Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, during this special order hour, the Members of the Democratic side of the aisle are going to talk about an issue that we feel very strongly about, and that is the problem that senior citizens are having today affording their prescription medicines. We just heard a few remarks a moment ago from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) talking about this problem, and yet the real heart of the problem lies in the fact that this Congress, and particularly those on the Republican side of the aisle, have refused to really deal with this problem of providing adequate prescription drugs for our seniors. In fact, next week we are going to have a Republican plan presented on the floor of this House. Now, we do not know yet, since we are the party in the minority, whether the Republican majority will allow us to present our alternative plan or not. It may be very difficult for them to allow us to do so, because our plan is so attractive to America's seniors. But we are here this afternoon because we believe it is important for the American people and our senior citizens to understand the differences in what the two parties are proposing to do to help our seniors afford their prescription medications. Ever since I have been in Congress, I have received hundreds of letters from our seniors complaining about the high cost of prescription drugs. I have had numerous town meetings to talk about the subject, and it brings tears to one's eyes to listen to some of the situations that many of our seniors are finding themselves in today. In many cases, they are going to their local pharmacies with their prescriptions that their doctors have just given them, and in many cases they are unable to purchase the medicine that the prescription prescribes because they just cannot afford the bill. Prescription drugs have gone up in this country in price faster than any other item that we commonly purchase. Members heard a discussion just a moment ago about the importance of allowing prescription drugs to be imported from other countries so that we can get the same low prices that people do in Mexico and Canada and every other place in the world. What was missing from that discussion is an explanation as to why that problem exists. The answer is very simple: The American people today are paying over twice the price for prescription medications as any other people in any other part of the world, including Mexico and Canada, because the drug manufacturers charge the highest prices to our local pharmacies, which we ultimately end up paying. We think that is wrong. On the Democratic side of the aisle, we have had legislation that we have filed for many years now to try to require the drug manufacturers to fairly price their products to the American people. After all, it is our government that gives those drug manufacturers the right to exclusively market those prescription drugs because we, through our government, give those manufacturers what we call a patent, which is a guaranteed protection that says for 17 years they can market their products, their medicine, to us without competition. As we all know, in a capitalistic society, we believe in competition. That is what holds down prices. But for prescription drugs, there is no competition. Now, in every other country in the world, the governments there have some mechanism to control costs. In the United States, we do not. That is why we find the pharmaceutical industry to be one of the largest contributors to political campaigns of any special interest in this Nation. In fact, our Republican friends last night had a big fundraiser, and if Members read the Washington Post yesterday, they saw how many of the large pharmaceutical manufacturers contributed $100,000 and $250,000 apiece to go to that event. If we go to a Democratic fundraiser, we are not going to find the same thing, because long ago the Democrats in this Congress said that it is wrong for the pharmaceutical manufacturers to be able to charge people in this country over twice what they do people in other nations for the same prescription medicine in the same bottle made by the same manufacturer. We are going to have that debate on the floor of this House next week, because our Republican friends are proposing their solution for the problem of prescription drug costs for our seniors. I must tell the Members that it is a plan that is wholeheartedly supported by the pharmaceutical industry because it fails to deal with the fundamental problem that exists not only for seniors, but for every one of us who has to buy prescription medicines; that is, the pharmaceutical manufacturers are engaged in price discrimination because they charge on average over twice for their products to the American people that they charge to people in any other country of the world. Our plan would change that. The Democratic plan says that we will allow the buying power of the Federal Government to be exercised by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to purchase in bulk prescription drugs for our seniors so that they can get fairness in pricing. Now, Members can imagine how upsetting that is to the pharmaceutical industry, because they know if the government gets into the business of helping our seniors get their prescription drugs and uses the bulk buying power of the government, those pharmaceutical companies are not going to be able to charge the same high prices that they are charging to us and our seniors today. So the Democrats have a plan that gets pricing under control. Our Republican friends say, oh, we do not want to meddle with the pharmaceutical industry, but we will provide a benefit to our seniors; but they do not want to do it through the Medicare program as we have known it for so many years. Medicare, in my judgment, is one of the best programs that the Congress of the United States ever enacted; and if my colleagues talk to seniors today, they are confident in the Medicare program. They know what it means, they know what their benefits are; and the beautiful thing about it, because we all pay the Medicare tax for that plan, we all get the benefit when we reach 65. No matter what our income is, we all get the benefit because we have all paid in. It is why Medicare enjoys such widespread support among the American people. Our Republican friends say they do not want to add a prescription drug benefit to regular Medicare. What they are proposing is that we have a separate program that, in fact, would be a private insurance plan. In essence, they are going to come to the floor of this House next week and say we are going to require the private insurance industry to offer a prescription drug plan for all our seniors. We have been down that road before over a year ago in this House, and we had hearings, and the insurance industry came in and testified under oath that they will not offer such private insurance plans because they know the only people that are going to buy them are the people that need prescription drugs, and it is hard to offer an affordable plan if the only people that are signing up for insurance are people that need prescription drugs. It is kind of like the people who buy fire insurance. If the only people that bought fire insurance for their homes were people whose houses were going to burn down, it would be pretty expensive insurance. So we spread the risk around. The Democrats believe we ought to have a prescription drug benefit as a part of Medicare, not a private insurance plan, where the seniors will not know what the premiums are going to be, they will not know what the coverage is going to be. They are simply told the private insurance companies of this country have got to offer some kind of plan, and it is up to Mr. and Ms. Senior to figure out which one they can afford because we are just going to pay a $35-a-month premium for them, and they can figure out if they can afford a more expensive plan and add some money to it to afford a real good prescription drug plan. That is not what Medicare has meant to seniors in this country. Medicare has given them the security that they know that if they pay a small premium for their doctor care and no premium for their hospital care they are going to have a defined set of benefits under Medicare; and this Republican plan that is coming to the floor next week is not going to provide them that kind of assurance. There is another very interesting portion to the Republican plan, and that is, it has in it what we call a donut hole. That sounds sort of unusual, but let me explain it. What the Republican plan says is they will have these private insurance companies that these seniors will have to sign up with, they will have them pay 80 percent of the first $1,000 of the prescription drug costs a year, and they will require these insurance companies to cover 50 percent of the second $1,000 of the prescription drug costs a year; but when they get over $2,000 in prescription drug costs, all the way up to about $5,000, there is no coverage under the Republican plan. It creates a very interesting situation because we all know that, on average, seniors in this country today are paying around $300, little less than $300 a month for their prescription drugs. In fact, it is not uncommon to find seniors are paying $400 and $500 a month for prescription drugs. I ran into a gentleman in my district a few months back. He said between him and his wife they pay $1,400 a month in prescription drug costs. I do not know how he did it. I do know the gentleman, and I know he is on the bank board and he may be a man of some wealth, but can my colleagues imagine, for average seniors, if they find themselves burdened with $1,400 of prescription drug costs a month? It can happen. It can happen to my colleagues; it could happen to me. If we look at this chart, how much would the average senior save in prescription drug costs under the Republican plan versus the Democratic plan? Under the Republican plan, people will save 22 percent of their current prescription drug costs. Under the Democratic plan, they will save 68 percent. Obviously, a more generous benefit under the Democratic plan. In fact, if someone has under the Republican plan $400 a month in prescription drug costs, that is, $4,800 a year, under their plan, they would pay $3,920, and the plan would pay them only $1,300. How many seniors do my colleagues think are going to sign up for a plan with a benefit that is that meager? I do not think many, and I think when our seniors find out that here we are on election eve and our Republican friends have run out on to the floor of this House and passed a sham prescription drug plan that really does not mean anything to them, I think they are going to hold them accountable when the election comes in November. We all know that our seniors are well and past time for