Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, everyone should be able to support the upcoming Cooper amendment, whether you're for or against the farm bill. It really doesn't make any difference because my amendment doesn't affect 99 percent of what's in the farm bill, but it does affect 1 percent.

And what is that? It's called the crop insurance industry, a little known curious part of the insurance world that is completely dominated by 16 fabulously rich companies. These companies, at taxpayer expense, made $2.8 billion in profits, underwriting gains, in the last 5 years. I don't begrudge anyone big profits out in the real world; but when it's at taxpayer subsidy expense, I get a little worried.

So what my amendment would do is two things. Number one, it would reform that industry and reform it in the way that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has recommended, and I'm proud that they strongly support my amendment.

But it also does something else, and we only found this out yesterday, and this is very important because it could well not only save the bill, it could save the reputation of many of our colleagues in the House because there is a provision in the bill today that I'm sure was unintended. I have no idea how it got in there, how it found a place on page 668 of the bill. It just happens to enrich forever these 16 crop insurance companies.

Now, what does that little slender provision do which the Bush administration has already said allows them to collude to raise prices for consumers and the government? That little provision allows them an antitrust exemption, an antitrust exemption that, of course, was never referred to the Judiciary Committee. No one on the Judiciary Committee knows about it. I haven't found anybody on the Agriculture Committee who knew about it, but it's a long-sought goal of the crop insurance industry so that they can collude to price-fix, to bid-rig in their negotiations with the government so they can get even more subsidies, because apparently $2.8 billion in profits in the last 5 years was not enough.

So my amendment is the only way to cut out that provision. Unless some of our colleagues are not attuned to antitrust laws, these antitrust obligations are not just wrong. Talking in contract negotiations is supposed to be an open-bidding process, a real free market competition. This sort of behavior is not just wrong; it is criminal, criminal.

So unintentionally and apparently unbeknownst to most folks on the committee, we are giving them a license to conduct what would otherwise be criminal antitrust behavior. This is wrong. This is so wrong it should not be part of any of this bill, and I am sure that no one intended it, although it just happens to benefit these 16 companies.

Now, these are not bad people who work for these companies; but it's a rotten system, and it doesn't need to be destroyed, but it does need to be reformed; and we need to follow the guidelines of the Bush administration in reforming it because I haven't found anybody else who's willing to take on this task.

But surely this can bring us together in a bipartisan fashion to cure this flaw in the bill.

Modification to Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cooper

Mr. Chairman, in order to discourage this illegal criminal behavior, I ask unanimous consent for a modification of my amendment so that it can be handled properly according to parliamentary fashion.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just spoke knows that we discussed this precise matter at dinner last night. He was not caught unawares at all. We discussed it at some length at dinner.

Second, it is the prerogative of any Member of this House to defend the honor of this institution. I am personally extremely disappointed that our provision allowing what would otherwise be antitrust violation, wrongful, possibly criminal behavior, would be allowed to be inserted in this bill, apparently without the knowledge of anyone on the committee, certainly not of anyone on the Judiciary Committee.

I regret his objection. But my intention is clear. We need to reform crop insurance in America. I only found out about this issue, as the gentleman said correctly, because I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Government Reform Committee.

Under the hearings led by Henry Waxman, we did more to uncover abuse in this area than the Agriculture Committee ever did. In fact, when I attended the agriculture hearing, only four members of that committee were present to hear the government witnesses to describe the ongoing abuse in the crop insurance industry, witnesses from the GAO and USDA

Will the gentleman yield?

I have the highest respect for the gentleman and for all the members of the Agriculture Committee. I am sure this was not intentional. That's why I am trying to correct the problem.

When I looked into it, 84 percent of the savings that are in the agriculture bill from crop insurance happened only in year 5. Nothing happens in year 1, 2, 3, 4. Year 5 is the year in which the next agriculture bill will be drafted. It's very unlikely that those cuts will ever occur, when 84 percent of them are back-loaded in year 5. So that was my concern about those cuts.

But the larger provision, allowing these collusive discussions and negotiations with the government, surely the gentleman is disturbed by those.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we should all be able to agree on in this House regarding the upcoming farm bill is the need to reform crop insurance. The folks back home are demanding that we cut Federal spending, and this is not only a great way to do it, it is probably the best way to do it.

