Allen Boyd

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. Members can tell he is truly our leader on these kinds of budget issues, and a very thoughtful member.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael J. Quirk for his service to his country and as a volunteer with the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. At a time when the President is encouraging all Americans to serve our nation in a volunteer capacity the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary will recognize Michael J. Quirk on his retirement from the Coast Guard Auxiliary with over 22 years of service. What is truly remarkable about Commodore Quirk is that prior to his involvement in the US Coast Guard Auxiliary, he had also well and faithfully served our nation in the military for over thirty years. In World War II, Commodore Quirk was a member of the famed 56th Fighter Group of the US Army Air Corps and achieved the status of Double-Ace. On his 100th mission he was shot down and was held as a prisoner-of-war until April 1945 at Stalag Luft I, Barth, Germany. For his World War II service he received the Silver Star among other decorations and the Purple Heart for wounds received when his plane was shot down. Following his return to the States in 1945, he entered Catholic University and, while pursuing his degree instructed Air National Guard to fly the P-47 . . . the plane he flew in Europe. In 1947, after the service was formally established, Quirk returned to the service of his country with the US Air Force and over a thirty- year career saw service with the 4th Fighter Group flying F-80 Shooting Stars; Langley Air Force Base where flew F-86 Sabre jets; La Paz, Bolivia training Bolivian pilots to fly the P-47; the Central Air Defense Force from 1951-52; Commander of the 87th Fighter Interceptor Squadron; 453rd Tactical Fighter Training Wing; Seventh Air Force Headquarters, Tan Son Nhut Air Base, RVN; and completed his Air Force career at the Tactical Air Warfare Center, Eglin AFB, Florida, retiring as a Colonel in 1977. Soon after his retirement from the US Air Force, he and his wife Kit joined the US Coast Guard Auxiliary, the volunteer force of the United States Coast Guard, and rose through various positions in further service to the nation and served at Commodore of the 8th Coastal Region in 1990-1991. On his retirement from the US Coast Guard Auxiliary with over 22 years of volunteer service, the nation joins the US Coast Guard Auxiliary and the US Coast Guard in saluting this great American.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of H.J. Res. 114. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of giving the President the authority to go to war with Iraq if it becomes necessary. I came to this difficult decision only after considering the threat to our national security that allowing Saddam Hussein to acquire long range missiles and nuclear weapons represents. While we should continue to seek a diplomatic solution, inaction is not an option. I feel that we must give the president the option of using force to remove this threat to our nation if diplomacy does not work. No one in the United States wants another war with Iraq if it can be avoided. However, we know that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, and is frantically working to develop nuclear weapons and a way to deliver them to the United States. This presents a serious threat to our national security and has the potential to destroy any chance for peace in the Middle East. I believe our first step should be to develop a new, tougher weapons inspection resolution which would allow the U.N. inspectors unfettered access to all sights in Iraq, including the presidential palaces. If it is implemented successfully, the resolution would serve to disarm Iraq and would not require an armed confrontation. However, as President Bush has noted, the track record of Iraq's compliance with U.N. resolutions is abysmal, and this time we must give him the tools necessary to ensure that Iraq is truly disarmed. In addition, I believe that before we use military force against Iraq that the administration should work to reassemble the coalition that was so successful during the Gulf War or like the one we developed to combat terrorism. While we could defeat Iraq without a coalition, policing and rebuilding Iraq will take years, and we will need allies to undertake this long and difficult task. Those of us in this chamber who have worn the military uniform of this great country, understand the ravages and consequences of war, and do not take this vote lightly. All diplomatic options should be exhausted before the use of military force, but I believe the option of force must be available to the President as a last resort. Giving the authority to use force does not mean war, it only gives our commander- in-chief the maximum flexibility to protect our nation. If it comes to war, many of our nation's sons and daughters will be put in harms way in order to protect our freedoms from Saddam Hussein's reign of terror and to keep him from acquiring nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them to the United States. I would never send our young men and women into combat unless it was absolutely necessary; and unless Iraq allows weapons inspectors into the country with unfettered access it will be necessary. Congress needs to give the President the authority he needs to protect America while encouraging the use of diplomacy and negotiations to try and arrive at a peaceful solution to this problem before turning to military force and this is why I will vote to give him the ability to eliminate this threat to American security.