relief on their prescription drug cost. If medicine had been such a significant part of our health care costs when Medicare was first enacted into law in the 1960s, we would already have a prescription drug element in Medicare; but back in those days, we did not have all of these miracle drugs, and prescription drugs were a very small portion of total health care costs. So when the Congress and President Johnson proposed Medicare for our seniors, nobody thought about putting a prescription drug coverage in it; but times have changed, and if my colleagues and I get sick, one of the biggest parts of our health care expenses will be prescription drugs, and I think we are thankful for all those prescription drugs because they are providing us cures to many very serious illnesses. What good is the cure if we cannot afford the pill? That is the situation facing our seniors today. So we are here this afternoon, members of the Democratic Caucus in this House, to talk about the plan that we think is right for America's seniors and to point out the deficiencies in the sham plan that is coming to this floor next week and with perhaps the denial of our side to even offer what we think is a much better plan. So we believe it is important for us to spend some time talking about it. I am joined today on the floor by several of my colleagues, Members of this Congress, who have fought hard for many years for prescription drug coverage for seniors. The first one I want to recognize is the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), a pharmacist by training, a man who understands better than most of us the problem of the high cost of prescription medicine; and I am proud to yield to him and to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his steadfast leadership on this most critical issue.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and I appreciate the passion with which he speaks on this issue, which I think is the most important issue that we face. It clearly is an issue that has defined more clearly than any other the difference in viewpoint between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in this House of Representatives. I am amazed as I try to deal with this issue and talk to my seniors when they struggle to know why can the two parties not sit down and figure this out for seniors. They thought it was going to be done after the last Presidential election. It breaks my heart to have to explain to them the difficulty that we are having getting this done in Washington, and the reasons that we are having trouble are totally inexcusable. It is not just a matter of the fact that our plan provides a more generous benefit for seniors. In fact, I believe that our plan is the only plan that seniors would want to sign up for because our plan and the Republican plan are both voluntary. If seniors do not want it, they do not sign up and pay the premium. I do not think that they will sign up for an insurance plan that only offers 22 percent of the savings and the Democratic plan offers over twice as much.

Mr. TURNER. When the gentleman says that, it makes me realize how difficult it is to break through when the Republican friends are so beholden to the pharmaceutical industry for their campaign contributions. It is definitely a factor that weighs heavily in this debate because we cannot get control over prescription drug costs unless we are willing to step forward and tell the pharmaceutical manufacturers they have to offer the American people the same prices they offer people anywhere else in the world.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to have the opportunity to choose between these two competing plans, and they will not have the opportunity to choose between the two plans if the Republican leadership denies the Democratic caucus an opportunity to offer our alternative plan. It is amazing as we stand here this afternoon on the floor of the House of Representatives, with thousands of seniors listening to this discussion, at this very moment the pharmaceutical industry is running television ads trying to promote this Republican plan in almost every State in this Nation. In fact, I watched one of the ads this weekend when I was in my district. The ad said it was paid for by United Seniors Association, and has a senior citizen actor talking about the benefits of the Republican plan. Not many people know that the United Seniors Association is a front group for the pharmaceutical manufacturers, well reported, well known in the major newspapers; but many seniors will never notice, and they will think that ad is talking about something that is good for them. But the only folks that Republican plan is good for is the pharmaceutical industry which backs it 100 percent. I think it is important for us to be honest with the American people about this debate. It is not only a debate of the power of the pharmaceutical industry versus the rest of the people in this country and our seniors, it is a battle that involves the issue of what do we really think about Medicare. The Democrats in this House believe Medicare has been a successful program for our seniors. One of the reasons, in addition to the opposition to the pharmaceutical industry, one other reason that our Republican friends will not support the plan we propose is because we add the prescription drug benefit as a part of the regular Medicare program. One of the agendas in the Republican prescription drug plan is to move this country away from regular Medicare into what we commonly call Medicare+Choice plans that are run and offered by the insurance industry. Now, I come from a rural area, and there were a few Medicare+Choice plans offered a couple of years ago, and some of my seniors signed up for them because the health insurance companies said they would give them a little prescription drug benefit. Those private plans have sent out notice to seniors their plan is cancelled, and they are back on regular Medicare wondering how they are going to get any help with their prescription drugs. Some people act like the private insurance industry is ready to offer plans. The truth is we would never have had Medicare in 1965 if the private insurance industry would have been able to take care of the problem of providing health care for seniors. But our Republican friends say we cannot put a prescription drug benefit as a part of regular Medicare because they know that if they do, everybody is not only going to be happy with regular Medicare, they are really going to be happy with Medicare if we can get the prescription drug problem solved; and they will not have the opportunity to push this country toward private health insurance for all Medicare recipients. That is the heart of the issue that we are debating here today. I am pleased that I have got another Member of the Democratic caucus here who has worked hard trying to help us provide coverage for our senior citizens, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps), a tough fighter for his constituents, who believes in the Medicare problem and believes in a real prescription drug benefit, and I am proud to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman for his passion on this issue and for his leadership. I know we all feel strongly about this. I cannot help but think of the constituents that you mentioned and the constituents that I visit with all the time who are struggling to pay their prescription drug costs. I just ran into one just the other day, it was at the Quik Lube in Lufkin, angry that the Congress had not acted to pass a meaningful drug plan. I have seen those seniors board those buses in Houston to travel to Mexico and come back and say they have saved $10,000 by making the trip together. I know the next gentleman who will speak understands that problem, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), a fighter for seniors on the prescription drug issue who has also seen in his State those seniors board those buses and go to Canada and save thousands of dollars. It is a pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman again for his strong leadership. We both came to Congress together. We have both been fighting for this ever since we arrived here. On behalf of all of our constituents who continue to tell us they need help with the high cost of prescription drugs, they need a meaningful, a real prescription drug plan that is a part of Medicare, that they can afford, we will continue to fight.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), for their presentation a few moments ago regarding the high cost of prescription drugs and their support for legislation that would allow the reimportation of drugs to allow our seniors to get the prices that are now offered in Mexico, Canada, and the citizens of every other country in the world, except the United States. I want to make it very clear that all of us on the Democratic side of the aisle have supported that legislation, and we really think we should go further and that we should provide fairness in drug pricing to all American seniors by requiring our drug manufacturers to end that practice of price discrimination that results in the very problem that they were talking about. That is to say drug manufacturers are selling the same medicine in the same bottle with the same label, on average, about half the price in every country in the world except the United States where we pay the premium. Our senior citizens are hurting today because they cannot afford the $400 and the $500 and the $600 and the $700 prescription drug cost. That is why Democrats have proposed not only fairness in drug pricing by our drug manufacturers, but we have supported a universal prescription drug benefit as a part of the Medicare program to be sure that all seniors can have their prescription medications as a part of the regular Medicare program that has worked so well in this country for our seniors for so many years. I come to the floor today during this Special Order hour on behalf of the Blue Dog Democrat Coalition. That coalition consists of 33 fiscally conservative Democrats in this House who believe very strongly that this country is going in the wrong direction with regard to its fiscal affairs. We believe in balanced budgets and paying down our almost $6 trillion national debt. We believe that it is time to face up to the reality that we are now robbing the Social Security trust fund to run the rest of the government, something that this Congress a year ago pledged not to do on at least four or five occasions by record votes on the floor of this House. It seems that the Congress and the administration have not been candid with the American people about our fiscal affairs. But what most Americans remember is that a year ago we were talking about record surpluses in our Federal budget. We were talking about surpluses, as I remember President