Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this provision. This is a great first start. It is a great first start that this is in the rule; but I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), this ought to be done in a statutory way. And, quite frankly, if we want to replicate the success of the 1990s, you have got to include spending caps, too, and I hope that we work together in a bipartisan way to do that. Because that is really, if we want to have fiscal responsibility, you have got to put some teeth in this and you have got to make us all live under what are going to be some tough circumstances. But as a first step, I am pleased this is part of the rules package. I endorse it, I encourage people to support it, and I hope we recognize this as a first step and we are all going to work together to employ all of the 12 points of the Blue Dog plan that are really going to give fiscal responsibility back to this country.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2069, the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2005.

Since statehood, Utah has held lands in trust to generate funds for public schools. But they are scattered throughout the State in a checkerboard pattern, isolated within federal land holdings. That has made it difficult for either the federal land agencies, or the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, to manage them according to their different objectives. Many of the State school trust lands have valuable habitat, watershed, and scenic features that shouldn't be commercially developed.

The Bureau of Land Management, meanwhile, owns land in other parts of my State that are not as environmentally sensitive and could be responsibly developed for the benefit of public schools.

This legislation proposes a land exchange--State school trust lands for BLM lands--that consolidates acreage for ease of management by federal land managers, increases the school trust fund balance, and preserves sensitive land along the world-renowned Colorado River corridor, using an equitable valuation.

Anyone who has rafted the Colorado River, or taken a mountain-biking trip to Moab, understands why these lands need to be open to future generations of Americans to enjoy. This legislation would transfer to the BLM parcels of State land in Westwater Canyon, the nationally- recognized Kokopelli and Slickrock trails, multiple wilderness study areas, and some of the largest natural rock arches in the U.S.

This bill is the result of a truly collaborative process with all stakeholders at the table. It is supported by the counties, by the State of Utah, by the environmental and recreational communities and it has evolved with the Department of the Interior's participation.

I would like to thank Congressman Cannon, all the stakeholders and the Resources Committee for working over the past 2 years to develop the bipartisan, consensus legislation that we have before us today.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect our treasured public lands and at the same time support public education in Utah.

Mr. Speaker, this anniversary is first, last, and always, a day of remembrance. The shock and horror of that day has diminished. But the sorrow and sadness is still present in our hearts. The mountains of debris are gone from the place where the towers of the World Trade Center once defined the skyline. But Ground Zero and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, are burial grounds still, where grief is palpable. Two Utahns were aboard one of the hijacked planes that struck the first Tower; another Utahn died at his job in the Pentagon when a third jet crashed into it. People from many other countries also died that morning. In the hours and days following the tragedy, it seemed that much of the world mourned.

The passing days brought much heartache and--ever so gradually-- glimmers of hope. The heroes of 9/11--members of the New York and Port Authority police departments, and the New York City Firefighters-- replaced the frightening images of the hijackers. From across this country, ordinary people put comfortable lives on hold in order to join the rescue and recovery effort. Twenty people were pulled alive from the debris. For a time, all Americans put aside their differences and united in the desire to make life better for the survivors.

The families and friends of the victims of 9/11 will always--in the words of poet ee cummings ``carry your heart (I carry it in my heart).'' For the rest of us, a fitting tribute to their memory may be to renew our desire to put aside contention and partisanship. We honor them when we adopt their ``can-do'' spirit and strive--as one nation--to make America the beacon of hope it has always been.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment. Every time I meet with anyone in law enforcement in my State, county sheriff, police chief, I hear about the effectiveness of the Byrne grant program, and I also hear the concern about potential cuts in funding the Byrne grants. I don't think that that experience is unique to my congressional district. I suspect that that would be the case throughout this country.

This is a situation where we are making difficult choices, but when it comes to the impact of drug use in our society and the effectiveness of the Byrne grant program, I think that we need to pay attention to the fact that this is a program that works. So many people question programs in the government that may not work so well. This is one that has a track record. It works.

I encourage people to vote for this amendment, and I thank Mr. Kennedy for his leadership on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ryan for his leadership on this issue.

What we are dealing with today is a significant piece to a puzzle. Because it is a puzzle. There is no question that in terms of having greater accountability and having fiscal responsibility, there are a number of steps we need to take as a Congress. And the piece today is talking about opening to the light of day certain earmarks that ought to be open to the light of day. And I would echo the comments of Mr. Kingston. If I have an earmark, I ought to be willing to put it up for an up-or-down vote. Everybody in this Congress has requested earmarks, and everyone should be comfortable defending those earmarks. And this is all about shedding the light of day on that process. And it will result, even without having a rescission, it is going to result in Members of Congress being a little more careful and being a little more substantive in the proposals they make, and it is going to make this body more accountable.

