Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I again yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would again like to express my support for the legislation. Of course, as the Chair has heard, there are amendments that will be offered to hopefully strengthen the legislation. But, again, the concept of trying to improve the information technology of our Federal workers, their training, and to provide some type of exchange program is a concept which I support. Again, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) for his efforts and thank him for the sections of the bill that he has included that have been suggested by the minority, as well as the amendment that the gentleman will offer, which, though it does not fully address the concerns shared by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), does address some of the concerns that have been talked about among us over the last several days. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for offering the amendment that is now before the House. Although the amendment does not go as far as some of the suggestions that have been made from our side, in particular the amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) shortly, the amendment is a good faith effort to try to move in the direction of some of the concerns that have been expressed from our side of the aisle. In particular, the amendment closes a loophole that I think we all agree needed to be closed in the sense that under the exchange program, a private sector employee of course would be detailed to the government agency, and the government agency would designate an employee to go to the private sector. The amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Virginia closes a loophole by prohibiting Federal contractors from billing back to the government the cost of their employee's salary or benefits under existing contracts. So it provides assurance that the Federal Government will not inadvertently be paying for the cost of a private sector worker detailed to a Federal agency. So I do appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) including the closing of that loophole in this amendment. I also appreciate the provision of the amendment that asks the General Accounting Office to do a study of the need for information technology training programs within the Federal Government. As I mentioned earlier, it was our interest to have included in this bill a strong information training program for Federal IT workers. We were unable to accomplish that within the confines of the time limitations and the subject of this legislation, but the provision in the Davis amendment that calls for the General Accounting Office to do a study will be a good first step toward moving us to a good, strong information technology training program for Federal workers. So I support this amendment. I am glad to join in support of it, even though, as I said, it perhaps does not go far enough in the minds of some to address some of the concerns that have been expressed.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman amendment, because it includes a provision that I think is very important to strengthening the information technology capability of our Federal work force. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) mentioned, the section of his amendment entitled ``Federal information technology training program'' comes from a bill that I introduced, and it has also been introduced and passed out of a committee in the Senate, that sets up a strong Federal IT training program. Obviously, the purpose of the exchange program contained in the digital tech bill is to improve the training of Federal employees and to strengthen our ability to improve the Federal work force. The bill itself makes reference to the fact that in making assignments from the Federal agencies to the private sector, that the agency heads should consider training. But really, training is the primary purpose that I see behind this legislation. I believe it would be a significant strengthening of this bill if we could proceed at this point in time with the establishment of a strong IT training program within the Office of Personnel Management. This amendment that is offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) provides a strong training curriculum requirement, it provides a very strong and very vigorous effort to try to establish training programs throughout the government for IT workers, and it places greater emphasis than we have currently upon the recruitment of IT workers. In our committee, we have had countless numbers of Federal officials come before our committee and say to us that we have an information technology work force crisis in the Federal Government. We had a very interesting bit of testimony before our committee a few weeks ago from a head of a major information technology company who pointed out to us that if we looked at the tragedy that occurred on September 11, that the information that was available to various Federal, State, and local agencies, that if it could have been brought together in a single location, that we perhaps could have prevented that tragic event. That message said to me that we have a long way to go in the Federal Government in utilizing information technology, and one of the key elements of improving information technology is a strong and vigorous IT training program. Some of our witnesses before our committee have shared with us from time to time the percentage of their company budgets that are devoted to IT training, in some cases 5, 6, 8 percent. The Federal Government expends approximately 1 percent of its budget on training. What we need to do is not only emphasize training in general, but we need to focus in on information technology training. The Waxman amendment, under the section entitled ``Federal information technology training program,'' establishes that very needed program. For that reason, I would urge the adoption of the Waxman amendment.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his leadership on this legislation. It is a continuing effort that we are making on our subcommittee that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) chairs to try to improve the process by which the Federal Government contracts for goods and services. It is, of course, a very challenging effort because it is important to not only improve and streamline the process, but at the same time ensure that the public's interest is protected, that the integrity of the contracting process is preserved, and that the taxpayers get the best deal for their dollars. Under this bill, pilot authority that was previously granted under law is extended for an additional 2-year period of time, allowing acquisition procedures to be simplified for the purchase of commercial items up to $5 million in value. This authority began in 1996, and it was granted a 1-year extension in last year's defense authorization bill. The bill also requires the General Accounting Office to report to us on the effectiveness of this provision and to determine whether or not it has in fact reduced administrative time and costs in awarding contracts, while at the same time protecting the public's interest. I thank the gentleman for including several suggestions that came from our side on this issue. I believe we have a strong bill as a result, and I am hopeful that this will once again prove to be a step forward in the acquisition process followed by our Federal agencies. It is part of an effort that also involves strengthening the training, the ability of the contracting officers who, under this legislation and similar legislation, have greater responsibility and less review by their acquisition superiors. The contracting officers are the key to making this effort successful, and I am confident that the efforts that are being made to strengthen contracting throughout the Federal Government will prove beneficial to all. The decision to allow the use of simplified acquisition procedures to purchase commercial items up to $5 million in value is a well-intended effort to give our contracting officers more flexibility to do their job, thereby saving the taxpayers money and saving additional and unintended wastes of time and effort. This bill, by extending it for another period and sunsetting it, will give us the opportunity to be sure the bill is working as we have intended it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. The gentleman from Wisconsin is certainly accurate in his assessment, and I think what it comes down to is that in this Nation, at this time of war, all Americans need to recognize that it is not just those young men and women in uniform that are sacrificing for our Nation but all of us must be willing to do so, because our failure to do so does mean, as the gentleman suggests, that the very generation that is fighting this war will later be the generation that is called upon to pay for it.

