Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Texas Senate and the Texas House, I know the value that the 53 Texas Democrats who are in Ardmore, Oklahoma, today place on the proud tradition of placing principle above partisanship. When the Republican leader of the Texas House agreed to the political handiwork of the majority leader of the U.S. House, he abandoned a tradition that has served Texas well.

When Texas House Republicans drew a redistricting map without public hearings, behind closed doors, a map handed to them by Washington, they trampled on a tradition in Texas, and they trampled on bipartisanship, which has always been the hallmark of the Texas Legislature.

In Texas, the name Texan has always meant more than Democrat or Republican. The Texas Democrats from my area, Jim McReynolds, Chuck Hopson, Dan Ellis and Joe Deshotel, were denied the right to protect the interests of rural east Texas. They were shut out of the process, and they joined in breaking a quorum, a regular feature of American politics, practiced by none other than Abraham Lincoln as a member of the Illinois Legislature in 1840 when he had to do so when he was under the heavy hand of the majority.

All Texans who believe in fair play owe a debt of gratitude to our Texas legislators who have said to Washington today, Do not mess with Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 222, commending those individuals who contributed to the debris collection effort following the Space Shuttle Columbia accident.

Mr. Speaker, on February 1 of 2003 the peaceful skies over my district in east Texas were shaken by the last moments of the fateful mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia. The people of east Texas looked up and saw a shower fall from the heavens on a clear blue sky morning. Once again we had lost our sons and daughters on the new frontiers of space. The entire Nation grieved the loss of seven brave astronauts: Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Specialists Mike Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon.

In east Texas, mourning our loss also came with a mission, a heartfelt commitment to recover the debris of the shuttle and the remains of her crew. The volunteer firefighters, police and sheriffs offices acted with speed and professionalism to secure the areas where the fallen craft had come to rest.

As the enormity of the task unfolded, men and women in east Texas volunteered to watch over the remains of the Columbia, knowing that the safety of future shuttle missions depended on gathering evidence to determine the cause of this tragedy. Thousands of volunteers worked in canteens manned by the Salvation Army, local churches, and charities supplying the workers with food and drink donated by local businesses.

Across the Nation, and especially in east Texas, compassionate citizens offered prayers and support and held memorial services and vigils. During the 3 months following February 1, over 14,800 personnel from 133 Federal, State, and local agencies, and thousands of ordinary citizens volunteered, spending countless hours searching over 500,000 acres and recovering over 65,000 pieces of the shuttle.

Two men, Charles Krenek of Lufkin, Texas, and Jules F. ``Buzz'' Mier, Jr. of Arizona, lost their lives when their recovery helicopter crashed in the forest of San Augustine County. Their names may not be recorded in the history books along with the astronauts, but their service to our country must not be forgotten.

I am proud of our east Texans who worked day and night in the recovery effort. Their commitment and dedication to carrying out their task with the dignity and respect the astronauts and their families deserved was an inspiration to all Americans.

In the wake of the tragedy, east Texans responded with the best our Nation has to offer; and I know our entire country, as well as the families of those so closely affected by this tragedy, join us today in expressing our gratitude and appreciation to the thousands who joined in the recovery of the Columbia. A grateful Nation will always remember.

Mr. Speaker, in 2001 we approved a tax cut based on the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that we had a surplus over the next 10 years. Today our Republican colleagues come to the floor asking for a tax cut when the Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit over the next decades and as far as the eye can see. In that case, I think it is important for our Republican colleagues to be honest with the American people and go to them and let them know that in order to give this tax cut they have got to borrow the money, and here is the kind of credit application our Republican friends ought to submit to the people of this country.

Typical application from the Members of Congress, always have to list your credit history. Our credit history is that we are in debt today $6.4 trillion. We pay $332 billion in interest. That is almost a billion dollars a day. Our estimated income for the next 10 years is $19.6 trillion. Our estimated expenditures exceed that, 23.6. It is estimated that in 2013 we will owe $12 trillion. And our estimated annual interest payments will be 6 to $700 billion, approaching what it costs to fund the Department of Defense.

So what is our request from our Republicans? We need to borrow $550 billion so we can give a tax cut. The interest cost on it is going to run another $273 billion, and so the whole deal will costs $820 billion. What is the repayment schedule? It is unknown. I suggest that if you present this loan application to your local banker, they would say I am sorry, we are going to have to deny your loan.

That is what we are being asked to do today by our Republican colleagues. Borrow money to finance a tax cut, charge it to the next generations with no prospect of repayment. I suggest this is the wrong direction for America.

