Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, one of the benefits in being a Member of Congress is the privilege of working in our Nation's Capitol. The United States Capitol, in my mind, is among the greatest museums in the world--filled with fine art, intricate architecture, and amazing statues of our country's most important historical figures.

Obviously, the Capitol is a place of great historical significance. One of the most important votes ever taken in this House was the declaration of war against Japan on December 8, 1941. This was followed 3 days later with declarations against the Axis, Germany and Italy. This in turn was followed in 1942 by declarations against Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. My friends, this was the last time Congress formally declared war against any nation.

For me, and I know for many of my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition, the opportunity to serve in this body is an honor bestowed on us by our constituents. Quite frankly, a great responsibility comes with this honor--a responsibility to represent the views of all our constituents, rather than the views of partisans on the left and right. This is why the Blue Dog Coalition advocates for a middle-ground in our policies, and I think the American people agree, the middle is the best place to govern. Madam Speaker, we have to be bipartisan, we have to be sensible, and we have to try and work together in a harmonious way to find solutions to the difficulties facing our Nation.

When I first came to Congress a Member asked me what I wanted to change about America. I thought about this real hard, and I was surprised at how quickly I came to my answer. My answer was that I did not want to change America. No country in the world cares for its citizens and provides them with the amount of support as the government of these United States of America. While I do not want to change America, our country does have problems, and I think we can address these best by working together. So, I want to challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let us start being a little more civil and little more cooperative with each other.

Two weeks ago the House debated a resolution honoring our soldiers and disagreeing with the President's proposal to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. Sadly, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle allowed the debate to disintegrate into questions about the patriotism of Members of Congress, as though you are only patriotic if we blindly follow the President's every decision lock step. How shameful. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of the idea that the President's policies shouldn't be question or criticized. Seems to me if that was the Founder's goal they wouldn't have created the Congress, a bicameral co-equal branch of government. Instead they would have suggested we create a new kingdom out of America, or perhaps advocated for a government very similar to the one we overthrew in Iraq. Thankfully, in their infinite wisdom the Founders understood the necessity of debate, of questioning the administrations' policies, of a representative Republic. How ironic that members of the Republican Party came down to the floor and questioned the patriotism of Members of Congress for doing exactly what the Founders intended--debate policies so you can arrive at the best decision for the American people.

Now, one of the biggest challenges facing America, and something Congress debates every year around this time is our budget situation and our deficit. In 1980 I was elected to the State House in Tennessee. I remember one day traveling to Nashville from my home in Byrdstown when I heard on the radio that we had just increased our national debt to $1 trillion. That frightened me. A trillion dollars is a lot of money, but it was a particularly high amount in the 1980s. Back then it was a struggle to raise our debt limit by $15 to $20 billion. Now we raise our debt ceiling every year by hundreds of billions of dollars without even batting an eye. Many times we do it without having an up- or-down vote on that particular debt increase.

After I heard that report on the radio back in 1981 I began to pay closer attention to our national debt. Over the next 12 years I watched as our debt by grew by almost $3 trillion. I kept thinking to myself, how is this possible? It took almost 200 years for the debt to reach $1 trillion, and yet, over a short period of time in the 80s and early 90s the debt tripled. Then in the 1990's we put in place pay-as-you-go budget rules that forced Congress and the administration to budget like every American family--meaning that the Federal Government could only spend what it took in. The result was a return to budget surpluses that helped us actually pay down a little bit of our national debt. Now, I know it was only a projection, but by the time President Clinton left office we were looking at having a 10-year surplus over $5 trillion. Unfortunately, the next administration and Republican-led Congress allowed PAYGO to expire and the results were predictable, and $8 trillion reverse of fortunes. So now we find ourselves in a situation where our annual deficits, excluding the Social Security surplus, exceed $400 billion and our national debt is currently $8.8 trillion, which amounts to $29,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. Where is the fiscal responsibility in that? What happened to the Republican Party? The so-called party of smaller government just couldn't resist dipping into the Treasury's cookie jar to feed their spending frizzy. Sadly, the big losers of this policy are my grandchildren and the soldiers returning home from war. They will be the ones taxed with paying down our debt. That, my friends, is immoral and shameful.

You know, my chief of staff recently had a baby they nicknamed Willis. The first thing Willis did when he came into this world was cry. Now I know why he was crying. He had just been born and he inherited his share of the national debt--$29,000. By the time he is old enough to have a job his share of the debt limit will be more than five times the cost of the first house I bought for my family in the late 1960s. We have got to do better than this. We have a moral responsibility to do better than this. This Congress has taken the first steps by reinstating PAYGO rules in the House. Now we must go one step further and make them part of the statute.

Now, I would like to go back and talk about Iraq a little more. Too often I hear folks in this Chamber saying the Democratic policy is ``cut and run'' and the White House policy is ``stay the course.'' Both of these are wrong. We can't stay the course, and we can't cut and run.