So with that in mind, I encourage my colleagues in a bipartisan way to embrace this work and to continue the work after this bill because, as I said, there are a number of steps we can take to encourage accountability and encourage greater fiscal responsibility. But this is an important piece and important step in pursuing that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the current situation in Iraq, as are the vast majority of Americans. We need an honest assessment from the civilian leadership at the Pentagon about what is working and what is not working, and what needs to change in terms of our strategy.

I strongly oppose efforts to weaken the position of our military by setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal of our military forces. We all want American troops to return home from Iraq as soon as possible. Some Members of Congress have called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq--I disagree with them.

As a longtime supporter of our military, I believe that a calendar- based date for withdrawal serves as a rallying point for insurgents. It also places a target on the backs of American troops. Finally, I am very concerned that the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops would leave a volatile vacuum of power in Iraq, which would rapidly be filled by insurgents. A better alternative is for Congress to clearly delineate the conditions that, if met, would permit a U.S. withdrawal.

Standing around arguing about why we're in this position doesn't serve a good purpose, in my opinion. Instead, I think today's debate is an opportunity to talk about how we can develop a strategy for success. Regardless of when the last American soldier leaves Iraq, I want to be able to look at him or her and be able to say that the service of our military achieved something greater than the political ends of a few here in Washington. I hope all of my colleagues share that desire. A strategy for success should be comprehensive--it should include not just a military role, but also a plan for political, diplomatic, and economic success.

In the next few weeks, a field artillery unit from my district--the 222nd--is heading home after a long year in Iraq. These soldiers have made immense sacrifices on behalf of our great Nation and I am so grateful that they're going to be back in Utah. We all have constituents serving overseas and I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank our military service members for their work on behalf of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to oppose the previous question. I do not think it is appropriate to let this bill go through without an up-or-down vote on whether or not Congress should have an increase in its own pay.

The effect of this legislation is that is exactly what is going to happen. Here we are in a circumstance where we continue to swim in a lake of red ink, $8 trillion now. Our debt is above that now.

We just voted on a $94 billion supplemental earlier today. I don't think it is appropriate to have this cost increase, this increase in salary for Members of Congress go through without an up-or-down vote. That is why I encourage my

colleagues to oppose the previous question, because a ``no'' vote on the previous question will give Members the opportunity to vote up or down on the automatic cost-of-living pay raise for Members of Congress.

If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to this rule. My amendment will block the fiscal year 2007 cost-of-living pay raise for Members of Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a debate and vote on this issue in the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased the U.S. House of Representatives is debating much needed legislation to improve mining safety across this nation. S. 2803, the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006, is a compromise bill that received unanimous support in the U.S. Senate and is endorsed by industry and mining workers alike. While no legislation is perfect, this bill goes a long way to protect the brave workers who help secure America's energy needs.

The MINER Act includes a provision that is of particular importance to my home state of Utah. Section 11 of S. 2803 authorizes the establishment of an independent scientific and engineering review of belt air utilization and the composition and fire retardant properties of belt materials in underground coal mining.

Utah's situation with respect to belt air is unique. Utah's coal mines are under deep cover with greater than 1,500 feet of overburden; for enhanced safety, this requires the use of two-entry gate roads for longwall panels. This means only two tunnels lead to the longwall equipment compared to three or four tunnels leading to the longwall equipment found in most longwall mines in the East. Under such deep overburden, additional tunnels or entries would lead to unstable and unsafe conditions.

In any longwall mining system design, one of the entries must be used for the conveyor belt system to transport coal out of the mine. In Utah, where only two-entry mines are practical, both entries must be used to deliver enough fresh air to the longwall machine to properly control dust and methane to meet ventilation health standards.

Due to the importance of belt air use to Utah's mining industry, it is my hope the panel called for in the MINER Act is expeditiously convened and uses sound science to properly evaluate the use of belt air in underground coal mining.

In addition, Section 14 of S. 2803 establishes the ``Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants'' program to help provide funding for education and training programs concerning safety and health topics in mines.

In my District, a consortium of local business and education interests recently announced the establishment of the Western Energy Training Center in Price, Utah with the help of a two-year Department of Labor grant. The mission of the Center is to educate and train workers to fill jobs for the mining and energy related industries, workers who are badly needed throughout the West. The Center will educate and train future workers with a focus

on improving both the technical experience of the labor force and worker commitment to safety.

The ``Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants'' program is poised to become an invaluable resource for institutions like the Western Energy Training Center in improving the safety record of America's energy industry.

The MINER Act is the first substantial overhaul of our nation's mining laws in almost three decades and is an essential step to remedying the many health and safety shortfalls facing coal miners today. I urge all of my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Ross.

And it is great to have the minority whip join us. He has often been described as an honorary Blue Dog, and he has always recognized and been a voice in support of fiscally responsible policy. And I just want to emphasize a point that the minority whip had made in his comments about this notion that we should live with the set of rules that you have got to live within your means.

It is going to take some tough decisions to bring back fiscal discipline to this government. Balanced budgets are not going to be easy to achieve. If it

was easy, I would like to think it already would have happened.