We must have a fiscally responsible tax cut like the Democrats propose that was paid for by not increasing our national debt. I urge you to vote no on the Republican proposal.

Mr. Speaker, not too many months ago I had a teacher in my office in East Texas in the city of Lufkin, sitting across the desk, crying because she had learned she would not receive any of her husband's Social Security survivor benefit because she had been employed for her entire career as a teacher.

The issue before us is not a discussion on loopholes, it is whether the

government pension offset is fair. Why should teachers, firefighters, law enforcement people, be denied their survivor benefits under Social Security simply because they have a government retirement benefit? The truth of the matter is if the lady sitting across the desk from me had worked for any other private company and had received a retirement benefit from them, she would still be eligible for her husband's survivor benefit.

So I would invite the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who suggested that the Green amendment slows the pressure to change the government pension offset, to merely join with us in trying to amend this legislation; or, in the alternative, to join with the 172 other Members of this House in cosponsoring legislation, H.R. 594, that eliminates this unfair government pension offset.

We are here today to fight for our Texas teachers, to fight for our Texas firefighters and our Texas law enforcement people who are unfairly disadvantaged by a government pension offset that says to them, because they work for the government and they have a separate retirement program, then they are going to be denied the very Social Security benefit that their spouse worked and earned. We hope that those who are opposing us today will take a second look, join with us and try to correct this unfair provision.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I appreciate her leadership on the Select Committee on Homeland Security as well as her work on the Committee on Appropriations.

The amendment that Democrats hope to be able to offer, hope will be made in order tomorrow, would provide over $240 million for nuclear security to cover the items mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

I am pleased now to recognize another member of Select Committee on Homeland Security, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and I thank him for his leadership as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Next I would like to recognize another outstanding member of our Select Committee on Homeland Security, the distinguished delegate from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen). I particularly appreciate her leadership in the health care field. Her training as a medical doctor means much to us when we are dealing with the threats of bioterrorism and preparedness in the health care arena. We thank you for your leadership.

Next I would like to recognize another member of our Select Committee on Homeland Security, a gentleman who spent a great deal of time working on behalf of emergency preparedness to be sure our first responders get the tools and the training that they need to do the job, the distinguished member from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on behalf of homeland security.

The amendment that the Democrats hope to be able to offer on the floor tomorrow on the supplemental appropriations bill would provide slightly over $1 billion in additional funding for first responders, first responder equipment, firefighter grants, chemical/biological response to support State and local governments and to provide civil defense team funding. These we believe are important issues to ensure the security of our Nation and also to be sure that we arm and train those soldiers on the front lines of homeland security just as we are always committed to funding those who fight for us abroad.

It is my pleasure now to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a gentleman who knows perhaps more about the functions of a very important element of homeland security, the United States Coast Guard, than any person in this House.

(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and his leadership, particularly on homeland security.

Next I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a Member who has worked long and hard on behalf of homeland security.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), a freshman Member who served very effectively in the Florida legislature and who serves on the Committee of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, America is at war, and the Blue Dog budget reflects this new reality.

Our plan strengthens national defense, improves homeland security, all in the context of a responsible budget.

I have always tried to support my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they were right, but today their budget is all wrong.

In an effort to squeeze the President's tax cut package into their budget, our Republican colleagues have proposed spending levels below the President's that are highly unlikely to be attainable in the current climate of war and the need to protect the homeland from terrorism. And even after cutting the President's budget, the Republican budget continues to dig the deficit hole deeper, saddling the taxpayers of this country with a national debt of over $11.5 trillion in 2013. That is an increase of $5.1 trillion in debt in the next 10 years. That means every American taxpayer will owe approximately $5,100 every year just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is a debt tax that cannot be repealed.

In contrast, the Blue Dog budget is a realistic effort to control runaway Federal spending. It adopts the spending recommendations of our President. The Republican budget, on the other hand, turns its back on their own President's spending recommendations for veterans benefits, Medicare, Social Security, agriculture, and education.

The Blue Dog budget puts us back on a path to a unified balance by 2009 and restores the Social Security lockbox by 2013, a very significant year, because in that year, for the first time, the Social Security Administration projects that our government will begin paying out more each month in benefits than we received in payroll taxes.

By contrast, the Republican budget never restores the Social Security lockbox, turning their back on a promise made to America's seniors.