Clinton saying, as far as the eye can see. And when President Bush came into office with those projections of surplus, he called on this Congress to pass the largest tax cut in the history of America. I voted for that tax cut because I believe people need tax relief. But when I voted for it, we were projecting over $5 trillion in excess funds that would flow into the Treasury of the United States over the next 10 years. The tax cut took about half of that estimated surplus. The problem is that we stand here today 1 year after the enactment of that tax cut and the entire remaining balance of that estimated surplus is also gone. In fact, we are back at the point where we are not projecting surpluses over the next decade; we are projecting deficits. So once again, the Congress of the United States and the administration is putting the operations of our Federal Government on a credit card, a credit card that will be passed on to our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I have a chart that will depict what has happened. What this chart shows us is the history of the Federal budget since the last years of the administration of President Lyndon Johnson. It traces the history through the Nixon years and the Ford years, the Carter years, the Reagan and Bush I years, the Clinton years, to the present administration. And what this chart shows is the history of the Federal budget deficit, and we are talking about the deficit outside of the Social Security Trust Fund, the Medicare Trust Fund, and the other trust funds of the government that the law says shall be protected for those uses. The American people and this Congress agreed a long time ago that when people pay their payroll taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund, that money ought to be used for people's Social Security benefits, not to run the rest of the government. Unfortunately it has not worked that way. But the general budget of the Federal Government's history is depicted here, and so what we have had over time is a history of deficits. Congress went for 30 years before 1996 with deficits every year, and those are shown on this chart. This chart shows that those deficits got really big during the Reagan and Bush I years, and in 1991 when President Clinton assumed office, we began to pull our way out of deficit spending. Until the last year of the Clinton administration, we actually had in the Federal Government a true, genuine surplus outside of the Social Security Trust Fund and other trust funds. We had a genuine surplus for 1 year in fiscal year 2000. President Bush came into office and said that we had to give some money back to the American people as if to say it was in the bank, when it really was no more than a projection of a future surplus that has turned out to be an incorrect estimate. The surplus went away. As I said, about half of it was taken by the tax cut, but the other half disappeared because the economy turned south on us. We actually experienced, as my colleagues know, a recession. We also had September 11, which has required a significant amount of Federal dollars in order to fight the war against terrorists and to protect the security of our homeland. So the surplus is gone, and the estimates are that we are back into deficits. And here are the projections for the next 5 years showing how deeply into debt the Federal Government is estimated to go. So what we are seeing is that the Congressional Budget Office has told this Congress that the estimated deficits for the next 5 years will be even greater than they have ever been in the history of our Federal Government. Blue Dog Democrats believe that this is wrong. We believe that when we send young men and women into far-off places like Afghanistan to protect our freedoms and our liberties, that the rest of us who are back here at home should be at least willing to pay the bill. Otherwise we are telling those young men and women that not only are they going to fight the war to protect our freedom, but when they get back home, during their good income-earning years when they reach midlife and full adulthood, that those young men and women will have to pay the bills for the war that they went as young people to fight, and we think that is wrong. And this administration and the leadership in this Congress has not been honest with the American people about our fiscal affairs because on the floor of this House once a week our Republican leadership presents another tax cut for us to vote on. There are tax cuts that will not take effect until 2011 because there are proposals to extend the tax cut that we voted for last June. So we are down here debating whether or not we should have a tax cut, to extend a tax cut that will not expire until 2010. We are down here spending valuable time debating matters that, if history holds, about half this Congress will not even be here. Somebody else will be serving in 2011. Democrats believe it is wrong to be telling the American people that we can fight this war without making sacrifices, sacrifices that must be shared by all of us, not just the young men and women in uniform. So Blue Dog Democrats say that we ought to be paying our bills. There is no question that the bill collector is at the door. This next chart talks about an issue that will be debated over the next few weeks by this Congress; that is, the issue of the debt ceiling. We call it the statutory debt limit. There is a law on the books that says how much debt our Congress and our President can incur for future generations, and current law says the debt limit is $5.95 trillion, almost $6 trillion. The law says that we cannot incur any more than that. The problem is we are bumping up against that debt ceiling. Now, a year ago when we were debating these tax cuts, the President and the Secretary of the Treasury said, oh, we will not have to worry about the debt ceiling until 2008. In fact, they were projecting that we might even be in a situation where we will be paying off our national debt too quickly, and have to pay a premium in order to pay it off before it is really due. All that sounds really amusing in retrospect, because today the Secretary of the Treasury tells us that unless we raise the statutory debt ceiling in a matter of just a few months, or, in fact, really just a few weeks, we will default on obligations of the United States Government. We will not be able to pay people's Social Security checks, and we will not be able to pay the Federal Government's bills, because we will not have the statutory authority to incur the debt; that is, to borrow the money to pay those bills. So the administration says we need to increase the debt limit, and they want us to increase it by $750 billion. Now, the Blue Dog Democrats understand the reality of where we are today, and we understand that the debt ceiling will have to be raised in order to prevent default on the obligations of our government. But Blue Dog Democrats believe that when we vote for that increase, number one, it should be a modest increase, so we are not writing a blank check to the Congress and the President to keep incurring more and more debt. It should be a modest increase, and it should be coupled with a requirement that the President submit to the Congress a new budget to put us back into a balanced budget situation by the year 2007. We would like it to be quicker, but the reality is that we are in a position where we are projecting deficit spending at such a level that unless there are dramatic changes in our tax structure, we cannot possibly get back into a balanced budget until 2007. So we are saying to the President, yes, we will give an increase in the debt limit, but as a condition to do it, we want the President and the Congress to adopt a new budget to show the American people we can get our fiscal house in order by 2007. We also want that increase in the debt limit to be subject to passage of legislation that would continue some budget enforcement mechanisms, we call them pay-go rules, that require this Congress to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, and make sure that we do not increase spending unless we understand that there is a way to pay for it. Finally, we believe that as part of any agreement to raise the debt ceiling, that we should have a responsible and reasonable limit on what we call discretionary spending. That is the spending that we vote on every year in a whole series of appropriations bills. We believe there ought to be caps agreed upon that that spending will not go over, so that we have a way of controlling the spending by this Congress. Those three requirements we think are reasonable requests before we cast a vote to increase the statutory debt limit. To show another chart that will depict our fiscal condition, I would like to direct Members' attention to this chart entitled ``From Debt- Free to $2.8 Trillion in Debt in 2011.'' Before we passed the tax cut last June, the projections were that we would actually have a surplus over the 10-year period. That is why we were able to vote for the tax cut. What we projected was that the debt that this country owes, much of which is owed to the public, these people out there that are buying all these Treasury notes, Treasury bills, and Treasury bonds every time the Treasury has an auction, we projected a year ago that there would be no debt held by the public after 10 years. That is how rosy the picture was projected to look. In fact, we projected we would have a total elimination of the debt held by the public. Here we are a year later, and the current projections are that by 2011 there will be $2.799 trillion owed by our Federal Government to those people who will buy those Treasury bills, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. That is how dramatic the change in the Federal financial picture is over just 1 year's time. Now, some people would like to say that, well, this is all okay, and do not get worried about this because we are in a war on terrorism, and we have had to spend a lot of money. That is true, but the reason we are going to have $2.8 trillion in publicly held debt in 2011 is not totally due to the war. Some estimate that maybe 20 percent of this number might be due to what we expect to spend over the next decade on protecting the homeland and fighting the war. Nobody really knows. But the truth is that the tax cut that we passed last June took away about half of our estimated surplus, and the recession and the change in the economy took away about one-fourth of it, and maybe one-fourth of it disappeared because of what we are having to spend to fight the war. The bottom line is this: This Congress and this administration have not told the American people that the circumstances that existed when we passed the major tax cut have dramatically changed, and this country is now headed towards some of the deepest