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a pleasure to join my colleagues tonight on the House floor to talk about the debate that has been ongoing all day in this House regarding the budget resolution for the upcoming fiscal year. For many of us it was a very difficult and disappointing day in this House, a day when 435 Members debated the future budget of our Nation, and by a margin of just 6 votes chose to abandon fiscal discipline to raid the Social Security Trust Fund and to cease the efforts that we have made for the last 4 years to balance the budget and pay down our debt. The choice that we had before us on the floor today was very clear. We can go back to deficit spending, raid Social Security, increase our debt; or we could have chosen to continue down the path of fiscal responsibility, balancing our budget, saving Social Security, paying down debt. The Republicans on the floor of this House today suggested that we are in war and that their budget was justified because we are in war. All of us in this House, every Member agrees completely that we must dedicate whatever funds are necessary to win the war against terrorism. No dollar should be spared in this effort. But is it right to ask the young men and women in uniform who are fighting this war to also pay for it? That is the effect of what happened here on this floor today. Does the majority party believe that it is right to commit to spend whatever is necessary to fund this war without an equal commitment to pay for it? Does the majority party in this House really believe that calling on young men and women in uniform who are today, tonight, sacrificing for our Nation, risking their very lives, to also be the ones that will have to pay the debts that are created by this budget? Does the majority party in this House really believe it is right to spend whatever is necessary to win the war on terrorism while at the same time telling those 18- and 19- and 20-year-old soldiers that they will be called on to pay for this war when they are in their prime income-earning years? In my humble judgment, that is not the true spirit of American patriotism. Deficit spending, borrowing money from the Social Security trust fund to fight this war is not only fiscally irresponsible but it is morally reprehensible. It is an injustice to pass the cost of today's war on to the very generation that is tonight fighting this war. What father in any American family would choose to leave an inheritance to his children consisting of a pile of debts, a pile of bills? That is the choice the majority party made in this House today. After 3 years of budget surpluses achieved by courageous votes of Members of previous Congresses, the majority today refused to face up to the fiscal realities of today. Just 1 year ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected that we would have 10 years of surpluses. This year, the Congressional Budget Office projected that we would show deficits for the next 10 years. At your house or mine, in your business or mine, that would prompt us to change course. But not in this House today. Instead, this House chose to go down the path of fiscal irresponsibility. Yes, it was a sad day for the American people in this House and on this floor this afternoon, because the majority decided it was okay to raid the Social Security trust fund to fund their budget. On at least four occasions on the floor of this House since 1999, this body has voted overwhelmingly to protect the Social Security trust fund, to put it in what we call the lockbox, pledging never again to spend Social Security funds, the retirement fund of every American, to cover debts incurred in the rest of the budget. If any corporate officer in America raided the employees' retirement fund, they would be guilty of a felony and they would be locked up for a very long time. But here in Washington, after promising never to do it again, the Republican leadership has presented a budget that, without apology and without remedy, raids the Social Security trust fund and returns us to deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility. This was the wrong choice for the future of America. I am pleased to be on this floor tonight with my colleagues who believe in fiscal responsibility, to stand up for balancing the budget, paying down the debt and protecting Social Security.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3924, and I commend Chairman Davis for his work on this legislation. It is very clear, I think to all of us, that the Federal Government faces a severe and looming human capital crisis; and one of the ways, one of the ways that we can encourage a strong Federal workforce is to utilize some of the management principles that the private sector has adopted. And we know for certainty that the private sector has been much more aggressive in promoting the use of telecommuting in the private sector than has the Federal Government. The benefits to the Federal Government would be to improve worker productivity, morale and retention, and to improve recruitment of Federal workers. And to do so, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has proposed in this legislation an encouragement to the private contractors, those who contract with the Federal Government, a provision that would prohibit them from outright banning the use of telecommunication unless there is some clear and distinct justification for doing so, such as national security or some other practical prohibition that would keep those employees of that private contractor from being able to engage in telecommuting. Advances in information technology have made it so that many jobs in our society can be conducted from many locations. People can, in fact, perform work at home, on the Internet, rather than coming in to the traditional office. We look at the numbers of how many people are utilizing telecommunication in the private sector and we see, according to the latest figures, that there are about 19 million Americans who telecommute as a part of their job, and that number is rising. But when we look at the Federal Government, according to the Office of Personnel Management, there are only about 45,000 employees, or about 2.6 percent of our Federal workforce, that telecommute once a week, and almost half of those are in a single agency. So we can see that the Federal Government has, in fact, lagged behind the private sector. Now, this bill is designed to encourage the greater use of telecommuting in the Federal Government. And it is interesting to note that though this is a very significant piece of legislation to the gentleman from Virginia, who represents northern Virginia, where we have a large Federal workforce, the encouragement of telecommuting could in fact provide Federal employment opportunities as far away as my district in east Texas. Because if jobs can in fact be performed at home through the use of the Internet, perhaps some of those very lucrative Federal jobs could be spread around, Mr. Chairman, to some of the rest of us. So I am very pleased to be able to join my colleague in support of this legislation to encourage further use of telecommuting in the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, with today's vote on the Federal budget we have a clear choice. We can go back to deficit spending, raiding Social Security and increasing this Nation's debt or we can choose to travel down the path of fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget, saving Social Security and paying down our debt. Our Republican friends suggests this is a wartime budget and it should be, but is it right to ask young men and women in uniform to fight this war and then come home and ask their generation to pay for it? I think not. On at least four occasions since 1999 this House has voted overwhelmingly to put the Social Security Trust Fund in a lockbox, pledging never to use it again to cover the other expenses of government. If any corporate officer in America raided their employee's retirement fund they would be guilty of a felony and locked up for a very long time, but here in Washington, after promising never to do it again, the Republican leadership has presented us a budget that, without apology and without remedy, raids the Social Security Trust Fund. This is the wrong choice for America and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this irresponsible budget.