There are only 16 crop insurance companies in America, but, sadly, each one is addicted to corporate welfare from Washington. Reforming these companies can save at least $2 billion a year without hurting a single farmer. Let's stop these middlemen from taking 40 cents out of every dollar the taxpayers offer to help the American farmer.

The Cooper-Waxman-McGovern amendment unites this House, from conservative Blue Dogs to progressive Members. It is a bipartisan approach. We simply adopt the reform proposals of the Bush administration. That is all we do. These are not radical ideas; these are USDA approved. But these ideas will save over $2 billion a year. It won't kill the industry; it will just trim back the massive subsidy flows.

Farm bill supporters should also endorse these because they reduce the

need for new revenue, and the Agriculture Committee itself recognizes the need for reform. They just want to do it in the next farm bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, for anyone interested in reforming crop insurance, there are two ways to do it tonight. This way through comprehensive agriculture reform, the Kind amendment, is probably the best way to do it. But there will be another way to do it later on. We need to reform crop insurance.

Everyone who has studied it realizes it. The question is when. I suggest the time is now, because there are literally billions of dollars of corporate welfare we can and must be saving starting tonight. These 16 companies, there are only 16 companies, made $2.8 billion, at taxpayer expense, profit in the last 5 years. It's an outrageous system once you look into it.

The GAO and others discovered that 40 cents of every dollar that is supposed to go to the farmer, in fact, goes to the insurance middleman. This is not right. We need to get more money to the farmers, not less. Let's reform the crop insurance system. The Kind amendment is the right way to do it. Another way to do it will be the Cooper amendment.

Support the Kind amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is no Member of this House that I respect more than the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey. He has the toughest job in this body: To chair the full Appropriations Committee, to carry one of the largest bills and to do such a superb job at reconciling the interests of 435 Members of this body from all corners of the Nation. So it is with great regret, Mr. Chairman, that I rise to offer any amendment to this bill. But the need is great.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities all across America need help, and they need help now. And the chairman, to his credit, provides help. He upped the amount by $11 million to $249 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. He also has some $57 million for Historically Black Graduate Schools. But, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that is not enough.

That is why my amendment would add $125 million to these marvelous institutions. It is about a 40 percent increase instead of a 4 percent increase in their funding. I would take this money from the Department of Education, their administrative fund. I will admit this is not my favorite place to get the money. But under the rules, I have to get the money at a place in the bill after page 90.

So my intent is this: To give HBCUs, Historically Black Institutions, higher priority and much higher funding. I trust the discretion of the Appropriations Committee to get that money from an appropriate place in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Memphis, Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, these are marvelous Historically Black Institutions and today they serve a wide spectrum, people of all races and backgrounds. But, most importantly, so many of these students are first-generation college students. They deserve a chance to live the American dream; to become the doctors, the lawyers, the artists, the poets, the engineers and the scientists of the future.

These institutions serve a vital role in our society. As the gentleman from Memphis pointed out, their funding has essentially been frozen for the last 4 or 5 years. To offer them only a 4\1/2\ percent increase this year is good, but it is not enough. That is why I think we need to reach deep, to increase the funding substantially, so that they know that the year 2007 was the year in which they saw a dramatic increase as opposed to the prior year of funding freeze.

I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey. My wish is not to add to the difficulty of his task. But so many of these institutions are teetering on the edge. They need help, they need help now, and they need large amounts of help. That is why we have offered this amendment to increase funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities by $125 million. Please support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is no Member of this Congress I admire more than Chairman Obey. He has the toughest job in Congress, to lead the entire Appropriations Committee, to carry the single largest appropriations bill of $153 billion, and to reconcile the needs and desires of 435 Members of Congress from all corners of the Nation. Another reason the job is so tough is that Chairman Obey also has to listen to more blather than anyone else in Congress. So it is with great regret that I rise to offer any amendment to his handiwork.

My amendment would increase the funding for historically Black colleges and universities, and for historically Black graduate schools by $125 million. The chairman's mark already includes $249.5 million for these schools and $57 million for HBGLs, so my amendment offers a 40-percent increase in HBCU funding. My amendment would take that funding from the Department of Education Departmental Management Program Administration Account. I would agree that this is perhaps not the ideal source of funding, but due to procedural rules that limited me to finding offsets after page 90 in the bill, that is the best I was allowed to do.

