Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. But as the charts shows, under your budget in 2013, the interest on debt we will be paying, the most wasteful government spending, is $656 billion in 2013. That is more than we will be spending under our budget on all of national defense, which is shown in the blue, which is $529 billion in fiscal year 2013. So the reality is that those of us on the Blue Dog side tonight believe that deficits do matter, and that it is wrong to pass on this kind of debt burden and this kind of interest payment to the next generations. And as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) said, it is important for us to work together. But to work together we have got to have an agreement that there are two ways that this debt continues to rise, and that is by spending or by continual pursuit of tax cuts that we cannot pay for. And I am one who believes it is wrong to ask those young men and women to go over there and fight for us in Iraq and tell them when they come home and get in their good years of earnings that they are going to have to pay the costs of that war because we charged it. So I really think that we have got a philosophical difference here with your side of the aisle saying that I have never seen a tax cut that I do not like, and we will cut taxes no matter how much we can afford to cut them. We Blue Dogs love tax cuts, and we want every tax cut we can afford. And back when we had a projected $5 trillion surplus, I voted with you for that tax cut. But it is different now. We are projecting a $5 trillion deficit over the decade. So I say to you that deficits do matter. They are morally wrong because it is charging the cost of government to our children, and it, according to the economists, will result in higher interest rates in the years ahead. And for the average family who is trying to borrow money to buy a home, borrow money to buy a car, borrow money to send their kids to college, just a 1 percent increase in interest over the next decade can literally means thousands of dollars in costs to that family. So we just ask you to work with us and try our best to end up reducing our debt. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. TURNER of Texas. We thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1416, the Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act, and I first want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), for his leadership of our new Select Committee on Homeland Security. The legislation before us is a product of the bipartisan cooperation that we have on that committee. It has been a pleasure to work with the chairman. I know that all of our members who serve on that important select committee feel the same dedication that the chairman and I do to accomplishing the task of protecting America and to do it in a way that moves us forward in a more rapid and stronger way. The select committee, of course, has been in business for just a few months, and no business is more important than the work of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security. We have quickly discovered that when it comes to doing all we can to protect America, our needs are indeed very great. Mr. Speaker, we are, as we all know, involved in a great struggle: The war against international terrorism. It is not a war we sought, it is not a war we started, but it is a war that we must and we will finish. Mr. Speaker, we must move faster in some very critical areas. We must do a better job in determining how to meet the threat posed by international terrorism. The testimony before our committee from some high officials in the Department of Homeland Security revealed to us that there are only 21 analysts matching intelligence on threats with our vulnerabilities and then recommending protective action. This critical area of the Department of Homeland Security, the responsibility which is housed within the Office of Information Analysis, has been the subject of scrutiny by our select committee, and both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the lack of full functioning of that particular entity, which in many ways is the nerve center of the Department of Homeland Security. It is perhaps the most important new addition that this Congress provided in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, to place within that department the responsibility for gathering the threat information and matching it against our vulnerabilities, and then using that information to direct the entire activities of the 22 agencies that were merged into that new department, and to further take that information, of matching threat against vulnerability, and providing it to our States and our local entities so that they will know how to protect their communities against the threat of terrorism. We also learned in our committee, during a hearing on Project BioShield, that this very same Office of Information Analysis has to date only one, only one person dedicated to responding to the bioterrorist threat. Our committee, in a bipartisan hearing, shared our mutual concern for the failure to get that particular activity within that Office of Information Analysis functioning in a way that it must function in order to carry out the purpose and intent of the Project BioShield legislation that we will be considering on this floor in just a few days. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is clear that all of us understand that we must move faster to ensure that this critical function of this Department is in place, up and running as soon as possible. It has become very clear that we as a Nation need to make the same commitment to the protection of our homeland as we made to securing victory in Afghanistan and Iraq. This Congress made sure that our 220,000 troops that fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom were supported by the best equipment and training in the world; and the cost of that battle, according to the appropriations made by this body, will approach $65 billion. Today, to secure America from the threat of terrorism, the Coast Guard has plans to review security for 4,400 port facilities and over 10,000 ships that enter our waters, and yet this Congress has yet to make the commitment to make sure that the funds are there to get the threat assessments done that are required to carry out that important responsibility. We must move faster. Today we have only one person on guard for every 16 miles on our northern border. The PATRIOT Act called for the tripling of our forces on our northern border to close the gaps on our northern frontier. The resources have not yet been committed to deploy the 1,800 border personnel needed to enhance our security. We must do better, and we must move faster. Today, we know that half of the firefighters' shifts across our Nation that will be the first called upon to respond to a terrorist attack lack the necessary communications equipment to deploy in the field so as to be able to talk to one another and to the other agencies that would be responding in the event of a terrorist attack. We must do better, and we must move faster. Mr. Speaker, we have many challenges ahead of us, but I am confident that this legislation is but a first step in moving us forward as a Nation to be sure that we do everything necessary to be sure that every American can know that they will be safe and secure in their communities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Borders and Critical Infrastructure.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume. Let me thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) for his leadership on this bill and his continued effort to try to mold our committee into one that will accomplish the goal that we all have of building a secure America. I know that when we look at where we are now there are many deficiencies, and we must recognize that the oversight responsibility of our committee is perhaps the most challenging of any committee in the Congress. The reorganization of 22 agencies molded into one Department of Homeland Security is a landmark change designed to be sure that the focus of those agencies is on protecting America, and so I am pleased that the chairman and I and members of our committee have worked closely together to take on the responsibility of oversight which is so critical, ensuring that we mutually achieve the goal that we have in mind. We all know that we must set the priorities. The priorities for homeland security can never be set unless the Department of Homeland Security carries out that vital function of determining the threats and matching them against the vulnerabilities, and I am pleased that the chairman has provided the leadership that we need to move forward in that area. There is much to be done, Mr. Speaker, and we must move faster and we must be stronger than we are today if we are going to ensure a secure America. This legislation is but a small step in that direction, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of H.R. 1416. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we consider today, of course, for the first time the appropriations for the new Department of Homeland Security. Just as the new Department is taking its first steps to make America safer, we are also embarking on an effort to try to secure the resources that we need for the longer term to ensure victory in the war against terrorism. This bill is a good start, and I support dedicating resources above the President's request to prepare our communities by training and equipping first responders and securing our ports and our transportation systems. However, as we have been finding in the hearings before the Select Committee on Homeland Security, serious deficiencies remain in the Department's ability to carry out its mission of protecting all Americans from those harms that could come our way through terrorism. Testimony before our Select Committee on Homeland Security revealed that there is one, precisely one, person in the Department of Homeland Security assessing the bioterror threat to America and determining how to match that threat against our vulnerabilities and then make plans to protect America from bioterrorism. It is clear we must move faster and we must be stronger to protect America. We have learned that, while over 4,000 port facilities and 10,000 ships that enter our ports are required to undergo security reviews, there is no funding to fulfill that mission. We must move faster and be stronger. We have learned that there are serious gaps in coverage on our northern border. There is on average only one person guarding every 16 miles of our Canadian border. The PATRIOT Act called for tripling the forces to protect our northern border, and the 2002 Border Security Act goes even further, but gaps still remain. We must move faster, and our forces must be stronger. Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago this Congress voted to spend $65 billion to prosecute the war in Iraq. We spent those funds to make sure that our forces had the best training and the best equipment possible. We need to make the same commitment to those who fight on behalf of homeland security today.