Jim Matheson

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, Saturday's tragedy was both unexpected and shocking. It evoked memories of an earlier American tragedy, the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. But we must remember that this terrible loss shows the continued bravery of the American space program. We forget so easily the immense risks associated with space exploration, and I commend those individuals who continue to put themselves at great risk in order for all of us to live in a more enlightened and advanced society. In the wake of this tragedy, NASA and the Congress must work together to initiate the most complete and thorough investigation possible in order to prevent similar tragedies in the future. The work of exploration is ongoing and we must be vigilant in maintaining standards of safety. Larger questions about the future of our journey into space must also be addressed by Congress. It is important that we also remember the three crewmembers still on board the International Space Station who lost valued friends and peers. I am hopeful that they will safely return to Earth as soon as possible. I extend my deepest sympathies to the families of the heroic crew of Space Shuttle Columbia. I am certain that the men and women at NASA are struggling with their grief, as well, and my thoughts are with them also. Let us all remember the remarkable individuals who reached the stars and lived lives of great American accomplishment.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). I first met Wayne Owens when I was 12 years old. He was running for Congress in 1972 in the State of Utah and he took the State by storm. He walked over 700 miles during that campaign. And the walking was not just a gimmick. The walking was an indication of the fact that Wayne Owens genuinely, genuinely wanted to get to know the people of whom he was asking for a vote and the people who he was going to represent. I think throughout his life, with all of the great goals that Wayne tried to achieve and the big picture and the big items he pursued, he never lost that notion of relating to the individual person, to the common man. That is something we here in this House should remember as we look back on Wayne's life. I had the opportunity to be a campaign manager for Wayne Owens during one of his elections. It was an exceptional opportunity, a challenging opportunity, because Wayne, again, always liked to dream big and he would ask a lot of the people who worked for him. He pushed people beyond what they thought they could do. And as someone who was rather young at the time, I got to be a campaign manager, and that was something that was a significant development in my own life. So I considered Wayne a friend, a mentor, I considered him my Congressman, and I am pleased to occupy the Second Congressional District office that Wayne once represented so well. When Wayne came to Congress the first time he happened to be on the Committee on the Judiciary, and he was involved in the impeachment process with then President Nixon. That was an exceptional period in Wayne's life. It was a time when he had invested so much time and effort in terms of examining that issue because he understood the gravity of the situation. This was not a partisan effort. And I remember talking to Wayne about the stories of when he actually voted out those articles of impeachment, about he and his colleagues walking out of the room with tears coming down their faces because they recognized what a difficult circumstance that was for this country. I think that was one instance where Congress behaved in a professional way, and it showed the strength of this country that we were able to move on from that circumstance, and Wayne Owens was an important player in that process. It was mentioned earlier about how he advocated for victims of radiation exposure. When Wayne was not in Congress, when he was an attorney, he represented victims of radiation exposure, the widows of the miners that worked in the uranium mines, the people who were told this was safe when it was not. And that work in private life is another example of a guy who acted in the context of service, and when he got to Congress he continued with that and pushed ahead with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. This was a critical issue that forced the Federal Government to acknowledge it had lied to people and exposed people to dangerous radiation through open air testing of nuclear weapons in southern Nevada and also through the uranium mining activities; an important issue for people throughout the Colorado plateau. As I have gone through these comments, what strikes me is the fact that Wayne Owens was a guy who always had big goals and big objectives, whether it was trying to address a wrong that the Federal Government had committed and force them to admit culpability, whether it was other issues we have heard about today, like pursuing peace in the Middle East, whether it was pursuing a tremendous change in public lands policy in Utah, with Wayne's vision of a wilderness designation in that State. And there were other big goals and lofty dreams that Wayne Owens pursued, some of which are successful today, and some of which the work is going to go on past Wayne's activity in regard to those issues. Significant issues. I could go on and on. The Central Utah Water Project, a project that had been involved with Federal funding for many, many years but it was going in the wrong direction. Wayne was part of a group that pulled people together from the sportsmen community, from the conservation community, from the agriculture community, and they completed the Central Utah Water Project as a Member of Congress in 1991, a significant issue that moved the State of Utah forward. That is the Wayne Owens I am going to remember, a guy who would dream big and would relentlessly and tirelessly pursue issues. But what I will also remember is what I pointed out at the start of these comments. This was someone who was incredibly genuine and would listen to people and took the public trust very seriously. It is the type of approach to the job that I think we can all learn from, and I think we can do no better activity to honor Wayne than to follow in that way in terms of how we approach this job.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, this debate is occurring at an auspicious anniversary in our Nation's history. Forty years ago this month, our Nation stood at the brink of nuclear annihilation. Offensive nuclear weapons were being placed 90 miles from Miami. A dictator stood ready to launch a missile strike against this Nation. And the United States, while supported by the world community, stood alone in confronting the menace. Mr. Speaker, there are ominous parallels to the missiles of October 1962 and the Iraqi threat of 2002. While we debate this resolution, I believe it is illuminating to go remember what President Kennedy faced 40 Octobers ago. President Kennedy did not want to go to war. He knew what war meant. But he also knew the dangers of inaction far outweighed the risk of action. We are faced with a similar situation today. A tyrant is building a nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons capability designed only for offensive use. International mediation is preferred, but not an absolute method of engagement. The threat is real, and inaction on our part today will put us at greater risk tomorrow. This resolution is not a blank check to go to war. It is not defiant of the world community to pass this resolution. No one wants to go to war and see lives lost. No one wants our blood and treasures spent in far-off lands. But just as President Kennedy acted with threat of force of our military to end a threat 40 years ago, we must not remove this option from President Bush today. I urge support of this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the efforts that the President has taken in organizing the White House Conference on Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children. As you know, our country has been especially affected by the seemingly large number of child abductions over the summer. I am proud to say that I am an original cosponsor of Representatives Frost and Dunn's National AMBER Alert Network Act, which was passed earlier this year by the US Senate. Mr. Speaker, over 58,000 children were reported missing in 1999 according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. While this number represents only non-family kidnappings, the anguish that parents and loved ones go through when any child becomes missing is indescribable. Today, both the House of Representatives and the President took a leap forward in protecting our youth. The Judiciary Committee passed the Child Abduction Prevention Act, which significantly enhances the ability of our nation's law enforcement community to not only find missing children, but also prosecute their abductors. This bipartisan approach will improve the AMBER Alert programs in many states and establish a national coordinator to set up minimum standards for relaying information about abductions in a quick and efficient manner. The bill also strengthens penalties for violence against children, including automatic first degree murder charges for child abuse and child torture murders, severe penalties for sexual abuse, kidnapping and sex tourism, and a ``two strikes you're out policy'' mandating life in prison for repeat violators. Today the President hosted a White House Conference where he announced a new national standard for rapid-response electronic notifications. He also pre-empted Congress by creating a new coordinator at the Department of Justice tasked with improving coordination and cooperation between federal, regional, state, and local law enforcement communities. I am very pleased the government and private organizations are realizing that they can help prevent kidnappings. On Tuesday, I was happy to hear that AOL will begin using the AMBER Alert system to notify more than 26 million subscribers in states and cities all over the country. This effort is to be applauded by Congress and the country and will hopefully encourage other businesses to begin taking a proactive approach to helping communities solve these crimes early and prevent kidnappings. Mr. Speaker, while the role of the federal government in preventing these heinous crimes is very important, I must also say that I am proud of the efforts that communities have made. The outpouring of support for the families of those who have lost their children is exceptional. The AMBER Alert system only works when the community is involved. A number of kidnappings were foiled this year specifically because regular citizens paid attention and helped catch criminals.