obama has predicted that ``potentially we've got trillion dollar deficits for years to come.'' President-elect Obama then said, ``if we do nothing, then we will continue to see red ink as far as the eye can see.''

Most Members know that our country is facing a critical crisis, and if we fail to find solutions that will halt a mortgaging of our children and grandchildren's future, I seriously consider and believe the 111th Congress will really go down as a failed Congress.

We have an opportunity at hand to deal with this issue, and we need to do it in a bipartisan way. There's a bipartisan plan on the table that Congressman Cooper of Tennessee and I have, called the Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission, that sets up a bipartisan panel to put every spending program and tax policy on the table and require this institution that has avoided its responsibility to vote it on up or down.

Today's Washington Post, in this editorial which I will submit for the Record, talked about our effort and the tough decisions that Congress faces. The editorial said, ``Ideally, Congress could make the necessary hard choices through the normal legislative process. Its repeated failure to do so, however, may necessitate a commission to recommend reforms for the House and Senate to accept or reject.''

Amen. The Post is right. Unless we do the Cooper-Wolf concept of a commission, this Congress will not deal with the issue. And if we don't do it now, both parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, will have failed the American people, and both parties will have to explain to the American people their failure to act in the best interest of future generations.

Others have spoken out. Ben Bernanke, Fed Chairman said, ``The quality of the future that we will endow to our children and our grandchildren will depend in important measure on how we rise to the occasion.''

David Broder, a respected columnist for The Washington Post said, ``The need for such a bipartisan approach (to examine the future of entitlement programs) is evident.''

Robert Samuelson, Washington Post columnist, Newsweek said, ``What would distinguish this commission from its many predecessors is that Congress would have to vote on its recommendations.''

David Brooks, from the New York Times, said ``The Commission would come up with a plan to restore fiscal balance, and the plan would immediately go to Congress for an up-or-down vote.''

John Snow, the 73rd Treasury Secretary, said, ``I agree that because of the huge debt overhang we face a looming financial crisis and I know of no better approach than the SAFE Commission idea.''

Editorials from the Richmond Times Dispatch said, ``The Cooper-Wolf bill would give the commission some teeth by requiring Congress to take an up-or-down vote on the recommendations of the 16-member bipartisan panel.''

The Washington Times said, ``Two rays of bipartisan sunlight appear to be trying to shine through the clouds casting dark shadows on the Nation's long-term fiscal horizon. The two rays of bipartisanship sunshine take the form of legislative proposals working their way through the House and the Senate.''

And there were many others. Policy groups across the political spectrum,

including the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution, the Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget also have embraced the SAFE Commission.

Make no mistake. This could well be the hardest economic issue our Nation will ever be faced with, but we cannot afford to wait.

I will end with a statement by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was a Lutheran pastor who stood up to the Nazis and was executed, hung in Flossenberg Prison when the artillery was coming, the western ally artillery was coming to liberate Germany. He was hung by the Nazis. Here's what Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, and I think he was exactly right when he said, ``The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.''

Will this Congress, will this 111th Congress meet the Dietrich Bonhoeffer test? I don't know. But I'm going to do everything I can, offer amendments on the floor, amendments in committee, to see that this Congress is forced to deal with this issue so that we can honestly say to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, we have tried and done whereby we, however, are a moral society, and we have left a good environment and society for our children.

[From the The Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2009]

Years To Come

``FISCAL SPACE'' is an economist's term for a country's

capacity to borrow and spend its way out of recession without

risking exorbitant interest rates and inflation later on.

Generally speaking, the more public debt a country already

has as a share of its economy, the less new debt it can take

on.

As President-elect Barack Obama and Congress contemplate a

fiscal stimulus package that could total hundreds of billions

of dollars, they still have some fiscal space to work with.

At $6.3 trillion, the publicly held national debt is about 45

percent of the $14 trillion economy--not much above the post-

World War II average debt-to-GDP ratio of 43 percent. But the

space is shrinking rapidly. According to new figures from the

Congressional Budget Office, federal debt is rising at the

fastest rate since World War II. It is estimated at $1.2

trillion in fiscal 2009, or 8 percent of gross domestic

product. This stunning number reflects both the direct effect

of the recession on tax revenue and spending and the high

cost of measures taken to combat the downturn, such as the

financial sector bailout. And it is likely to be matched or

exceeded when the Obama stimulus plan kicks in.

Mr. Obama was just leveling with the American people when

he noted yesterday that the country faces `` trillion-dollar

deficits for years to come'' unless policymakers ``make a

change in the way that Washington does business.'' The

question, of course, is how to change. Though Mr. Obama's

appointment of an efficiency-minded chief performance officer

sent a useful signal, the real answers are legislative. The

stimulus package must not bloat the government's permanent

financial commitments. According to a recently published

International Monetary Fund paper, appropriate measures

include increased transfers or temporary tax cuts to

consumers at the bottom and middle of the income scale; aid

to state and local governments; and repairs and improvements

(especially energy-saving ones) to existing infrastructure.

The IMF recommends against increasing the federal payroll,

cutting corporate tax rates or letting companies deduct their

recent losses against past years' profits. The stimulus plan

should include a plan for offsetting spending cuts and

revenue increases once the economy recovers.

Over the long run, investors will finance the U.S.

government at reasonable rates only if it tackles its huge

unfunded health-care and pension commitments. Unchecked, the

cost of providing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to

77 million retiring baby boomers could push the debt-to-GDP

ratio up to nearly 300 percent by 2005, according to a

December 2007 CBO report.

Ideally, Congress would make the necessary hard choices

through the normal legislative process. Its repeated failure

to do so, however, may necessitate a commission to recommend

reforms for the House and Senate to accept or reject. Reps.

Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) and Sens. Kent

Conrad (D-N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) have offered

proposals for such a panel. Hard as it is, jumpstarting the

U.S. economy will be easy compared with securing its

financial future. But Mr. Obama and the Congress must do

both.