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding to me. It is good to be here on this floor tonight with our fellow Blue Dog Democrats, who have consistently stood up in this Congress for fiscal responsibility. I think all of us tonight have a great deal of concern about the suggestion that we increase our statutory debt ceiling, because we all know that the statutory debt ceiling is the last remaining line of defense to protect us from total fiscal irresponsibility in Washington. We all thought that there was another line that protected us from fiscal irresponsibility, and that is the pledge of this Congress never to spend the Social Security trust fund monies on anything other than Social Security. Back in 1997, all of us here tonight were present when we voted for the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It reversed a trend that had been present in the Federal Government for 30 years of spending every year more money than the government took in. And for 3 years after that Balanced Budget Act, we actually had a surplus in the everyone. As the gentleman from Kansas pointed out, just a year ago it was projected that we would have over $5.6 trillion in surplus funds flowing into the Federal Treasury over the next decade, but then came a major tax cut, a recession, and a war. That surplus has disappeared. This year, for the first time in the last 4 years, the Congress is looking at a budget that will once again return us into deficit spending, will rob the Social Security trust funds of those payroll taxes that are paid in by the working people of this country for Social Security, and that money will once again be spent to run the general government. That is wrong. And since we have crossed that line of spending Social Security trust fund monies, something that we pledged on the floor of this House not to do at least half a dozen times in votes cast by the Members here, there is no other protection against fiscal irresponsibility except the statutory debt ceiling. That is that limit in law that says that the Federal Government cannot go over a total of $5.9 trillion into debt. Most of us cannot understand how in the world we ever got in a position that we would authorize over $5 trillion in debt, but when the administration comes to this Congress and says that we have to increase the debt ceiling by $750 billion, any Member who is fiscally conservative will say, wait a minute, where is the line of defense to protect us from fiscal irresponsibility now? It will be gone. Now, we all understand that in times of national emergency, there may be justification for a short period of deficit spending if we are in a war, as we are now. The recession has brought Federal revenues down. It could be that the emergency presented by war would say in the short term deficit spending may be necessary, but only short term. What we have projected now by the Congressional Budget Office is a decade of ever-increasing national debt. Deficit spending is wrong. We would not do it at our house or yours. We would not do it in your business or mine because we know it just would not work. We all understand that we need to pay our debts. Why cannot Washington understand that same principle? The reason is that government can print money, and we are going to continue to print money if we increase the statutory debt ceiling, and that debt is going to be owed by our children and by our grandchildren. Our debt today costs this country and the taxpayers of this Nation almost a billion dollars a day just to cover the interest payments on that national debt. What a waste of resources. Think what we could do if we could save that almost billion dollars every day we spend on interest. Talk about waste in government. The biggest item of waste in government today is the almost billion dollars that we pay every day in interest on that national debt. So the Blue Dog Democrats believe that holding the line on increasing the debt ceiling is the only way to protect this Congress from continuing down that reckless path of going deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. I think we all understand that when we are in war, as I said a moment ago, we may have to do deficit spending in the short term; and we would all understand if there was a proposal before this House to increase the debt ceiling enough to cover the needs of national defense in time of war, but that is not what the proposal is. The proposal is many times over that amount, and it is designed to allow this Congress to continue down a road of deficit spending for at least another 2 years. We have got to hold the line. We need to stand up for limiting the amount of increase in the debt ceiling. It is our only line of defense in order to prevent this Congress from fiscal irresponsibility. We all know that increasing debt is morally reprehensible. Why should we spend money today, whether it is for defense or any other purpose, and expect our children some day to pay for it? We are in a war today. Many men and women are in uniform in faraway places tonight, defending freedom, fighting for this country. They are making a tremendous sacrifice, and yet it seems that the American people are not being called on to join in that sacrifice because the American people have been given a pass, a pass that says, you do not have to pay for this war now. You can let your children pay for it. So when those young men and women in uniform return to our country and begin to enter the workforce and build their careers and their life savings, they would have to look forward to paying for the war that they fought in the first part of the 21st century. Now that is wrong. And the only way we can stop it is to hold the line on the request to increase the debt ceiling in our law. We know that as we continue to increase debt, the demand for credit from our government increases, and it has the effect, the economists tell us, of increasing the interest rate on all kinds of loans sought by American families. So if we continue down the road of fiscal irresponsibility and allow this debt to continue to mount and mount and mount, not only do we have increasing interest costs to the Federal Government, but the cost of borrowing money for every American family will be higher because the Federal Government's appetite for credit pushes all interest rates up for everybody. So if you want to buy a car or buy a new home and finance it through a home mortgage, or send your kids to college and have to borrow the money to do it, you will pay higher interest rates in the years ahead because of the fiscal irresponsibility of your Federal Government. We hope that the Members of this Congress will join with the Blue Dogs in standing up for fiscal responsibility, for paying down that $5 trillion debt instead of allowing it to continue it to go up. That is an issue that is important to the American people and the American family, and our failure to deal with it responsibly will result in fiscal catastrophe for this country because we cannot continue to allow debt to mount higher and higher and higher. So I am very hopeful that our colleagues in the House will join with the Blue Dog Democrats and stand up for the proposition that we should not increase the debt ceiling by the amount of money that has been requested, and preserve that one last line of defense for fiscal responsibility.