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), our subcommittee chairman. I have enjoyed serving on the Subcommittee on Aviation under his leadership, and I appreciate his leadership on this bill today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 110. It is such an appropriate thing for us to be doing in terms of recognizing the service and honor and courage of over 100,000 flight attendants that fly in the skies above this country. It is important that we acknowledge their service. And something that has helped us focus on this service is the actions that took place on September 11 and actions that took place subsequent to September 11. As was mentioned, 25 flight attendants lost their lives that day. That same day let us not forget that all the other planes that were up in the sky were ordered down on the ground by the FAA and a number of flight attendants on all those flights on that day faced some real challenges. They faced the fear that we all felt that day, but they also faced the job of having to work with a number of passengers on all those airplanes that were being diverted and asked to land on emergency notice, and the flight attendants in this country served us well that day in terms of dealing with that difficult situation, and that applies to the days following September 11. We had a public that was nervous, and the flight attendants represented the face of courage. They were the first line of defense, quite frankly, in maintaining security on those airplanes. We know the stories about how they caught the shoe bomber, Richard Reid. We know that the flight attendants are keeping their eyes open. So it is appropriate that we honor them in this context, but we ought to honor them also for all the work they have done. Let us face it. When they get on that airplane, they are the face of the airline for which they work. The traveling public at times experiences some frustrations maybe through delays, maybe through the weather or what not. Sometimes those frustrations are unfairly directed towards flight attendants because they are the ones who are there interacting with the public, and I think that as a profession they deal with that situation so well and they certainly deserve our gratitude and our respect. It is important that we do not forget the folks who lost their lives September 11, those 25 flight attendants, and we owe them a lot. We owe them this resolution today to honor what they have done but we owe them more. We owe them the commitment that we are going to continue to move forward and try to encourage as good a security situation as we can get in our aviation industry. That is the commitment we need to make to the flight attendants as well. They are on the front lines, and we are going to do whatever we can do to back them up to make sure this is a secure situation in our aviation industry. So it is with great pleasure that I advocate support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 110.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, when we evacuated our office a year ago, and I could see the black smoke rising above the Pentagon, I knew our country was under attack. The inconceivable was taking place. The passing days brought more heartache than many of us thought we could bear. The hijackings and plane crashes took the lives of three Utahns--two who were on board the plane that hit the north tower of the World Trade Center and one who was on duty at the Pentagon. Mary Alice Wahlstrom, of Kaysville, Utah and her daughter Carolyn, died together--two talented musicians whose families still grieve for the loss of their wives and mothers. Brady Howell of Centerville, Utah died--along with 188 others--when hijackers struck the Pentagon. His family--including his wife Liz--had to endure one agonizing week before learning his fate. A year of sorrowful birthdays and holidays has gone by, with a much-loved husband and wife, brother and sister, son and daughter, missing from the family pictures. Their names and their lives will always remind us of the goodness that is America--goodness that the terrorists sought to destroy. But we know that the terrorists will not succeed. Their cowardly attack took the lives of 343 members of the New York City Fire Department, but not the determination of 62 search and rescue team members from Salt Lake County. They rushed to New York, working 12-hour shifts, searching the rubble at Ground Zero for more than a week. The terrorist attacks left many children without parents--but couldn't destroy their future, as Americans rallied to support a $100 million scholarship fund to someday send these children to college. We stand for everything that the terrorists hate--courage, freedom, compassion, democracy and hope. Even as our memorials and reconstructed buildings rise from the devastation of that day, those values emerge unscathed. We have suffered a loss, but not a defeat. We still mourn, but our faith has not faltered. The wounds are still fresh but the spirit that is America shines through--a beacon of hope for better days ahead.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, l rise today to honor the achievements of Philo T. Farnsworth, the inventor of television. Though his name is largely unknown in much of the world, Philo was born in Beaver City, Utah and later moved to Idaho. At the age of just 14 he conceived of the idea of manipulating electrons while plowing a field on his father's farm. Seven years later he demonstrated his invention for a small circle of friends and family in San Francisco--and television was born. September 7, 2002 marks the 75th anniversary of Philo's remarkable invention. Philo struggled to establish a patent for his invention, taking on electronics giant RCA. He battled the corporate giant for the patent rights and his dedication and persistence paid off. Philo later went on to develop radar systems and the electron microscope in addition to conducting research on nuclear fusion. It was only after his death in 1971 that Philo's achievements in television were acknowledged. In 1992, the state of Utah presented the United States Capitol with a gift, the statue of Philo Farnsworth that now graces the Hall of Columns, downstairs from this Chamber. He was hard working and imaginative, as so many Utahns are, and I would like to honor his efforts today. His enthusiastic interest in science sparked a series a series of technological advancements that truly shaped the 20th century.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today advocating a vote against the previous question, and doing so in opposition to a Member pay raise. Today we are considering a bill that is vital for the continued operation of our government, the safety of our citizens, and the security of our economy. But hidden deep within it is another congressional pay raise. Mr. Speaker, since this session of Congress began, the Dow has lost 15 percent of its value. The Nasdaq has lost almost a third of its value. Unemployment is up. Profits are down. Retirement accounts are down. People are hurting, and we in this Congress should not be raising our pay. We cannot afford it. Last year's government surpluses are long gone. We are swimming in red ink. We are fighting a war. We should not be asking the taxpayers to pay us more. I urge Members to vote against the previous question.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4635 the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. This is a very sensible piece of legislation. We have a duty to provide pilots with the same tools shop keepers and mall security guards and others use in the protection of their property and the safety of their customers. As the events of the morning of September 11 unfolded, the President gave the Air Force the authority to shoot down any commercial airline that did not respond to authorities. For the first time in our history, the American military had the authority to take action against American civilians. That single horrible thought--that the United States government might have to use lethal force against American citizens who were unlucky enough to get on the wrong flight--should give us enough reason to pass this legislation. Pilots need a last line of defense. They need the ability to defend the plane, the cockpit, and most of all, the passengers. We need to give our pilots the same opportunity for self-defense our Constitution provides to everyone else. This is a good compromise. It is the product of good legislating workmanship by Chairman Young, Chairman Mica, and Congressmen Oberstar and Lipinski. It is an example that debates about the Second Amendment need not be filled with mischaracterized rhetoric, but rather be premised on what's good for the American people.