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think that what we on our side of the aisle want tonight is just a little honesty. And we believe that instead of saying you are giving the American people something, you need to be honest with them and let them know that whatever you are giving them, you are borrowing the money from them in the future that they have got to pay back. If you are going to be honest, you ought to come down here and sign this credit application, because you really need a pretty big loan to grant this tax cut. And I am not sure there are too many bankers in this country that would give this loan, because if you look at our credit history, we owe $6.4 trillion; we know we are going to owe, by your budget, $12 trillion in 10 years. That means, if you can imagine, we are going to pay $650 billion in interest 10 years from now just to service that debt that you are creating. And do you know what? That is more money than we are going to be spending on the entire Department of Defense. Your budget says we are going to spend about $500 billion on defense 10 years from now, but we are going to spend $650 billion in interest on the debt. The truth of the matter is you need to come down here and put your name on the line and see if you can get this loan; and when you walk out of this building tonight, look at that big hole out there just at the bottom of the steps because that is the deficit hole that you are digging deeper tonight.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am proud to join my Blue Dog colleagues tonight to address an issue that we feel very strongly about and that is the ever-increasing Federal debt that we are accumulating by continuing down this path of continual deficit spending. A lot of folks today have heard the President call for tax cuts. The President says tax cuts mean jobs. The Blue Dogs have proposed a tax cut plan that will generate more jobs than the President's plan in the short term, but it is a bill that postpones some of the future tax cuts that are already in the law in order to be sure that our tax cut does not generate a larger Federal debt. Now, why do we believe that is important? Common sense tells us and every household in America knows that when you go along spending more than you take in, sooner or later it is going to catch up with you. Frankly, the Federal Government today is going down a path recklessly abandoning the fiscal discipline that was established just a few short years ago when we had the first balanced budget in 29 years. That was 2 years ago. How far we have drifted from that path today, when we project somewhere between a $400 billion to $500 billion deficit in the current fiscal year. We have an ever-increasing burden of debt. You do not hear too many folks in the White House or on the talk shows talking about our debt, but it is a debt that is a very significant burden and will be an increasing burden on the taxpayers of this country. This year alone, our debt runs in the neighborhood of $6.4 trillion. Now, that is a lot of money, and it is hard to understand how much $6 trillion is. I will tell you that it means that we pay $1 billion every day just to cover the interest on that national debt. We spent close to $332 billion last year on interest on the national debt. The Blue Dog Democrats believe that is too much interest to be paying on our debt and that the only way to get it down is to reduce our debt. That is why the Blue Dogs proposed a balanced budget plan for this decade to ensure that we got back to reducing our debt, rather than seeing it go up and up and up. Under the President's proposal and under the budget that the Republican Congress passed just a few weeks ago, our national debt is projected to increase from $6.4 trillion today to $12 trillion. That means 10 years from now we will be paying somewhere between 600 and $700 billion in interest every year. Contrast that, if you will, with the projections shared with us for spending on national defense in the recently adopted budget of this Congress. That budget projects that the Department of Defense will spend $500 billion a year 10 years from now. That is a significant increase from the present. But it also is noteworthy that we will be spending more on interest, $600 billion to $700 billion 10 years from now, more money, than we will be spending on national defense. Today when we pay our taxes and file our individual tax returns, 25 cents out of every dollar we pay goes to pay interest on our national debt. What a waste. That interest is going to double in the next 10 years. In other words, we could be paying 50 cents of every dollar we pay in personal income taxes just to cover the interest on the national debt. Mr. Speaker, we are going into debt at exactly the wrong time. We are going into debt as we approach the retirement of the baby boom generation. That generation, when they retire, will place great stress, fiscal stress, upon the Medicare system, the Social Security System, when all of those retirees will be eligible for those government benefits. The unfunded liability of the Social Security trust fund is estimated to be $25 trillion. It is wrong to be cutting taxes today and borrowing the money to pay for the tax cut. It simply means that this generation is going to pass the debt of a tax cut on to our children and our grandchildren. That is morally wrong, it is fiscally irresponsible, and it is heading this Nation down a path that will create grave crises for us in the future. For us it is about our future prosperity; it is about our future national and homeland security. How can this Nation maintain its status as the strongest military power in the world when its debt is continuing to accumulate and we will have a more and more difficult time every year paying the bills that we need to pay to ensure a strong defense, a strong homeland security, and a strong economy? The American people can remember the days when Ross Perot was running for President, when he had his charts and he said we had to look under the hood of that automobile