My intent is to give higher priority--and much higher funding--to historically Black colleges, universities, and graduate schools, and that their increase in funding be offset in ways that the Appropriations Committee deems most appropriate in conference.

The key point is to boost these marvelous historically Black institutions. Most of these schools were born soon after the Civil War and have served America well by training the doctors, lawyers, scientists, poets, business people, professors, engineers, etc. that America needs. Today they serve Blacks, Whites, and a wide range of other races and ethnic backgrounds. Many of these students are first- generation college students trying to live the American dream by getting a good education and a good job. I have the honor of representing three of these institutions in Nashville: Fisk University, Meharry Medical College, Tennessee State University, as well as American Baptist College. But there are dozens of historically black colleges scattered over dozens of States. Many of today's Members of Congress attended these fine schools, and probably would not be in Congress without the education they received from these institutions. All of these historically Black colleges and universities are a vital part of America's history, and our future.

The chairman's mark already gives these historically Black institutions a 4.5 percent increase. I appreciate that, but I cannot help but notice that, after 4 years of no increase in Federal funding, that 4.5 percent is not enough to do the job, in fact, it's not enough to even offset the effects of inflation. These historically Black colleges, universities, and graduate schools need more of an increase than that--much more--to continue their extraordinary mission of reaching the poor, minorities, and the disenfranchised of all races, and to help them get the education they need.

Please support the Cooper amendment to increase Federal aid to historically Black colleges and universities. This is your chance to make sure that everyone has a better chance to live the American dream.

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

Madam Speaker, I was absent on Tuesday, June 5th, 2007. Had I been

present for votes, I would have voted ``yes'' on each of the five votes taken: H. Res. 397, H. Res. 422, H. Res. 430, H. Res. 451, and H. Res. 452.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the students, teachers and administrators of the music department at Hunters Lane High School in Nashville, Tennessee. They are tonight celebrating a well-deserved designation as a Signature School by the Grammy Foundation and the Gibson Foundation, an honor given to just 22 schools across the country.

Hunters Lane is one of Nashville' s fine public high schools, and in a city known for its music, Hunters Lane's program lives up to our community's highest standards. The Warriors boast a marching band, a concert band, a jazz band and a drum line, in addition to a bustling choral music program, all of which perform to great acclaim. Indeed, the students at Hunters Lane are a talented bunch.

I was pleased, Madam Speaker, but not surprised to learn that Hunters Lane was being recognized with a $5,000 grant from the Grammy Foundation and the Gibson Foundation to benefit the school's guitar and piano programs. Hunters Lane was selected from over 20,000 schools and 700 applicants. Clearly, their music program is the cream of the crop.

I am particularly proud of Hunters Lane's commitment to music education. Just two weeks ago in the House of Representatives, we passed a resolution I offered with my colleague Mr. Porter expressing the sense of Congress that ``music education grounded in rigorous instruction is an important component of a well-rounded academic curriculum and should be available to every student in every school.'' Music education, the House found, helps students ``analyze, solve problems, communicate, and work cooperatively.'' Soon I expect the Senate to concur in this matter, and the importance of school-based music education to youth development will be resolved by the full 110th Congress.

Truly, Hunters Lane High School expresses our community's commitment to music education, and I hope that this honor only furthers the school's goals. That is why today I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the students, teachers and administrators of Hunters Lane, who have worked hard to make their music program one of the best in the country. May this award inspire other public schools across the nation to follow in their footsteps.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues from Tennessee and across the country who are honoring the Lady Vols for their terrific performance in the recent basketball tournament. We also want to honor, of course, the Scarlet Knights from Rutgers, all the teams that participated in this wonderful tournament and did a wonderful job; but particularly from Tennessee, we want to honor the Lady Vols, and their incredible coach, Pat Head Summitt.

I have the honor of representing part of Cheatham County, and Pat Summitt claims that as her home, and we are very proud that she is from there as the winningest coach in NCAA history.

So everything that should be said I think has been said. I would just like to associate myself with the remarks because Tennesseans and all Americans, I think, are proud of the performance of the Lady Vols.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

I thank my colleagues for supporting this effort to highlight the importance of music education in our schools.

A lot of folks who have had the privilege of a musical education take it for granted, but 30 million or more of our children across this country every day are being deprived of that chance to not only experience the joy of music but, as my colleagues have mentioned, the increased enhanced learning abilities that music offers, and also the ability of music to deter people from gangs and drugs and other undesirable activities.