Last week I saw that Vice President Cheney was in Japan thanking our troops, and I remembered that we still have troops in Japan following World War II. We also have military bases still operating in Germany from that war. Additionally, we have thousands of troops in South Korea even though the Korean War ended long ago. We still have soldiers in Kosovo and Bosnia and Serbia and the Balkans from our involvement there in the 1990s. You know, it is worth noting that our friends on the other side of the aisle criticized President Clinton in the 1990s for our involvement in that conflict, saying it was not our duty to ``Nation build,'' and they wanted to set up a timetable for withdrawal. I believe our current President even lobbed those criticisms when he was a candidate. Sometimes I feel like hypocrisy is the currency of Washington.

Continuing to look around the world you will notice we have a military presence in Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Of course some of them are there for our current war, but many were there beforehand as a result of the Persian Gulf war. The Persian Gulf war was U.N.-sanctioned, and it is my understanding that we overwhelmed Saddam Hussein with our troop numbers, and then we used no-fly-zone in the south and north to essential block him in his own country. But we had to keep our military in the area to protect the vast oil reserves in the Middle East region of the world.

In my opinion, from looking at history, we will always have a military presence in the Middle East. The question is how will we stay in the Middle East?

Quite frankly, we must stay in the Middle East in a manner that will help ensure the security and peace of the area. Of course we want the Iraqis to win the peace and control their own country, so the key issue is how do we help them in this endeavor? Since we destroyed the Iraqi army, one that was able to resist a larger Iranian army for 10 years, we must act as their army until we have trained enough of their new army to the point where they can take over. In the meantime, I believe we need to pull our troops out of the kill zone in Baghdad and move them to the border with Syria and Iran to cut off any support for the insurgency that may be coming from those countries. At the same time the Iraqi police forces and new military must engage and control the fight within the country. It is their country; they have to win the peace. However, we can and should support them in eliminating any terrorist cells that pop up in Iraq. I believe we can do this with quick-strike forces and our advanced weaponry with minimal American casualties.

Twelve million Iraqis voted in December of 2005. This sent me the signal that they want their own country--not an American occupied country. They have established a constitution and set up their government with elected officials and various departments. Now they also have to fight those within their country who threaten their democracy. We can assist, but the will has to be theirs.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my good friend from Georgia that I will not bore the folks for 35 minutes in this House Chamber, nor will I bore you that much, but it is certainly an honor to be with you here in this House Chamber, this historic Chamber.

I asked one of the freshmen Members as we traveled from the Chamber after voting recently through the tunnel going to the Cannon Building, and I said, well, your first 6 weeks, how does it feel? He said, Lincoln, I want to be honest with you. He said, I never knew how it felt to work in a museum, but I do now.

Working here in this Capitol, where those statues of the tremendous leaders of the past, inside the House Chamber where many decisions have been made, where on December 8 we declared war on Japan in 1941 and then two or 3 days later, after being declared war on by the Axis Nations, Germany and Italy, and that declaration occurred here, declaration of war, really the last declaration of war that has been held inside this House Chamber and declaration of war that only Congress, quite frankly, can declare.

So, being here at this time of history and being on the floor with you and other members of the Blue Dogs certainly is an honor, not a privilege, but an honor that the folks back in my district have given me, and I believe that they expect us to come here and be bipartisan in our efforts, that we are not here to be demagoguing the other side or critical, but you have to try to work in a harmonious way to find solutions to whatever difficulties we have in this Nation.

I had a Member ask me when I first came here, Lincoln, what did you want to change when you came up here? And I thought real hard, and it really did not take a lot of thought. My answer was I did not want to change America. No country in the world has reached the level of helping its citizens the way that this government of the United States of America has. I do not want to change it, but there are problems. We need to fix those, and we can do it by working together.

So, for me, my challenge to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and colleagues here on this side of the aisle, let us start being a little more civil with each other.

I left from this House Chamber after the debate we had on whether or not to agree with the President's plan for a surge in Iraq is something we wanted to do in this Chamber, and it got to the point where the questions of someone's patriotism became a part of that debate and dialogue. Of course, some may obviously follow suit with that, but we had a debate about whether or not we supported the troops. The resolution said we do. We had a debate about whether we agreed with the strategy, apparently the new strategy of this President to engage an additional numbers of troops in Iraq.

Now I want to talk a moment about that budget we looked at and at the deficit. I remember I was elected in 1980 to the State House in Tennessee. As I was travelling from my home of Byrdstown in Pall Mall to Nashville to the State capital, it came across the radio that we had just increased the national debt ceiling to a trillion dollars. That frightened me. A trillion dollars in the early 1980s. I remember that as we talked about increasing that debt ceiling by $20 billion or $15 billion how difficult it was in this House Chamber. Now we increase it by hundreds of billions of dollars without even really having an up-or- down vote on that particular debt ceiling increase.