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the themes that were developed by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). Mr. Speaker, we are less than 2 weeks away from the end of the fiscal year, and it is rapidly becoming very clear that the leadership of the House, this House of Representatives, has painted itself into a corner. How do we implement a responsible long-term budget plan? How do we extend the current budget enforcement rules that help control discretionary spending and require offsets for mandatory spending and new tax cuts? These budget enforcement rules are set to expire on October 1. How do we enact the 13 annual appropriations bills in regular order? All of these questions must be answered by the House leadership if we are going to stem the flow of red ink and put the Federal budget back on the path to balance. Unfortunately, the only solution that the House leadership seems to have is to pretend that these deadlines do not exist. This is not a workable solution. The Blue Dog Coalition has offered to work with the Republican leadership to develop bipartisan answers to these questions by establishing a viable long-term budget, extending the budget enforcement rules to control both the tax side and the spending side of the Federal budget, and to develop a road map to enact the appropriations bills in a fiscally responsible manner. We have offered in the past to work with the leadership, and we do that again this week. First, Congress and the President need to make tough choices to address the changes in the budget outlook. The President has an obligation to lead in proposing a game plan to deal with the changed circumstances and to put the budget back on a path to balance without using the Social Security surplus. Right now under the President's budget, we will be borrowing from the Social Security trust fund until at least 2009. Given that the House of Representatives has voted seven times since I have been in this House in 5\1/2\ years to protect the Social Security trust fund by placing it in a lockbox, it is simply unacceptable to borrow the Social Security trust fund for the next 8 years to operate the general revenue side of the government. This is why we must sit down in a bipartisan manner and develop realistic tax and spending levels that will put us back on the glide path to a balanced budget. Next, we must extend the budget caps which are set to expire, the provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which were adopted on a bipartisan basis expire, as I said earlier, on October 1. Unless we renew our budget discipline, Congress will continue to find ways to pass more legislation that puts still more red ink on the national ledger. Even Alan Greenspan and the Concord Coalition agree that steps must be taken to answer these questions in such a way that we balance the budget. Chairman Greenspan stated, and I quote, ``Failing to preserve (budget enforcement rules) would be a grave mistake . . .'' The Concord Coalition warned that allowing budget enforcement rules to expire is ``an open invitation to fiscal chaos.'' Finally, we must work together to develop a bipartisan proposal to finish the 13 appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, our fiscal year ends in about 2 weeks. Over the past few years, when Congress and the President have not been able to finish the 13 appropriations bills, spending has far exceeded the levels that were recommended in the budget resolution earlier in the year. This year, we have not sent one of the 13, not one of the 13 appropriations bills to the President for his signature. As a matter of fact, the House, the House of Representatives has passed only three of the 13 regular appropriations bills off of the House floor; and again, the fiscal year ends in 2 weeks. There have been none that have been voted on on this House floor, or none scheduled since Labor Day, since we returned to our work from the August recess. Mr. Speaker, it is vital, if we are going to put the budget back on the path to a balanced budget, that we work together to control the discretionary spending on these 13 bills. Working together in a bipartisan basis, we can balance the budget, just like we did in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This is why I urge and call upon the President and the Republican congressional leadership to work with us to develop bipartisan proposals that will ensure that we have a fiscally responsible government.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably delayed on rollcall vote 197. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 197.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), for their efforts to get us to this point today, and also thanks to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) for their efforts on behalf of this legislation. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am honored to speak in support of H.R. 3375. We have heard a lot about why we have the legislation and what it does, so what I want to do is I would like to focus my comments on telling Members a little bit about two of the 12 Americans that gave their lives on behalf of our country on that day, on August 7, 1998. Both of these service people, these servants, American servants, were killed in Nairobi, Kenya. Air Force Master Sergeant Sherry Lynn Olds of Panama City has often been described by friends and family as very independent, industrious, caring, and thoughtful. She joined the Air Force after graduating from junior college, followed in the footsteps of her father, who is a retired civil servant. According to her mother, Sergeant Olds had at least two ambitions: she wanted to see the world, and she wanted to finish her education. Sergeant Olds did both, eventually receiving a degree from the University of South Carolina. She had been assigned to the embassy in Kenya for 1 year, and had just returned to Nairobi in June, 1998, after spending 2 months attending the NCO school in Alabama. This course would make Sergeant Olds eligible for an eventual promotion to achieve Master Sergeant. At the time of her death, she was assigned to the Air Force Security Element at the embassy in Kenya, and was 40 years old. Sergeant Olds is survived by her parents, Delbert and Mary Olds of Panama City. Marine Sergeant Jesse N. Aliganga of Tallahassee was born in Oakland, California, and grew up in Pensacola, Florida. He was an energetic and ambitious young man who liked drawing, reading, Greek mythology, playing the saxophone in his high school band, and collecting comic books. Sergeant Aliganga had wanted to make sergeant in his first tour of duty in the Marine Corps, and he accomplished that goal in July of 1998. He had recently signed a 30-month extension in the service to become an embassy guard. After postings in Okinawa, Japan, and Camp