Music education is a very important part of our education. For anyone who has seen the movie ``Mr. Holland's Opus'' featuring Richard Dreyfuss, that was a wonderful film demonstration of the importance of music in the lives of that particular high school. But it is true of every high school and every middle school and every elementary school across our country.

Whether it is band or orchestra, or whether it is students on their own learning the guitar or other instruments, it is a wonderful way to not only enjoy life but to enhance your skills.

Mr. Speaker, I represent Nashville, Tennessee, which is Music City U.S.A. We have some of the most talented and creative musicians on the planet, and they happen to choose to live in our wonderful city.

You can't tell it by driving down the streets, but there are some 3,000 private recording studios in the basements and attics of people's homes as they put their music and their thoughts on tape for the pleasure and enjoyment and the education of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your help in allowing this measure to be brought to the floor. It has passed the House on two previous Congresses. We are hoping that this time the Senate will also see fit to do the right thing and pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I was absent on Monday, March 12 for personal reasons. Had I been present for votes, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of the three votes taken: H.R. 85, H. Res. 136, and H. Res. 89.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of Dr. Benjamin Franklin Byrd, Jr., a servant of the common good and fine citizen of our community.

Dr. Byrd was born on May 18, 1918, as the son of Benjamin Franklin and Ida Brister Byrd. An Eagle Scout and ROTC participant, Dr. Byrd attended the Duncan College Preparatory School in Nashville and received his A.B. degree from Vanderbilt University in 1937. In 1941, he earned his M.D. from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

During his medical residency, Pearl Harbor was attacked, and Dr. Byrd enlisted in the U.S. Army without hesitation. He was assigned to the 29th Infantry Division, 104th

Medical Battalion, a unit of the 116th Regimental Combat Team (RCT).

Along with the other men in his unit, Dr. Byrd stormed Omaha Beach on D-Day. He headed up the medical evaluation of wounded soldiers and continued on with the unit into St. Lo a month later, as the men fought across France and Germany. Later, Dr. Byrd served as Commanding Officer of the 314th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (MASH).

By then a Lieutenant Colonel, Dr. Byrd returned from the victorious war effort having earned many honors: the European Theatre ribbon from the Normandy/Omaha Beach invasion, the Bronze Star with two oak leaf clusters after St. Lo, the Purple Heart, and the Silver Star at the Roer River crossing in Germany.

Carrying with him the memories and lessons from WorId War II, Dr. Byrd proceeded to focus his energy on the care and cure for patients suffering from breast cancer. He advocated mammography as the best tool for early diagnosis and was a main proponent of the transformation of Nashville's Vanderbilt University Medical School into one of the preeminent cancer research centers in the nation.

Over the next few years Dr. Byrd served as a Professor of Clinical Surgery at Vanderbilt University Hospital, Professor of Clinical Surgery at Meharry Medical College, Chairman of the Board of Overseers of the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, and Chief of Surgery at St. Thomas Hospital from 1964 to 1970. In addition, he served as President of the Medical Staff at the Junior League Home for Crippled Children and was President of the Nashville Academy of Medicine.

Dr. Byrd served as President of the Tennessee Division of the American Cancer Society in 1963 and served on its national board of directors from 1965 onward. From 1975 to 1976, he served as President of the American Cancer Society (National) and the organization awarded him its first Ted Marrs award. Internationally, Dr. Byrd served as Chairman of the Cancer Study Group in the USSR in 1976, the People's Republic of China in 1977, and the National Conference on Breast Cancer in 1979.

Dr. Byrd served as a member of the Board of Governors of the American College of Surgeons from 1973 to 1979, Fellow of the Southern Surgical Association, Fellow of the American Surgical Association, Chairman of the Surgery Section of the Southern Medical Association, President of the Vanderbilt University Medical School Alumni Association and President of the Southern Surgical Congress. In 1977, he received the Distinguished Service Award and in 1974 was named a Fellow of the Societe Intemationale de Chirurgie. He also received the Outstanding Physician of the Year Award from the Tennessee Medical Association in 1986 and the Distinguished Physician Award from the Tennessee Hospital Association in 1992.