and get under there and get our hands dirty and get it fixed. That same message needs to be heard today, because we are heading for a fiscal crisis unlike any ever seen in the history of this country. The projections of $12 trillion in debt 10 years from now are not based upon estimates of the economy maintaining its current status of sluggishness. The presumption is the economy will recover, and we still project a $12 trillion debt and $600 billion to $700 billion every year in wasted interest payments on that debt. The Blue Dog Democrats say wake up America. Remember that we must pay our bills. Remember that to maintain a strong economy and low interest rates, the government does not need to become the biggest borrower on the planet, because as government consumes a larger and larger share of the available credit, the laws of supply and demand indicate very clearly that interest rates for all of us will go up. So the tax cut we grant today may mean the higher interest payments on home loans, car loans, student loans tomorrow. There is no free lunch, and those who promise today the free lunch of tax cuts are also handing you a debt that must be paid by our children, a burden of debt that will result in higher interest rates tomorrow and a less prosperous America. The Blue Dog Democrats believe that fiscal responsibility in Washington, just as fiscal responsibility around the kitchen table, is a message that should be heard by every American; and we call on this Congress tonight, on the verge of raising the debt ceiling, without a vote in this House, by almost $1 trillion, to retake the high ground, to recognize that we have been through a war, when every American wants to do their part and pay the bills for that war, instead of charging the costs of that war to the very men and women who fought that war; Americans who believe that our bills should be paid, our books should be balanced, and we should have a strong economy today and tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, we hope this message will be heeded by our colleagues in this Congress tonight. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me time this evening.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Texas Senate and the Texas House, I know the value that the 53 Texas Democrats who are in Ardmore, Oklahoma, today place on the proud tradition of placing principle above partisanship. When the Republican leader of the Texas House agreed to the political handiwork of the majority leader of the U.S. House, he abandoned a tradition that has served Texas well. When Texas House Republicans drew a redistricting map without public hearings, behind closed doors, a map handed to them by Washington, they trampled on a tradition in Texas, and they trampled on bipartisanship, which has always been the hallmark of the Texas Legislature. In Texas, the name Texan has always meant more than Democrat or Republican. The Texas Democrats from my area, Jim McReynolds, Chuck Hopson, Dan Ellis and Joe Deshotel, were denied the right to protect the interests of rural east Texas. They were shut out of the process, and they joined in breaking a quorum, a regular feature of American politics, practiced by none other than Abraham Lincoln as a member of the Illinois Legislature in 1840 when he had to do so when he was under the heavy hand of the majority. All Texans who believe in fair play owe a debt of gratitude to our Texas legislators who have said to Washington today, Do not mess with Texas.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 222, commending those individuals who contributed to the debris collection effort following the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Mr. Speaker, on February 1 of 2003 the peaceful skies over my district in east Texas were shaken by the last moments of the fateful mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia. The people of east Texas looked up and saw a shower fall from the heavens on a clear blue sky morning. Once again we had lost our sons and daughters on the new frontiers of space. The entire Nation grieved the loss of seven brave astronauts: Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Specialists Mike Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon. In east Texas, mourning our loss also came with a mission, a heartfelt commitment to recover the debris of the shuttle and the remains of her crew. The volunteer firefighters, police and sheriffs offices acted with speed and professionalism to secure the areas where the fallen craft had come to rest. As the enormity of the task unfolded, men and women in east Texas volunteered to watch over the remains of the Columbia, knowing that the safety of future shuttle missions depended on gathering evidence to determine the cause of this tragedy. Thousands of volunteers worked in canteens manned by the Salvation Army, local churches, and charities supplying the workers with food and drink donated by local businesses. Across the Nation, and especially in east Texas, compassionate citizens offered prayers and support and held memorial services and vigils. During the 3 months following February 1, over 14,800 personnel from 133 Federal, State, and local agencies, and thousands of ordinary citizens volunteered, spending countless hours searching over 500,000 acres and recovering over 65,000 pieces of the shuttle. Two men, Charles Krenek of Lufkin, Texas, and Jules F. ``Buzz'' Mier, Jr. of Arizona, lost their lives when their recovery helicopter crashed in the forest of San Augustine County. Their names may not be recorded in the history books along with the astronauts, but their service to our country must not be forgotten. I am proud of our east Texans who worked day and night in the recovery effort. Their commitment and dedication to carrying out their task with the dignity and respect the astronauts and their families deserved was an inspiration to all Americans. In the wake of the tragedy, east Texans responded with the best our Nation has to offer; and I know our entire country, as well as the families of those so closely affected by this tragedy, join us today in expressing our gratitude and appreciation to the thousands who joined in the recovery of the Columbia. A grateful Nation will always remember.