Pendleton, California, Sergeant Aliganga completed the security guard school in Quantico, Virginia, and was sent to Nairobi. At the time of his death, he was assigned to the Marine Security Unit at the embassy in Kenya and was 21 years old. Sergeant Aliganga is survived by his mother, Clara, and his sister, Leah Colston, both of Tallahassee. In light of the attacks of September 11, Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very painful and difficult time for many of these families that were affected by past terrorist attacks. Several of us in Congress have been trying for the past 3 years to enact a just-compensation system for the families of the embassy bombings. I am grateful, again, to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and my other colleagues here today for coming together and devising a system that will simply use the process that is in place for the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It is only fair, given that the evidence for responsibility of these horrible events points to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network, that the victims of the attacks on our embassies and the victims from New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are treated equally. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3375.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House and Nation tonight for a few minutes. The Blue Dog Coalition is going to use this hour to talk a little bit about ABCs. Mr. Speaker, some may wonder, well, that is unusual for the Blue Dogs to be talking about the ABCs, but let me tell you a little bit about the Blue Dogs. We are a group of 33 Members of Congress, men and women, from all around the Nation that spends a great deal of our focus and efforts and time and resources here in Congress asking the Congress to act responsibly in its fiscal and budgeting matters. We believe that this Congress and this Nation in the last year-plus has moved away from fiscal responsibility, and, as a result, we are endangering our children's future. So what we want to do tonight, Mr. Speaker, is talk about the ABCs of securing our children's future. When Congress considered the budget last year, Mr. Speaker, the Blue Dogs warned about the danger of making long-term commitments for tax cuts or new spending programs based on projected surpluses. In less than a year's time, we have seen a dramatic reversal of the once promising budgetary outlook. We now face projections of deficits and increasing debt for the rest of the decade that go far beyond the temporary impact of the economic downturn or cost of the war on terrorism. Congress and the President need to sit down, we need to roll up our sleeves, and we need to have an honest and open discussion about what we need to do as a Nation, as a Congress, to put the budget back in order, starting with the ABCs of fiscal discipline. The Blue Dogs have outlined four solutions to avoid leaving our children and our grandchildren with the consequences of today's irresponsible budgeting decisions. The members of the Blue Dogs who are here tonight to address this House are going to talk about those four solutions. I want to outline them very briefly. Number one is assuring honesty and accountability. We believe that the Budget Act of 1990, which expires later this year, should be reinstituted by this Congress. Unless we renew our budget discipline, Congress will continue to find ways to break its own rules and pass more legislation that puts more red ink on the national ledger. The Budget Enforcement Act, of course, has two major provisions. One, it sets in place discretionary spending limits for 5 years; secondly, it extends and expands pay-go rules. The pay-go rule is simply legislation that says that mandatory spending or revenues that increase the deficit must be offset. Secondly, the ``B'' of the ABCs is balancing the budget without raiding Social Security. We believe that this Congress should pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution which makes it a violation of the Constitution to deficit spend, unless there is an extraordinary vote of the Congress or an extraordinary reason to do so. Thirdly, we believe that the third point that we would advance is what we call climbing out of the deficit ditch. That is, there should be a plan to restore balance to our Federal books, and that, of course, is going to be an issue that we get to talk about a lot in the near future because of the need to raise the Federal debt ceiling. Fourthly, the fourth part of our ABCs is Defending Our Children From Paying Our Bills Act. This would require a supermajority to borrow money by the U.S. Congress. Many in this Chamber have, over the years, proposed that we would require a three-fifths vote to consider legislation that would raise taxes or some other sort of supermajority. Many of the Members of Congress support this notion, and we think that there ought to be also legislation which would require a three-fifths vote to borrow money. I would like at this time to call on Members of the Blue Dogs, Mr. Speaker, that are in the Chamber. I would like to yield first to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois. It is obvious to me, as he described his experience in the State legislature, that his State, like mine, is prohibited from borrowing money and must balance its budget. I believe that is the way that the Federal Government should do; and certainly one of the shortcomings in the way our Constitution is drafted is that we are allowed to borrow money in ordinary circumstances and, actually, we did run deficits from the late 1960s until about the year 2000, primarily in peace times. So we had a wonderful opportunity here in the 1990s, or here in the year 2000, 2001, now that we have worked so hard to get back into balance to do some really good things and pay down the Federal debt. We seem to have passed, or missed, that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), a member of our Blue Dog team who is actually a rising star in this Congress, I believe; and he is an excellent blue puppy.