deficits and largest debt that we have ever seen in our history. Blue Dog Democrats believe that we have an obligation to run the Federal Government just like the Members and I try to run our households and our own personal businesses. We do not incur a debt at my house unless we know how we can repay it within a reasonable time. The Federal Government does not seem to understand that. The Federal Government, as Members know, has no requirement in law for a balanced budget, and Blue Dog Democrats wish we could change that with a constitutional amendment, because most all of us served in our State legislatures, where they have a provision in State Constitutions that says that we have to balance the budget, and we cannot incur debt unless we have a popular vote of the people to issue bonds for whatever purpose. But in Washington there has never been such a requirement. We can spend the money all day long and do not have to pay the bill. All we do is charge it to the credit card. The only constraint that exists today is this Federal debt ceiling that we are now bumping up against that the President is asking us to increase by $750 billion. That is the only constraint on unrestrained spending, and the only restraint on ever-increasing debt. Another chart which I would like to show my colleagues is what I like to call the greatest waste in Federal spending that I believe this can point to; and I will be the first to tell my colleagues, I believe the Federal Government can save some money and cut some costs and eliminate waste, but one of the biggest categories of waste in our Federal Government is what we spend every year just on interest because the Federal Government has run up this almost $6 trillion national debt. This chart shows us what the estimated interest payments on our national debt is going to be. It shows us what the estimated interest payments were last year when we had that estimated surplus, and that was a $709 billion interest cost over 10 years; but as I mentioned, things have changed since last June. We have had September 11. We had the war on terrorism. We have had the recession, and so the estimates now of how much interest it will cost us to service the Federal debt of $6 trillion has increased by $1 trillion. The estimates are that now we will spend in interest alone 1.8, almost $1.8 trillion of our hard- earned tax money just to service the interest on the $6 trillion national debt that we owe. Blue Dog Democrats believe that is a terrible waste of taxpayer money, and the sooner we can get the national debt paid down and quit paying this kind of interest, the better off our children and our grandchildren are going to be. So the Blue Dog Democrats say, yes, we understand that we are bumping up against the Federal debt ceiling. We understand that we have got to do something in order not to default on all the Social Security checks and other obligations that the Federal Government owes; and we know that that debt limit is being reached within the next few weeks, but Blue Dog Democrats say no blank check on ever-increasing debt. We say we will increase the debt in a modest amount, only if there is a commitment on the part of the President and the Congress for the President to submit a new budget that will be in balance by the year 2007, if we pass legislation ensuring that we continue our budget enforcement mechanisms that keep us on a pay-as-you-go basis and if we have reasonable caps on the various categories of spending for this year's budget. It is no more than someone would do at their home or in their business. We think we ought to do it in Washington. So that is what the Blue Dog Democrats are proposing to this Congress. There are 33 members of the Blue Dog Coalition. They work hard every day, trying to be sure that the taxpayers are getting every bit of value out of every tax dollar that we pay. We are trying to be sure that the American people understand the finances of our Federal Government so that the pressure of the American people will be brought upon this President and this Congress to say enough is enough; and if we are not paying our bills, if we are putting all of our obligations and all of our expenditures on a credit card for our children and grandchildren, we want it to stop. That is what the Blue Dog Democrats believe, and that is what we are working hard for in this Congress. Another way to describe our deteriorating fiscal picture is to share the recent estimates of the Congressional Budget Office with my colleagues. The Congressional Budget Office is that arm of the Congress that gives us our official numbers when we come down here and we debate tax cuts and we debate spending, we talk about debt. We are relying on the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office gives us. That keeps us all honest. It is a bipartisan body. The Congressional Budget Office says that for the first 8 months, the first 8 months of this fiscal year, our Federal Government has run a deficit of $149 billion. Contrast that with what was going on during the first 8 months of the last fiscal year, 2001, where we were running a surplus of $137 billion. So in 1 year's time we move from running a surplus in the first 8 months of the fiscal year of $137 billion, to the current fiscal year during those first 8 months of running a deficit of $149 billion. That is a dramatic swing in the fiscal condition of our Federal Government. Tax receipts are running much lower than anyone anticipated. The recession has been longer and slower to turn around than we had expected, and we know now from what the Congressional Budget Office tells us that for the entire fiscal year we will likely end up with a deficit of well over $100 billion. So how do we go from 8 years of improving fiscal circumstances to now finding ourselves unfortunately having to look forward to record deficits once again? I am sure my colleagues can get a lot of people to give us a lot of different answers to that question; but the bottom line is, things have changed and yet this Congress seems to operate as if nothing has changed when it comes to dealing fiscally responsibly with our Federal tax dollars. I am glad to have on the floor with me this afternoon one of the leaders of the Blue Dog Democrats, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who speaks with about as much clarity and common sense as anybody I have ever met in the Congress; and I am pleased to yield to the gentleman to talk on this very important issue.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his comments and for his strong leadership for fiscal responsibility. He speaks with a great deal of common sense and enjoys the respect of the entire Congress. Next, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), another member of the Blue Dog Coalition who has worked very, very hard trying to get this Federal Government back on a course of fiscal responsibility, who sponsored legislation to do that, who has been a real leader in this House; and it is an honor to yield to him.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, and again I thank him for his leadership on this issue. The gentleman represents a new generation of leaders in the Congress, leaders that have a conscience as well as an understanding that we have to pay the bills. That reminds me of the diversity of the Blue Dog coalition. We have Members from all over the country now, from Texas to Florida, New York to California, to Utah. We have Anglos, Hispanics, African Americans. We have Congressmen and Congresswomen all committed to the central principle of the Blue Dogs, and that is we need to balance the Federal budget, pay down this $6 trillion national debt, and ensure that we do not pass that on to our children and to our grandchildren. One other Member of the Blue Dog coalition that has joined us on the floor here today is the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). He is an outstanding member; has been a leader on many issues of fiscal responsibility. He came to the Congress after a distinguished career in the California Assembly, and I am very pleased to yield to him.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his comments. And I think the reality of our current fiscal condition is certainly as he stated, and I think every Blue Dog Democrat believes we need to give the American people as much tax relief as we can afford to give them. But he is exactly right that when there are tax cuts proposed on the floor of this House week after week, the reality is whatever tax cuts are approved today over and above what we have already done for the American people in the largest tax cut in our history that was passed last June, those additional tax cuts will just be paid for with borrowed money. So we are going to take money out of the Social Security trust fund or borrow money from the public so we can run the government and give these additional tax cuts. That is not fiscally responsible, and I certainly appreciate the fact that all of us want to be able some day to vote for additional tax cuts. I certainly do. But I think that what the Blue Dog Democrats stand for is first making sure that we are paying the obligations of the United States Government, whatever they may be; and it is a tragedy to think that the course that we are now following will result over the next decade of an additional trillion dollars in interest costs to the American taxpayer, wasted money just paid out on interest just because of the course of fiscal irresponsibility that we are now embarked upon. I pointed out this chart early in our hour, and I want to point it out as we close. Just 1 year ago when the President submitted his budget, it was estimated that we would not reach the statutory debt limit set by this Congress until the year 2008. Mr. Speaker, we now know that we are bumping up against that debt limit, too. If we continue along the path of the President's budget submitted to us in January/February of this year, we will see record increases in the debt owed by the taxpayers of this country to the extent of an increase of over $2 billion over the next decade. That is a course that we should not follow. That means that the young men and women fighting for our freedom today in Afghanistan and other far-off places will not only sacrifice in the battles that they fight for our freedom today, but when they come home someday, when they are in their middle years, their highest income earning years, they will have to pay the bill for the very war that they went today to fight. The sacrifices that will be required of the people of this country to win this war on terrorism are indeed great, and they are sacrifices that all of us must be ready to share in. The Blue Dog Democrats are here to remind Congress and the President that somebody has got to be willing to pay the bills. Today the debt collector is at the door, and