So what the Blue Dogs believe is that you have got to put in a set of rules and a structure that helps encourage fiscal discipline. And one of the rules that the Blue Dogs have been strongly supportive of and the minority whip has mentioned in his comments is this notion that you pay as you go. And this is a concept that is pretty basic when you think about it.

If you have something new, a new program where you want to spend some money, you have got to pay for it. You have got to pay for it by taking money away from something else or finding a source of revenue to pay for it.

But the other piece of that puzzle is, if you want to do a tax cut, you have got to pay for that with corresponding cuts in spending or finding revenues elsewhere. It is really a pretty basic concept. I think people, when they look at their own household budget, look at it that way. They have so much money coming in and out that if they want to do an adjustment somewhere, they have got to do an adjustment someplace else to accommodate for that. And that is all we are asking.

And what is interesting, and I may want to ask the minority whip to describe this for me, he was here in 1990 when this was put in place, when the first President Bush was in office. I was not in Congress at that time, but those rules were in place starting after 1990, and I think among many factors, they were the critical factor in moving us toward the surpluses that we enjoyed by the end of the 1990s. And I find it unfortunate, and we should all find it unfortunate, quite frankly, that those rules were allowed to expire at the end of, I believe, 2001.

I know legislation has been offered and introduced to restore those rules. We cannot seem to get a vote on restoring those rules. I would love to have an up-or-down vote here in the House of Representatives on restoring those rules. I would love to see anyone, really, stand up and vote against that type of common-sense approach to encouraging fiscal discipline here in Congress.

I think that that is such a crucial point, I want to reemphasize what the minority whip had mentioned because I think that people are looking for solutions.

It is easy to step back and just complain about the problems we have here, but there are solutions out there to help us get our arms around this problem, and one of them is, let us look for these pay-as-you-go rules so that we all live within our means and we make responsible decisions.

The Blue Dogs actually have a 12-point plan, and I just want to talk about one other of those points in this segment where I am talking right now that I think is important, because along with trying to have fiscal discipline and making sure you live within your means, you have also got to make sure that money is being spent wisely, and that means you need accountability. And we do not have accountability right now in many, many agencies within the Federal Government. Do you realize in the Department of Defense, there are 63 different agencies and only six of them can give you a clean audit of their books and the other 57 cannot tell you where the money is being spent?

Now, I think it is Congress' job to ask the questions about where that money is being spent. I do not think this Congress has been very aggressive in its oversight function and asking where the money has been spent. The most recent year for which we have this data is 2003, and the government cannot account for $24.5 billion that was spent. And we throw a lot of numbers around here; $24.5 billion is a lot of money. That is more than the budget for the entire Department of Justice for a whole year, and right now we do not have the ability to have Federal agencies tell us how that money has been spent.

So one of the other points of the Blue Dogs' plan I just want to mention is, it would be a requirement that you have got to give us a clean audit of your books, and if you do not, your budget stays frozen at the previous year's level. I think that is a pretty good economic incentive for people to want to tell us how the money is being spent, and that forces accountability. So with fiscal discipline, of course, we want to have a structure that forces those tough decisions, but it is also important that we make sure we know how money is being spent. We need to have answers to those questions.

So I wanted to stand up in response and reaction to the very great comments and great statistics and great information and history that the minority whip has laid out for this cycle of moving from debt to a period of surplus, and now we are moving deeply into debt again. I want to reemphasize his support of the pay-as-you-go that he mentioned. He mentioned another notion of accountability the Blue Dogs have been a strong advocate for. I think that is how we are going to try to get our arms around this situation.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Ross. And I am always pleased to join follow Blue Dogs on the floor of the House of Representatives to talk about the issue of fiscal responsibility, and also about accountability, which go hand in hand.

The Blue Dogs have made a point of trying to make sure that people understand the magnitude of the debt. Mr. Ross showed the slide that showed over $8 trillion of debt. If we divide that among every man, woman and child in this country, that is over $27,000 for everybody.

And the accountability issue that we have talked about, let's just take that as one issue to talk about now. Because the Blue Dogs have promoted what they call their 12-point plan that will lead us back to fiscal responsibility.

One of the points has to do with accountability. See the example Mr. Ross gave where you have money being wasted and you wonder what is going on, that is indicative of a broader problem within the Federal Government.

So many agencies within this Government are unable to offer a clean

audit of their books. It is pretty remarkable when you think about it. Businesses would be out of business if they ran this way. And so under the Blue Dog 12-point plan, we think you have to put a structure in place that will force fiscal responsibility, one of the planks of the 12-point plan says that if there is a Government agency that cannot give you a clean audit of their books, their funding is frozen at the previous year's level. No increase for inflation or anything else.

In other words, we are going to create a strong incentive for the people working in that Government agency to make sure that they can at least give you a clean accounting of their books. That is what we should all want. That is what we should all demand quite frankly as citizens of this country.