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah. He makes a good point. I think any prudent family or business or local government in Utah or in Florida that suddenly found themselves in a situation where their spending obligations were greater than the revenue they were taking in would sit down with their family or business partners and maybe their banker and develop a plan in a hurry to figure out how to get out of that situation, to get back into black and out of red ink. So I want to commend the gentleman from Utah for his very thoughtful presentation and his involvement in this process of helping us develop this four-point plan. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his leadership. He has been a leader, especially on the health care issues, as a member of the Blue Dogs, and has worked diligently on the Patients' Bill of Rights, a prescription drug plan, and others, in addition to the fiscal and budget issues. So I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for being here tonight. Next, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), his delegation mate, the blue puppy.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) for his thoughtful remarks. He has, I think, outlined it very well. I, too, as I said earlier, come from a State legislature in which it was against the rules of Constitution to spend money you did not have, that is, to borrow money. And it meant, Mr. Speaker, that we had to make some tough decisions at times. We had to go in and redo budgets at times. We had to go back and cut education and cut Medicaid, but at least we were not mortgaging the future of our children, and then we had to come back and figure out how we pay for those particular programs. Mr. Speaker, it is just not right for us to, as American citizens today, to demand that we have these programs that are very costly and not be willing to step forward and pay for those and say to our children and grandchildren, we are going to have this program today for us, but we want you to pay the bill later down the road. Now I think our business community is beginning to take a good, long, hard look also at what this extended deficit spending that we are looking at over the next decade is going to mean. Obviously, we know that we came through the decade of the 1970s and the 1980s with some huge deficits over the years. And who can ever forget in the 1970s where we had interest rates that went into the high teens and in some cases the low 20 percent interest rate? It made it very difficult. I was in business then, and I remember how difficult it was to continue to run my small business as I was leveraged pretty heavily. And so you had to take 20 cents out of the first dollar that you made and pay on the interest on your debt. I said that the business community is beginning to take a look at it. I want to, Mr. Speaker, read from today's Wall Street Journal on the front page and the article is entitled ``U.S. Debt Is Set to Rise Not Fall for Second Quarter.'' It is a very short article. I want to read it. It says the Treasury Department said it expected to borrow a net $1 billion during the April-to-June quarter. That is three months. The Treasury Department said it expected to borrow $1 billion, not repay a net $89 billion as it said it would do earlier this year in January. So in January the Treasury Department was predicting that it would repay $89 billion of the Federal debt that we owed as a Government, but today they are saying no, we are not going to repay $89 billion. We will not repay anything. We will have to borrow an additional $1 billion during that quarter period. The announcement, the department's first official acknowledgment of its dismal tax collections during the important April filing season, increases the likelihood that the Federal budget will linger in deficit for longer than the two years cited in congressional estimates. The government's troubled finances could even damp prospects for recovery by flooding debt markets and driving up interest rates. I am sure that does concern the business community. ``It is really a remarkably negative commentary on the government's financial fortunes,'' said John Youngdahl, an economist for Goldman Sachs. At a time when the economy might be picking up momentum, increasing private sector borrowing, the government's increased demand for debt runs the risk of creating more friction and consequently spurring somewhat higher rates than otherwise would be the case, Mr. Youngdahl said. That is one thing to be concerned about. I think it is something that we are all concerned about, not only the business community. But what you have is for the home owner who has got a home mortgage, if he has got a $100,000 mortgage on his home and his interest rate goes up 200 points, that is $2,000 a year. Car loans, business loans, personal loans, I think this thing could be very, very serious, and we only hope that it will turn around quickly. We know how to turn it around. We have got to plan and we are willing and ready to sit down with the administration leaders, the leaders of President Bush's administration and the leader of the Congress, lay out a plan, get us back into balance. It can be done. We did it in 1997 and certainly we can do it again. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) and the others who came to speak here tonight.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the heroic life of Lt. Commander Christopher Michael Blaschum, also known as Basher, who was a 1984 graduate of Port St. Joe High School in Florida. Commander Blaschum, who will be buried tomorrow with full military honors, died March 2 when his F-14 Tomcat crashed shortly after takeoff from the USS John F. Kennedy in the Mediterranean Sea. It is the ultimate sacrifice when a soldier or pilot dies for his country. We are able to enjoy the freedoms we have today because of men like Commander Blaschum and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have given their lives in the fight for American principles over the last 225 years. Time and time again, Commander Blaschum answered the call of his country, left his family and home, and served with distinction wherever he was sent. I extend my deepest condolences and the thanks of a grateful Nation to the family he left behind: his beloved wife, Jodi; their two young sons, Jackson and Max; his mother, Pat Johnson; and his father, Michael Blaschum. His efforts should remind us that all the liberties we enjoy come with a price. Let us always remember those who paid that price, and always remember Commander Blaschum.