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. I thank him for his leadership tonight on the floor. It is good to see a good group of Blue Dog Democrats here speaking out for fiscal responsibility. I know that each of us, in our own way, has fought long and hard to try to be sure that we have a balanced budget here in Washington. It only makes sense that the Federal Government manage its financial affairs the same way that we all expect our own households to be run. That is, if we have money coming in that we can spend or invest or save, we make those choices; but in the end, we make sure we do not spend more than our income. Washington, as we all know, spent more money than it had coming in for 30 years; and finally, when several of us here on the floor were first-term Members of this Congress, we cast the most significant vote I think this Congress has cast in many years, and that is we passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Through that action, we had 3 years of surpluses in the Federal budget. Now, with the President's new budget submitted to the Congress, we are back into deficit spending, back into spending more money than we take in every year. Some people may say, well, what is wrong with deficit spending? Deficit spending is bad for several reasons. It is bad because it passes debt that we are creating by deficit spending on to our children. It seems to me that if we are going to make wise decisions and if we are going to have fiscal responsibility in Washington, we should not be spending money and incurring debt that our children are going to have to pay for some day. But that is where we are once again here in this Nation's Capital. Another reason that we should not engage in deficit spending is because it simply creates larger debt, and larger debt means we have greater interest to pay every year. What a waste, to be consuming so much of our Federal budget every year just paying interest. A lot of people do not realize that the interest alone on the Federal debt runs almost $1 billion every day. I did not misstate that: $1 billion every day, just to cover the interest on our national debt, which is approaching $6 trillion. What a waste in resources. We could fund the President's requested budget increase for defense many times over if we were not paying $1 billion a day in interest on our Federal debt. Another reason it is wrong to deficit spend is because when you are deficit spending, you are raiding the Social Security trust fund. If any corporation in America were to dip into the employees' retirement trust fund to cover the business losses of that corporation, those business executives would be prosecuted. They would be indicted and sent to prison. In Washington, we seem to be able to get by raiding the American people's retirement fund, Social Security. When we are deficit spending, we are taking Social Security payroll taxes and we are using it, not for Social Security, but we are using it to run the rest of the government, and that is wrong. That breaks a promise, a covenant, that this government has with the American people to protect Social Security for this generation and for generations to come. Finally, deficit spending is wrong because when we increase the national debt, which happens every time we run an annual deficit in the Federal budget, we undermine the public's faith and confidence in the economy of the United States. How big a debt can the United States run before there is some crisis of international proportions? I do not have the answer to that, but I know that $6 trillion in debt is an awful lot of debt to be passing on to our children and grandchildren; and I know paying $1 billion a day in interest is a waste of Federal taxpayer dollars, and I know that when the national debt increases, it means that the government is borrowing more and more of the available credit out there in the economy; and it has the effect of pushing up interest rates for all of us. When interest rates go up, it costs the American family more to buy a new car on credit, to buy a home and finance it through a home mortgage. It costs more to borrow money to send your children to college. It costs more money when you charge to your credit card. Lower interest rates are good for the American economy, and one way to get lower interest rates in the economy is to be sure that the government, the Federal Government, is not consuming a larger and larger share of the available credit in our economy. For all of those reasons, deficit spending is wrong. Common sense tells us that the Federal Government ought to be managed like our own households, our own businesses; and if we do not do that, we are doing a disservice to the American people, and we are encumbering our children with a debt that they may never be able to get out from under. We believe as Blue Dog Democrats that we need to support the President in fighting this war. We need to commit whatever resources are necessary to win the war on terrorism. But the only people that are having to sacrifice today in that war are those young men and women in uniform who are defending our country tonight. The American people need to be ready to sacrifice as well, and that means that we need to pay the bills to fight that war, and not pass those bills on to our children. I again thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) for his leadership tonight, and I am proud to join with my Blue Dog colleagues in standing up for fiscal responsibility.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his leadership in this hour tonight. It has been good to see so many of the Blue Dog Democrat Coalition members come to the floor and talk about this issue. Clearly, we are advocating fiscal responsibility because we believe it is important to the future prosperity and the future economic security of our country. In many ways, we might define the debate tonight as a debate for our national security, because maintaining fiscal responsibility is a very important part of maintaining our national security. We see examples all across the world of nations that get in trouble economically, Argentina being the most recent. We understand what debt, excessive debt, can mean to a country. Those of us here on the floor tonight want to try to start paying down that debt, rather than seeing it continuing to rise. We believe it is very important not to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. What business in America could get by if its corporate executives raided the retirement funds of its employees? Those executives would be put behind bars. But in Congress and in Washington, it seems that we routinely go into the Social Security Trust Fund, take those hard- earned payroll tax dollars, and go out and spend them for something else, just at a time when Social Security is needing those funds with the retirement of the baby boom generation. We can look at the facts. They speak for themselves. If we just turn back just a year ago and look at the projections, what we see is that just a year ago we had a projection over 10 years that our debt, our publicly held debt, that is, the debt that is held by those third parties, those folks who hold those savings bonds, those Treasury bonds, those Treasury notes, we saw a year ago that the projections were that that debt would be eliminated over the next decade. In fact, it would be actually completely paid off to the tune of $129 billion, so we would be back in surplus. Yet, here we are in February of 2002, and the projections have completely changed. We find that the projection is that we will have an almost $2.8 trillion debt at the end of this decade. So what we see is a completely different picture. What has happened? Of course, we passed a major tax cut based on those projections of economic prosperity. Now it turns out that with the tax cut, with the slowdown in the economy, and with the war, that projection of surplus is gone and our projections now show an ocean of red