There is nothing Republican or Democrat about this issue. That is just basic accountability. It is the taxpayers' money. They ought to be able to have an answer when they ask the question, how is it being spent?

And there are too many agencies within this Government who today cannot give you an accurate answer. And it adds up to a lot of money. The most recent year for which we have cumulative data was in 2003. And the Federal Government does not know where over $24 billion was spent in that year; $24\1/2\ billion, roughly speaking, is unaccounted for during that year.

That is enough to fund the entire Department of Justice. And we do not know where the money is. I find that amazing. So that is one of the 12 points that the Blue Dogs have offered as a legislative package that we think will help restore some fiscal sanity to the Federal system.

You see, when you take a look at it over time you see deficits occur, and you see certain actions to try to correct that. That is one of the best lessons we all learn if we are in our own household or own our own business, and we saw a year where we lost money, in other words we spent more than we would take in, we would take actions to correct that.

You do not see that happening right now in Washington. That is a concern for me. And in my tenure in Washington, I am in my sixth year here now, I have become convinced that we need to put rules in place, you need to create a structure that forces everybody to be fiscally responsible, forces the Congress and forces the President both to be fiscally responsible.

And that is where this 12-point plan comes into play. The accountability plank is the first plank I talked about. There are a couple of others that are real straight forward that I would like to mention as well. One is we believe that there ought to believe a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution.

Forty-five States have such an amendment. They seem to be doing pretty well in that regard. We think that the Federal Government ought to have that sort of requirement as well. So there is a structural requirement for balanced budgets.

Secondly, we think as Blue Dogs that we ought to put in mechanisms that force you to pay for new programs. So if you got a new program that costs a certain amount of money, you have to pay for it by taking money away from something else. And if you have a new tax cut that costs money, you have to pay for it somewhere else.

By the way, this is not a new idea, this concept of pay as you go for new programs. That set of rules or standard existed in the Federal Government. It started in 1990 during the first Bush administration. Congress passed this legislation. The first President Bush signed it into law, and that created this structure where there was more accountability, where you paid for new programs. Unfortunately, after all the success of that, they expired in 2001, those budget rules; and since then we are going without them. And the Blue Dogs have introduced legislation every year to try to move ahead with that type of budget enforcement mechanism in terms of pay as you go, but we have not been able to get a vote on that.

So that is another point of the 12-point plan, be responsible, pay for new things, find another place to pay for it. Live within your means. It is a concept that all of us can relate to. That is the way we approach things when we sit down around the family dinner table and talk about our own household budget. And if you are a small businessman, you figure out that you have to live within your means, and you make your adjustments and you make your decisions.

Until we put that structure in place here in Washington, my concern is we are not going to have people making those decisions. So I am, as I said, always pleased to join my Blue Dogs colleagues in the House of Representatives to have a discussion about how we can move ahead with fiscal responsibility, what it is going to take.

Here is the thing I find in politics these days. It is easy for people to talk about the problems. We are here tonight offering a solution. We are offering a plan that helps us get away from this pattern, this unending pattern of increasing debt, and that is the kind of thing that I think folks in this country want from their elected officials. They want ideas and they want solutions. And that is why I think this 12-point plan merits everyone's attention, and I think this whole issue of fiscal responsibility is one that ought to bridge across party lines because this is doing what is right for this country, not what is right for one party or the other. This is the right thing to do for this country. It is the right thing to do for all of our citizens. It is the right thing to do because every man, woman and child, as I said earlier, right now owes over $27,000. And we owe it to them and we owe it to future generations to make sure that we do not have an ever- increasing obligation of debt.

I am going to continue to participate in this conversation, but right now I am going to turn it back over to Congressman Ross. I appreciate his leadership in managing this hour discussion on the House floor. Congressman Ross, I look forward to continuing this discussion about moving ahead with the fiscally responsible country.

Well, I thank Mr. Ross. I think it is important to talk about the fact that you ought to have a plan. You know, you have a family business you own back in Arkansas, a pharmacy; and when you borrow money to help take out a business loan, the bank asks you for a plan, how are you going to pay that back.

Right now, the Federal Government is borrowing money, and I do not know that there is a plan out there that has been articulated for how we are going to pay that back.

And I think that is something we should expect. I think that is a reasonable request to ask.

I did want to reiterate one point that Mr. Ross was making when he said

why this matters. He said some people say it doesn't matter. They say, ah, these deficits, it is really not that big a deal, and it is okay. We haven't seen any huge disruption in the economy with these deficits, so they don't matter. Well, the Blue Dogs think they do matter. We think they matter for a lot of reasons.

First of all, they matter because right now this is one of the fastest growing parts of the Federal budget. And so what you are doing, what you are doing with the Federal budget growing so fast, in terms of the interest component, is you are saying, you know what, we are not going to do other things. So there is an opportunity cost, if you will, or lost opportunities, where we are not going to invest in important programs, investing in people, in their education, and investing in transportation infrastructure in the country. We are crowding that out because interest is growing as part of our national debt.