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me. There is no question that circumstances have changed from where we were a year ago. We acknowledge that we have this war on terrorism. We have homeland security concerns, so the situation has changed. We ought to change the way we are figuring out what we are doing about the budget. If we have to go borrow more money from a bank to buy a car or a house, we have to tell the bank a story about how we are going to pay them back. That is just common sense. But we do not have that story here. We are not telling people that story. We are telling the American people we want to borrow more money that is going to be on their backs and the next generation and the next generation, with no story about how we are going to pay it back. So let us all agree that the situation has changed. Let us all agree that we have a tough job ahead of us. Let us roll up our sleeves and work together and come up with some kind of plan on a going-forward basis to put us back in a position of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas yielding to me, and I want to thank him for continuing to be such an articulate spokesman on this issue. Just another reason why I am real proud to be a Blue Dog. When I came to Congress, and I am a freshman, so I am here in my first term in Congress, I had the opportunity to consider different groups to affiliate with and issues to focus on. And before I even got here as a candidate, I was talking about the notion of fiscal responsibility, about what a great opportunity we have right now to take our Federal budget and really work in a good way to reduce debt and to reduce the burden of debt on future generations. The Blue Dog message was one that was so consistent with mine, it was a great experience for me to learn about this group and be affiliated with them. But that is only one reason why I am happy to be a Blue Dog. The other reason I am happy to be a Blue Dog is that the Blue Dogs have a reputation for being very straight up. We put the figures and facts out on the table, and we are happy to work with people. And we say that in an honest way. We are prepared to reach across the aisle and work with anybody in this House, regardless of party, regardless of ideology. We want to work with them to come up with good ideas for being fiscally responsible. We have gone through some tough times this past year in this country, and our circumstances have changed. No question about that. We all are supporters of the fact that we have to put in significant resources in terms of this war on terrorism and efforts to increase homeland security. These are tough issues, and we have not resolved them yet. In fact, the needs for this war on terrorism and the needs associated with homeland security are going to be developed for years to come probably, in terms of us knowing where we are going to be. So that is a significant factor, as I said, and we support committing those resources. I know the Blue Dog coalition is very supportive of defending our borders and defending our people. But with that change in circumstance, clearly, it seems to me, that calls for reassessing where we are in terms of our total Federal budget because we have just had this significant change in our requirements, and coupling that with an economic downturn and revenues being down and projected deficits coming in, those are all reasons why we need to look at this. My concern is that while we have been talking about this, that people are not taking it seriously and looking at it. This is our opportunity now, because we are running up against our credit limit. We have not had to take a vote here in Congress on the debt limit for a number of years because we were running surpluses. Now we will have to take a vote on this. And the Blue Dogs are not trying to say we are not going to raise the debt limit. The Blue Dogs are prepared to stand up for a straight-up debt limit increase as long as it is associated with a commitment to develop a plan for how we are going to get out of this pattern of increasing debts year upon year upon year. I do not like taxes. I do not think any of us like paying taxes. But if we want to take action to make sure future generations pay a lot of taxes, just keep running up the debt now, because those future generations are going to have to be paying the interest on that debt. We are talking about a heavy tax burden on future generations. That is certainly not a legacy that I want to leave, and I would like to think most people in the Congress, on both sides of the aisle, do not want that to be their legacy, but I am concerned that is the direction we are going. Now, we sit here and talk about this, I recognize there is no easy way out of that. I will admit that. This is going to take a lot of work and a lot of smart people getting together to try to work through this, to get our budget situation going from a path of increasing deficits to where we are back on the path of fiscal responsibility. Nobody has a monopoly on all the good ideas around here, not one individual, not one party, but as Blue Dogs, we are sincere in our request that people sit down with us. We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work hard, and ready to face the tough decisions. That is why our constituents elected us. We are supposed to take on the tough issues, and this is a tough issue. My concern is that right now Congress is not willing to address where we are going. We are too concerned about short-term considerations in the next election. We need to be looking at the next generation in the way we make our decisions. So as Blue Dogs, every week, we come out on the House floor to try to highlight this issue, because it is such an important issue to us. It is such an important issue to my constituents. I hear about it all the time when I go back home. So, as I say, we are sincere in our request. We have been out here many times. People have not taken us up on it yet, but we are getting to the point where this debt limit is going to be hit. The Senate has already passed a debt limit bill to raise the debt limit, and now it is our time. It is our time here in the House. Now, if we turn this into a partisan situation, I suppose the majority party, if they can reach consensus, can pass a debt limit increase without Democratic votes. We, as Blue Dog Democrats, are prepared to offer a vote in favor of raising that limit, as I said earlier, as long as it includes with it some sense of a plan or a process by which we are going to come up with a plan to get us away from this path of deficit spending. That is what we are asking. That, to me, is such a common-sense request, because if you are in the private sector, whether it be your household budget, or whether you are in the business world, if you are spending out more than you are taking in, you know you have to change something over the long run. You just cannot keep doing that over time because it does not work. And particularly if you want to borrow more money, it does not work, because nobody will lend you that money because you do not have a good story to tell how you are going to get out of that pattern. So when you go for that car loan or you go for that home mortgage, the banker will look you in the eye and say, tell me how you are going to pay me back. A very reasonable request. I think the citizens of this country ought to be asking Congress how are you going to pay us back? How are you going to pay back this debt? That is a fair question, and it is incumbent upon us to take that on. So here we are again today. Week after week we raise this issue. I make the request one more time. I ask Members of the House, let us get away from the rhetoric, let us sit down and let us work together on this very difficult issue. Let us do the right thing for future generations, let us do the right thing to get our budget back on track. That is what the Blue Dogs are all about, and I hope that people will take us up on this offer. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, it is with concern that I rise to discuss the President's Executive Order to strip air traffic controllers of their inherently governmental function status. I believe first and foremost that the greatest responsibility of the federal government is to ensure the public's safety. Taking steps toward privatizing our air traffic controllers could impede our safety efforts. Privatizing air traffic control systems has consistently proven to jeopardize air safety. Both Great Britain and Canada have privatized their air traffic control systems and both have run into massive debts, increased costs for airlines and higher prices for consumers. The British system, that began operating only eleven months ago, is currently facing bankruptcy. Even after a government bailout of 30 million pounds, airlines are seeing burgeoning shortfalls of up to 80 million pounds. In Canada, there are many problems with the privatized system. Canadian air traffic controllers are preparing to strike while Air Canada President Robert Milton exclaimed, ``I think we have a long way to reach the levels of efficiency that exist in the US.'' Mr. Speaker, why would we take steps toward privatizing America's air traffic controllers when we just decided it was more effective to make airport security screeners federal employees? Privatizing our air traffic control system would be a terrible step backward as the Administration looks to consolidate and improve the abilities of our national homeland defense agencies.