I thought how ironic it was that in 1980 how difficult it was for a debt ceiling to be increased, and now it just seems to be as if a snap of the finger and all of the sudden, we reach that level.

Then I watched for the next 8 years, the next 12 years, as that debt not gradually, but very rapidly rose in the 3 and 4 trillions of dollars. I am thinking in a 12-year period of time, how is that possible. If we look back basically almost 200 years, we reached a trillion, and suddenly we had doubled and quadrupled what we had in that period of time.

Since 2001, even with the surpluses that were applied to reduce the debt that this country owed, for a period of almost 4 years, out 4 years of surplus budgets where we had more than we spent, we took in more than we spent, and started paying down the debt, I am surprised that almost $3 trillion in the last 5 years has been added to that figure down there.

I often hear people talk about the first thing a baby does--my chief of staff just recently had a newborn son in early December, and they nicknamed him Willis, a pretty little thing, handsome little fellow. He came to one of my open meetings with him. On Saturday, we had 24 throughout the district. I represent 24 counties. The first thing little Willis did when he came to this earth, he started crying. I know now why he was crying. He realizes that this country, that these leaders in this Chamber, that this Nation has handed him a $29,000-plus debt, that he does not even have a job yet to pay off, and if we continue to go as we are going, before he gets his first job, he will owe more money than five times the first house cost me that I bought for our family in the late 1960s.

I want to talk now about Iraq for a moment. I hear people in this Chamber talk about cut and run being the policy of Democrats and staying the course being the policy of the White House. Both of those are wrong. I do not think standing the course is going to get it done, and cut and run is something, quite frankly, that I go back in history, and I cannot find that example, except some folks might say Vietnam.

But I saw Vice President Cheney in Japan early last week thanking our troops, and it dawned upon me that, let me say now we have troops in Japan after World War II. We have troops in Germany after World War II. I went back and looked at the tens of thousands of troops we have in Korea and South Korea after the Korean War; I go to Kosovo and in Bosnia and in Serbia and in the Balkans, and I realize that we have forces there from the late 1990s, although there were those in this Chamber on the other side of the aisle that called that Nation building and wanted to know when then-President Clinton was going to give us a time certain, even I think the presidential candidate at that time as well who later became the President in 2001, even he was talking about Nation building and a time certain that our troops should be pulled out.

As we debate this issue, it is ironic to me that anyone would accuse someone else of asking for some of the same considerations that they asked for a certainty of. But we are still in Bosnia and Kosovo and, quite frankly, this President that is here now and this Congress saw fit to stay there, that we should keep the peace with our friends of

I thank my friend from Georgia.

I think, what my hope is, all of us become a little bit more civil in this debate that we are having and realize that this is about America. We want security and we want peace. We want the Iraqis to win. What we have done is destroyed an Army in Iraq and I agree with that, we have destroyed an Army in Iraq that was able to defend, or at least to resist the Iranian Army with three times the population they have for a period of over 10 years. We now have to be the Army for the Iraqis.

It is our responsibility to defend Iraq. In essence, I think we have to put our troops along the Syrian and Iranian border to be sure that no one interferes with Iraq and let the Iraqis settle their own differences. Twelve million Iraqis voted in December of 2005. They established their government; it is there. Departments elected. It is time we let them govern themselves, but we must protect them.

You have been very kind to allow me to be here participating in this Blue Dog conversation.

Before I leave, one thing I want to say, one of the reasons we have been in the Middle East since shortly after World War II, quite frankly, we were there to keep Germany from getting all the oil that could have helped them delay the war much longer in World War II, maybe even have won some territories. Europe may have looked totally different if Hitler and his Nazis had been able to get control of the oil fields in the Middle East. We have been there and have been invited by governments in the Middle East for some time. Folks may or may not have agreed with us, but the leaders who were there invited us to help them. Quite frankly, there was fear in the Cold War that that might go to the Communist Nations of Russia and perhaps even China. So we have been there for a reason.

We now are there we say to protect ourselves from terrorists. My opinion is that we have to stay there to protect the Iraqis from other aggressor Nations and let them solve their problems and then we can bring our troops home. We will be there for a long time. The American public understands that.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our military men and women. I will strongly support our soldiers serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support all off our veterans, men and women who have served our country with great honor and distinction, and because of my support for our military men and women, I also rise in support of this resolution.

I support this resolution because I see no evidence that an increase in troops will lead to anything other than more lost American lives. I do not think a troop surge will bring stability to Baghdad. I do not think the surge will enable the Iraqis to stand up and defend themselves, and I do not think the surge will end the religious and ethnic strife that has existed in the Middle East for centuries.

So here we are this week debating the President's proposal to send more troops into Baghdad. And as expected, the rhetoric from our friends on the right has at times been shameful. To suggest that Democrats and Republicans who support this embolden the enemy, that they are defeatist, and that we do not support the troops, and that we want to micromanage the war, and that we do not want to preserve freedom and liberty in our great country puzzles me.