Although much of Dr. Benjamin Byrd's life revolved around his passion for using medicine to alleviate human suffering, he was also a devoted leader in his church. He served at the First Presbyterian Church as Sunday School Director, as Deacon, and as Elder. He also served as Chairman of the Board of Cheekwood from 1971 to 1973, President of the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce from 1984 to 1985, Chairman of the Hermitage Board of Trustees from 1982 to 1990, President of the Exchange Club in 1966, and President of Leadership Nashville in 1983. He was a Trustee of Senior Citizens, the Cumberland Museum, the University School of Nashville, and Historic Nashville, and he served as a director and member of the Trust Board of Commerce Union Bank. He also served as a director of the NLT Corporation.

In 1986, Dr. Byrd was named Outstanding Nashvillian for his role as President of the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce. Through his leadership and determination, the city became an American Airlines hub and gained the Saturn automotive plant, among many significant achievements. Later, in 1988, Dr. Byrd received the Human Relations Award from the National Council of Christians and Jews.

Raymond N. DuBois, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and holder of the B.F. Byrd, Jr., Professor of Oncology chair, said, ``Dr. Byrd is really one of the pillars of the Vanderbilt- Ingram Cancer Center. He worked extremely hard to make sure that we could have one of the best cancer centers in the country. I have never met anyone who was so dedicated to the cause and so willing to help out in every way possible. He will be missed greatly.''

Madam Speaker, today I rise to echo those sentiments and pay tribute to a fine pillar of our community. Dr. Byrd's achievements have paved the way for future generations, his selfless actions have provided comfort to neighbors near and far, and his quiet integrity reflects warmly on all who were fortunate enough to know him. I add my modest words of praise today to the many richly deserved honors he received in life. Moreover, I ask the House to join me in celebrating the life of Dr. Benjamin Byrd, his legacy of service to the greater good, and the inspiration he will continue to provide for family, friends, and all citizens of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia. Mr. Scott does an outstanding job, not only representing his constituents, but also helping our Nation get on the right track.

As the gentleman has mentioned, every single Blue Dog has that sign outside his or her office. It is a troubling sign, because it shows that in our 230-plus year history, our Nation has borrowed $8.7 trillion. That is a lot of money. Sadly, $3 trillion-plus have come in the last several years. So we are on an accelerating borrowing pace. That means the interest bills, the interest we are putting on our kids and grandkids, is mounting very rapidly.

Since that number is so hard for anyone to understand, it is important that you drill down and see what your individual share is. Every listener tonight, everyone in this Chamber and back home, their individual share, man, woman or child, even an infant in this country is born with a $29,000 debt before they are even able to breathe their first breath of air.

But as troubling as that number is, I am worried that doesn't tell the whole story, because there is a Treasury document here that is called The Financial Report of the United States Government, put out by the U.S. Treasury. It says that using modern business-like accounting, unlike the accounting that the Federal Government traditionally uses, it says that according to modern accounting, our real debt burden isn't $8.7 trillion, as massive as that is, this document from the U.S. Treasury Department says the real debt burden is $50 trillion. That is our fiscal exposure.

It goes on to say that our individual share of that massive debt is not $29,000. I wish it were that small. This document says that your individual share, even the moment you are born in this country, is $170,000. $170,000. That is a terrific burden.

I hope that this accounting isn't right, but I am worried that this is the right accounting. Most Americans know already that today the U.S. stock market fell over 400 points. As a percent, that is not great. It is 3.3 percent. But it is still a worrisome fall. The Chinese stock market fell even more today. It fell at least 9 percent, or at least the Shanghai market.

We live in an interconnected global economy. That means to me we need Blue Dog commonsense now more than ever, because the Blue Dogs are for a strong economy, we are for a growing economy, we are for sensibly living within our means and applying commonsensical economic principles to our budget and economic matters.

So I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia for leading this Special Order and leading our Nation to a path of better prosperity for our kids and grandkids.

This is called The Financial Report of the United States Government. It is an official U.S. Government document. You can get it on the Web if you go to the U.S. Treasury Web site. It has an introductory letter by the Secretary of Treasury, who is now Henry Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker.

This document interests me, if is not that long, it describes all the Federal document, but it is the only government document that uses modern, business-like accounting.

Every business back home in our districts, every business with revenues over $5 million, is required by law to use this accounting. That is what businessmen and women and Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, Optimist Clubs all over America understand. And they are pretty shocked when they learn that the Federal Government doesn't abide by those accounting rules. We cook the books.