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, last night when we started the general debate, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has done an excellent job in bringing this bill out of the committee, described this bill as a ``must-pass'' bill. I think that really is something that we all agree with. We want to move forward in terms of supporting our war on terrorism. But the fact it is a must-pass bill is because this debt limit increase has been sneaked in. Let us face it, that is why we are here today talking about this issue. I am a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dogs have been talking about this issue of a request from the administration to raise the debt limit by $750 billion for a number of weeks now. What we have said is, let us not give Congress a blank check. Let us not give that big of a blank check when there is no plan for how we are ever going to get out of this pattern of deficit spending. I come out of the private sector. I am a freshman Congressman. I used to work in the energy business, and I used to have to finance projects. I would have to go to the bank, and I would have to borrow money. When you borrow money, you have got to give the bank a plan for how you are going to pay it back. That is how it works for all of us, whether you are getting a car loan, a home mortgage, or borrowing for your business. You have got to have a plan. We have no plan. We have a $750 billion request from the administration and no plan for how we are going to get out of this. I understand that we are running a deficit right now, that we have a war on terrorism and homeland security concerns, that our economy is in recession. I understand that we need to take action. The Blue Dogs as a group have produced legislation calling for a clean vote on a debt ceiling increase, not $750 billion mind you, but a clean vote to provide that increase, to prevent our government from facing any problems where they default on their obligations. But part and parcel with that is the request that we work together, both sides of the aisle and the administration, to come up with a plan, a plan to balance our budget, because that is what people expect us to do. They expect us to come together, work together; and they expect us to take the tough votes. They do not expect us to come and sneak in some legislation in the context of a must-pass bill that we all support the effort to pay for our war on terrorism; they do not expect us to sneak in a debt- limit increase at the last second. That is not why my constituents elected me. I do not think that is why most constituents vote for their Members of Congress. I am new to this body. I have not been around here for a long time. But I have to say, I am just surprised. I am surprised that we would take something as important as increasing the debt limit and sneak this in in some innocuous language in an emergency wartime supplemental bill. It just does not seem to be appropriate. It does not seem to be right. I call on all of our colleagues to take a step back, to take a commonsense approach here and recognize that we have our job to do today, which is pass an emergency wartime supplemental appropriations bill. Let us stand by the good work that the Committee on Appropriations has produced. That is what we ought to do. We ought to stand by that. It was a bipartisan agreement. But as far as this debt limit increase, let us have a healthy debate, let us work through the committee process, let us all talk about it. I think we can reach consensus on that as well. Maybe not $750 billion. In fact, I should not say maybe. I would say it would not be $750 billion. But I would suggest that we could work together in that context. This is not the time and this is not the right vehicle to be doing this. That is why we are here, and that is why we are taking so much time here today. I am really proud of the Blue Dog Coalition and the way they have stood up for this issue, because the notion of increasing debt is something that is going to create increasing tax burdens in the future. I look at my little boy who is 3 years old, and I do not want to force a big tax burden on him. But if we keep running up debt here, he is going to be paying higher taxes because he is going to have to pay the interest on that debt. That is the way we ought to be thinking about things. Let us get away from the short-term political view of looking out at the next election. Let us look at what that next generation is going to be facing in this country. The decisions we make here affect them so much. I think anytime we make public policy decisions, when we look through the eyes of the next generation, we make better decisions. And so when we look at this debt limit issue, $750 billion, that is a lot of money. We throw numbers around here all the time, but that is a lot of money. I am really concerned about the fact that that is not going to be the end. This issue is not going to go away. This issue is not going to go away as long as we do not come together and show some discipline and come up with a plan and get out of this pattern of deficit spending. And so I call on my colleagues to work together in that context. I call on my colleagues to give us a clean supplemental appropriations bill to fund this wartime effort as the previous speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), had suggested. I think you would get unanimous support if we had that opportunity. That is where we ought to be today. We could finish this today and we could go home.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for taking the lead tonight on what has been a continuing effort on the part of the Blue Dog Coalition to raise consciousness about this issue, because we are about to approach what we have been talking about for the last few weeks. Let me just briefly review the circumstances that we have gotten into at this point. By law, Congress has to set the debt limit for how much debt this country can have. We have had the benefit in the last few years of running some surpluses, so Congress has not had to vote on the debt limit for a while. Now, I am a newcomer to this Congress. This is my first term. I came in with a stated desire to carry on with the Blue Dog agenda of being fiscally responsible, of trying to pay down our debt. Those are critical issues for me. Now, circumstances have changed and some of these things, of course, no one could predict. With the events of September 11, the ensuing war on terrorism, the need for additional resources for homeland security, and a recession that this country has faced, the projections have turned around. We are running deficits, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) just indicated. We understand that as Blue Dogs that there may very well be, and in fact I think there is, a legitimate call to increase that debt limit by some degree because we have encountered these tough times right now. A number of us have cosponsored legislation that calls for an increase of $150 billion in the debt limit, coupled with the fact that we have to sit down and identify with the President and Congress a budget that is going to put us on a path back to balance by 2007. We as Blue Dogs support the war on terrorism. We support efforts to upgrade homeland security. We support those efforts wholeheartedly. We recognize that is a need this country must address. We understand that in that context of the short term we are going to be running a deficit right now. But the concern we have is this request came in, and this request came in to raise the debt limit by $750 billion. We throw numbers around Washington all the time, but $750 billion is a lot of money. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) just indicated that maybe the projections this year are maybe the deficit will be $150 billion. So why do we need to raise the debt limit by $750 billion? The real concern, and it is something that as Blue Dogs we have been talking about for week after week after week on the House floor, is that we are being asked to increase this limit by this huge amount with no indication of a plan on how we are going to get out of this deficit spending. There is no indication of a plan that someday we are going to turn this around and not saddle future generations with more and more debt. There are a lot of people in this body on both sides of the aisle who strongly desire a reduction in the tax burden on our society. Well, in terms of future generations we are not doing them any favors, because we are piling up debt, and the tax burden is going to be laid on them to pay the interest on that debt. So that is really the issue we have been trying to raise over the last few months: Why, why $750 billion? Why give Congress and the administration in effect a blank check to run up that much more debt over the next few years with no plan to turn it around? We have come on the House floor, and we have talked about how, in the private sector, when you go out and borrow money, whether it is for a car or a home mortgage, or whether you are a business getting a loan, when you go to the bank you have to be able to tell the bank a story, a credible story about how you are going to pay the debt back. They are not just going to give you the loan without you justifying your capability and identifying a plan for how you are going to pay that back. Blue Dogs do not claim to have every answer in the book, but we certainly claim to have the desire to sit down, put the papers and numbers out on the table, and let us articulate a way, let us identify a way to turn this financial ship around, so instead of running more deficits we can get back to balanced budgets. As I said, we have been talking about this for many weeks. That really brings us to where we are today. What is really disturbing is perhaps we have got a lot of people thinking about this, and they do not want to have this vote on whether we should increase the debt limit by $750 billion. What we hear from reports is we are going to sneak this debt limit increase in on the supplemental appropriations bill. Now, this is a bill that is an important bill. The supplemental appropriations bill is for emergency spending, and it contains significant spending regarding defense issues that are important to this country. Some would describe it as a ``must pass'' bill. When you have a ``must pass'' bill, maybe there is a desire to tuck in another provision that otherwise you do not want to have to put in front of us for a straight up-or-down vote. That is not the way we should be working here. That is not what democracy is about. That is not what my constituents elected me to do, and that is not what constituents across the country elected their Members of Congress to do. They elected us to take on the issues and stand up and be counted. What is really interesting is this is being done in a very innocuous way. The language that is going to be added to the supplemental appropriations bill does not really say $750 billion. All it says, well, there is some innocuous language about maintaining the full faith and credit of debt obligations that this country can incur. Then the idea is, and this is where we are getting into total inside- Washington process discussions, and I hate to have to go into that, but that is what is going on here, is that it is going to go to the conference committee with the Senate and we are going to have a debt limit increase happen, where here on the House floor, as a stand-alone item, we will never have voted for it. I find that a shame. I find that a shame, because we are going to set ourselves on a path for running up massive amounts of debt. If we are going to set ourselves on that path, then by golly, we ought to all stand up and see who wants to vote to do that. That would be my request of people on both sides of the aisle here in this body, that we take the time to have a good debate and discuss fiscal policy, fiscal responsibility, how this government is going to move ahead in the next few years, how we can take actions to stop running up more debt, to stop saddling the next generation with so much debt, and to do what our constituents expect us to do. When you come to this job, you know you are not always going to have easy votes. You face tough votes a lot. But this is a tough vote I hope we can face, because I fear we are not going to face that tough vote. It is getting tucked into this other bill. It is getting tucked in where we cannot even force an up-or-down stand-alone vote on that item. So that really is why we are here tonight. After many weeks of talking about this, my Blue Dog colleagues have come to the floor Tuesday after Tuesday after Tuesday to try to raise consciousness about this. It is something we believe in so much. I have been so proud to be associated with the Blue Dog Coalition because of their position on this very issue. And I pledge, first of all, and I speak for me and for the Blue Dogs, we are ready to work with people. We really are. We want to roll up our sleeves and try to come up with solutions. I would make a request that everyone on both sides of the aisle try to join us in this effort. It is too important to play with election year and partisan politics. This is too important, when we take a look at the next generation. It is important we take on this issue. Let us make sure we have a true up-or-down vote on this issue. Let us articulate what our policy is going to be.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in recognition of National Police Week to thank those men and women serving our country as police officers. These dedicated Americans, our ``First Responders,'' risk their lives every day to keep the streets and neighborhoods in our nation safe. Preliminary data shows that during 2001, 233 policemen and women died in the line of duty in the United States. That makes last year the most deadly year for law enforcement in over 25 years. This year, three Utahan's names will be added to the over 16,000 men and women memorialized for being slain while on duty: Roosevelt Police Chief Cecil Gurr, Lehi Officer Joseph Dan Adams, and Salt Lake City Police Department Sergeant James E. Faraone. Both Chief Gurr and Officer Adams were shot and killed, while Sergeant Faraone was assisting victims of a traffic accident when a car hit him from behind. These men served their communities, and lost their lives while performing that service. While officers from throughout the United States descended upon Washington, DC this week, I think of the great sacrifice of the 71 men and women in New York City who died while trying to help those in need on September 11, 2001. The events of that day, both in New York and Washington, have forever sealed our resolve to fight against terrorism around the world and on the home front. That is why we sent troops to Afghanistan, but it is also why Americans must depend upon their local law enforcement and support police officers now more than ever. The efforts of police departments throughout the State of Utah were especially seen during the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Games. Utah officers worked 16-hour shifts, six days a week without complaint, knowing that their jobs were more important than ever. I commend the efforts of each and every one of the policemen and women who helped keep the greatest Olympic Games safe from terrorism. Mr. Speaker, though there were few incidents at the Olympics, since 1853, 106 Utah officers have been slain in the line of duty. As a tribute to all those officers from Utah that have lost their lives serving the public, a memorial has been placed in the rotunda of Utah's State Capitol. I would ask permission to name each of them at this time, to honor them and salute the sacrifice that they and their families made for their fellow citizens. Salt Lake City PD Sgt. James E. Faraone--September 18, 2001, Lehi Officer Joseph Dan Adams--August 4, 2001, Roosevelt PD Chief Cecil Gurr--July 6, 2001, Salt Lake City Officer Michael Dunman--July 17, 2000, UHP Lt. Thomas S. Rettberg--Feb 11, 2000, Nephi PD Officer Tracy Davidson--July 25, 1998, Navajo Div. of Public Safety Officer Esther Todecheene--June 8, 1998, Spanish Fork PD Officer Larry Penrod--Feb 5, 1997, Provo PD Detective Norman Ken Nisson--Jan 11, 1995. UHP Trooper Randy K. Ingram--Oct 5, 1994, UHP Sgt. Doyle R. Thorne-- July 30, 1994, UHP Trooper Charles D. ``Chuck'' Warren--May 16, 1994, Salt Lake CO SO Deputy Michael S. Welcker--Feb 24, 1994, UHP Trooper Dennis L. ``Dee'' Lund--June 16, 1993, UHP Trooper Joseph S. ``Joey'' Brumett III--Dec 11, 1992, Wasatch CO SO Deputy Blake V. Wright--Sept 26, 1990, Utah Dept of Corrections Lt Fred F. House--Jan 28, 1988, Navajo Div. of Public Safety Officer Andy Begay--December 5, 1987, and Navajo Div. of Public Safety Officer Roy Lee Stanley--December 5, 1987. Murray PD Officer Jackson D. Elmer--Nov 14, 1987, Emery CO SO Deputy Wade A. Hansen--Sept 24, 1987, Duchesne CO SO Deputy Gerry lvie--July 2, 1987, West Jordan PD Officer Thomas M. Rees--Feb 23, 1986, Park City PD Officer Rodney W. Schreurs--July 4, 1984, Cache CO SO Deputy Charles R. Dickey, Jr.--March 18, 1984, UHP Trooper Daniel W. Harris--Aug 28, 1982, Salt Lake PD Officer Ronald L. Heaps--Jan 13, 1982, Beaver CO SO Sheriff Dale E. Nelson--Sept 8, 1980, and Salt Lake PD Officer David W, Olson--March 22, 1980. UHP Trooper Ray Lynn Pierson--Nov 7, 1978, Utah DPS Officer Robert B Hutchings--July 20, 1976, Tooele CO SO Sgt. Lauren E. Dow--Aug 26, 1975, UHP Trooper William J. Antoniewiez--Dec 8, 1974, Cache CO SO Lt. James R. Merrill--Jan 5, 1974, Salt Lake CO SO Deputy Melvin C. Colebrook--March 10, 1973, Salt Lake PD Officer Percy Lindsay Clark-- Jan 11, 1973, UHP Trooper John R. Winn--Sept 22, 1971, Davis CO SO Deputy Donald Perry Jensen--May 14, 1971, and Utah Dept of Corrections Officer Donald Wagstaff--Dec 12, 1970. Utah DWR Officer Charles Gilbert ``Gil'' Porter--May 2, 1970, Ute Tribal PD Officer Adolph F. Bush--Aug 19, 1967, Ogden PD Officer Marshall ``Doc'' N. White--Oct 13, 1963, Moab PD Officer Lloyd Larsen-- Jan 5, 1961, San Juan CO SO Deputy Seth F. Wright--Oct 14, 1960, UHP Trooper George D. Rees--July 2, 1960, UHP Trooper Armond A. ``Monty'' Luke--Dec 3, 1959, Cache CO SO Deputy Alma P. Sorenson--Aug 27, 1959, Logan PD Officer Edwin L. ``Ted'' Edwards--Aug 27, 1959, Salt Lake CO SO Deputy MacKay C. Jewkes--June 28, 1959, Utah Dept of Corrections Officer Edwin Fisher--June 1, 1955, Salt Lake PD Officer Harold A. Peterson, Jr.