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in 2001 we approved a tax cut based on the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that we had a surplus over the next 10 years. Today our Republican colleagues come to the floor asking for a tax cut when the Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit over the next decades and as far as the eye can see. In that case, I think it is important for our Republican colleagues to be honest with the American people and go to them and let them know that in order to give this tax cut they have got to borrow the money, and here is the kind of credit application our Republican friends ought to submit to the people of this country. Typical application from the Members of Congress, always have to list your credit history. Our credit history is that we are in debt today $6.4 trillion. We pay $332 billion in interest. That is almost a billion dollars a day. Our estimated income for the next 10 years is $19.6 trillion. Our estimated expenditures exceed that, 23.6. It is estimated that in 2013 we will owe $12 trillion. And our estimated annual interest payments will be 6 to $700 billion, approaching what it costs to fund the Department of Defense. So what is our request from our Republicans? We need to borrow $550 billion so we can give a tax cut. The interest cost on it is going to run another $273 billion, and so the whole deal will costs $820 billion. What is the repayment schedule? It is unknown. I suggest that if you present this loan application to your local banker, they would say I am sorry, we are going to have to deny your loan. That is what we are being asked to do today by our Republican colleagues. Borrow money to finance a tax cut, charge it to the next generations with no prospect of repayment. I suggest this is the wrong direction for America. We must have a fiscally responsible tax cut like the Democrats propose that was paid for by not increasing our national debt. I urge you to vote no on the Republican proposal.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, not too many months ago I had a teacher in my office in East Texas in the city of Lufkin, sitting across the desk, crying because she had learned she would not receive any of her husband's Social Security survivor benefit because she had been employed for her entire career as a teacher. The issue before us is not a discussion on loopholes, it is whether the government pension offset is fair. Why should teachers, firefighters, law enforcement people, be denied their survivor benefits under Social Security simply because they have a government retirement benefit? The truth of the matter is if the lady sitting across the desk from me had worked for any other private company and had received a retirement benefit from them, she would still be eligible for her husband's survivor benefit. So I would invite the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who suggested that the Green amendment slows the pressure to change the government pension offset, to merely join with us in trying to amend this legislation; or, in the alternative, to join with the 172 other Members of this House in cosponsoring legislation, H.R. 594, that eliminates this unfair government pension offset. We are here today to fight for our Texas teachers, to fight for our Texas firefighters and our Texas law enforcement people who are unfairly disadvantaged by a government pension offset that says to them, because they work for the government and they have a separate retirement program, then they are going to be denied the very Social Security benefit that their spouse worked and earned. We hope that those who are opposing us today will take a second look, join with us and try to correct this unfair provision.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I appreciate her leadership on the Select Committee on Homeland Security as well as her work on the Committee on Appropriations. The amendment that Democrats hope to be able to offer, hope will be made in order tomorrow, would provide over $240 million for nuclear security to cover the items mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). I am pleased now to recognize another member of Select Committee on Homeland Security, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and I thank him for his leadership as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. Next I would like to recognize another outstanding member of our Select Committee on Homeland Security, the distinguished delegate from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen). I particularly appreciate her leadership in the health care field. Her training as a medical doctor means much to us when we are dealing with the threats of bioterrorism and preparedness in the health care arena. We thank you for your leadership. Next I would like to recognize another member of our Select Committee on Homeland Security, a gentleman who spent a great deal of time working on behalf of emergency preparedness to be sure our first responders get the tools and the training that they need to do the job, the distinguished member from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on behalf of homeland security. The amendment that the Democrats hope to be able to offer on the floor tomorrow on the supplemental appropriations bill would provide slightly over $1 billion in additional funding for first responders, first responder equipment, firefighter grants, chemical/biological response to support State and local governments and to provide civil defense team funding. These we believe are important issues to ensure the security of our Nation and also to be sure that we arm and train those soldiers on the front lines of homeland security just as we are always committed to funding those who fight for us abroad. It is my pleasure now to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a gentleman who knows perhaps more about the functions of a very important element of homeland security, the United States Coast Guard, than any person in this House. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and his leadership, particularly on homeland security. Next I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a Member who has worked long and hard on behalf of homeland security.

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

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, America is at war, and the Blue Dog budget reflects this new reality. Our plan strengthens national defense, improves homeland security, all in the context of a responsible budget. I have always tried to support my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they were right, but today their budget is all wrong. In an effort to squeeze the President's tax cut package into their budget, our Republican colleagues have proposed spending levels below the President's that are highly unlikely to be attainable in the current climate of war and the need to protect the homeland from terrorism. And even after cutting the President's budget, the Republican budget continues to dig the deficit hole deeper, saddling the taxpayers of this country with a national debt of over $11.5 trillion in 2013. That is an increase of $5.1 trillion in debt in the next 10 years. That means every American taxpayer will owe approximately $5,100 every year just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is a debt tax that cannot be repealed. In contrast, the Blue Dog budget is a realistic effort to control runaway Federal spending. It adopts the spending recommendations of our President. The Republican budget, on the other hand, turns its back on their own President's spending recommendations for veterans benefits, Medicare, Social Security, agriculture, and education. The Blue Dog budget puts us back on a path to a unified balance by 2009 and restores the Social Security lockbox by 2013, a very significant year, because in that year, for the first time, the Social Security Administration projects that our government will begin paying out more each month in benefits than we received in payroll taxes. By contrast, the Republican budget never restores the Social Security lockbox, turning their back on a promise made to America's seniors. Since the Blue Dog budget adopts the total spending levels in the President's budget, my colleagues may be asking, what does the Blue Dog budget do differently than the Republican budget? It differs in one significant respect. It recognizes that long-term national security requires long-term fiscal responsibility. No nation has ever been strong and broke. When our budget policies show that our current tax and spending plans will lead our Nation to ever-increasing debt, we are weakening our ability to respond to national security threats. At this very moment, while young men and women in uniform are courageously fighting the enemy in the deserts of Iraq, we are charging the financial cost of the war to the Federal Government's credit card. Who in this Chamber can explain to the American people why we are charging the cost of this war to the very generation that is now fighting this war? The Blue Dogs believe our generation should pay for this war. Our Republican friends say, deficits no longer matter, and tax cuts will stimulate the economy, and tax revenues will return. We tried that in 2001 and what did we get? We saw the economy decline and a $5 trillion surplus disappear into thin air. The Blue Dogs invite our Republican friends not to bet the whole farm on an ideologically driven supply-side economic theory, but join us in accelerating the marginal tax relief, accelerating the child tax credit, accelerating the elimination of the marriage penalty; but in the name of fiscal responsibility and national security, we should not accelerate the tax cuts for those families who have over $170,000 a year in income. Surely the top 3 percent of America's families will be proud to share in the patriotism of making this small sacrifice as those young men and women are doing in Iraq today. We know that we should not ask those men and women in uniform to pay for the war we have called on them to fight. I invite all true fiscal conservatives to support the Blue Dog budget.