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for filling in. The gentleman from Texas has been a leader in this House for, I guess, 23, 24 years now on this issue of fiscal responsibility. One thing we know about him, his message has always been consistent, that we ought to be willing to pay for those programs that we as a nation want to have, have the government fund, and we ought not to be in a position of deficit spending and asking our children to pay for those programs that we have. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to call on another leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. BOYD. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his work on behalf of this country. I would like now to recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps), who represents a very large rural district. I think his people back home certainly understand about fiscal responsibility.

Mr. BOYD. I want to thank my friend from Illinois for his thoughtful work and his leadership in our group, the Blue Dog Democrats. Next, I want to call on the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) who serves in our group, the Blue Dog Democrats, as the cochair for policy.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, particularly for his leadership in the Blue Dog Democrats as the policy cochair. It is his responsibility to work with our members to develop policy. I am sure we will be seeing more from him as this budget discussion unfolds. Mr. Speaker, next I want to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), one of our newest members, one of our Blue Puppies.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his thoughtful remarks. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), one of the leaders in this House on defense-military issues. He has a very unique perspective on this whole notion of fiscal responsibility and borrowing from the trust funds that belong to the American people.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi. He always brings a very unique perspective, and he always brings the facts. As he says, they do not lie; they really tell the story. I want to recognize at this time, Mr. Speaker, and yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for his leadership on the budget issues. The Blue Dogs have written a budget every year since I have been in the Congress. The first year was 1997. That actually was the year, as the Speaker may recall, that the historic Balanced Budget Act, the bipartisan act, was negotiated between the Republican-controlled House and Senate and the Democratic administration. That plan was a wonderful plan that got us into balance, and now we are headed in the opposite direction. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. In closing, I just wanted to say that we are all aware, and I hope that the viewers, our listeners, our constituents, are aware that late last year the Treasury Secretary, Mr. O'Neill, formally requested that Congress increase the statutory debt limit by $750 billion, from the current level of $5.9 trillion to $6.65 trillion. Mr. Speaker, this request comes a full 7 years earlier than the administration had predicted when it presented its budget 1 year ago. Again, I would say this budget, this debt limit increase, comes a full 7 years earlier than was predicted by the administration when it presented its budget to us 1 year ago. Mr. Speaker, I tell my constituents back home every chance that I have to speak to whatever group it is that we are the most fortunate and blessed people in the world. We live in the greatest country in the world. We are the economic leader of the world. We are the richest country in the world. This country has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's wealth. We are the military leader of the world. All the other military hardware of the countries, all the countries around the world will not stack up to the firepower that this Nation has at its disposal. We ought to be able to figure out a plan to pay our bills. We ought not to have to dip into the Social Security trust fund to pay our operating bills. That is all that we are asking this administration and the majority, the Republican majority in the House, to do is to sit down with us and let us work together to develop a plan to get us back into balance with our Federal spending before we raise the debt ceiling. Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the Blue Dogs who have come here tonight and spoken so eloquently and succinctly on this issue.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), who has been a strong advocate and leader for campaign finance reform since his election to this Congress, to this U.S. House, in 1998. I also want to recognize the efforts of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who came into this body in the 1996 election, as did I, for his strong leadership, and of course we all, Mr. Speaker, recognize the leaders in this body, the bipartisan leadership that is provided by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who have been strong and long and tireless advocates for campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, I came to this body after the 1996 election, and our freshman class spent some time together developing what we thought was the most important issues that we could work on together. This freshman class was made up of both parties, members of both parties that came in that 1996 election, which chose together in a bipartisan way the issue of campaign finance reform to work on, and so we have been working, trying to get the campaign finance system of this Nation reformed since that 1996 election. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues know that our democratic system of government works best when the our individual constituents participate in the largest numbers. We have had diminished participation in our government election systems over the last 20 or 30 years, and I think that diminished participation is due in large part to cynicism. The public has become very cynical about campaigns and how they are financed and who controls them and so on. I think they are cynical because the public believes that the current system is skewed to give the wealthiest people in this country and the largest special interest groups a greater say in shaping our public policy. The largest culprit in that cynicism, that causes that cynicism, I believe, is a soft money loophole. Closing this soft money loophole will restore public confidence into our campaign financing system in our elections. Grassroots and personal participation, which we all know, the more personal individual participation we have in the electoral process, the better our democratic system works. If we can improve personal participation and grassroots efforts, then we will go a long way toward improving our system and the participation in that system, and our democracy will work much better. The political parties will once again, Mr. Speaker, become a resource for manpower and strategy rather than a conduit for unregulated money, which they, over the last 30 years since our last major campaign finance reform has happened, and these parties simply in the most part now have become a conduit for large sums of unregulated soft money. The national parties were healthy and vigorous before the onslaught of soft money, and they can be healthy and vigorous again once we eliminate soft money. In fact, many of us believe that soft money has broken down the effectiveness of our national parties because it dilutes the influence to outside organizations. Mr. Speaker, the time is now to fix this problem. We need to pass a clean bill that fixes our broken campaign finance system. We passed this bill, this U.S. House passed this bill in the 105th Congress, and it passed the bill in the 106th Congress, under the leadership of the people that I have mentioned earlier, but in both cases the other body failed to take up and pass campaign finance reform. It is time now, Mr. Speaker, that Congress takes the big money out of the elections process and make sure that everyone has equal access to their government. Mr. Speaker, the President has promised if we will send him a reasonable bill, he will sign it, and it is time now that the Congress produce that bill that the President will look favorably upon and restore confidence to the public in our electoral system. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas) for allowing me to speak.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for organizing this Special Order to give the members of the Blue Dog Coalition a chance to talk a bit about fiscal responsibility. I also want to thank the previous speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). He has been a forceful and long-time advocate for a strong national defense and also for fiscal responsibility. So we appreciate the gentleman's long work here in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, tonight I have a feeling inside somewhat like I had about 13 years ago. Before I entered elected public service, I was a business person running a family business that I had spent 25 years in. I was extremely concerned about the future economic health and viability of our Nation. Let me remind the Members about where we were in 1988. We had annual deficits, annual deficits running in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That means that the government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars on an annual basis more than it was taking in in revenue. And that deficit was only counted after you spent all of the Social Security money, after you spent all the Social Security money which was supposed to be set aside for future retirees. Our accounting practices were really messed up. We did not count a deficit until we spent everything, what we call the operating money, off-budget money, and then all of the Social Security money too. In 1992, President George Bush was running for reelection. This country that fiscal year had a $290 billion deficit. President Bush, if my colleagues will remember where we were back then, we had just come out of the Desert Storm, the Persian Gulf conflict in which the Iraqi government had threatened some neighbors and America came to their defense and again showed us leadership around the world and doing what was right. President Bush did a great job prosecuting that war. That happened I think in 1990 or so, but the election in 1992 really became about the economy and the fact that we had a $290 billion annual deficit, even after spending all the Social Security surpluses; and unemployment was high, interest rates were high, jobs were not being created. The economy was generally fairly stagnant. That election, as I said, was much about the economy; and of course, President Bush lost that election, and in the next 8 or 10 years the administration, in concert with the Congress, I think because the country demanded it, began to work together to solve the economic problem, to solve this deficit problem that we had in this country. I ran in 1996 for the U.S. House of Representatives, and I remember the cornerstone of that campaign was about the economy, was about the deficit, the fact that this country was not able to balance its books. So a lot of that conversation and debate that we had during the 1996 campaign was about that. When I got to Washington I was anxious to become part of a group that was interested in fiscal responsibility, and so that is why I joined the Blue Dogs; and as my colleagues know, the leadership of the United States Congress, which was Republican in both the House and the Senate, and working in a bipartisan way with President Clinton's administration, developed a plan, actually it was a seven year plan in 1997, which would take our Nation out of deficit spending and carry us back into fiscal responsibility. I think the Blue Dogs played a very important role in that debate or that deal that was cut, and it just showed what can happen when the country comes together. We have a problem, we figure out a way to solve it, set aside our partisan differences and work together. That plan was really a pretty simple plan, if put in place. Spending caps, it required that we ratchet down our spending as we went along and that if the economy would continue to grow we would be able to get in