--Oct 27, 1954, Salt Lake PD Officer Owen T. Farley--May 23, 1951, Salt Lake PD Sgt. Thomas W. Stroud--Jan 5, 1951, Mt Pleasant PD Officer Alonzo ``Lon'' T. Larsen--Oct 15, 1949, Ogden PD Officer Clarence M Bean--May 1, 1945, Carbon CO SO Sheriff S. Marion Bliss-- April 23, 1945, Ogden PD Officer Hoyt L. Gates-- Feb 11, 1941, Emery CO SO Deputy William Levi Black--Aug 22, 1936, and Salt Lake PD Officer Blaine L. Baxter--Sept 4, 1935. Ogden PD Officer Joseph H. Quigley--July 12, 1935, UHP Trooper George ``Ed'' Vanwagenen--May 1, 1931, Grand Co SO Deputy Richard D. Westwood--Sept 5, 1929, Logan PD Officer Willard R. Dahle--May 4, 1929, Salt Lake PD Officer Carl J. Carlson--March 9, 1929, Salt Lake CO SO Deputy Oscar Fullmer--Aug 26, 1928, Castle Gate PD Marshal J. Milton Burns--June 15, 1935, Salt Lake PD Officer Gustave J. ``Gus'' Lund--Aug 25, 1924, Salt Lake PD Officer Brigham H. Honey--Feb 16, 1924, and Salt Lake PD Officer Nolan W. Huntsman--Feb 15, 1924. Salt Lake PD Officer David H. Crowther--Oct 12, 1923, Salt Lake PD Officer Nephi P. Pierce--March 26, 1923, Salt Lake CO SO Deputy Gordon Stuart--April 15, 1922, Ogden PD Officer Charles Manzel--May 9, 1921, Salt Lake PD Officer Green B. Hamby--Feb 8, 1921, Ogden PD Officer Albert G. Smalley--April 7, 1920, Nat'l Forest Service Officer Rudolph E. Mellenthin--Aug 23, 1918, Eureka PD Officer Alex J. Robertson--Dec 5, 1915, Salt Lake CO SO Deputy Thomas Manderich--Nov 29, 1913, and Salt Lake CO SO Deputy J. Douglas Hulsey--Nov 29, 1913. Salt Lake CO SO Deputy Otto Witbeck--Nov 21, 1913, Salt Lake CO SO Deputy Nephi S. Jensen--Nov 21, 1913, Bingham PD Officer J. W. Grant-- Nov 21, 1913, Salt Lake PD Officer Thomas F. Griffiths--June 25, 1913, Midvale PD Officer Frank Colclough--Aug 7, 1912. Salt Lake PD Officer John H. Johnston--July 15, 1911, Salt Lake PD Officer Charles C. Riley--Oct 5, 1909, Weber CO SO Deputy Seymour Clark--Nov 27, 1908, Park City Officer Albert Holindrake--Jan 12, 1908, and Salt Lake PD Officer Charles S. Ford--Dec 14, 1907. Provo PD Officer Frank Tucker--June 16, 1900, Grand CO SO Deputy Jesse Tyler--May 26, 1900, Grand CO SO Deputy Samuel Jenkins--May 26, 1900, Provo PD Officer William Strong--June 27, 1899, Ogden PD Officer William A. Brown--April 30, 1899, Springville City Marshal Silas E. Clark--Nov 18, 1897, Uinta CO SO (WY) Deputy Edward N. Dawes--July 30, 1895, Echo PD Officer Thomas A. Stagg--July 30, 1895, Bingham PD Officer L. C. Morrissey--July 6, 1895, and Spring PD Officer James C. Burns--Sept 26, 1894. Salt Lake PD Sgt. Alonzo Mispah Wilson--April 12, 1894, Salt Lake PD Officer Andrew H. Burt--Aug 25, 1883, Utah State Prison Warden M.D. Burgher--March 16, 1875, Provo PD Officer Albert H. Bowen--Oct 16, 1873, Deputy U.S. Marshal William R. Storey--May 2, 1870, Salt Lake PD Officer William Cooke--Oct 18, 1858, and Salt Lake CO SO Deputy Rodney Badger--April 29, 1853. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in thanking these men and women from Utah, and all those from around the country, that have made the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives as police officers.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, the State of Utah has lost one of its favorite sons with the sudden, untimely passing of Thayne Robson. In a career spanning more than four decades, Thayne Robson counseled governors and local government leaders, dispensing an incomparable blend of wit and wisdom about Utah's economic fortunes. His stature as the dean of an elite cadre of Utah economists is fixed in the state's history. He helped craft the fiscal policies of Governors Cal Rampton, Scott Matheson, Norman Bangerter and Mike Leavitt. Always a gentleman but frequently contrarian, Thayne was known to temper his colleagues' rosy forecasts with a word of caution and to see clear skies where others foresaw storm clouds. His track record was exceptional; his influence immeasurable. Thayne's word was golden--good enough, in fact, to take to the bank. And that's exactly what Utah officials did. His expert forecasts of Utah's Economic climate contributed to the sterling credit ratings bestowed on the State of Utah by New York rating agencies. Not only was Thayne a trusted economic forecaster and policy advisor, he was the impetus to restructuring the state's economic development efforts. He forecasted the decline of Utah's mining and agricultural sectors and encouraged government officials to diversify the state's economy through travel, tourism and technology. He spearheaded a move to strategically focus state and local economic development efforts within a single organization, known today as the Economic Development Corporation of Utah. Thayne's professional credentials include teacher, researcher, respected business economist. But he was also a great civic leader. Not one to live quietly in academia's cloistered halls, Thayne was active in local organizations and community affairs, lending his support and expertise to a host of favorite causes. He demonstrated extraordinary commitment to the betterment of the community and the state he loved so much. Thayne was a gifted communicator. He had a rare ability to translate complex concepts into language people could understand. Thayne's plainspoken interpretation of economic news was a regular feature in the media's broadcasts and news columns. Thayne was fond of saying, ``If you laid all the economists in the country end to end, they still couldn't reach a conclusion.'' In at least one instance, he was wrong. I am certain his colleagues join countless other Utahns and me in affirming that Thayne Robson was a man of great intellect, uncommon wisdom and good humor. His passing is a great loss. We will treasure his memory and give thanks for his incalculable contributions to the state of Utah.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my full support to the passage of H.R. 3694, this is vital legislation, needed not just for our roads, bridges, and interchanges but also for our towns, our states, and our national economy. There is no doubt that our economy is not expanding as it was just a couple of years ago. Unemployment is at a six year high and consumer confidence is low. There is a way, however, to provide good jobs, expand commerce, and make lasting investments in our country and that is to restore highway funding. This year's budget has an $8.6 billion cut to federal-aid highways. The swings in our economy have translated into a wild swing in how we administer highway funding. Just last year, the Treasury Department predicted a $4.5 billion increase in funding levels, only to be faced with a $4.4 billion drop. We must now carefully choose our funding priorities. Without the restoration of this money we will only exacerbate the economic downturn. In my home state of Utah, where highway funding is at a premium, these cuts mean a $55 million dollar shortfall in roadway funds. This means the loss of jobs and contracts-over 3,000 jobs in Utah alone and 180,000 jobs across the country. Finally, we have already collected the taxes for the trust fund--it was paid by every person who filled a gas tank, rode a bus, or drove a car last year. Mr. Speaker, this is a short-term fix. While the idea of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority has worked well in the past, it is clear that we need to adjust the formula to prevent future cuts from happening. This is a uniquely bi-partisan and bi-camerae bill that will immediately help all of our constituents and ensure that we continue to make good sound investments and create good, well paying jobs.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I am from the West. This is not the first time the West has been asked to shoulder the nuclear burden of our country. Dozens of atom bombs were detonated at the Nevada test site between 1951 and 1963. The West was chosen because as long as the winds were blowing east, the fallout avoided big cities and traveled over sparsely populated Nevada and Utah towns. I remember my father telling me how people in southern Utah would watch the sky light up, and how southern Utahans supported the program because they were strong patriots who believed in their country and they trusted their government. In the 1970s, my father, then the Governor of Utah, was puzzled over an alarming number of cancer deaths among our family and friends in southern Utah. Over and over he read ``cancer'' on death certificates of family members, more than 50 aunts, uncles, and cousins. The Federal Government told us we were safe, but the Federal Government knew we were at risk. On October 7, 1990, my father died at age 61 from a cancer called multiple myeloma. Thousands of citizens throughout the West continue to get sick and die from radiation exposure-caused illnesses. We saw a picture of a license plate talking about the nuclear legacy of Nevada. That is a legacy of which we should be ashamed. Why are we moving this waste at this time? We are not running out of storage space at existing sites, and in the coming years, technological advancements in reprocessing and recycling may very well take care of much of the waste. That brings us to the real fallacy of this entire exercise. If Members think a vote for Yucca Mountain gets rid of the waste in Members' backyards, they are wrong. As long as power plants are operating, new waste will need to stay put on-site for up to 10 years to cool down before it can be shipped. I can tell the Members as son of a downwinder and a Congressman who represents thousands of sick, dying, and widowed victims of our nuclear testing that the Federal record on this issue has been appalling. Our Nation is one of shared responsibility. By opposing the transcontinental shipment of nuclear waste, we take care of all those millions of people who live along the roads and tracks to Yucca Mountain. We protect their future from what is an unfortunate legacy of my own State.