It seems to me our friends on the right do not like discourse, they don't like questions, and they do not like meaningful discussions. They do not want us to question the President's strategy, instead they want us to follow him like sheep down a tragic street that dead-ends in failure.

Attempts to use fear and insults to quiet the administration's critics are distasteful and quite frankly hurt America. Why do those who oppose this resolution want to discourage the type of action that led to the founding of our Nation? The very actions that allowed the United States to continue evolving towards that never ending goal of a more perfect union.

Our country derives its strengths from the diversity of views and ideas that comes from its people. If we disagree with the President's proposal, it is our duty, particularly as Members of Congress, to say so. I maintain that is the highest of patriotism, and I am not the only one who thinks so.

The President Theodore Roosevelt said, referring to the Presidency, and I quote him, ``That there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and that this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in any American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that to stand with the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.''

I do not know about the majority of Republicans in Congress, but I agree with Teddy. Our actions this week do not dishearten the troops, nor reflect a lack of support for our troops. Defense Secretary Gates and General Pace both testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that a resolution disagreeing with the President's proposal would not dishearten the troops.

In my opinion, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may have a little better idea of troop morale than Members of Congress. I strongly disagree with the notion that our actions this week embolden the enemy. If our lack of support for the President's plan emboldens the enemy, then public opinion polls also embolden the enemy, since polls show the majority of Americans disagree with the administration's policy in Iraq. And if this is the case, why do not we see condemnation of the American people for their views? It is because politically those who oppose this resolution know they cannot criticize the American public, but can criticize those of us who serve here in Congress.

If the actions of the House and American people embolden the enemy, then we need to consider everyone's comments. Iraq's prime minister al- Maliki recently said that the Bush administration's description of the Iraqi government's being on borrowed time, listen, gives a morale boost to the terrorists. The prime minister of Iraq is accusing the administration of doing the same thing that many of us are being accused of doing in this House chamber. How shameful. Let's get real.

I contend that the American people, the Democrats, the Republicans, and that President Bush loves America. The discussion we are having in Congress this week is an extension of the cure for America, because we all want what we think is best for our country. And what do we want? Success. We want security.

In order for us to have success and security we must force the Iraqi people to fight for their own country. In my opinion, the way we do this is not by adding more troops to the kill zone in Baghdad, but rather take our troops out of the kill zone and force the Iraqis to step up their efforts.

We should put our troops in a position to support the Iraqis when they need us. This way the pressure is on the Iraqis, not on our fighting men and women. The idea that we are going to cut and run from the Middle East and allow terrorists to control Iraq is false and has no basis in reality or in history.

We did not leave Germany after World War II, we did not leave Korea after that war, and we will not leave the Middle East after our soldiers' responsibilities in Iraq have ended. We did not leave the Middle East after the Persian Gulf War and we will not leave the Middle East now.

Mr. Speaker, the French did not win the Revolutionary War for us and we cannot win this peace for the Iraqis; they have to win it for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, we often hear from our friends on the right that when the Democrats question the war or the strategy in Iraq, we are disheartening our troops and emboldening the enemy. I guess it doesn't matter that there are many Republicans who also ask the same questions about the war. This attempt by the right to use fear and shame to quiet the administration's critics is distasteful and, I believe, hurts America.

Those on the right who take the argument further, suggesting that folks who don't agree with the administration's policies and don't keep their views to themselves are being un-American, really saddens me. It saddens me because it seems like those on the right are trying to discourage the very actions that led to the founding of our Nation, the very actions that allowed the United States to continue evolving toward the never-ending goal of a more perfect Union.

Our country derives its strength from the diversity of views and ideas that come from its people. If one idea isn't working, then someone has the freedom to suggest another idea that is different and might yield different results. In my opinion, the ability of the American people to discuss differing ideas gives our Nation great strength.

Additionally, I believe that when Iraqi people see Americans exercising their right to freedom of speech, the Iraqi people are not disenchanted by their prospects, but rather they are inspired to have a country as free as ours. They see our freedom as a beacon of hope for what their nation could become some day.

Frankly, it is the freedom we enjoy here that scares the enemy over there so much, because they know that once the people taste freedom, they will demand it for eternity for themselves. So we should not stifle our freedom here for fear that it may be negatively impacting the war over there, which I seriously doubt it is.

Furthermore, if the actions of Senators of both parties and House Members of both parties embolden the enemy, then doesn't public opinion also embolden the enemy? Since polls show a large majority of Americans disagreeing with the administration's policy in Iraq, not the war, the administration's policy in Iraq, if this is the case, then why don't we see those on the right condemning the American people for expressing their views and emboldening the enemy? It is because probably politically they know they can't criticize the American public. It is because it is easier to take pot shots at politicians than at everyday men and women in American society.