he is knocking. He is telling us that we are running this government off the Social Security trust fund at a time when Social Security will be under the greatest stress in its entire history. As the baby boom generation retires and becomes eligible for Social Security is just the time that we see the projections of an ever-increasing Federal debt and growing deficits in our annual Federal budgets. We need to be honest with the American people. We need to be willing to tell them the truth, and we need to be able to act in a bipartisan way recognizing the reality of our current fiscal situation and recognizing that every one of us is going to have to do everything necessary to win the war on terrorism to protect the security of this country, and together we must be willing to pay the bill. So we have come here today and shared together in this hour of time on this floor to simply say to this Congress and this President, let us work together to balance our budget, to pay our bills, and to be sure that we do not pass the costs of today's government and today's war on to our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to start being honest with the American people. Last June I was among a majority of this House that voted for the largest tax cut in the history of this country. The official estimate at that time of the surplus were that we could anticipate over $5 trillion in surpluses over the decade. We spent half of that on the tax cut. Here we are just one year later and the balance of that surplus is gone. In fact, the projections are that we have deficits as far as the eye can see. The question that we should be debating on this floor today is not how many additional tax cuts can we give, but the issue we should be debating is who is going to pay the bills. We all have stood united with our President, Democrats and Republicans alike, in a commitment to fund whatever is necessary to win this war on terrorism and to protect the security of the homeland. But my Republican colleagues refuse to acknowledge that we should not only vote to spend the money for the war, but that we should be willing to pay the bills for this war. Instead, they bring a new tax cut on the floor every week. You would think that September 11 has never happened. We have called to the young men and women in uniform serving in far-off places to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom, but we, we in this Congress have refused to tell the American people that they too must be ready to share in the sacrifice by at least being willing to pay the bills. Instead, the Republican majority has said to America's younger generations, we will leave the bills to you. We should not ask the young men and women in uniform to go fight this war and then come home in their income-earning years and to have to be stuck paying the bill for the war they fought. Nor should we be telling the next generations of seniors that we are going to use their retirement funds, the Social Security trust funds, to pay for this war. Never in the history of our Nation have we cut taxes in the midst of war. The way we are headed, this Republican administration will have the largest increase in spending of any administration in our history and will have the largest increase in debt. And somebody owes it to the American people to tell them why and to tell them that sacrifice goes beyond the duties of those young men and women in uniform to the American people. If we really believe in protecting those young men and women fighting in far-off places, if we really believe in supporting the FBI and the CIA and the law enforcement community that is fighting this war on terrorism, we should be willing to pay the bill. I will be happy to give additional tax relief to any American family just as soon as we can tell those American families that it will not be done with money borrowed from your seniors' retirement funds and it will not be done with money borrowed from the public, because today that is exactly what our Republican friends propose. If we really believe in the great cause to which we are now engaged, let us be honest with the American people and tell them that the surplus is gone, that the bill collector is at the door, and this generation must be willing to make the same sacrifices made by the greatest generation during the Second World War. The bill I am voting for today will give tax cuts whenever the official estimate of our Congressional Budget Office says that we can do it without borrowing money on the credit card of the next generation. A vote for the Democratic substitute is the only honest vote and it is the only way to really stand with the troops fighting for this Nation in far-off places today.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) today gives more tax relief to more families immediately than the Republican bill. The contrast between the Republican bill and the Democratic substitute is stark. The Republicans choose to help the wealthiest families in America while leaving the families with small businesses and family farms paying the estate tax for the next 7 years. The substitute being offered today provides $3 million in exclusion from the estate tax, $6 million for a couple. Unfortunately, families across this country will have to wait until 2009 to get similar relief from the Republican bill. Let us look at the facts. Every year between now and 2009, Republicans are willing to let over 50,000 modestly wealthy families continue to pay in estate tax while giving the wealthiest 300 families an average of $10 million in tax relief. The Republicans have chosen to benefit the super-rich instead of helping 50,000 families who would be immediately taken off the estate tax rolls by the Democratic substitute. It should be no surprise to discover that under the Republican bill a new capital gains tax is imposed on over 18,000 American families every year by the elimination of the so-called stepped-up basis in values for estates above $1.3 million. Imagine the surprise of a family who inherits a $4 million family farm or business from their father, when they learn that under the Republican bill, when they sell that family farm or business, they are going to have to pay a capital gains tax on the difference between what they sell it for and what the original cost of that farm or ranch was to their father. I thought the Republicans were against increasing taxes. Today, they have increased the capital gains tax. The Democratic substitute does not do that.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, tonight the House began the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, a bill that funds the war on terrorism and makes sure that our troops in the field have the necessary equipment and tools they need to win this war. Every Member of this House supports funding the war on terrorism. That is not what the debate was about tonight nor will it be what the debate is about tomorrow, as we continue to debate this supplemental. The debate tonight was about a provision of the bill that the Republican leadership put in there that would allow an unlimited increase in the statutory debt ceiling. The statutory debt ceiling is a law that provides the maximum amount that our Federal Government can go into debt. It is one of the few tools that we have to promote fiscal responsibility and require fiscal discipline in this House. The Democrats tonight stood up to tell the American people that we deserve to have an honest and open debate regarding this very critical issue. If we increase the national debt limit by $750 billion, as Secretary O'Neill has requested, we will be giving this Congress a blank check for uncontrolled spending for ever-increasing debt and for deficits. It is wrong for us to ask the young men and women in uniform who are sacrificing tonight to fight this war against terrorism to be the very generation that comes home and pays the bills for this war. The fundamental question before the House tonight was who is going to pay the bill for this war on terrorism. Are we going to pay it as the generation that is able to do so? Are we going to say to the young men and women in uniform, we will let them fight the war and then when they come home and when they are in their good income-earning years they can pay the debt for the war that they fought? Democrats believe that is wrong. We believe it is wrong to hide an increase in the debt ceiling in this very important supplemental appropriation bill. We must not use the Social Security trust fund, the American people's retirement fund, to pay for this war. We must not ask that we borrow money from the public to pay for this war. We believe that it is our responsibility today to pay for this war. The patriotic thing to do as Americans is to be willing to sacrifice along with the men and women in uniform, and the sacrifice that we must pay is we must be willing to pay the bill. At your house and mine and your business and mine, we understand what it means to balance the budget. We understand that when changed economic circumstances lower our income, that we have to make adjustments in our budget. We have to cut our spending, and if we need to borrow money, we establish a plan to pay it back. It should be no different in Washington. In Washington we also should pay the American people's bills. Every Member of this Congress recognizes that the debt ceiling must be raised. In fact, as we speak tonight, Secretary O'Neill is using unusual emergency measures to keep the Federal Government from defaulting on its obligations, by using the retirement funds of Federal employees to prevent a default in Federal obligations. Even after using every trick in the bag, the tricks will run out by the end of June and the debt ceiling must be raised, but Democrats believe that when we raise the debt ceiling we need at the same time to establish a plan to put us back into a balanced budget. Democrats have offered before the Committee on Rules amendments that would do that in a bipartisan way and those have been rejected. In the first 7 months of this fiscal year, the Federal deficit is $66.5 billion. To give my colleagues a picture of how things have changed in Washington, if we go back just 1 year and look at what the budget looked like in the first 7 months of the last fiscal year, we had a surplus of $165 billion. After having 4 straight years of surpluses in the Federal budget, we are back into deficit spending, and we need a plan to get us back on the road to fiscal responsibility. Our failure to balance the budget means that we are going to be using the Social Security trust fund to finance this war. That is wrong, and Democrats want a plan to get us back on the right track.