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to assess blame--because there is too much of it to go around. Nor to offer unqualified support to either side in this conflict--because blind support only deepens the tragic spiral of violence. I am here today to say once and for all, violence is wrong. Killing in the name of religion only defames it; and forcing the submission from an entire people only spawns hatred, contempt, hopelessness, and more violence. We are here today to give support to Israel, and they do deserve our support. Israel, like all nations, has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens. Just as our nation needs to protect itself from terror, so must Israel. This resolution allows this great institution to emote; it is full of emotion, righteous indignation, and colorful language. But as elected officials of the greatest nation in the history of the world we must do more. Emotion is cathartic, but wisdom and pragmatism offer much more. This resolution was written under the justified anger that follows the terrorist's carnage. And in its emotion we have lost wisdom. We have made no mention of the 1,500 Palestinian civilians who have lost their lives in the recent conflict. Surely, the United States of America and its Congress consider the health of an innocent child to be equally tragic--whether she is Israeli or Palestinian, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. Instead of sentiment we should be offering constructive ways to bring about a viable political solution to the current crisis. Remember, when the United States was fully engaged, when the Central Intelligence Agency was forcing the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel to work together both peoples enjoyed three of the most peaceful years of their history. I applaud the increasing engagement of this Administration in finding a political settlement. As a Congress we need to speak as one voice in our support for Secretary of State Powell. The task before him is immense, but it is necessary. If we do not counter the escalating violence with diplomacy we lose the moral legitimacy of our leadership. The best way to secure the continued existence of the State of Israel is to simultaneously give hope and voice to the aspirations of the Palestinian people. A safe, secure, economically prosperous, and truly democratic Palestinian state is the only way to attain this peace.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. As one of the cochairs of the Blue Dog group, I just appreciate all he does. I am real proud to be a part of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 33 fiscally-conservative Democrats who like to talk about being fiscally responsible. We have been coming out here many times, Tuesday night. Every week we have been coming out here for the last few weeks, and we have been talking about issues of fiscal responsibility; and in particular, we have focused on what we see as a growing concern about increasing the debt that we incur in this country. Now, we have just been talking about this four-point plan; and I want to talk about one of those points, which is the notion that we need to climb out of this deficit ditch that we have gotten ourselves into in this country. The Secretary of the Treasury has come to Congress three different times now and said, we are really up against our debt limit; we need Congress to raise our debt limit, and we need Congress to raise it by $750 billion. Now, that is a lot of money. We talk about numbers and throw out figures in Congress a lot, but $750 billion is a lot of money. What is unfortunate is that that request comes in with no plan, no suggestion of how we are going to get out of this pattern of deficit spending. I just do not think it is appropriate, and the Blue Dogs do not think it is appropriate for us to just give a blank check to both Congress and the administration to run up another three-quarters of a trillion dollars in debt. We have been talking about this issue for the last few weeks. Some people say, why do you keep talking about it? Because this issue has not gone away and, no matter what we do in the short term, this issue is still not going away. It is not going to go away until we figure out a way to behave in a responsible way. What the Blue Dogs are suggesting is this, for the short term. We recognize that this country faces some short-term deficit pressures. We understand we have a war on terrorism and homeland security concerns that are taking more resources than we thought would be needed when we passed a budget a year ago. We recognize the economy is in a recession. We do not want to force the government to have to take extraordinary actions because it is bumping up against the debt limit. So as a short- term proposal, our suggestion is that we do increase the debt limit by $150 billion, not $750 billion, but by $150 billion, which is still a lot of money; but that is the circumstance we are in right now. We think that will take us through the obligations of our current fiscal year, September 30 of this year. Now, as part of this plan, what we are suggesting is that we offer this increase in the debt limit of $150 billion, but that it comes with a couple of other provisions. First is that we are going to prohibit any increase in debt limit beyond September 30 without a defined plan to balance the budget. It requires the President to submit to Congress, and for us to enact, a plan to balance the budget without using the Social Security surplus. Now, we do not have to pass exactly what the President submits; but he has to submit something, and we have to pass something that is going to show that we get our budget in balance by the year 2007. So we are not talking about something radical that has to be done instantaneously as of October 1 of this year; we are allowing some time to get on the path to a balanced budget. But we are not going to offer too much time, because if we do not show some discipline around here, we are just going to keep running up more debt. We also in this legislation, in offering to raise the debt limit by $150 billion, we require that the President conduct an annual threat vulnerability assessment, so that we can develop a coherent homeland security strategy. How life has changed since September 11. These were not issues that we were facing as a country, and these are critical issues; and Blue Dogs support the efforts of this country to address terrorist threats and provide homeland security. We are adamant that it is important. We support those efforts, and it is going to take resources to conduct those efforts. We understand that. But we need to address that new challenge in a rational way, and that means it is important that we have a defined homeland security strategy so that we as Congress can behave responsibly and fund in an appropriate way what it is going to take to provide reasonable homeland defense. I think that this is a reasonable proposal. I think the Blue Dogs as a group feel real strongly about doing this. We may not be right on everything. We are open to suggestion. I call on other Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, please discuss this plan we are promoting tonight. We are very open to suggestion. That is one of the hallmarks of the Blue Dogs is that we are happy to talk with anybody and put the numbers out on the table and have a frank discussion. It is too important for this country not to do this. So we are going to keep coming back here and we are going to keep talking about this issue until Congress behaves in a responsible way. We are not going to just go off and agree to raise the debt limit by $750 billion with no plan, no sense of how we are going to get out of this, and dump it on the next generation. That is just not what we should be doing here. Our constituents did not elect us to avoid the tough decisions; they elected us to take on the tough issues. That is what the Blue Dogs are trying to do tonight. We are trying to start this dialogue with this four-point plan. I encourage all of our colleagues to take a look at it, and let us let the dialogue begin.