ink. The impact of that on paying interest is just almost incomprehensible. We projected just a year ago that we would pay $709 billion in interest on our national debt over the next decade. We are actually paying close to $1 billion a day right now just on interest on our national debt, but that was going to go down because the projections were that we were going to pay off that publicly held national debt. Well, what does it look like today? Here we are with projections that we will spend almost $1.8 trillion in interest, almost, over the next decade, $1 trillion more in interest. What a waste. What a waste. We believe firmly that we must end the practice of deficit spending in Washington. Congress engaged in it for 30 years, until just 4 years ago when we passed the Balanced Budget Act, and we have seen 3 years of annual surpluses in our Federal budget. But here we are in 2002 with, once again, a projection that we will be back into deficit spending. Some people say, ``What is the big deal? Deficit spending, it sounds kind of like Washington talk.'' It simply means that we are spending more money than we are taking in. If Members did it at their houses, they would be running up a debt on a credit card, or going down to the bank trying to figure out how to borrow enough money to pay the bills. In our houses, if we have a credit card, it usually has a limit on how much debt we can go into before they say, no, they cannot charge anymore. It is not that way in Washington. You can just keep running the debt up or at least some people seem to think that is the way this works. They act as if it does not matter how big the national debt gets. Why is deficit spending wrong? It is wrong because the debts that we incur today will have to be paid for by our children. That is wrong. It is wrong because as the demand for credit is increased by our government, it has the effect of pushing up interest rates in the economy. So we all pay, not only in higher taxes to cover this interest on this national debt; but every time we go out and borrow money to buy cars, send our children to college, buy a new home, we are going to be paying higher interest rates than we would had the government not engaged in such reckless deficit spending. Another thing the deficit does for us is forecloses a lot of options. If we have an emergency and we need to spend more, it is harder to go into debt when you are already deep in debt. When you are trying to solve the problem of Social Security and Medicare, which is going to get critical in about 10 years with the retirement of baby boomers, and you try to figure out how to solve that problem, if you are already deeply in debt, you are going to have trouble. If you are trying to help our senior citizens, as most of us on the floor tonight have worked hard to do with prescription drugs, where are you going to pay for it if you are already deeply in debt? It is wrong to raid Social Security in order to finance the activities of government. We need to be protecting Social Security. And deficit spending is wrong because ultimately it is going to erode the confidence in the U.S. economy. The only reason we stand on this floor tonight and have the luxury of borrowing money in order to run our government is because of the confidence people have in the American economy. In Argentina tonight you cannot borrow any money, the government cannot. But in the good old United States people still have confidence in our economy, and we can go out and borrow money. And you know what it is backed by? It is backed by people's faith and confidence in our economy and our willingness to pay those debts by taxing the American people someday. And if we allow that debt to keep growing and growing and growing, that interest to keep growing and growing and growing, there is going to come a point when the world is going to look at our economy and says, you all look an awful like an Argentina economy, and I do not believe we want to loan you any more money to finance that $5 trillion national debt. And I believe if we do, we are going to have to get a little more interest rates because we look at the economy much like those investors did when they were borrowing money a few years ago on those junk bonds, and junks bonds of course require very high interest rates for anybody that wants to buy. So if we undermine the economy of this country, in the long term it would destroy our economic security, our national security and our prosperity. That is what this debate tonight is all about. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his leadership. I commend the Blue Dogs for their willingness to come to the floor tonight and talk about this critical national issue.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the heroic deeds of a young hero from Walker County, Texas, who displayed enormous courage and capability in the face of danger. Wilbert Gillaspie, a 4th grader at Stewart Elementary School in the Huntsville School District, saved himself and his elderly grandmother from a burning fire that might have destroyed his home had it not been for his quick thinking. On Sunday, January 13, Wilbert noticed smoke coming from an electrical ceiling box where his uncle was planning to put a ceiling fan. After seeing the smoke, Wilbert led his grandmother out of the building and called 911. Wilbert helped the emergency dispatcher find out what electric company serviced his home so the power could be shut off. When Wilbert noticed smoke coming from his roof, he grabbed a water hose and sprayed the roof from the outside. Because of the distance between Wilbert's home and the Huntsville fire station, it took firefighters nine critical minutes to get to his house. Wilbert was told by a firefighter on the scene that if it had not been for his quick thinking and know-how, the house would have burned to the ground. Wilbert learned about fire safety from members of the Huntsville Fire Department, who teach thousands of children and adults about fire safety every year. I commend the hardworking men and women of the Huntsville Fire Department for sacrificing their lives everyday and serving as community leaders to teach our children about fire safety. Young Wilbert Gillaspie is a true hero and we join in thanking him for his courage and bravery in the face of danger.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, this House today has a historic opportunity to end the influence of big money on public policy making. Today we are going to have the opportunity to vote on a bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, H.R. 2356, that has been worked on for many months in an effort to try to craft a bill that not only will pass this House, but that will be acceptable to the United States Senate, where they have already passed a strong campaign finance reform bill under the leadership of Senator McCain and Senator Feingold. Let there be no mistake about what is going on on this floor today: we have heard reference in the opening remarks to a bill that will be offered that will be purported and suggested to be ``superior'' to the Shays-Meehan proposal. There should be no mistake about it: whether the bill is better or worse, the bill will never see the light of day, because the purpose of those who seek to amend or substitute the Shays-Meehan bill today, their purpose is to be sure that the bill they pass is not acceptable to the Senate, where it will be relegated to a conference committee, which will be a black hole of certain death to the bill because the Speaker of the House, who has designated this Shays-Meehan legislation as Armageddon, would have the authority to appoint the conferees to that conference committee. You can be well assured that the conferees that are appointed will be opposed to true campaign reform, and once again this Congress will have failed to return the power of this House to the people of this country and to get it out of the hands of the special interests. We have passed campaign finance reform in this House before in the last Congress and the Senate failed to pass it. This year the Senate passed it first, and it is our job to pass it now. Support true campaign reform today, the Shays-Meehan bill, and oppose these efforts to kill it.