Additionally, if the actions of the Senate and the House and American public embolden the enemy, then I think we need to take a look at the administration. I quote: ``Such statements give a morale boost to the terrorists,'' Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, on remarks of the Bush administration describing the Iraqi Government as being on ``borrowed time.'' In essence, the Prime Minister of Iraq is accusing our President of emboldening the enemy by making such a statement.

I contend that the American people love America, that Democrats love America, that Republicans love America and that President Bush loves America. I contend that we all love America, and that the discussion everyone is having on Iraq right now is not an extension of their love for America, because we all want what we think is best for the country. We want success and we want security. If only we also wanted civility in Washington.

I know that once folks cross into the District of Columbia or read about something in Washington, it seems there is something triggered in their brains and our rhetoric is raised to a sensational point. We need to stop and ask ourselves, is this rhetoric helpful to the end goal, or just hurtful?

There certainly have been plenty of failures in Iraq and there is plenty of blame to spread. We should have sent in more troops, some say. We should have not disbanded the Iraqi Army. We should have kept better track of how our taxpayer dollars were being spent. We should have squashed the militias before they built a strong following, some say, and on and on.

I will tell you who has not failed: Our soldiers on the ground. The American soldiers won in Iraq. They defeated Saddam's Army, deposed a dictator and tore down the statue. They gave the country to the Iraqis.

Sadly, in my opinion and many others, the leaders in Washington have failed our soldiers because those in charge of Iraqi policy have been weak in dealing with the new Iraqi government, have not pushed them to find political solutions to the problems they face. The lack of political structure in Iraq falls squarely on the shoulders of the war planners, and I for one will not let the reputation of our fighting men and women be tarnished by the miscalculations of those in charge.

The question now must be, what are the next steps to bring success and security? That is our goal, is success and security.

The Blue Dog Coalition has drafted a resolution that can help us along our goals towards success and security. House Resolution 97 would improve our accountability in Iraq so we can make sure our taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and going where they are needed to achieve success.

In my opinion, this resolution is the first step of many steps down the path to stability and success in Iraq. I, for one, stand with our military men and women, ready and able to walk down the path of success with them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I so often hear that cut and run is a strategy from Democrats. That is not the case. When we finished the war in 1945, military bases were established in western Europe, in Turkey and other places throughout the world. They are still there. As we finished our endeavors, as many people thought during the Korean War, our military bases are still located in South Korea.

We will never leave the Middle East, if the American people think that is the case. What we are talking about is being able to redeploy and do certain other endeavors that have not been done to make sure we win this war, win the peace, and have success in Iraq. We will be in the Middle East for a long, long time. My great-grandchildren will still see us be there. That is an area in which we have to defend America's freedom and liberty.

But we have got to take another look at having success, because what we are doing now is not having the success the American people demand, expect and we should have for them, and our troops deserve better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remaining portion of my time.

Congressman Ross, thanks very much. I will be very brief.

During the campaign in November, October and September, obviously leading up to the November 7 election, I heard a great deal from those who would be talking about, do you favor cut and run or stay the course?

I submit to you that neither of those are good alternatives. And the sad thing is that the American public have been told that mission has been accomplished after landing on the battleship. And then shortly after that, the Iraqi insurgents were told, just bring it on. I think it is time that we bring on a little bit of accountability. And this accountability and the resolution that the Blue Dog Democrats have introduced doesn't deal with whether or not we stay, how long we stay. It just talks about the stay that we have already been there, account for it. Account for the almost $400 billion that has been spent of taxpayer dollars that could be used, quite frankly, maybe to have won the war in a better way, to have brought about a safe Iraq that is not there today.

And my real concern, as I go back and study the Tet Offensive, it is my concern that, as we send these 20-some thousand extra troops into Iraq, and as we start talking on the Shiia militias, that we may see the results of another Tet Offensive that we saw in 1968 in Vietnam.

I just hope that our President, that the Defense Department and those who are advocating additional troops not only will be accountable for what we have already done there, but at least present to us a better plan than what we have had presented to us in the past.

Stay the course, mission accomplished and bring it on just ain't got it done, and it is time that we look at what is going on in this country. When you look at Iraq and Iran, and you realize that when you hear that there are a billion folks of the faith of Islam, most of those are either in Asia, Central Asia and in Africa, not in the Middle East. Virtually all in the Middle East perhaps are the Islam faith except, obviously, for the nation of Israel. But when you look where most of the Shiias are, only 10 percent of the faith of Islam are Shiias. The other are Sunnis. And when you look at where the bulk of the Shiia population is, it is in Iraq and in Iran.

It is my fear that stay the course, bring it on and mission accomplished has only brought to us two nations in the Middle East, Iraq and Iran, with probably close to 7 percent of the Shiias that will be in control of two nations in the Middle East that will have under their soils around 50 percent of the oil in the Middle East. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we take a serious look and do what the old crossing at the railroad used to say: Stop, look and listen to what we are doing.