We pretend that we can just use what is called cash accounting, which is very simplistic. Only the smallest businesses in America are even allowed to use that. But here the Federal Government with a budget of $3 trillion a year uses cash accounting.

This is the President's budget. This is what it looks like. You can also get this on the Web. But it won't tell you anywhere in this document they are using simplistic cash accounting. They want you to believe that you are getting the true story.

But even if you read this document, you will see that according to the President's numbers and, of course, they put it on the very last page here, it is on page 372, that the debt in the next 5 years, even though the President has promised us that he is going to balance the budget, this says the debt is going up $3 trillion more.

So it won't be $8.7 trillion when Bush leaves office, when his successor is elected, it will be closer to $11 trillion or $12 trillion. That is fundamentally irresponsible and it means that the burden on our kids and grandkids is going to be even more massive than we can imagine.

So whether you use the President's budget or his own Secretary of Treasury's budget, we need to be focusing on these matters.

The Blue Dogs are the leading group in Congress to focus on this. No constituent passes our doors without seeing that sign and reminding them that the Federal Government is borrowing way too much money and putting way too much of an obligation on our kids and our grandkids.

The gentleman is exactly right. I believe the Chinese currently hold almost $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds. They are our fastest growing lender. They have aggressively purchased U.S. Treasury bonds, and that means increasingly we are paying interest to the Chinese. Our economies are interconnected. I worry that it is a national security issue. It is not just an economic issue anymore because when you get that beholden to another country, if they have any instability or problem or any reluctance to loan us more money, then we have a much bigger problem in this country.

I hope that won't come to pass. I hope that we can get our Nation on a sounder footing. I wish the President had offered us a sounder budget when he gave us one just a few weeks ago in his State of the Union message. We need to work hard on this in the next several weeks to improve it and make sure our Nation is on a stronger course in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I disapprove of the President's January 10 decision to surge 20,000 new troops into Iraq. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, although the President says that the 20,000 new troops constitute a change in his strategy, all I am seeing are a repeat of the same failed policies of the past. America has sent additional troops to Iraq before, several times, without result. America has tried to work with the Maliki government, and it has not been very successful.

Mr. Speaker, we have to admit that this approach is not working. The President himself has admitted that his patience is running out with the Maliki government. It is really just a question of whether Congress should try to force President Bush and Vice President Cheney to change course now or whether they will do it several months from now. I say that the time for change is now.

It is true that Congress has no business micromanaging a war. No one here in Congress is Commander in Chief. It is also true that we must not shirk from our responsibilities to support our brave men and women in uniform, and we need to support the brave Iraqis who have stood with us and the good people of the region, but we do deserve a better strategy. More of the same is just not good enough, either for our soldiers or for the good people of the region.

President Bush, we have to admit, has shown a distressing stubbornness regarding Iraq. Although former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld offered to resign twice due to his own embarrassment with his failures, President Bush refused to accept his resignation for years, and finally only accepted it the day after the last election. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that if the President had accepted that resignation earlier, not only would Pentagon policy have been different; the core of the war might well have been different.

I think that the President needs a nudge now, and this resolution will offer it. True, it is nonbinding, but that is a good thing. Congress is not cutting off money for the troops, nor should we. We are sending a message to the President.

Now, I will admit that it is a shame that we do have to do it this way; but on this issue, the President has refused to heed the advice of so many of his own top generals, of his own father, of the Iraq Study Group, of our few remaining allies, or of the leadership of this equal branch of government. It is also a shame that today in America there is a widespread fear that the President could even be establishing the preconditions for war with Iran. Regardless of that situation, I hope that this resolution will curb any reckless behavior.

Finally, why is a change in strategy necessary now? Iraq appears to be descending into a civil war that neither Congress nor the Pentagon predicted. Defense Secretary Gates has described no less than four separate conflicts going on in Iraq today. That has led stalwart Republicans like Senator John Warner, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to question whether the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq is even still valid today. American influence in the region has substantially diminished, while the influence of Iran has increased. It is time for a change.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the original judgment of CENTCOM commander General Abizaid who testified before Congress not long ago, and he said, ``I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are.''

General Abizaid went on to say, ``I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, `In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no.'' That is quoting General Abizaid.