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. We are at a historic moment in the House of Representatives because we have the opportunity once and for all to end the contributions of large sums of soft money to the political process, a practice which was never intended by those who sought to reform the campaign finance system in the early 1970s. But smart lawyers figured out how to get around those reforms; and we are left today awash in soft money pouring in, $25,000, $50,000, and $100,000 at a time, from special interests. The connection between those who give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the political process and the shaping of public policy should be apparent to every American. Those of us who have fought for campaign finance reform do so because we believe that the current system is destroying the public's faith and confidence in the legislative process and because we believe that it is time to end the hundreds of thousands of dollar contributions that are polluting this political process. Enron, we know, contributed over $1.6 million in the last election cycle. We do not know for sure what all they got for that $1.6 million, but we certainly know from our own experience of common sense that they expected something if they were contributing money in the sums of $1.6 million. The American people understand that those with the big bucks speak louder in these halls than the ordinary citizen. That is inconsistent with representative democracy. That is inconsistent with building the kind of government that every American can be proud of and have confidence that when we meet in these halls we work for the public interest rather than the special interest. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to be a part of a press event hosted by a group called Committee for Economic Development, CED for short. Mr. Speaker, this is a group who came to Washington to fight for campaign finance reform. No, it was not a group of reformers, those who are on the outside looking in wanting the system to change. These were people who had been on the inside, who had seen the system work. They were a group representing over 300 business leaders who have advocated forcefully for the abolishment of soft money and for the passage of sound campaign finance reform legislation. The business leaders that came yesterday included a wide range of very well-respected leaders from across our country. We had people like Ed Kangas, the former CEO of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, an accounting firm, a man who stated very forcefully that he has seen the system work. He stated, ``When government is too intertwined with money, Americans will view it as suspect, and at worst corrupt. Businesses should not have to pay a toll to have their case heard in Washington. There are many times when CEOs feel like the pressure to contribute soft money is nothing less than a shakedown.'' That is from a former CEO of a major accounting firm who has made the contributions in soft money, and he is ready to see the system changed. Other business leaders who gathered here in the Capitol yesterday to speak out in favor of campaign finance reform, including people like Frank Doyle, CED chairman; and Warren Buffett, the chairman of the board of Berkshire Hathaway, Incorporated. We had George Rupp, President of Columbia University and cochair of the CED subcommittee that wrote their report on campaign finance reform. We had Harry Freeman, the former executive vice president of American Express, and dozens of other business leaders speaking out in favor of campaign finance reform. On the list of supporters of campaign finance reform as published by the Committee for Economic Development, we had a former Vice President; former Republican Secretaries of Defense, Treasury and Labor; a former United States Senator and Republican National Committee chairman; and a former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman. These men and women understand the way that this system has come to work, and they believe it is corrupt and that it is time for a change. Charles Cobb, the president of the Committee for Economic Development, had this to say: ``The old canard that the business community supports the status quo and fears reform has been demolished. Business leaders know that the current broken system is not good for them or for our democracy. It gives politicians and corporate America a black eye, and it skews the decision-making process. More importantly, it damages our democratic system, and that is not good for our economy, American business or our Nation's future.'' That is what America's business leaders had to say about the current system. It is broken. It must change, and tomorrow on the floor of this House we have an historic opportunity to bring about that change. The bill to be introduced, the Shays-Meehan legislation, has already passed the United States Senate in the form of legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain and Senator Russ Feingold. Senator McCain was present at the press event yesterday joining with these business leaders for passage of the Shays-Meehan, McCain-Feingold legislation. All of us who have been involved in the political process understand the difficulty that we all face in raising money for political campaigns, but we have a set of rules that were adopted in the early 1970s that will work quite well. They specify that there are limits, caps, on the amount that individuals can give to political campaigns. We have in the law caps that special interest groups can give to political campaigns. This legislation is designed to make those limits real again by taking away the loopholes that have been created over time by smart lawyers who have told their clients and politicians that you can get around the rules simply by being sure that you are not contributing in a way that could be perceived as coordinating that with a political candidate. As a consequence, the American people watch during each election cycle a slew of political ads on television paid for by the political parties and special interest groups that are paid for not with regulated contributions, the source of which can be clearly ascertained by anyone who wants to examine the report of a political candidate, but which are hidden from public view by a system that has evolved over time, allowing contributions of soft money in unlimited amounts. This is a system that we want to change tomorrow on the floor of this House. Let there be no mistake about it, one of the alternatives being offered, the so-called Ney-Wynn substitute, does not clean up the current system. It does not ban soft money from the political process. In fact, Enron could have given 80 percent of the money they gave if the Ney-Wynn substitute becomes law tomorrow. The only true reform legislation on this floor tomorrow is the Shays- Meehan bill. This is the right bill for America. It is the right bill for this Congress, and it will return political power to the people of this country, to the average citizen who does not have the thousands of dollars to pour in in campaign contributions and special interest money to this process. When those who are leaned on to give this money in the business community are willing to stand up and tell this Congress they are ready for the system to change, and when many of us who joined together signing the discharge petition which allows us to have this debate when the leadership of this House refused to bring a fair rule to this floor, when the politicians and the business leaders are joining together and saying the system ought to be changed, it seems to me that the system certainly deserves to be changed. Those who take the money and those who give the money are saying the system is wrong, corrupt, and it is destroying the public's confidence in the political process. We hope every Member of this House will join us tomorrow. There are many reasons for Members of this House to have questions about this change in campaign finance because many on both sides of the aisle have become addicted to this soft money. They raise it, and by raising it, they secure their positions of power and influence. They know that those that they call to make those big contributions understand that even though maybe unspoken, there is an understanding that those who give the money have the access to the front door of this Congress. We believe that is wrong. We believe the American people believe it is wrong. We believe it is time to change the system. We look forward tomorrow to having a victory for the American people on the floor of this House.