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, tonight American soldiers are crossing the deserts of Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. It is a mission that will present unknown dangers to our young men and women in uniform. They go not as conquerors, but as liberators. They seek no sovereignty over the Iraqi people, but seek to grant the opportunity for freedom and democracy to an oppressed people. Their mission is to disarm Saddam Hussein in accordance with the mandate of the United Nations Resolution 1441. Some would say that the task of disarmament might be accomplished without force, but none would deny that the threat of the use of force is the only credible tool in dealing with a dictator who has for 12 years defied the requirements of the resolutions of the United Nations. Our Nation vigorously sought to unite the world in this cause. Though some of our allies failed to face the reality of a brutal dictator who seeks to accumulate weapons of mass destruction, we are joined tonight by over 40 nations to confront this dictator who controls a nation that possesses the wealth to achieve his goals of military dominance. The policy of containment and mutual deterrence that worked successfully in the 20th century is not a strategy for security against the threats of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century. We join together tonight in deep gratitude for the brave young men and women who courageously face the dangers of our mission. They join a long line of patriots who have given us the opportunity to live in peace and prosperity. May God bless and protect them, and may His hand guide them in the pursuit of the cause of freedom and justice for all.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for hosting this hour for our Blue Dog group for the presentation of our budget proposal. The Blue Dog Democrats in the House are 35 members strong. We come from all over the United States. Tonight we have had Members from California, Mississippi, Tennessee and Florida. We will hear from the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) shortly. This is a group that is united by one theme, and that is we believe that our country must return to balanced budgets, we must try to pay down our debt, which now stands at over $6.3 trillion, and, in order to do so, we have to adopt a fiscally responsible budget in this Congress this year. Back in January the President revealed his budget plan, and we have had the opportunity to look very carefully at his plan. As you know, his plan calls for tax cuts and acceleration of tax cuts that were implemented 2 years ago when we passed the largest tax cut in the history of the country. That tax cut was to be phased in over a period of about 10 years. Those tax cuts have been phasing in, and the Blue Dog Democrats believe that the tax cuts that we have all received need to remain in place. We also believe that the future tax cuts that will accrue to the benefit of low and middle income families need to be implemented immediately in an effort to bring about a short-term stimulus. But the Blue Dog Democrats disagree with our President on two important points of his plan. First of all, we believe that it is wrong for half of his tax cut plan to be dedicated to the elimination of the taxation of dividends. Now, there are many wealthy Americans who have a lot of stock and who would greatly benefit from eliminating the tax on dividends. But most Americans have very modest stock investments, and we believe it is wrong to dig the deficit hole deeper and to increase our national debt by proposing at this time the elimination of the taxation of dividends. We also believe that at a time when our Nation is on the verge of war, that we as Members of Congress need to call upon the American people to share in the sacrifice that is being made by the young 18, 19, 20, 21-year-olds who are now gathered around the borders of Iraq, poised for military conflict. In time of war, all Americans must share in the sacrifice. By eliminating the part of the President's budget plan that eliminates the tax on dividends, we believe we are calling upon those Americans who are best able to share in the sacrifice to postpone that part of the President's plan. We also believe that American families who have incomes over $170,000 a year should be willing to defer the tax cuts that they would get under the President's plan in order to share in the sacrifice necessary to fight and pay for the war in Iraq. That is the Blue Dog plan: Accelerate the tax cuts for the lower and middle income families, for all families who have incomes below $170,000 a year; but those who have greater incomes than that, they will get the tax cuts that would naturally accrue to the cuts in the lower tax brackets. They will get the benefit of the Blue Dog plan for accelerating the child tax credit and eliminating the marriage penalty, as will all Americans. But as far as a reduction of the top rates, those families at $170,000 and above should be willing to wait, wait until we get through this war, wait until our budget situation improves. The difference in those two plans, the Blue Dog plan and the President's plan, has a dramatic impact upon our Federal budget. If you look at the chart to my right, you see the President's plan will dig the budget deficit hole deeper to the tune of $2.7 trillion in debt over the next 10 years. Our present $6.3 trillion debt under the President's plan at the end of 10 years will stand at $10 trillion. We think that is wrong. We think that is bad for the country. We think that is digging a hole that we will have a very difficult time getting out of. The second chart I have shows that the amount of interest that every American family of four will have to pay just to service that debt that we will have under the President's plan. As you can see by the chart, currently every family in America pays $4,624 in interest just to service that $6.3 trillion national debt. That is what we call the interest tax, and the interest tax is the only tax that you cannot repeal, because the interest obligation on the $6 trillion debt must be paid every year by the taxpayers of this country. So if you look at the President's plan, by the year 2013, 10 years from now, every American's debt tax will double. Every American family will be paying $8,458 every year, just to pay the interest on the ever- increasing national debt. We believe that is wrong. We believe it is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars to invest that much in interest.