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here tonight to address a very important issue, the issue of fiscal responsibility, and I am joined tonight by some of my colleagues who are members of the Blue Dog Democrat coalition. That group of 33 Democrats in the House who believe in fiscal responsibility, who believe in balanced budgets, who believe in controlling spending, who believe in paying down our national debt, which now consumes, just to pay the interest, 14 cents out of every tax dollar. In fact, $1 out of every $4 of individual income tax payments made into the Treasury every year goes solely to pay the interest on our national debt. The Blue Dogs have taken a very strong position with regard to an issue that is pending before this House and may very well be debated this week, and that is the issue of the debt ceiling. As we all know, there is a law on the books that controls the amount of debt that the United States Government can incur. That statutory debt ceiling has now been reached and, just in the last few days, the Secretary of the Treasury has been manipulating our Federal accounts to ensure that we do not go into default with regard to the obligations of the Federal Government. In fact, the Secretary of the Treasury has used the Federal Employees Retirement Fund as a means of avoiding, violating the statutory debt ceiling. And for a period of time, until the Congress acts to increase the statutory debt ceiling, the employees of the Federal Government will have their retirement funds being used to avoid the default in the obligations of this Federal Government. The Blue Dog Democrats believe that we need to address the issue of the debt limit in an honest and responsible way. We believe that the debt ceiling, rather than an arbitrary amount that has no great significance, as some would suggest when they propose that we raise the debt ceiling by $750 billion, we believe that that debt ceiling is one of the last tools that this Congress has to promote fiscal responsibility and to require balanced budgets. Just a year ago when this Congress voted the largest tax cut in recent history, we were projecting over the next decade record surpluses. Here we are just one year later and we no longer project surpluses, but we are projecting deficit spending and ever-growing national debt. In 1997, this Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. The Balanced Budget Act was one of the first pieces of major legislation that I voted on as a freshman member of this Congress. It put us on the road to fiscal responsibility and for 4 years this Congress produced balanced budgets. In fact, we produced budgets with surpluses, and we were able to begin the process, the slow process of paying down our national debt which totals close to $6 trillion today. That act was one of the most significant pieces of legislation that this Congress has dealt with in an effort to end the practice of deficit spending. In fact, the Congress, for 30 years prior to 1997, engaged in deficit spending and accumulated this almost $6 trillion national debt. This year, the Congress, once again, is back into deficit spending. In fact, if we look at the first 7 months of this fiscal year, we will see that we have accumulated a $66.5 billion deficit, and many estimate that the deficit for this fiscal year will be as high as $150 billion. That means that we are spending the trust funds of the Federal Government to run the rest of the government's operations. We are doing what this Congress pledged in previous years not to do, and that is, we are raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, the retirement fund of the American people, to run the rest of the government. We believe that is wrong. We believe that is fiscally irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, that $66.5 billion deficit that we already run in this fiscal year for the first 7 months compares to a surplus that we had at this point in time one year ago when, 7 months into the previous fiscal year, we were running $166 billion surplus. We clearly have seen a dramatic change in the financial picture of the Federal Government. The Blue Dog Democrats believe that we must return to balanced budgets, and we have a plan to get us there. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have on the floor of the House with me tonight the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), who has been a member of the Blue Dogs and who has stood up consistently for fiscal responsibility, who has represented his district in the way that I think most Americans want this Congress to be represented and that is, he has fought for balanced budgets and for paying down the debt. It is a privilege to have him on the floor tonight and to yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah. I appreciate his strong stand for fiscal responsibility. He is so right: we have the supplemental appropriations bill which is being considered as we speak by the Committee on Rules of this House, and it has been rumored that there will be an effort to sneak into that supplemental appropriations bill, which contains needed spending to fight the war on terrorism, language that would allow the debt ceiling to be raised without a full and adequate debate. Because of the significance of the growing deficit and the ever- increasing national debt that results from that, Blue Dogs believe very strongly that that issue should have a straight up-or-down vote by the entire Congress and should not be tucked away out of the light of day in some other piece of legislation. I am pleased that we are also joined on the floor tonight by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), one of the most respected spokespersons that we have in the House on fiscal matters, a gentleman who has fought his entire career in the Congress, over 20 years, for fiscal responsibility, and who has gained the respect of all his colleagues for his consistency with regard to his interest in balancing our budget and paying down our debts. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing his thoughts. I know that all of us feel very strongly that this issue of the statutory debt ceiling deserves a full and open debate of this House. And with the national debt rising, with deficit spending back upon us, somebody has to put on the brakes. Somebody has to say that we need to control spending. Somebody needs to say that we ought to do the same thing in Congress that we all have to do at our own households, and that is we have to pay the bills. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) suggested, I have been very concerned about the fact that we are asking young men and women to fight the war against terrorism, and yet we are doing it on borrowed money, which means that when they get back home and they are in their better income-earning years, they will be the ones that will have to pay for the war that they fought. So it seems to me that the right thing to do in Washington is the same thing that we all try to do in our own households, and that is, we pay our bills. We meet our obligations. We do not say that we are going to incur debt without having a plan for repaying that debt. And that is all that the Blue Dogs are asking with regard to the statutory debt ceiling is to say that, yes, the economy is on the downturn. We are in a war. Congress passed a major tax cut just a year ago and all the surpluses that were heralded at the time we took that vote are no longer there, and so the circumstances have changed. Unfortunately, there seem to be many in Washington today who suggest that even though the circumstances have changed, we do not want to do anything differently. And we know that when our financial circumstances change, we have to change our spending patterns. We have to change our economic circumstances in a way that allows us to live within our means, and Congress is not doing that today. So I am hopeful that we will get a chance to have an honest and open debate about this debt ceiling and we will, as Blue Dogs, support an increase of $150 billion to account for the fact that there has been additional expenditures as a result of war. But we have gone a long way from just a year ago when the administration and the Secretary of the Treasury said that we will not have to deal with the statutory debt ceiling for 7 years, to today when we already know we have hit the statutory debt ceiling, and were it not for the Secretary of the Treasury manipulating the employees' retirement funds to keep the obligations of the United States government from going into default, that we would have a catastrophe on our hands today. And even after he pulls out all the tricks in the bag, those are going to run out by the end of June, and this Congress will have to raise the statutory debt ceiling in order to avoid a default on the obligations of the United States government, in order to pay a Social Security check, in order to be sure we pay the bills that are keeping the military of our country operating today in Afghanistan, we will have to raise the debt ceiling. We understand that. But we just do not believe it is right to raise it $750 billion. In essence, giving a blank check to this Congress and this President for ever-increasing spending. So we feel very strongly that we have got to draw the line here and use this opportunity to remind this Congress and the American people that it is important to pay your bills. It is important to control spending. It is important to have a budget that moves us back to a balanced budget within the next 5 years. And even to say that is being generous because, in fact, most of us would like to see us move back to a balanced budget next year. The problem is the Congress, through its spending, and the Congress through the changed circumstances, and through the large tax cut that was enacted last year, has put us in a ditch. We are in a deficit ditch. And we have got to get ourselves out of it, and to fail to do so is an injustice to the next generation because the truth of the matter is the folly of unrestrained spending today, the folly of ever-increasing national debt and deficit spending means that our children and our grandchildren will be left to deal with the consequences of our inability to control our own spending and to balance our own budget. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield again to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I know that there is a plan that we have laid out as Blue Dogs and I think it is important for us to talk a little bit about that plan. Just the day before yesterday several of us met together with the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who does an excellent job of trying to persuade this Congress to move back towards balanced budgets and to end deficit spending. We also had several Blue Dogs there. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) co- sponsored the legislation; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), one of the co-sponsors of the legislation, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and myself and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson). And that plan was a sensible plan. That was a plan that should be supported in a bipartisan way by this Congress and by every Member of this Congress who calls themselves a fiscal conservative. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to allow him to talk a little bit about that plan so we can have the people understand tonight that what we are really trying to do is restore fiscal responsibility.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing some of the elements of the Blue Dog plan for restoring fiscal discipline, and I am particularly pleased my colleague mentioned the constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. That amendment was introduced by one of our fellow Blue Dogs, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). I had the opportunity to serve in the Texas legislature, the Texas House and Texas Senate, for 10 years; and in Texas, as in most every other State in the Union, we have a requirement in law, in Texas it is in our constitution, that we have a balanced budget. So every year when the legislature convenes, they are required to not spend anymore than is estimated to come into the next budget cycle; and if they fail to do that, they have violated the Texas constitution. If we had such a restraint in our Federal Constitution, we would not be here tonight talking about a five, almost $6 trillion national debt. We would have solved that problem a long time ago, and the gentleman from Arkansas' (Mr. Berry) constitutional amendment makes sure that we have a balanced budget by including that requirement in our Constitution. We know that when we amend the United States Constitution, it takes two-thirds vote of both Houses and then the States have to ratify it, three-quarters of them, and we all know that could take a long time. So we also have other elements in the Blue Dog legislative package to restore fiscal responsibility in the shorter term, and those bills, one by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), restores the budget rules that this Congress has had in place for some years which now are expiring, simply requiring that we set discretionary spending caps and that we abide by them, requiring that any legislation that deals with mandatory spending or revenues that increase the deficit be offset with some savings in some other area. Those kinds of basic rules are important to maintaining fiscal responsibility, and that bill by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) would ensure that those rules continue. Another piece of legislation introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) makes sure that we have a limit on how much we increase this statutory debt ceiling and ensures that once we go beyond the $150 billion that we all acknowledge would be the appropriate amount, that covers in the short term, that any further increases in the statutory debt ceiling would be preceded by the Congress enacting a budget that returns us to balance within 5 years without using Social Security trust fund moneys to balance the budget. Finally, our legislation that was introduced by another Blue Dog, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), says that we ought to require this Congress have a two-thirds vote if we are going to incur debt. All of those pieces of legislation as a package will move this Congress back into balanced budgets and to reducing the national debt. Some people say, well, what is the big deal about this national debt? Well, I do not know if anybody can tell my colleagues for sure how big the national debt can be before it gets us in trouble. I think the folks in Argentina knew that they accumulated too big a debt and they certainly had a crisis; but here in the Congress, we seem to be oblivious to the size of the national debt. Most Americans do not recognize and realize that one of the biggest areas of government waste is the national debt, because it takes a billion dollars of our hard-earned tax dollars every day just to pay the interest on the national debt. When people pay their individual income taxes every April 15, do they know that $1 out of every $4 paid into the government goes to cover the interest on the national debt? What a waste. What a waste. So if we are really interested in cutting out government waste, the first thing we have got to do is to get our debt under control. We have got to begin to run surpluses in our annual budget because when we run surpluses in our annual budget, that surplus pays down our national debt; and the best gift we could give to our children and grandchildren is be sure that we do not hand them this $6 trillion and growing national debt. We are here tonight to ask our colleagues in the Congress to deal seriously with this issue of the statutory debt ceiling, to not try to slip it in this supplemental appropriations bill that is coming to the floor this week and hide it and tuck it away in there as if it is not important, but to put it out in the light of day and have an honest debate on it and to acknowledge to the American people that this country, in terms of its finances, is going in the wrong direction. Americans have been more patriotic since September 11 than I have seen them in my lifetime. Some of those who fought in the Second World War say that we are seeing an era of patriotism today that is like they felt when they were young people during the Second World War; but if we have a true spirit of patriotism in our country, we are going to be sure that when we send our young men and women into battle that those of us back home are going to be willing to make an equal sacrifice which is to pay the bills, and if we cannot stand here tonight and acknowledge that we should pay the bills for fighting the war and not pass those bills on to the next generation, it would give reason and give cause to question the sincerity of our patriotism. Anytime that this country has been at war, Americans have been willing to sacrifice; and the sacrifice that every American is going to be called upon and should be called upon today to make as we find ourselves in this war against terrorism is those of us here at home should be willing to pay the bills. That is the least we can do. So I am here tonight on behalf of our Blue Dog Democrat coalition to urge our colleagues to return us to fiscal responsibility; to be sure that we enact policies that allow this Congress and as an institution to observe honesty in budgeting; to be willing to say that we are going to balance the budget rather than to ignore it; to be big enough to say that even though a year ago when we passed a major tax cut, which I voted for at the time, when we were projecting a $5 trillion surplus over the next decade, that today as we stand here tonight, when that surplus is gone, that we have to be big enough to admit to the American people that the circumstances have changed. Every American family understands that. Every American family has been through hard times. Folks have lost their jobs and had to make readjustments on their spending patterns. The Federal Government has to do the same thing if we are going to be honest with the American people. In just a few years, somewhere between 12 and 15, we are going to see a tremendous increase in the population of our country that are over the age of 65. The Federal Government will face one of the biggest fiscal crises that we have ever seen, as those seniors will be ready to receive their Social Security payments, they will be ready to receive the benefits of the Medicare program that they have paid for in their Social Security and Medicare taxes that they have paid all these years. If this Congress is going to be able to deal with the retirement of the baby boomers and the costs that are associated with those retirees, we have got to get the financial house in order today. Is it not wonderful that as we approach the crisis in the Nation that we were looking back at 4 years of surpluses, so that we could deal with the problems of the declining economy and the lost Federal revenues that flowed from that and to deal with the cost of the war on terrorism? What is it going to be like 12 and 15 years from now when the baby boomers retire and all of those costs are on the Federal Government and we look back to years of deficit spending? Now is the time to get the financial house in order. Now is the time to balance our budget and to pay our bills, and that is what we are asking our colleagues in this Congress to join with us in doing. I thank the members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition who have joined me on the floor of this House tonight, and I appreciate their stance for fiscal conservatism; and we look forward to the days ahead as we work together to try to balance the budget and pay down our debt.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this bill today is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Congress will consider, and I want to recognize the leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump), for his leadership, as well as the leadership of our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). The bipartisan approach that this committee has utilized to craft this bill exemplifies our bipartisan and our unwavering commitment to winning our Nation's war against terrorists. We also in this bill take major steps forward in providing our Armed Forces with the tools and the resources they need to protect our national security interests around the world. Earlier this year our military chiefs testified before our committee and identified over $25 billion in unfunded requirements for the upcoming fiscal year. Our committee was not able to address every need on the chiefs' list, but I am pleased that we addressed many of the issues, particularly in the areas of quality of life, readiness and modernization, as well as the deficiencies that the Department identified necessary to wage our war on terrorism. Over the last few years, one area of particular concern to me has been the continued reduction in troop end strength. In the post-Vietnam War era, the active duty military peaked at 2.2 million personnel. Today it is less than 1.5 million. Last year, each of our military services entered the war on terrorism with personnel shortages, a situation that has only worsened due to the heightened operational tempo required around the globe. I commend the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his leadership in advocating an increase in troop strength; and I am pleased that this bill contains an increase of 13,000 in troop authorization above last year's level. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an important piece of legislation that deserves the support of the entire Congress. I urge adoption of this legislation. Lastly, this legislation strengthens our national security interests both at home and abroad by authorizing $7.8 billion for ballistic missile defense programs. The development of medium and long range ballistic missiles by North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and other rogue countries underscores the importance of developing a fielding theater missile defenses capable of defeating these threats as soon as possible. Protecting our country and troops deployed in theater from a ballistic missile attack should continue to be a priority, and I applaud the commitment that is being shown to field this technology in the near term. Mr. Chairman, I especially want to emphasize the importance of fielding the Department of Defense's highest theater missile defense system, the PAC-3. When you look at spectrum of known threats around the world, and focus on those areas where we either have personnel or could likely have troops deployed, it's hard to ignore the fact that most credible ballistic missile threats would be thwarted by the PAC-3 system. Consequently, amendments will be offered by Mr. Spratt and Mr. Hunter a little later that seek to add money to this program. I am hopeful that you will support this effort and join with us in ensuring that our troops are adequately protected against these emerging threats. Mr. Chairman, we are at an important juncture with respect to funding our military and providing them with the resources necessary to effectively wage our war on terrorism. This bill acknowledges the challenges we face and seeks to respond. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time, and I want to thank him for his leadership in working on this amendment, and I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his leadership in trying to work out the compromise that we have before us that I think moves us forward in the bipartisan manner that I think serves the national interests of this country very well. This amendment sets in place for the first time a set of objectives that would be pursued between our Nation and Russia to try to enhance cooperation and furthering the efforts to end proliferation of nuclear weapons. Specific provisions of the amendment provide for exchange programs between our Nation and Russia, provides for increased transparency of the activities of each Nation in the area of nuclear research, and I want to say that having had the opportunity to travel to Russia with our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), I have the highest regard for his interest, his dedication, and his commitment to working with Russia to end nuclear proliferation and to be sure that this Nation's national interests are protected in that process. So I think all of us want to say to him we appreciate his leadership in this area. I know that many Members heretofore had questions about this amendment. I want to remind Members on both sides of the aisle that the compromise that we are laying before the House today was just arrived at a few moments ago. We think it deserves the support of the entire House on both sides. We think it is an important step forward toward peace and toward improving our cooperative relationship with Russia.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think it is important for us to understand what this amendment is really all about. It is the intent of the sponsors of these amendments to be sure that our troops are prepared to deal with what we may potentially face if we are involved in a land battle in a country like Iraq. Today we have only 20 PAC III missiles in our inventory. We authorized 72 additional missiles last year. They are not on line yet. What that means is if we get into a battle, a land battle where our troops need the protection from those Scud missiles coming from Iraq, we will simply not have the protection our troops should have. The PAC III missile is the only hit-to-kill missile that we have that has been proven to be successful. The old Patriot missiles are a different technology. We will certainly want as a House tonight to stand behind our troops and ensure that an additional 24 missiles are authorized under this bill. The Army says they need over 2,000 PAC III missiles in their inventory. We will have to appropriate money for a decade to get that inventory to that level. But we can take a small step tonight by authorizing an additional 24 missiles for PAC III, as well as the authorization for additional funding for the Arrow missile, which is also a missile that will defend against the Scud missiles of Iraq.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I am unaware of any opposition to the amendment, and so I rise to claim the customary division of time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. It is a pleasure to join in a bipartisan opposition to this Lofgren- Cannon amendment. The INS does not need a blank check from this Congress. If my colleagues look at the record of the INS, it has shown a total inability to successfully implement information technology advancements. The Inspector General at the Department of Justice said that the INS ``made huge investments in automation technology and information systems that have yielded questionable results,'' and continues ``to spend hundreds of millions of dollars'' on information technology initiatives ``without being able to explain how the money was spent or what was accomplished.'' This amendment would waive the requirement for full and open competition on information technology products and services for the INS through 2004. The INS would be able to purchase a multimillion-dollar computer technology improvement without any requirement for competitive bids or review under existing law. There are six exceptions already in law that would allow them to avoid the requirement of open competition if they saw fit to do so; things like a national security requirement; maybe there is only one responsible bidder. The law provides for unusual and compelling circumstances that would do harm to the government as an exception. And, finally, if the head of the INS determines that it is in the public interest to avoid competition, all they have to do is notify Congress 30 days before they award the contract to give us the opportunity to express our concern. This amendment is totally unnecessary. We have streamlined many of our procurement practices over the last decade, and we are now reading news reports that tell us we may have streamlined them too much. In one recent story, Charles Tiefter, the University of Baltimore professor who spent a decade here working as a House lawyer, said, ``Scandals are coming,'' referring to the procurement practices of the Federal Government. Now is not the time to give a blank check to the INS, and I hope my colleagues will join us in bipartisan opposition to this amendment.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that everybody in this House would like to see tax cuts continued past 2010. The issue is not whether we are for tax cuts; the issue is whether or not we are willing to use the Social Security trust fund money to pay for those tax cuts. I voted for the President's tax cut last June, and I would be glad to extend that tax cut; and I hope we have the opportunity to do it sometime between now and 2010. But when we have gone from projections of $5.5 trillion in surplus down to where we no longer have any surplus and we are projecting deficits, it seems fiscally irresponsible to propose today to extend that tax cut. I am confident we will be able to extend much of it, but fiscal conservatives will support a balanced budget first. Fiscal conservatives will oppose deficit spending, and fiscal conservatives will oppose spending the Social Security trust fund money to pay for future tax cuts. There is no business in America that will use its retirement fund to give dividends to stockholders, and if they did, they would go to jail. So I am confident that today the right thing to do is to oppose the previous question, oppose this rule, and let us have the opportunity to adopt the Blue Dog amendment to encourage and promote fiscal responsibility.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his work on this Digital Tech Corps Act. The Committee on Government Reform has been quite diligent in trying to improve the information technology of the Federal Government, and this exchange program which allows private sector employees to come into government agencies and also allows government employees to go into the private sector for the purpose of exchanging information and knowledge, expanding the ability of the Federal Government to understand and to implement information technology improvements, is certainly a wise and important step in our efforts to improve the information technology capability of our Federal employees and our Federal agencies. This legislation adopts a number of suggestions that have been made by the minority. There are three in particular I would like to mention. One, the bill includes stronger ethics provisions, as suggested by the minority. It also requires reports periodically from the Office of Personnel Management to advise the public as to who is participating in this program. We think this sunshine provision is very important to maintain the integrity and the credibility of this exchange program. At our suggestion, the legislation is also sunsetted after 5 years and requires the General Accounting Office to submit to the committee an evaluation of the success of the program. Finally, the bill makes it clear that the cost of the employee from the private sector going into the government agency will be borne solely by the private sector and that the cost of that employee coming into government will in no way directly or indirectly be borne by the taxpayers. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking Democrat of our committee, for his strong interest in this legislation. I share his concern that this bill did not go even further in improving the information technology training of our Federal workers. We certainly had hoped that we could see a full-fledged training program put in place in the Federal Government that would allow for a comprehensive training curricula to be offered to all information technology workers in the Federal Government, to be able to run effective training programs, and also to improve our recruitment of Federal IT workers. This was not able to be included in this bill. We hope that we will have that opportunity by way of amendment or separate legislation. But we commend the efforts of my subcommittee Chair, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), in trying to move us forward in the area of improving the information technology capabilities of our Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking Democrat of our committee.