Secondly, you are taking away capital that otherwise might be invested in the private sector. It would help our economy grow. Instead, we are taking it in to pay back government debt here. If the government wasn't asking for that debt, then investors would be investing that much more in the private sector. Our economy could very well be doing better with that increased investment in the economy.

Thirdly, I don't like to pay taxes. I don't think that anybody likes to pay taxes. And what we are doing is we are ensuring a tax burden for generations to come, probably in perpetuity, quite frankly, if we don't turn this thing around, in terms of the tax burdens to pay this interest cost.

And, finally, the fourth reason I think we ought to be concerned. Actually, I will give two more. The fourth reason why I think we ought to be concerned about this debt is because while it hasn't happened yet, in the overall context of supply and demand, the more we are gobbling up debt and asking people to invest in debt instruments in this country, there is going to be an upward pressure on interest rates. And that is not good for our economy.

The final point, the one that my colleague, Mr. Cardoza, raised, is that this country is entering a new situation they have never faced before in this country, and that is an increasing reliance on foreign government owning the debt of the United States of America. This raises some economic security issues we have never faced before that are hard to get your arms around, but I think it causes concern for all of us.

So there are five quick reasons I offer for why you ought to be concerned about the debt and you ought to be concerned about deficits. And if you don't feel some negative impact of it immediately today, those five reasons I just listed all ought to be cause for concern about why we ought to be fiscally responsible and we ought to get our arms around the debt.

I yield to Mr. Cardoza.

And let me put a human face on another aspect where investment is being crowded out that just occurred in my office today, and may have occurred in your offices too. A lot of us on Capitol Hill had visits from families today with folks who generally have a child with diabetes, so it is the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. And they were visiting Congress to plead for investment in basic research dollars to help pursue both better treatments for those who have this disease and also looking for cures as well.

That is the type of investment in public money that pays such huge dividends for us as a country. But growing interest expense is crowding out wonderful investments like basic health research. That is a wonderful opportunity we heard about today on Capitol Hill from families that are passionate on pursuing that interest. But with interest crowding out that the opportunity to make that type of investment, that is another reason to be concerned about the debt.

Mr. Chairman, when I am home in Utah, I constantly hear about the prevalence of methamphetamines and the dangers to our community posed by this highly addictive drug. This legislation has some excellent measures to help the federal government better deal with the problem and I sincerely hope that it will help ONDCP to combat meth abuse.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was created in 1988 in order to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for our Nation's drug control program. Its stated goals are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences. I support this bill and am proud to vote for strengthening the agency in charge of producing the National Drug Control Strategy.

But it would be a mistake to look at this bill without also considering the need to fully fund local law enforcement. The drug problem in our nation and in my home State of Utah is so pervasive that it absolutely requires the dedication and the cooperative efforts of local, state, and federal law enforcement. I know that Utah is not alone--I've heard many of my colleagues talk today about the scourge of methamphetamines and other drugs in thousands of communities across the nation. As a result, I am gravely concerned about the President's budget proposal for funding local law enforcement.

The federal government needs to step up to the plate and properly fund law enforcement, if we are serious about national drug control policy. That's why I strongly support funding for critical law enforcement programs, such as Byrne grants, JAG grants, and the COPS program. During my time in Congress, every single person involved with law enforcement has made it a point to share with me exactly how these grants help protect Utah citizens.

As we vote today to reauthorize ONDCP, let us also remember that our commitment to safeguarding local communities. I don't think we can say enough about the men and women who use this funding to better patrol our streets, decrease the availability of drugs in our schools, and ensure that each and every citizen is safe and protected. I know that they, and their fellow officers across this nation, are committed to protecting all of us, just as I am committed to working in support of both homeland security and domestic security.

Mr. Speaker, all Utahns have watched with pride and anticipation as the U.S. Olympic team began competing at the Torino Winter Olympic Games this month. I am especially proud of the Utah athletes on the team.

They are Alpine skiers Steve Nyman, Ted Ligety, and Erik Schlopy; Nordic skiers Brett and Eric Camerota, Carl Swenson and Wendy Wagner; Ski jumper Anders Johnson; Freestyler Joe Pack; Bobsled members Shauna Rohbock, Steve Holcomb and Bill Schuffenhauer; and Luge team member Preston Griffall.

Utah is home to a long and distinguished tradition of winter sports. Names like Alf Engen and Stein Erikson are two of the winter sports icons that have helped make Utah synonymous with skiing.

When Utah welcomed the world to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, we showcased the greatest snow on earth and the finest hospitality. By building world-class winter sports venues, such as the Kearns Skating Oval and the Bear Hollow Bobsled and Luge track and Nordic ski jumps, Utah also became a vital link in our country's support and training system for young athletes.