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. That is correct. As we said, by 10 years, the end of the budget period that we are now looking at, the tax paid by every family would be $8,458, just in interest. Today, 18 percent of every tax dollar collected by the Federal Government goes to pay interest. To look at it another way, if you took only the Federal personal income tax, about 25 percent of every dollar we pay, 25 cents out of every dollar that we pay, goes just to interest on the national debt. What a waste. We talk about wasteful spending, there is no greater waste in any area of spending than what we waste every year just paying interest on this debt that we have accumulated. The Blue Dog plan is to stop that hemorrhaging.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. That is correct. All of the discussion currently ongoing about the Federal budget, the levels of spending, do not include the cost of a conflict with Iraq or the cost of rebuilding Iraq once the conflict is over. The President has said that is a separate item, that it should be treated as a separate item. He has promised he will send a supplemental request to the Congress to pay for that if and when it occurs. So we are actually talking about very conservative estimates of the size of the national debt, and the Blue Dog budget plan we are contrasting tonight with the President assumes the President's levels of total spending. There are a lot of folks around here who believe very strongly, as I do and the Blue Dogs do, that we spend too much money and we have to be conservative in our spending. The President has sent us a budget that calls for significant reductions in the levels of spending that we have seen over the years. But even if you abide by the President's spending recommendations, which our budget does, his tax cut policies will increase our national debt to the level to the tune of $10 trillion by the end of this decade. So, what we say is as long as we are facing war, facing growing deficits, those who are most blessed economically in our country should be willing to defer the future tax cuts they have yet to receive in order to help us dig our way out of this ever-deepening hole of debt and deficit. The chart I have to my right shows in a line graph the differences and the surplus under the Blue Dog defense budget and the deficit that will occur over the next 10 years in the President's budget. The blue line shows the President's budget. The red line shows the path to a surplus under the Blue Dog budget. As you can see, after 10 years, our Blue Dog budget has seen several years of improved fiscal condition of the Federal Government, and we have returned to surplus. We will have returned to a surplus by 2009. By the end of the decade, we will have returned to what we call a true surplus that does not account for the influx of Social Security funds, which we are currently spending, just to run the rest of the government. This Congress a few months ago voted on several occasions never again to borrow money from the Social Security Trust Fund to run the rest of the government. We had 1 year, the last year of the Clinton administration, when we did that, when we accomplished that. But now we are back into deficit spending, we are using Social Security money once again to run the government, and the Blue Dog plan is a plan that will get us back to a point where we will no longer do that. The President's plan, to the contrary, does not accomplish that goal. Just in the last 2 months, the Congressional Budget Office in revising its economic forecast on Federal income said that the Federal debt at the end of the 10-year period would be half a trillion dollars larger than they have said it would be in just January of this year. So the slide into ever-deepening debt has been dramatic. The Blue Dogs call upon our President to take a look at the same numbers that his Office of Management and Budget produces, which are very similar to the numbers that our bipartisan Congressional Budget Office produces, and acknowledge and recognize that our picture, our financial picture, has changed dramatically, even since he announced his budget recommendations in January of this year. I think, based on those changed numbers, the President should join with the Blue Dogs in trying to move toward a balanced budget within this decade, rather than continuing to dig this deficit hole deeper and deeper. So, I hope tonight as the Blue Dogs have gathered on this floor, that we will be able to persuade not only our Democratic colleagues, who are well aware of this severe deteriorating budget situation, but our Republican colleagues, that they should take a good, hard look at the Blue Dog budget alternative. It should be appealing to many of them, because for many years Republicans were known to be fiscal conservatives, and it has only been in the last 2 years when we have seen Republicans abandon that, and in fact on many occasions tell us that deficits really do not matter. The truth is, common sense still prevails, and as you go along spending more money than you take in, eventually it is going to catch up with you. I have never seen a family that could sustain itself for very long incurring debts that they could not repay, and neither can your Federal Government. So we believe Republicans will be attracted to our plan because we do not dig the deficit hole deeper. We believe that our spending levels, which are the same levels as the President's, will also be attractive to Republicans because they, I hope, would follow their President's recommendations on spending. So we hope this plan will be well received, and we look forward to the opportunity to debate it when this House considers the budget resolution for this year.