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we are at a historic moment in the House of Representatives. This rule which will allow us to debate historic campaign finance reform did not come to this floor without considerable work. This issue has been before the House of Representatives before, and the House passed similar reform legislation but it died in the Senate. Last year when the Senate passed campaign finance reform, a rule was proposed that was destined to defeat true reform; and it was turned down by the House of Representatives. The Speaker announced that he would not bring it forward again, and we initiated over 7 months ago a discharge procedure led by the Blue Dog Democrats in the House to bring this issue to the floor. I want to thank Speaker Hastert for allowing us, once we did reach the 218, to allow the Committee on Rules to adopt the identical rule contained in the petition to allow us to have a fair and open debate on campaign finance reform. Let there be no mistake about it, this is the opportunity of this House to end the influence, the undue influence of big money in the political process. This is our opportunity to end the 25, 50, 100, quarter of a million dollar contributions and more that are being made today to political parties in the form of what we call soft money. This legislation will restore the public's confidence and trust in the political process. And let there be no mistake, the Ney substitute is not true reform. It does not end soft-money contributions to the political process. Yesterday, I was able to participate in a press conference with some of the leading business CEOs from around the country who have joined together under the umbrella of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Those business leaders said they are tired of being leaned on for these big checks. They are ready to see this system cleaned up. They are ready to know that when they come before this Congress there is a level playing field for all people, including them. I am proud to support this legislation and this rule.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this evening during this hour the Blue Dog Democrat coalition in the House is going to talk about the issue of fiscal responsibility, an issue that we think is very important to address tonight in light of the President's recent budget submission to this Congress. The President and the Congress are united in the war on terrorism. Members on both sides of the aisle stand together in our commitment to defeat the terrorists and to do whatever is necessary and pay whatever price may be required to preserve our national security and to ensure that we protect the homeland. There is no division that the current tax cuts that we have enjoyed in the form of the rebates have been important to the American people, and there is no suggestion, contrary to some on the Republican side tonight, that there should be any tax increase in the time of a recession, because we firmly believe that the recession needs to be addressed by this Congress in a responsible way, and tax cuts, tax cuts which have already been given and which already are being implemented in this current recession, are important to the recovery. So when we debate the resolution on the floor of the House tomorrow, let there be no misunderstanding: Democrats understand that in a recession it would be wrong to increase taxes. We passed a record tax decrease in June. The tax rebates were good for the American people. But back in June the Congressional Budget Office projected a 10-year surplus of over $5 billion. Just 7 months later, these projections of a surplus are gone. We find that as a result of the tax cut, as a result of the recession, as a result of the war, we no longer are able to project future surpluses, and, in fact, we can only project future deficits. We are once again confronted with a pattern of spending that was engaged in for over 30 years by this Congress that was ended in 1996- 1997 when this Congress voted for the Balanced Budget Act, an act that put us on the road to fiscal responsibility, that resulted in 3 years of surpluses at the Federal level. But once again we now see the President of the United States submitting a budget to this Congress that will return us to deficit spending. We believe as Blue Dog Democrats that we can win the war against terrorism, we can protect our homeland, without raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and increasing the national debt that we pass on to our children. We notice in the President's budget submission of today that the national debt, which was projected back in April of last year to actually disappear over the 10-year period, in fact turn to a surplus, has now evaporated, and, based on the projections now contained in the President's budget, we will once again see $2.7 trillion in debt by the year 2011. So in just 7 short months, we went from projections of a surplus over the next 10 years to ever-increasing national debt. These figures show the debt that will be held by the public, the debt that we owe to people who buy those Treasury bills and Treasury bonds, a large portion of which are owned by foreign investors, moving from a surplus to a debt of $2.7 trillion. Just look at the interest costs that this new debt will bring to the American people. We projected that over the next 10 years, back in April, that we could eliminate our debt and, over the period of 10 years, we would have to pay $709 billion in interest. With the new President's budget, we now see that these interest payments will equal 1.8, almost $1.8 trillion. That is just in interest that we will have to pay over the next 10 years. That is an increase in interest payments alone of about $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. Now, to put that in perspective, what could we do with $1.1 trillion in interest costs if we could simply return to the surpluses that we had anticipated back last April? Mr. Speaker, $1.1 trillion will fund the President's defense budget request for not just one year, but for 3 years. Mr. Speaker, $1.1 trillion would fund the President's budget request for defense for 3 years. That is why we need to be sure that we do not go back deeper into deficit spending, increase that national debt, and waste the resources of our taxpayers on interest servicing our national debt. We know as Democrats that raiding Social Security is the wrong thing to do. Raiding Social Security will result in debts that will fall on the backs of our children. The American people know or deserve to know the truth. They understand that raiding Social Security and increasing our national debt will ultimately result in higher taxes for our children. We have called on young men and women who wear the uniform of our great Nation to sacrifice, even to risk their lives in the defense of freedom. We all know that we are at war, but no one has told the American people that each of us must be willing to sacrifice as well. We have been told that we can have it all. We have been told that we can win the war, we can increase spending, we can have our taxes cut, that it will all be possible. During World War II, every American sacrificed. During World War II, every American did their part. In the current war, we have been led to believe that we do not have to sacrifice. By doing so, we are entering, once again, into a period of deficit spending and growing national debt that, after 3 short years of fiscal responsibility, we will pass on to our children the cost of paying for this war. I believe that is wrong. Blue Dog Democrats believe that is wrong. We believe that it is important to be honest with the American people about our finances in Washington. We believe it is important to preserve the principle that was voted on repeatedly on the floor of this House to lock box the Social Security trust funds. We, once again, under the President's budget, will be spending Social Security money to operate the rest of the government. Our children will pay the price of our fiscal irresponsibility. We believe as Blue Dogs it is time to get our house in order and to be honest with the American people. We have several members of the Blue Dog Coalition who are here with us tonight who will address these issues. The first member of the coalition is the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). The gentleman has been very active in fighting for fiscal responsibility, for paying down the debt; and I am happy to yield to him to speak on this subject tonight.