a surplus situation. Guess what happened. The business community had great confidence that the government was doing its part, that we were doing our best to hold down spending and that in the long run we would get out of that deficit situation. As a result, the business community began to invest. The economy began to boom. We had a lot of people who had capital who were willing to risk that capital in new ideas and creative ideas. Next thing we know interest rates begin to go down. Employment was higher. New job creation. We had rising markets everywhere. Of course, everybody knows that in 1992 the stock market was in the 3,000 range and maybe even below, and it went up in 2000, 2001 era, went up to 11,000. When we got to balance, there was a lot of talk about lock boxes. This Congress had many debates. I know we have taken numerous votes on the lock boxes. That was a good idea; and that idea was simply this, that we use whatever surplus money we had to pay off the Federal debt. The Federal debt was running in the five and a half trillion dollar range. That Federal debt, to service it, was costing us, as my colleagues heard the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) say, the largest single expense item of the Federal budget, costing us in the neighborhood of $325 to $350 billion. My contention is, as a businessperson, that a debt that is of that high percentage of an annual budget, it was in the neighborhood of 15 to 16 percent I believe, would really drag us down over a period of time, and we had to figure out a way to reduce that debt. So the lock box idea was a very good idea, which we would be forced to put Social Security surpluses into reducing Federal debt and any other surpluses that we might have into reducing Federal debt. 2000 Presidential election came along. OMB and CBO and others were forecasting just a year ago that we would have a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years, a $5.6 trillion surplus. Given the current laws that we are operating on, the current expected spending or revenues that we are going to get in and the spending requirements we have, we were looking at about a $5.6 trillion dollar surplus over the next 10 years, and if we had that kind of surplus we could almost pay off the total Federal debt. That was 1 year ago, January 2001. What is that projection or forecast today about surpluses? Four billion dollars of that surplus has disappeared over the last year, projected surplus, $4 billion. There are lots of reasons for that. We all know what they are. Some have to do with the natural downturn in the economy that happened, some have to do with the September 11 tragedy and the effect it has had on our economy, and certainly a portion has to do with the economic policy that this Congress and administration put in place a year ago. I would submit to my colleagues that there are three very good reasons not to go back to deficit spending. Number one is, and I think they are all equally important, but number one, the best way to continue our economic prosperity or economic boom that we experienced in the 1990s is to continue to run a surplus and to continue to pay down our Federal debt. Take pressure off the capital markets, interest rates stay low. The investment community, people who have money to invest will continue to have confidence that the economy is going to continue to be good and they will invest in it. Secondly, I think the second reason is and certainly one some others have spoken about very eloquently is that when we borrow money to pay for programs that we want today, we are just mortgaging the future of our children and that is not fair. That really is an unfair thing to do. Thirdly, certainly a situation that those of us here in Washington have been unable to face squarely is the Social Security issue. We all know that we are running surpluses in the Social Security trust fund now on an annual basis, but soon that will change. Within about 10 years we will not run an annual surplus in the Social Security trust fund. We will begin to draw out of that IOU that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) talked about that is in that box, and we know the box is not locked by now. We do. We expect the baby boomers to retire, and our economists and forecasters tell us that there is going to be a tremendous amount of pressure on our Federal Treasury to meet the requirements under the current Social Security and Medicare law. We have to prepare that, and we have not done a good job of that. One of the things that I hope this administration and this Congress can do this year is begin to address the long-term Social Security reform. I think the last issue that I would like to talk about is one of the debt lending. I think the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has addressed it in a very adequate way; but I said on this floor last year, as others did, and we heard arguments, as we presented our Blue Dog budget, which we thought was a good budget that would have kept us out of this mess that we are in now, some argued against that budget and ultimately defeated it on the basis that we would pay off the Federal debt too quickly, that this United States Government that would pay off, if we went into the surplus and began to pay down some of the debt, that we would pay off the debt too quickly and have to pay some kind of penalty. I wish we could even think that today. The same folks who may have argued a year ago that we could not pay down the surplus because we might have to pay off the debt too quickly today might ask us to raise the debt ceiling. I have to agree with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). I am not going to vote to raise the Federal debt ceiling until we put a good plan in place. I think we need to go back, like we did in 1997, and the President and the administration and the congressional leaders need to sit together and we need to figure out how to get out of this mess together. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his work. I know that he and others have organized this event tonight; and I want to say to the leadership, the Republican and Democratic leadership, and to the administration, the Blue Dogs stand ready to work in a bipartisan way to help us find the solutions to these problems that we are facing today. We are ready. We have got a lot of good folks who understand that the country has many needs, who understand where its priorities are, and we want to work with the President and the congressional leadership to get those problems solved. I yield back to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and thank him for allowing me to speak.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and commend the Junior Service League of Panama City, Florida as that group celebrates its 50th anniversary of service to our community. The Junior Service League is a remarkable organization, dedicated to training women for leadership in serving their communities. It is committed to promoting volunteerism, developing the potential of women, and improving the community through the effective action and leadership of trained volunteers. The women of Panama City have certainly demonstrated during the past half century that hard work and good spirits can make a powerful difference in the community that we live in. The Junior Service League of Panama City was founded on October 12, 1951 and had twenty charter members. The founding members' goals were to foster interest in the social, economic, educational, cultural, and civic conditions of the community; to promote the interest of its members in volunteer service to the community; and to work in harmony with the policies of the Association of Junior Leagues. The group began making a strong impact then, and I am proud to report that their work has not only continued but has intensified since that time. The 2000- 2001 League year marks the 50th anniversary of this outstanding organization with over 80 active members and over 200 sustainer members still dedicated to the goals established by its charter members. The largest yearly project for the League is called Child Service Center through which students that are recognized as needing financial assistance are given new clothing, which is paid for by the League and Target. It is a day of shopping and fun for the children. They are allowed to choose the clothing so that when they put on these new clothes they feel they were a part of the selection and really own the clothes. This obviously helps to foster self-esteem, which is needed with some of these children. With a Fall and Spring Child Service Center, the League was able to clothe 915 students last year. For those not able to attend, the League offered clothing to an additional 199 students. Volunteer opportunities within the League include: After School Assistance Program (ASAP), Domestic Violence, Kids on the Block (a puppet show used to teach children about domestic violence, handicapped people, or divorce), Teen Court, and Mentorship Program (where a mentor is paired with a student that is not doing well in school). These different volunteer placements change as the needs of the community change. Mr. Speaker, League members have a strong history as State and community leaders, and I commend the Junior Service League of Panama City for their continuing legacy of service and achievement. I am delighted to congratulate them on its 50th Anniversary and I wish them many more years of successful service to their community.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the people of Leon County, Florida. In a sincere motion of recognition, the citizens of Leon made a declaration of gratitude to all of those soldiers who are fighting overseas due to the horrible events of September 11th. I believe this decree shows that not only were all parts of this great country affected by the terrorist acts, but that the American people's support for the campaign to eliminate terrorism has not wavered. Leon County's Declaration is as follows: Whereas, the American experiment of government of the people, by the people and for the people stands as a beacon of freedom throughout the world; and Whereas, the government and people of the United States of America are dedicated to the principles of freedom and individual liberty for all of the world's citizens; and Whereas, on September 11, 2001, citizens of the United States and of the world were murdered in a dastardly campaign of inhuman atrocities, simply because they dared to live free; and Whereas, the United States now finds itself at war both at home and abroad for the first time in its history; and Whereas, the men and women of the United States Armed Services are tasked with the responsibility to defend the people and constitution of the United States of America; and Whereas, many men and women of Leon County, Florida have answered the call to duty during this crisis. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved By The Board of County Commissioners of Leon County, Florida, that the men and women of Leon County who serve in the United States armed services are recognized as our ambassadors of freedom, and that they are further designated, along with their colleagues from every community in the United States, by the citizens of Leon County, Florida, as our emissaries of peace, and the best hope for peace and security for all the free peoples of the Earth. Let it be known that, as the elected representatives of the people of this community, the Leon County Board of County Commissioners declares no compromise possible on the principles of freedom, the requirements of security, and the natural right of every person to live free from the fear of terrorist assault. As such, we once again look to the men and women of our armed services, the finest in the world, to defend our lives, our freedom, and the sacred right of every person to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Dated this 20th day of November, 2001. It gives me great pleasure to share with my colleagues the generosity of the exceptional people in my district. I hope that we can all stand behind declaration such as this one, and pray for the speedy return of the many soldiers that are putting their lives on the line in the name of freedom. They truly represent the very essence of the red, white and blue.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 383, I was unable to cast my vote due to a commitment in the district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''.