Since the Blue Dog budget adopts the total spending levels in the President's budget, my colleagues may be asking, what does the Blue Dog budget do differently than the Republican budget? It differs in one significant respect. It recognizes that long-term national security requires long-term fiscal responsibility. No nation has ever been strong and broke.

When our budget policies show that our current tax and spending plans will lead our Nation to ever-increasing debt, we are weakening our ability to respond to national security threats. At this very moment, while young men and women in uniform are courageously fighting the enemy in the deserts of Iraq, we are charging the financial cost of the war to the Federal Government's credit card. Who in this Chamber can explain to the American people why we are charging the cost of this war to the very generation that is now fighting this war? The Blue Dogs believe our generation should pay for this war.

Our Republican friends say, deficits no longer matter, and tax cuts will stimulate the economy, and tax revenues will return. We tried that in 2001 and what did we get? We saw the economy decline and a $5 trillion surplus disappear into thin air.

The Blue Dogs invite our Republican friends not to bet the whole farm on an ideologically driven supply-side economic theory, but join us in accelerating the marginal tax relief, accelerating the child tax credit, accelerating the elimination of the marriage penalty; but in the name of fiscal responsibility and national security, we should not accelerate the tax cuts for those families who have over $170,000 a year in income. Surely the top 3 percent of America's families will be proud to share in the patriotism of making this small sacrifice as those young men and women are doing in Iraq today.

We know that we should not ask those men and women in uniform to pay for the war we have called on them to fight. I invite all true fiscal conservatives to support the Blue Dog budget.

Mr. Speaker, tonight American soldiers are crossing the deserts of Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. It is a mission that will present unknown dangers to our young men and women in uniform. They go not as conquerors, but as liberators. They seek no sovereignty over the Iraqi people, but seek to grant the opportunity for freedom and democracy to an oppressed people.

Their mission is to disarm Saddam Hussein in accordance with the mandate of the United Nations Resolution 1441. Some would say that the task of disarmament might be accomplished without force, but none would deny that the threat of the use of force is the only credible tool in dealing with a dictator who has for 12 years defied the requirements of the resolutions of the United Nations.

Our Nation vigorously sought to unite the world in this cause. Though some of our allies failed to face the reality of a brutal dictator who seeks to accumulate weapons of mass destruction, we are joined tonight by over 40 nations to confront this dictator who controls a nation that possesses the wealth to achieve his goals of military dominance.

The policy of containment and mutual deterrence that worked successfully in the 20th century is not a strategy for security against the threats of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century.

We join together tonight in deep gratitude for the brave young men and women who courageously face the dangers of our mission. They join a long line of patriots who have given us the opportunity to live in peace and prosperity. May God bless and protect them, and may His hand guide them in the pursuit of the cause of freedom and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for hosting this hour for our Blue Dog group for the presentation of our budget proposal.

The Blue Dog Democrats in the House are 35 members strong. We come from all over the United States. Tonight we have had Members from California, Mississippi, Tennessee and Florida. We will hear from the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) shortly.

This is a group that is united by one theme, and that is we believe that our country must return to balanced budgets, we must try to pay down our debt, which now stands at over $6.3 trillion, and, in order to do so, we have to adopt a fiscally responsible budget in this Congress this year.

Back in January the President revealed his budget plan, and we have had the opportunity to look very carefully at his plan. As you know, his plan calls for tax cuts and acceleration of tax cuts that were implemented 2 years ago when we passed the largest tax cut in the history of the country. That tax cut was to be phased in over a period of about 10 years. Those tax cuts have been phasing in, and the Blue Dog Democrats believe that the tax cuts that we have all received need to remain in place.

We also believe that the future tax cuts that will accrue to the benefit of low and middle income families need to be implemented immediately in an effort to bring about a short-term stimulus.

But the Blue Dog Democrats disagree with our President on two important points of his plan. First of all, we believe that it is wrong for half of his tax cut plan to be dedicated to the elimination of the taxation of dividends.

Now, there are many wealthy Americans who have a lot of stock and who would greatly benefit from eliminating the tax on dividends. But most Americans have very modest stock investments, and we believe it is wrong to dig the deficit hole deeper and to increase our national debt by proposing at this time the elimination of the taxation of dividends.

We also believe that at a time when our Nation is on the verge of war, that we as Members of Congress need to call upon the American people to share in the sacrifice that is being made by the young 18, 19, 20, 21-year-olds who are now gathered around the borders of Iraq, poised for military conflict.

In time of war, all Americans must share in the sacrifice. By eliminating the part of the President's budget plan that eliminates the tax on dividends, we believe we are calling upon those Americans who are best able to share in the sacrifice to postpone that part of the President's plan.