Mr. Speaker, I would have been more inclined to support the President if he had asked for a much larger number of troops or for a sacrifice on the part of all Americans who do not have a loved one in our military. Such proposals would have led me to believe that the President was considering a serious change in strategy, but the President has not recommended either.

Instead, he has consistently violated the so-called Powell doctrine by not waging war with an overwhelming military force, a clear objective, or a defined exit strategy. From the beginning of this conflict, we have skimped on the number of troops, the equipment for our soldiers, the commitment of our allies. It is simply too late to add on a few thousand more troops now.

Our brave troops and their families in the all-volunteer military have carried the entire burden of this war. Wall Street and Main Street have not been asked to help. Where are the war bonds to pay for this war? We have not even tried to pay for it. We have borrowed most of the money from nations like

China. Policies like that do not make the Nation more secure.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Congress has already given the President more time to fight this war than it took to win World War II, more money than was spent in Korea and Vietnam, and the unfettered use of the finest military in history. We are spending more on our military than every other nation in the world combined, and yet we are bogged down in a Third World country embroiled in its own civil war. At this point in time, it is not unreasonable for Congress to say enough is enough. Voters certainly said so clearly in the last election.

Madam Speaker, we were privileged today to have deliver our opening prayer the Reverend Kenn Hucks from Lebanon, Tennessee, Immanuel Baptist Church, formerly in Bart Gordon's district, and now in my district. We are also privileged to have his beautiful wife Kim with us today sitting in the family gallery.

This is a church that started in 1947 with just a few dozen members, and now it is in the top 1 percent of the Tennessee Baptist and the Southern Baptist Conventions, due to a long line of inspirational pastors, the latest of whom is Kenn Hucks, who joined the congregation, was called to the ministry in 2002. We appreciate his great spiritual leadership in our community, and we appreciate his being with us today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

I would like to lend my voice and praise of the African American spiritual and a group that I consider to be the leading practitioners of today and for the last 135 years, namely the Fisk Jubilee Singers.

As the Representative from Nashville, Tennessee, I have the honor of representing Fisk University, which, under the able leadership of President Hazel O'Leary, is achieving new heights and excellence. The Fisk Jubilee Singers have been there since 1871, singing some of the most beautiful music in the world and a music that is laden with a God- given message.

No other music that I am familiar with covers the range from agony to inspiration, from the depths of human misery and despair all the way up to religious bliss. This is remarkable music, and I would suggest to you if you haven't heard the Fisk Jubilee Singers sing it under the able direction of Dr. Paul Kwami, you have not fully lived. This is a truly remarkable group and a remarkable inspirational message.

So let's praise today the anonymous African American genius that has allowed these songs to flourish and survive some of the toughest conditions on our planet, and let's honor groups like the Fisk Jubilee Singers that keep that tradition alive and fresh for each new generation. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is truly a national treasure. We need to honor and preserve it and spread its wonderful message all around the world. The African American spiritual is part of God's great heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that today this House will honor one of America's oldest and most unique cultural treasures, the African American spiritual. No music in the world communicates as much as the African American spiritual. It is music borne of suffering. Music that expresses anguish, unity, and hopeful transcendence. Our reverence and deep gratitude for this music is only surpassed by our shame over the conditions that gave it rise. What we are doing today is wholly appropriate--and long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud to represent Fisk University, a fine American college with a tremendous sense of history and purpose. Fisk was founded in the wake of the Civil War to educate all students, regardless of color. It was a costly and controversial mission, and in order to keep the school's doors open, a group of students embarked on a fundraising tour in October 1871. This choral ensemble soon became known as the Fisk Jubilee Singers. They earned renown all over the world, singing for U.S. presidents and poets, European royals and American intellectuals alike.

But most of all, Mr. Speaker, in their 135 years of existence, the Fisk Jubilee Singers have exposed people across the globe to the African American spiritual. They have reminded us all of our country's shared history, and they have told, in vivid word and tune, the story of a People. From ``Wade in the Water'' to ``Go Down, Moses,'' and many songs between and since, the African American spiritual is a vital piece of American culture. Today we honor that tradition and those groups who keep it alive--groups like the Fisk Jubilee Singers.

The word ``jublilee,'' Mr. Speaker, rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, came to signify the proclamation of freedom from slavery. Today let this House rededicate itself to that powerful message and to those who have lifted their voices to express the pain of bondage and redemptive promise of freedom--of jubilee--throughout our Nation's history.