It has been said--and rightly so--that the Olympic Games are all about the athletes--about the gifted and dedicated men and women who display the drive, the courage and the integrity to represent America on the world athletic stage. With so much tension and trouble around the world today, it is heartening to see the best and the brightest from 80 nations coming together in peaceful competition, celebrating each other's culture and contribution to their sport.

I would like to salute all the athletes, especially my fellow Utahns, who bring us this inspiring and heart-warming interval from the beauty of winter.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed always an honor to have an opportunity to speak on the floor of the House of Representatives.

And tonight I join with fellow members of the Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dogs, as you know, is a group of moderate to conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives, a group that has taken positions on many issues over the years, and a particular issue which the Blue Dogs have a solid reputation on is that of promoting fiscal responsibility for this country.

And that message is needed now more than ever, and the Blue Dogs are going to continue to speak out in terms of what we think is the right thing to do for this country and particularly for future generations in this country.

You know, I just had a new addition to my family about a month ago, had a little boy born into my family. And the day he was born, he already owed over $27,000 to the United States of America. Because if you take our national debt and divide it over our whole population, that is about how it calculates out.

And that little boy entered this world with that kind of debt hanging on him not having had anything to do with that debt. He was not around when the money was spent, was not involved in the decision-making that created that debt. And I find it appalling that we allow this to continue to take place and grow in terms of a problem.

I see this as a moral obligation we have to future generations, and for me personally I see it in my own new son. What is disturbing is the trend that we are on right now, because there are going to be times when the economy is good and times when the economy is bad, and sometimes revenues are going to be up and sometimes revenues are going to be down.

And there may be times when a deficit occurs for valid reasons. But when you are in a deficit situation, what you want to do is you want to have a plan for working your way out of that debt. The concern I have is that we do not see that plan on the horizon. What we see instead is an ever-increasing amount of debt over time.

Let us put it into context. From 1789 until the year 2000, the total debt that was incurred by this country was $5.63 trillion. But by 2010, the total national debt will have increased to just under $11 trillion. So we will have doubled the 211 years' worth of debt in just 10 years.

You do not need to get out your calculator to figure out that that is not a good trend, and it is increasing at way too fast a rate. So now more than ever it is time for us to stand up in a statesman-like way and make the decisions that are going to be tough decisions if we are ever going to get a handle on being fiscally responsible.

That is what we are here to talk about tonight as the Blue Dog Coalition. I have been joined by some of my colleagues from the Blue Dog Coalition. I am honored to be associated with all of them.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to call on them at this time, and I would like to first recognize my colleague from the great State of Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

I appreciate those comments from my Blue Dog colleague, Mr. Tanner. He is one of the leaders of the Blue Dogs, and he has been a real voice of reason in Congress. I appreciate him taking the time tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my Blue Dog colleague from the State of Georgia, Mr. Barrow.

Mr. Speaker, I think what you heard here, Mr. Tanner

first alluded to it and then Mr. Barrow gave a more elaborate description of proposed reductions in local law enforcement funding, and that is the example of the squeeze that is on. The deficits that we are incurring and the increased interest costs, and, by the way, interest expenses are one of the fastest growing components of the Federal budget today. And with that increased interest cuts you are squeezing other programs.

Some of these programs mean a lot. Local law enforcement grants are something that I think most people in Congress think are a good idea. And the notion that we have a budget presented to Congress that zeros that out is something that is not going to be received well here, I would think. But, again, it is a reflection of the pressures that these increasing deficits are putting on the situation; and that is why it is just another example of why it is so important we try to get a handle on this program.

I now recognize my colleague from Florida, Mr. Boyd.

I appreciate those comments. I do think people should expect an honest budget. I think we all know we are going to have troops in Iraq during the next fiscal year; and the fact that this budget does not list a dollar to fund that, in and of itself, tells you that this budget is not an accurate reflection of the expenses that this government is going to face in the next year.

That is not being honest. That is not being straight with people. We know we are going to incur that expense. We ought to acknowledge we are going to incur that expense, and we do not do it, and I think that is something the Blue Dogs feel real strongly about in terms of having honesty and integrity in the budgeting process and the budget numbers.

Part and parcel of that is that we ought to have planning for contingencies. I suspect when Mr. Boyd was developing the budget for the family farm, for his business, that he had a line item in there called contingency, because you know that something else is going to come up. You do not know what it is going to be. You do not know when it is going to be. It could be weather related. It could be something that you cannot even anticipate, but you know there is going to be an expense that comes up that you cannot identify today but it is going to happen. You cannot estimate with absolute accuracy down to the dollar what it is going to be, but you know there is going to be something.