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my support to this legislation. When we talk about public land in Utah, we are used to speaking in terms of 100,000 acres or million-acre parcels. We speak in terms of mountain ranges, entire deserts, and swaths of forests. But today, we are giving our blessing to the setting aside of a relatively small but immensely beautiful and important piece of land. The creation of the Gunn McKay Nature Preserve would protect 15 acres of forest land in Huntsville, Utah. Mr. Speaker, Gunn McKay was a devoted member of the Utah delegation, and he served our State with honor and dignity from 1971 to 1981. He was a Coast Guard veteran, a school teacher, a successful businessman, and a chief of staff for Utah Governor Cal Rampton. Although he told the Democratic leader, ``I do not want to run for Congress; I have nine kids and a mortgage,'' run he did. A few terms later he was the senior member of Utah's congressional delegation, a member of the House Committee on Appropriations, and a champion for the people of his district. Congressman McKay was a true public servant. He was quoted in one newspaper article a few years ago saying, ``The greatest satisfaction was helping people who needed an advocate.'' This refuge will not only serve as a lasting memorial to the work and dedication of Congressman McKay, it is also a testament to the statesmanship of the chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). Too often in politics we get caught up in petty political squabbles. We lose sight of the bigger picture, of getting important work done for the good of our constituents. The passage of this bill shows that the chairman has not lost sight of the goal. He is a true gentleman of the House, and he spent the last 20 years representing the State of Utah with the class and dignity that is true to the people who have elected him.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this rule, and I want to point out that I am an individual who voted for the tax cut last year. It encompassed a number of measures which I personally felt were important, including elimination of the estate tax and elimination of the marriage penalty. The bottom line is, times have changed in terms of what we know about the future. If anything we have learned in the last year, it is that things change, and my concern is one certainty we do know is that baby boomers are going to retire and our Social Security system, which is supposed to be overcollecting right now in anticipation of that, that we are spending that Social Security surplus. So the question I raise is why are we looking at this now? This is something we are talking about 8 years down the line, and we are hearing comments today like this is the only shot we got, and if we do not do it now, then all these tax implications are going to expire. I do not think that is true. I think we are elected to be responsible and make good decisions. There is concern about long-term planning. People need to understand what is in the tax cut. I will tell you one where I can accept that, and that is in terms of the estate tax. I understand that there is planning now for estate planning for the future, and if we were voting on that measure alone, that is something I would give serious consideration to. But we are not doing that. Everything has been bundled together for something 8 years away, and I reject the notion that we need to be looking at that right now. In fact, in the face of the uncertainty we face, I think it is irresponsible to make that decision today. I sure would like to come up with policies that reduce the long-term tax burden for this country, but one thing that is not going to reduce the long-term tax burden for this country is if we incur more debt and we have more interest we have to pay. When I look at the next generation, when I look at my own 3-year-old son, we are going to be imposing an additional tax burden on him by the debt that we run up by decisions we make here in this Congress. So I call on people to take a step back from the rhetoric and let us do the responsible thing. As I say, if you want to bring up an estate tax issue, maybe that is one where the long-term planning implications make sense. But, in general, doing something today for 8 years from now, with all the uncertainties we face in the world, to me does not make sense, so I encourage people to oppose the previous question.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, for yielding to me, and also I appreciate the very good description he has given of the circumstances we are finding ourselves in. This is not an easy circumstance. It is a challenge we face. The answers to this challenge are not simple. If they were simple, we probably would have already taken care of it, but we have not. Instead, we find ourselves in a circumstance where our country has a war on terrorism, our country faces increased requirements in terms of providing for homeland security, and those are issues that we as Blue Dog members support. We fully support that effort. We are also in a recession. We are hopefully coming out of that recession right now. But those factors, the increased resources going to the war on terrorism and to homeland security and our country's recession, have clearly put us into a circumstance where right now we are running a deficit this year. I do not like deficits and I do not like debt. I think most members of the Blue Dog Coalition, in fact, I think all members of the Blue Dog Coalition, would agree with me on that. But we recognize that there are times in the short term where it is appropriate, in extraordinary circumstances. Being at war, in a recession, it is appropriate to see a deficit. But just like in the business world, there are times when we have a bad year and maybe we put more money out than we pay in revenue; but in the business world, if we keep doing that year after year, we get in trouble. The problem here is we do not have a plan yet for how we are going to get out of the problem. For the administration to request an increase in the debt limit of $750 billion, I have to tell the Members, we throw a lot of numbers around in this town, but that is a lot of money. To suggest we raise the limit by that much without identifying any plan for how we are going to end this pattern of increased deficit spending, that is just not being responsible, and that is not really what my constituents elected me to do. I am not here to force this country to face some type of problem that they are not able to pay off their obligations. I would be more than happy to support a short-term limited increase in our debt limit to accommodate the current circumstances we are in, where the war on terrorism and the recession have clearly put us into a deficit situation. I will accept that for the short term. The Blue Dog Coalition is prepared to support a clean, limited increase in the debt ceiling to accommodate that purpose in the short term. But what we have to have happen along with that is a commitment to sit down and really take on this long-term problem. There are no easy solutions, as I said at the outset. It is going to require a lot of work, a lot of work by people on both sides of the aisle. That is why I have to suggest that I am really proud to be part of the Blue Dog Coalition, because I think the Blue Dogs really have a reputation for sitting down, rolling up their sleeves, and putting their plan out on the table. We do not try to use a lot of rhetoric, we try to talk about real numbers, and we welcome people to sit down with us and tell us where we are wrong, because we are open to a dialogue and we are open to suggestion. I wish more people in the House would take us up on that offer, because this problem we face right now is a serious one, and it is one that is of great concern. I look at this issue, quite frankly, as I look at a lot of issues, through the eyes of my 3-year-old son. I try to think about what life is going to be like for him. I think about the extra burden we are placing on his generation as we rack up more and more debt, and a bigger slice. Do Members know those pie charts we always see, where that slice of the pie that represents interest payments is just going to keep expanding? That is not a future I want to leave for my son. I do not think it is a future anybody in Congress would want to leave for the next generation, and that ought to be the focus that we have right now as we make those decisions. When we talk about this debt limit issue, I often like to refer to an experience I had before I came to Congress, in the private sector. I worked developing independent power plants, co-generation facilities. I developed a couple of facilities, and each cost $100 million. I had to go out and convince a bank to lend me money to build those power plants. That bank required me to have a story that I could tell them, a story about how, over the long run, they were going to get their money back. That makes sense. We can all relate to that. Whether we have been in the business world and had to borrow a business loan, or whether we have taken out a home mortgage or a car loan, we have to pass a test. We have to be able to have a story about how I have the capability to pay that back. We are being asked to raise this debt limit $750 billion, and we do not have that story. We are here as Members of Congress. We are the banker here. We have to represent the people's interest in making sure there is a story about how this is going to be paid back. Until we have that, it is just not responsible. It is not responsible to raise this by $750 billion. So I am so pleased that the Blue Dog Coalition has made this an issue. We keep coming here to the floor to raise this issue, because we are looking for people to work with. We are looking for an opportunity to sit down and roll up our sleeves. We recognize the magnitude of this problem and the complexity of this problem. There is no easy way out. We cannot do it alone, so we call on everybody on both sides of the aisle: Please, let us sit down, let us develop a long-term plan. Let us not be irresponsible and just give a blank check to Congress and to the administration to rack up another $750 billion of debt with no way out of that pattern.