We also believe that American families who have incomes over $170,000 a year should be willing to defer the tax cuts that they would get under the President's plan in order to share in the sacrifice necessary to fight and pay for the war in Iraq.

That is the Blue Dog plan: Accelerate the tax cuts for the lower and middle income families, for all families who have incomes below $170,000 a year; but those who have greater incomes than that, they will get the tax cuts that would naturally accrue to the cuts in the lower tax brackets. They will get the benefit of the Blue Dog plan for accelerating the child tax credit and eliminating the marriage penalty, as will all Americans. But as far as a reduction of the top rates, those families at $170,000 and above should be willing to wait, wait until we get through this war, wait until our budget situation improves.

The difference in those two plans, the Blue Dog plan and the President's plan, has a dramatic impact upon our Federal budget. If you look at the chart to my right, you see the President's plan will dig the budget deficit hole deeper to the tune of $2.7 trillion in debt over the next 10 years. Our present $6.3 trillion debt under the President's plan at the end of 10 years will stand at $10 trillion. We think that is wrong. We think that is bad for the country. We think that is digging a hole that we will have a very difficult time getting out of.

The second chart I have shows that the amount of interest that every American family of four will have to pay just to service that debt that we will have under the President's plan. As you can see by the chart, currently every family in America pays $4,624 in interest just to service that $6.3 trillion national debt. That is what we call the interest tax, and the interest tax is the only tax that you cannot repeal, because the interest obligation on the $6 trillion debt must be paid every year by the taxpayers of this country.

So if you look at the President's plan, by the year 2013, 10 years from now, every American's debt tax will double. Every American family will be paying $8,458 every year, just to pay the interest on the ever- increasing national debt.

We believe that is wrong. We believe it is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars to invest that much in interest.

That is correct. As we said, by 10 years, the end of the budget period that we are now looking at, the tax paid by every family would be $8,458, just in interest. Today, 18 percent of every tax dollar collected by the Federal Government goes to pay interest.

To look at it another way, if you took only the Federal personal income tax, about 25 percent of every dollar we pay, 25 cents out of every dollar that we pay, goes just to interest on the national debt.

What a waste. We talk about wasteful spending, there is no greater waste in any area of spending than what we waste every year just paying interest on this debt that we have accumulated. The Blue Dog plan is to stop that hemorrhaging.

That is correct. All of the discussion currently ongoing about the Federal budget, the levels of spending, do not include the cost of a conflict with Iraq or the cost of rebuilding Iraq once the conflict is over. The President has said that is a separate item, that it should be treated as a separate item. He has promised he will send a supplemental request to the Congress to pay for that if and when it occurs.

So we are actually talking about very conservative estimates of the size of the national debt, and the Blue Dog budget plan we are contrasting tonight with the President assumes the President's levels of total spending.

There are a lot of folks around here who believe very strongly, as I do and the Blue Dogs do, that we spend too much money and we have to be conservative in our spending. The President has sent us a budget that calls for significant reductions in the levels of spending that we have seen over the years. But even if you abide by the President's spending recommendations, which our budget does, his tax cut policies will increase our national debt to the level to the tune of $10 trillion by the end of this decade.

So, what we say is as long as we are facing war, facing growing deficits, those who are most blessed economically in our country should be willing to defer the future tax cuts they have yet to receive in order to help us dig our way out of this ever-deepening hole of debt and deficit.

The chart I have to my right shows in a line graph the differences and the surplus under the Blue Dog defense budget and the deficit that will occur over the next 10 years in the President's budget. The blue line shows the President's budget. The red line shows the path to a surplus under the Blue Dog budget.

As you can see, after 10 years, our Blue Dog budget has seen several years of improved fiscal condition of the Federal Government, and we have returned to surplus. We will have returned to a surplus by 2009. By the end of the decade, we will have returned to what we call a true surplus that does not account for the influx of Social Security funds, which we are currently spending, just to run the rest of the government.

This Congress a few months ago voted on several occasions never again to borrow money from the Social Security Trust Fund to run the rest of the government. We had 1 year, the last year of the Clinton administration, when we did that, when we accomplished that. But now we are back into deficit spending, we are using Social Security money once again to run the government, and the Blue Dog plan is a plan that will get us back to a point where we will no longer do that. The President's plan, to the contrary, does not accomplish that goal.