When we talk about different coalitions, obviously there are many in this particular Congress, probably some several hundred different caucuses that deal with health care, deal with many different issues. But the one caucus in this House that deals with fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense basically is the Blue Dog Coalition. And when the Blue Dogs were established, here is basically what they said:

We are dedicated to the financial stability and national security of the country, notwithstanding partisan political positions and personal fortunes and do hereby agree to organize a Coalition to serve the interests of our country;

That government has an important and constructive role to play in defining an equal opportunity society built upon principles of individual rights and freedom and dedicated to creating conditions that serve the general welfare and prosperity of the people;

That the people have entrusted the representatives of our country to transcend politics, personal careers and fortunes in order to pursue the common good;

That a government too large and intrusive stands in the way of an opportunity society;

That government must live within its allotted resources;

That the burden of the American taxpayer should be reduced whenever possible;

That government agencies are created to serve rather than to restrict, regulate, and punish the American people;

That government should encourage work over idleness, personal independence over government dependence, and a free market which is not controlled, dominated, and excessively regulated by the government;

That the American Tax Code should be simply structured and designed to create incentives for income earning, saving, and investments in jobs and in expanding opportunities;

That personal responsibility is essential to the preservation of freedom and that government must strictly hold accountable those who are victims of criminal and irresponsible behavior;

That government should be a force that affirms traditional American values and stands against the forces that threaten them;

That government should always be aware that it is a creature of the American public, that it answers to the public for its failures and successes and should never be so arrogant as to use its powers to diminish personal rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

Sounds pretty ambitious, doesn't it? But in fact we hear those who serve in

this House Chamber. We hear those of different party persuasions talk about these particular ideas and how they have enacted those.

Let's talk about fiscal responsibility. I went back and did a little research. In the early 1990s, government was taking about 22.1 percent of gross domestic product in 1992 of the American worker's paycheck, of business paycheck. That is 22 percent-plus. For the next 8 years under the Clinton administration, we saw government reduce itself, or be reduced not by itself, let me correct that quickly. I have never seen government reduce itself, but we saw those in government, Democrats and Republicans, working together to reduce the spending in government to 18.5 percent of gross domestic product as of the 2001 budget area, in that 8-year period of time.

It has now climbed back up to where it is 20.8 percent, and that is gross domestic product. There has been more increase in spending in the last 6 years in the budgets of the United States than in any time in history other than the Great Society years of the Johnson administration.

The principles I just read are ashamed of that, and those of us who serve here who are Blue Dogs are ashamed to say that the code that we have established for those of us who serve as Members of Congress of the Blue Dog Coalition are ashamed of what has happened in the last 5 to 6 years. Deficits have skyrocketed. We have gone from $5.8 trillion in national debt to where it is a little over $8 trillion of national debt.

A lot of that has been because the 12 principles that we have and hopefully will be putting in place in this U.S. Congress in the next 2 years, had they been implemented and been in place, we would not have seen this outlandish spending, nor would we have seen the American taxpayer be obligated to the debt they have.

My chief of staff just had a newborn baby who he says cries a lot. I said, Beecher, have you explained to him, little Willis, that he just inherited $29,035? That debt is going to be his to pay.

Madam Speaker, earlier this week Tennessee lost one of its bright, honorable young men in a senseless tragedy. I rise today to honor the name and spirit of Tennessee Highway Patrol Trooper Calvin W. Jenks. Mr. Jenks of Culleoka, Tennessee was taken from his family, friends, and the countless Tennesseans he swore to protect during a traffic stop in West Tennessee. I don't want to dwell on the tragic event; instead I want to honor the life of a man who loved serving the public.

Trooper Jenks, a native of Lansing, Michigan, moved to the Culleoka Community in Maury County, south of Nashville, in 1989. A 2000 graduate of Culleoka High School, he excelled in baseball as a four year starter for the Culleoka Warriors baseball team.

A member of the Tennessee Highway Patrol for two years, his duties began in the 7th District of the Tennessee Highway Patrol, headquartered in Lawrenceburg. In July 2006 he transferred to the 4th District in Memphis.

Many friends and family members say Jenks, a newlywed, was a man of values and

with the skills to guide him through the ranks of the Tennessee Highway Patrol. As a testament to this young man's character over 1,110 people attended his funeral service.

Through this senseless tragedy, I hope the people of Tennessee will reflect on how much we actually owe the law enforcement officers who risk everything for the sake of protecting us. I will continue praying for their safety and that of their loved ones.

At this difficult time I doubt many words will comfort his wife, mother, father, brothers, sister and extended family during this time of profound loss. They should know that the State of Tennessee is deeply saddened by their loss and will forever appreciate Trooper Jenks's service. As Horatio said in Shakespeare's Hamlet, ``Now cracks a noble heart. Good night, sweet prince and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.''