And based on your experience and based on your judgement you guesstimate what it is going to be. And when you go to your bank, if they are helping you finance it, they want you to do that, and they are going to work with you to make sure that is a good estimate of what a contingency might be. We do not do that in the Federal Government, but I am sure you do that when you are planning your own budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, I think that really centers on a fundamental issue about the way our Constitution was set up. This is not supposed to be driven by party when it comes to oversight.

When they wrote up our Constitution, they created the three branches of government. We all learn this in grade school. It is called the checks and balances. There is an institutional role for the legislative branch to play. We legislate but we also keep an eye on the executive branch and on the judicial branch, and we do that through oversight. We are supposed to be asking questions. It is all what makes the government accountable. It is pursuing good government. It is not looking for a scandal or anything like that. This is just basically making the trains run on time, ask the right questions.

We know that is not happening right now, and so you mentioned 16 out of 22 major agencies cannot even give you a clean audit of their books. The government cannot tell you where they spent $24.5 billion in the last fiscal year. That is enough to fund the entire Department of Justice, and we do not know where the money is, and Congress is not asking the questions.

It should not be a party issue. We all ought to be asking these questions; and I know the Blue Dogs, as much as anybody in this Congress, are ready to work with anybody because it is an America-first issue, not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is about putting this country in the right position and doing the right thing.

So this issue of accountability and oversight that my two colleagues have been talking about rings real true with me in terms of what the Framers of the Constitution asked us to do. That is our role here. We took an oath to uphold that Constitution. My concern is the non- oversight. I hope we do take action. I hope this conversation helps spur some action in this body, because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do that, and I think I would put it in the following context. This is not easy to balance this budget. It is going to require a lot of really tough choices, tough political choices.

What the Blue Dogs have decided is we need to put in a structure for this institution and for the White House, for the President and Congress to work within a structure that is going to guide us on the path of fiscal responsibility because without that structure it is just too easy to deficit spend.

That is what has been going on around here. It will take some tough choices. We do not deny that at all. We are ready to work with people, but it will have to be all of us working together to take on those tough choices.

So what the Blue Dogs have done is they have tried to establish a 12- point proposal to set up a structure that addresses some of the issues we have talked about here tonight. For instance, I talked about contingency planning when my colleague, Mr. Boyd, plans his family business budget, which we called one of our 12 points for a rainy day fund, or the Federal Government plans for things that you cannot articulate at the start of the year.

Thirty-five States in this country have rainy day funds. Apparently, we thought that was not appropriate for the United States of America, but we know every year something happens. Natural disasters may happen. We do not know what it is going to be, but we know we ought to plan. That is one of our 12 points.

We talked about accountability earlier, the fact that you can't get a clean audit from most agencies. One of our 12 points is, you know what, any Federal agency that cannot give us a clean audit and properly balance their books, we freeze their budget at the previous year's level. They are stuck. That has some real teeth in it, and that is going to motivate that agency to do the right thing and give you a clean budget.

Another point of the Blue Dog 12-point plan is going to be acquiring a balanced budget amendment for the Constitution. Now this will be appropriately written with exceptions for times of war and natural disaster. But I think that is something we need. As I said earlier, we need a structure. We need something to force Congress and the White House to move toward a balanced budget, and that balanced budget amendment in our Constitution is a key component of making that happen.

Another part of the 12-point plan is something called pay-as-you-go. Now, we throw these terms out a lot. People may not know what that means, but it is a pretty basic concept. That means if you have got something new, a new program you want to spend money on, guess what, you have to pay for it. You can do it by taking money away from a another program or raising revenues.

Same thing if you reduce revenues someplace, you have got to pay for it by cutting spending or raising revenues someplace else. It is something that every family deals with in their household budget, what every business deals with. It is a responsible way to look at things.

This isn't a new idea. This is something that the Congress was working with before. In fact, these rules were in place from 1990 until 2002. Then they expired, and while the Blue Dogs have advocated putting the pay-as-you-go rules back in place, we can't get a vote out here on the floor of the House to do that.

Because as I said earlier, in the short term, it is a lot easier to govern if you do not have to make the tough decisions and you would rather deficit spend. But if we put those rules back in place, it is going to force people to make the tough decisions.

As an aside, I might add, Alan Greenspan who just retired after 18 years as

head of the Federal Reserve, and he has such a great reputation in terms of his economic model, he made a rather prophetic statement back in 2001. This is just when we finished a couple of years of surplus. He was testifying before Congress.

He said, ``With today's euphoria surrounding the surpluses, it is not difficult to imagine the hard-earned fiscal restraint developed in recent years rapidly dissipating. We need to resist those policies that would readily resurrect the deficits of the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their wake.''

He sure was right, because by November of 2005 he came back before Congress, and in testimony he said, ``Our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially further until we restore constraints similar to the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which were allowed to lapse in 2002.'' That was the pay-as-you-go provision that existed before.