Just in the last 2 months, the Congressional Budget Office in revising its economic forecast on Federal income said that the Federal debt at the end of the 10-year period would be half a trillion dollars larger than they have said it would be in just January of this year. So the slide into ever-deepening debt has been dramatic.

The Blue Dogs call upon our President to take a look at the same numbers that his Office of Management and Budget produces, which are very similar to the numbers that our bipartisan Congressional Budget Office produces, and acknowledge and recognize that our picture, our financial picture, has changed dramatically, even since he announced his budget recommendations in January of this year.

I think, based on those changed numbers, the President should join with the Blue Dogs in trying to move toward a balanced budget within this decade, rather than continuing to dig this deficit hole deeper and deeper.

So, I hope tonight as the Blue Dogs have gathered on this floor, that we will be able to persuade not only our Democratic colleagues, who are well aware of this severe deteriorating budget situation, but our Republican colleagues, that they should take a good, hard look at the Blue Dog budget alternative.

It should be appealing to many of them, because for many years Republicans were known to be fiscal conservatives, and it has only been in the last 2 years when we have seen Republicans abandon that, and in fact on many occasions tell us that deficits really do not matter.

The truth is, common sense still prevails, and as you go along spending more money than you take in, eventually it is going to catch up with you. I have never seen a family that could sustain itself for very long incurring debts that they could not repay, and neither can your Federal Government.

So we believe Republicans will be attracted to our plan because we do not dig the deficit hole deeper. We believe that our spending levels, which are the same levels as the President's, will also be attractive to Republicans because they, I hope, would follow their President's recommendations on spending.

So we hope this plan will be well received, and we look forward to the opportunity to debate it when this House considers the budget resolution for this year.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago a lady came to my office in my district whose husband had died before he had ever collected a single penny of Social Security. He had worked his entire life paying into the Social Security system thinking when he died, his wife would receive a survivor's benefit from his Social Security payments that would help keep her secure during her retirement.

She sat in my office near tears explaining to me that because she had spent her career in teaching and because she receives a monthly Texas State teacher's retirement benefit, she would never see one penny from Social Security. To learn that she would have received a survivor's benefit if she had been drawing a retirement benefit from a private, rather than a public, retirement fund only added insult to her injury.

Mr. Speaker, this is unfair and the government pension offset must be repealed. For the 6 years that I have been in Congress, I have cosponsored the legislation to end this unfair result caused by this provision we call the GPO. Last year 186 Members on both sides of the aisle cosponsored legislation to repeal this government pension offset. In spite of that support, the bill never has passed, never has received a full hearing in the committee. And in spite of the support in this Congress, section 418 of the bill before us moves in exactly the opposite direction.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect our teachers, to reject this bill today, to send it back to the Committee on Ways and Means with the understanding that the GPO should be repealed.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 28 (the Cardin substitute) I was unable to cast my vote because I was attending a briefing by Secretary Ridge and Secretary Thompson in the Roosevelt room at the White House on Project Bioshield and unable to return before the vote was closed. If I had been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 28.

So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their diligent efforts in trying to adequately fund our homeland security needs. And I think what this motion to recommit is all about on this floor today is to try to ensure that we do that promptly.

I think we all know that September 11 was a declaration of war by terrorists against the United States. It was an unprecedented cruelty perpetrated against the American people that foreshadowed a new age in our country, a new kind of war, a new challenge. And this motion to recommit seeks to make good our response to that challenge.

We clearly confront an enemy that lurks in the shadows, runs from battle; and we must be willing to make the necessary changes in our budgeting and the necessary sacrifices as a people to ensure that this new kind of war is won and won decisively by the United States.

Today the frontline of the war on terror is found in places like the airports in Boston, the hospitals in Houston, the ports of Los Angeles. Those who fight this war for America are the police officers, the firefighters, the health care workers. They are the first on to respond to any kind of attack on our homeland, and they will be there to respond to those attacks.

Mr. Speaker, in this new kind of war, the struggle to end an effort by a cruel and merciless foe, we know that victory will not come out without a dedication on our part to seeing this battle through. The keys to victory are vigilance, preparedness and perseverance; and that is why it is also important today to recommit this bill to ensure that we put the necessary money in the bill now to fund these very, very legitimate needs.

I heard a State senator from my home State yesterday who said, Is homeland security going to be another unfunded mandate to the States? The answer to that should be clearly no. It is a national responsibility to protect this homeland; and the only way to do it is to put the money in the bill now to take care of these homeland security needs that I think the chairman and the ranking member of this committee both believe should be in it.