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, and its goal of reducing prescription drug prices for both the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

Just like any new program, the current Part D benefit has its flaws. Make no mistake, however, the current Medicare prescription drug benefit has gone a long way in providing desperately needed assistance to seniors in Tennessee and across America in paying for their prescription drugs. Though far from perfect, the original bill passed in 2003 represented a breakthrough and an important milestone in the Nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for current beneficiaries and future generations. As a representative of an extremely rural district, the provisions that directly impacted my rural constituency were too good to vote against. Had I voted against the legislation, I would have essentially voted against my constituents, and I was elected to protect them.

Tennessee's Fourth District has a little over 27,000 elderly individuals with incomes less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level. The current benefit has directly assisted them in scaling down the cost of medicine and, as a result, has provided much needed assistance for low-income individuals. In fact, as of November, over 50,000 Tennesseans had been deemed eligible for the low-income subsidies provided by the original legislation.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 has directly impacted each of the 435 congressional districts in a unique way. While there is room for improvement, no one can deny that Part D has made great strides in helping our seniors to afford prescription medications. I applaud the program, but like my colleagues, I am committed to strengthening the benefit.

Madam Speaker, it is not everyday a Member of Congress gets the opportunity to proclaim they have a national champion attending school in their district. I rise today to congratulate Kathy Kroeger, a student at Independence High School in Thompson Station, Tennessee, for winning the 2006 Foot Locker High School Cross Country National Championship.

``The Beast,'' as she is commonly called for her consistent domination over her cross-country opponents, is a two-time defending Class AAA State champion and holds multiple State records.

Kathy recorded a time of 17:29, several seconds ahead of her closest competitor during the National Championship in San Diego. In 2005, Kathy came in a very respectable 16th place.

Winning a national championship is not an easy feat in any sport. You must be committed to constantly improving yourself, have a great support system around you, and have the determination and drive to compete. Kathy has all of the above factors, which lead her to winning the championship.

We look for many good things to come from Kathy in the future; whether on the course, in school, or out in the world, I wish her all the best.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 7, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, it is with true regret that I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose S. 2832, a bill to reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill not for what it does, but for what it does not do. S. 2832 does not protect each ARC State funding allocation from the effects of earmarking in this Chamber.

The House bill does contain such protection. H.R. 5812, which has strong bipartisan support, contains language that provides each State with protection against raiding its funding allocation for earmarked projects. The House bill contains a provision that says, ``Funds approved by the Commission for a project in an Appalachian State pursuant to Congressional direction shall be derived from such State's portion of the Commission's allocations of appropriated amounts among the States.''

By requiring that funds for earmarked projects come from the State allocation, this language protects all rank-and-file members in ARC counties from an inequitable distribution of ARC funds.

The Senate bill contains no such provision. It is inconsistent with earmark reform legislation and does nothing to stop the unbalanced distribution of funds that is characteristic of earmarking. With its very limited amount of program funds, it is essential that fund allocations be done based on need, not on the whims of a few.

We are all aware of the phenomenal success of the Appalachian Regional Commission. Since its creation in 1965, the ARC has worked to transform the Appalachian region and bring it into the American economic mainstream. The number of economically distressed counties has been cut by more than half. The per capita income gap between Appalachia and the U.S. has been reduced from 22 percent below the national average in 1965 to 18 percent in 2001. Infant mortality rates have fallen, and adults with high school diplomas have increased by over 70 percent.

To ensure progress and ongoing success of this breakthrough ARC program, it is essential that each State receive its fair share based on the ARC formula. S. 2832 opens the door for tampering with this successful formula, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose S. 2832.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday night, our President had an opportunity, after 5 years of 9/11, to again unify this Nation as he did in 2001. Instead, he chose to give a political speech that focused more on the war in Iraq than what he is doing now to secure this Nation against those really responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

Last month, the Republican cochair of the 9/11 Commission Tom Kean said, ``We're not protecting our people in this country. The government is not doing its job.'' That is from a Republican.

When Commissioner Kean was asked whether Iraq is preventing us from protecting our Nation, Kean admitted Iraq has been a distraction.

Five years ago and 2 days after 9/11, Osama bin Laden remains at large and the Taliban is resurging in Afghanistan. Since the Bush administration turned its attention away from Afghanistan to go into Iraq, roadside bombs have increased by 30 percent and suicide bombings have doubled.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush had a chance on Monday to level with the American people. It is time we turn our attention back to Osama bin Laden, who really was the one who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Let's get Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot afford to wait another day to address our Nation's energy crisis. Record gas prices are not only causing pain for American consumers every time they pull up at the pump, but high prices are also seriously threatening our national security.

Consider $5 a barrel increase for a barrel of oil. That translates into $85 million that goes directly to Iran every week, which can then be sent to Hezbollah or to support the escalating sectarian violence in Iraq.