I thank my good friend from Arkansas, and I thank my Blue Dog colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus for a minute on the release of the President's budget. As has been mentioned, it just came out yesterday, and today, as a member of the Budget Committee, we had our first hearing with Rob Portman, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and former trade ambassador and former Member of this House.

This is what a part the budget looks like. It is available online. It is about 150, 200 pages. This looks like a very credible document. But that is what I would like to discuss today.

One of the first claims in this budget is in the second paragraph, it says: ``The budget I am presenting achieves balance by 2012.'' Hallelujah. Wouldn't that be nice, if it were true.

Now, if you look deeper in the budget, you will see that they claim, after years of deficits in the Bush administration, remember, we had a surplus in the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, but after years of Bush deficits, they claim that by mid-term of the next President, we will have a surplus. Well, that would be good news if it were true. They claim that the surplus in that year will be $61 billion. And I hope that a number like that would be true.

But if you look at page 168 of their document, you will see that that $61 billion surplus is really a $187 billion deficit disguised by borrowing $248 billion from the Social Security trust fund. In other words, we would have a sizeable, large deficit if it weren't for the money they are planning on taking from the Social Security trust fund in that year.

And this isn't just a once-a-year practice. They are planning on doing it every year between now and then. In 2007 they took $183 billion from Social Security. In 2008 they are taking $212 billion from Social Security. In 2009 they are taking $226 billion from Social Security. In 2010, $245 billion from Social Security. And in 2011, $264 billion.

So, basically, what this budget says, although it looks very respectable and credible, it says we are going to take over $1 trillion, close to $1.25 trillion from Social Security so we can disguise the budget deficit and make it look like a surplus 5 years from now. Mr. Speaker, that doesn't sound like honest budgeting to me.

But don't take my word for it. Look at this other document. This came out about a month ago. This is from the U.S. Treasury Department. This uses a different and better method of accounting to tell us where we are financially in this country. And it says, basically, we are at deficits as far as the eye can see. And the deficits are far, far larger than what the President admits to in this document.

But even if you don't believe any of these government documents, either the President's or the Treasury Department's, look at a private sector organization called Standard & Poor's. They are on Wall Street. They are probably the top credit analyst agency in the world. They projected this last summer that the U.S. Treasury Bond, the most important financial instrument on the planet, would lose its triple A credit rating by the year 2012, just 5 years from now.

So in other words, S&P, the leading credit analyst, said that although this document says we are going to have a surplus then, they say we are going to have continuing deficits as far as the eye can see, in fact, deficits that damage and possibly destroy America's credit rating.

Standard & Poor's went on to say in their analysis, they said that by the year 2025 the U.S. Treasury Bond wouldn't have just lost its triple A credit rating. They say that the U.S. Treasury Bond would actually become junk debt by the year 2025. Below investment grade. That would be a true tragedy for our Nation. We cannot let that happen. And that is why we need to examine the credibility of the numbers in this document. We need to make sure that they are correct.

And if you look at the assumptions in this document, you will see not only trouble with the terrific borrowing they are planning on doing from the Social Security surplus; you will see trouble in the fact that they are planning on the AMT tax taking a bigger and bigger bite out of the middle class in America for the next 4 or 5 years. They do nothing to remedy that in this document.

There are so many other features of this document that make it almost completely unrealistic as a starting point for our budget debates.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of work to do. It is not easy putting together budgets. I have done it because I had the privilege of serving back in the majority days, over 12 years ago here. It is a very difficult process to come up with a proper budget. But that must begin now. And I would just wish that the President's offering were going to be of more help to us. It is not all bad. There are some good elements of the President's budget. But if you look at the overall promise of a balanced budget by 2012, I am not sure anyone in the administration really believes that. It is here on paper, and it sounds mighty good. But if you look at the assumptions underneath it, whether it is borrowing from Social Security or whether it is taking the big bite out of the middle class with the AMT tax, it looks like the President's budget is not standing up to scrutiny.

But I thank my friend from Arkansas. I thank my Blue Dog colleagues. This is the day that we start the budget debates. Over the next 2 months we will be trying to bring this to a conclusion.

I hope that all Americans will download these documents off the Internet, will participate in the debate, and let me and other Blue Dogs know your opinions on what we should do on those budget matters.