So we have proof. We have a track record that shows that these rules worked. Without these rules, we have seen us spin into tremendous fiscal imbalance. It is another one of the Blue Dog points. There are 12 points. I thankfully may not go through all 12 of the points tonight, but I wanted to highlight some of the ones that we have talked about tonight, and ones that I think anyone in this country, regardless of political party understands, and they know it is the right thing to do.

I encourage, again, any colleague in the House of Representatives should know the Blue Dogs want to engage them on this issue.

If these 12 points that we have come up with aren't the perfect solution, and somebody has a better idea, we welcome the chance to have a dialogue with them. Because these are not easy issues, and we have got to work together to work this one out. But I think the 12-point plan represents a thoughtful process and a good start for setting up a structure that will force this institution to put us back on the path to fiscal responsibility, and so we can avoid increasing, and I will close with coming back to the comments I started with.

That is not increasing the problem of that birth tax, that we called it, that was employed on the son I had just 3\1/2\ weeks ago, that my wife had actually, my new son, came into this world owing $27,000. That is not right, it is not fair, and we have got to do something to make sure we do not grow that anymore.

I appreciate my Blue Dog colleagues joining me tonight. This is an issue we feel strongly about, and we are sincere when we ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us on this because we think it so important to the future of this country.

Mr. Speaker, Nevada Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign introduced federal legislation today to mandate that nuclear waste be stored on-site at nuclear power plant sites. I'm proud to join my colleague from Nevada, Shelley Berkley, in introducing legislation in the House to mandate that nuclear waste be stored on-site.

The West--whether it is Utah's Skull Valley or Nevada's Yucca Mountain--should not be the de facto dumping ground for nuclear waste. Storing nuclear waste on site is the safest, most reasonable and most effective way of allowing nuclear power plants to continue operating while we search for an appropriate long-term storage solution.

The Utah and Nevada delegations are united on this--Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter from Nevada, and Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop from my home state of Utah have joined in this fight on the House side and our senators, Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch are cosponsors of the Senate bill.

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the federal government has so far only focused on the flawed Yucca Mountain proposal for a central repository for spent nuclear fuel rods. Given the wealth of concerns about incomplete scientific evidence and falsified documentation stemming from the Yucca proposal and the clear gaps in transportation security for waste sent to the West, on-site storage is a much better solution.

Dry cask storage--the method proposed by a private entity that wants to store waste on the Skull Valley site in Utah--is currently being used at 33 nuclear power plants around the country. As approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dry cask containers can safely store waste for at least 100 years. We should not subject citizens to the dangers posed by transporting it through their communities when it can remain where it is.

The Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Security Act of 2005 would require commercial nuclear utilities to transfer nuclear waste from spent nuclear fuel pools into dry storage casks. For spent fuel currently in pools, a contractor licensed to handle spent nuclear fuel would have up to 6 years, to allow sufficient time for cooling and construction, to transfer spent nuclear fuel from pools into dry casks. Any new spent nuclear fuel produced after enactment, also has no more than 6 years to cool, before being transferred into dry casks. Such continuous transfer would mean that the pools are never at capacity, leaving less waste exposed and making the site safer. This bill would also require the Department of Energy to take title of all spent nuclear fuel currently in on-site dry cask storage and would even compensate the utility companies for expenses associated with transferring and storing the waste.

This means that DOE will be responsible for possession, stewardship, maintenance, and monitoring of the spent nuclear fuel on-site, which is entirely appropriate. DOE was supposed to begin taking title to spent nuclear fuel in 1998, but because of the myriad of technical, scientific, legal and political problems surrounding the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, this has not happened. Taking title to spent nuclear fuel fulfills the federal government's obligation and commitment to retake control over nuclear materials. I thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

First of all, I am very pleased to have worked with Representative Fitzpatrick on this important legislation, and I thank him for his leadership, and I also thank the House leadership and Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for getting this important bill to the floor in such an expeditious manner.

H.R. 2892 is a simple bill that will increase opportunities for our Nation's seniors to meet their own financial needs. H.R. 2892, the Reverse Mortgages to Help America's Seniors Act, will eliminate the cap on the volume of federally insured home equity conversion mortgages, or reverse mortgages as they are called. These unique loans enable senior homeowners to convert part of the equity in their homes to tax-free income without having to sell the home, give up title or take on a new monthly mortgage. Instead of making monthly payments to the lender, as with a regular mortgage, the lender makes payments to the homeowner. The majority of loan recipients are elderly widows.

Under current law, the HUD Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, or reverse mortgage program, is capped at $250,000 loans. Removing the cap will provide stability and greater competition in a program that has proven to be useful for many seniors.

This bill is cost-effective for taxpayers and consumers. In fact, CBO estimates that lifting the cap will raise revenues by about $8 million in 2007 and $39 million annually in subsequent years.

This legislation is supported by AARP, the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association and others. Again, I want to thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for his leadership on this bill, and I want to also thank Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this important legislation to provide other seniors with greater tools for managing their expenses.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to say again that I thank Representative Fitzpatrick and urge passage of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.