Neither the Bush administration nor congressional Republicans have done enough to wean us off foreign oil. For 5 years now, we have refused to come up with bold new ideas. Instead, their answer last year was to give oil and gas companies $20 billion in tax breaks and subsidies.

The former top aide to Secretary of State Rice told The New York Times yesterday, I do not think any of us have done a terribly good job of thinking through, and how far behind the eight ball we are on these issues.

For 5 years now, Washington Republicans have been unwilling to think outside of the box for fear that they will irritate their special interest friends in Big Oil. I think it is time that we lead America in a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to clarify something about the activist judges. Since 1953, since Eisenhower was sworn into office, there have been 23 Federal judges appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of that amount, 17 have been Republicans, 6 have been Democrats. The Court today has 7 Republicans, and 2 Democrats.

I do not know who they are blaming. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this amendment. And I rise today with some serious concerns. First, I am concerned about the use of faith and marriage to score political points. I am also concerned about the scope of the amendment.

First, I will talk about the amendment's scope. In my opinion, the amendment limits its ability to truly protect marriage. As written, the amendment defines marriage between a man and a woman. Sounds good, but I do not think that alone will be good enough to fully protect marriage.

Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the amendment does not go far enough. If we truly want to protect marriage, we should look and do all the things we must to go after the evils that threaten each and everyone of our marriages. These are the evils of divorce, adultery and abuse.

The amount of divorce that has occurred in this country has become a threat to marriage. What do our children learn when they see their parents getting divorced left and right, only to remarry and get divorced again? What kind of example does it set?

This occurrence clearly undermine the values that are the foundation of every marriage. Of course I am speaking of the commonly recited tenet, ``Till death do us part.'' Marriage is for life. This amendment needs to include that basic tenet.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further, Mr. Speaker, I believe infidelity, adultery, is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart

of every marriage, which is commitment.

How can we as a country allow adulterers to go unpunished and continue to make a mockery of marriage? Again, by doing so, what lessons are we teaching our children about marriage? I certainly think that it shows we are not serious about protecting the institution and this is why I think the amendment should outlaw adultery and make it a felony.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we must address spousal abuse and child abuse. Think of how many marriages end in divorce or permanent separation because one spouse is abusive. And, Mr. Speaker, I personally think child abuse may be the most despicable act one can commit.

This is why if we are truly serious about protecting marriage to the point where we will amend the Constitution, we should extend the punishment of abuse to prevent those who do such a heinous act from ever running for an elected position anywhere.

We should also prevent those who commit adultery or get a divorce from running for office. Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example. If we want those watching on C-SPAN to actually believe we are serious about protecting marriage, then we should go after the other major threats to the institution, not just the threats that homosexuals may some day be allowed to marry in a State other than Massachusetts, and elected officials should certainly lead by example.

Now for my second concern, Mr. Speaker. As a person of faith who has been blessed with a wonderful marriage of 42 years, I am deeply troubled that some may be using this amendment to score political points with their base.

Why else would we be voting for an amendment that has no chance of becoming law since the Senate has already rejected it? Why else would we vote on an amendment that may not be necessary, when you consider that 45 States have enacted either constitutional or statutory bans on gay marriage? And other States, like my home State of Tennessee, have put such bans on the ballot in November.

Why, too, would Congressional Quarterly in their July 17, 2006 issue, report this amendment is a part of the legislative values agenda rolled out to rally the GOP base in the run-up to the November elections?

Just as one should not take the Lord's name in vain, I also believe a good value for folks is to never undermine religion or marriage by using them to score political points with the base in order to win elections.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for both parties to stop pandering to the bases that live on the political fringes and instead remember that there is one more true base: the American people. The people I represent would be more motivated if we could address the cost of $3 a gallon gasoline, and cut it in half, reduce the cost of health care for a family of four from $1,000 it currently costs for a family, increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, address the illegal immigration, reduce budget deficits and balance our budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincerest regards to Ms. Ruth Johns McCluskey in Knoxville, Tennessee. Ms. McCluskey will be celebrating her 100th birthday on July 28, 2006.

Ms. McCluskey, born in Smyrna, Tennessee, attended grade school at the Greenwood School in Old Jefferson Community. After graduating from Smyrna High School she attended Tennessee Normal School for Women--now Middle Tennessee State University. After receiving her degree she embarked upon the field of education and taught grades 1-8 in Crossville, Tennessee. It was during this time that she met her future husband, Rev. Joe McCluskey, a fellow teacher. During their marriage they had two children: Ruth and Joe.

Today, Ms. McCluskey stays active and engaged by reading the daily paper, magazines, and as many books as she can get her hands on. Ever the extrovert she enjoys playing bridge and cards with her friends and family.

I wish Ms. McCluskey the best, and may God continue to bless her.