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his remarks. Another member of the Blue Dog Democrat Coalition who has been an outstanding leader in trying to urge this Congress to maintain and stay the course of fiscal responsibility has been the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps). We are proud to have him on the floor tonight to share his thoughts with us.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I appreciate the leadership that he has given to our Blue Dog group as we work on these and other issues in this Congress. I would like to yield now to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). The gentleman has been a leader in strengthening our military, serving as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Procurement of the Committee on Armed Services. But while working to strengthen defense, he has also been an outspoken advocate of fiscal responsibility. I am proud to yield to a fellow Blue Dog Democrat, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for his presentation. The gentleman has been one of the foremost advocates of fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget and paying down the debt, and we are grateful for his membership in the Blue Dog Democratic Coalition. Another Member who has been very active in leading the Blue Dogs and serves as a co-chair of the coalition is our friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). It is my pleasure to yield time to him.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's remarks and appreciate his commitment to fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility. It does seem somewhat surprising that in just a year's time or less than a year that our Federal financial picture could have changed so much. I think one of the most difficult things at work in this Congress today is to acknowledge that the circumstances have changed. There is going to be a resolution on the floor tomorrow. It is not a law. It does not have any effect. It is what we call a sense of the House. It is simply an effort by the Republican leadership to try to put folks on record as to whether or not they are committed to the tax cut that was passed last June. I was pleased to be one who supported the tax cut last June, but I also understand that since last June we are now at war again. We are now in a posture where we are seeing record projections of deficits rather than surpluses, and I think even though all of us understand that we must not raise taxes in the current recession, the long term does require an intelligent and a careful discussion of the direction this country has taken; and to blindly follow a path toward fiscal irresponsibility is going to result in debts on the backs of our children that all of us will be ashamed to see. Our Federal debt, almost $6 trillion today, is increasing daily because of the deficit spending, and as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) pointed out, the President, through the Secretary of the Treasury, has asked this Congress to raise the debt ceiling $700 billion. We were told back last June that it would not be necessary to raise the Federal debt ceiling for at least 6 or 7 years; but all of a sudden, just before the Christmas recess, we were told that we are now going to have to raise the debt ceiling sometime in late February or early March. I agree with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), we do not need to vote to increase the national debt of this country, to raise the ceiling of that debt until we have some firm commitments regarding a return to fiscal responsibility. As we said earlier, if we continue along the path of the Republican's budget plans over the next 10 years, based on the best estimates we have from the Congressional Budget Office, we will increase the amount of interest that we pay on our national debt by a trillion dollars, over a trillion dollars. There is a lot we could do with that trillion dollars. As I said, we could fund the President's defense budget request for 3 years straight if we could save that trillion dollars. We already spend a billion dollars a day on interest on our Federal debt. We were told earlier that the war is costing us a billion dollars a month, contrast that, and it is very expensive to fight this war, and all of us believe we need to spend every dollar necessary to win this war; and it is currently costing us a billion dollars a day, but we are paying a billion dollars every time, billion dollars every month, but it is costing us a billion dollar every day just to pay the interest on our national debt. Clearly, our national debt has grown too large. The interest consumes too much of our Federal budget, and we are going in the wrong direction. If we had a trillion dollars in interest savings by not increasing our national debt, by proceeding on the path we were on and thought we were on last June, where we are not increasing the national debts and in fact were headed towards paying it off, we could take that trillion dollars and save it, and we could pay for 20 years of war at $1 billion a month. We are clearly moving back to deficit spending, to raiding Social Security, and toward reckless fiscal policies that our children will have to pay for someday. All we are asking of our Republican leaders and of the President is to be honest with the American people; to be sure that they are told the straight story and that they too understand that it is not just the men and women in uniform who are having to sacrifice and risk their lives in fighting this war, but that every American has a role to play and we all have to be willing to sacrifice. Yes, we need to cut spending in areas where we can cut it. But when we sit down to draw up the Federal budget for the American family, we ought to do it just like we do at home, and that is we ought to measure our revenues and balance those against our expenses. And if we do not have enough income to cover our expenses, we need to cut our expenses and balance our budget. Washington has not learned that. Apparently, even after 3 years of returning to fiscal responsibility and having surpluses in our Federal budget, we once again are turning a blind eye to the importance of balancing our budget. We believe that the President and the leadership of this House have a responsibility to submit to us a balanced budget and a plan to keep us on the road to fiscal responsibility. That is the only way to preserve the long-term prosperity for the American people. We want to look to the longer term, to be sure our children and grandchildren do not inherit the reckless fiscal policies of the current generation. I thank the Blue Dog Democrats who have joined me on the floor tonight for this discussion on the importance of fiscal responsibility. I look forward to the opportunity to debate this issue in the days ahead as we continue to work to balance the budget and to pay down our debt and to protect the Social Security trust fund for the future. In closing tonight, the Blue Dogs would like to close this hour in memory of Darlene Luther, the wife of our friend and colleague, Bill Luther. Both Bill and Darlene have been known throughout the years as public servants, a family that served their constituents, who worked hard together to make America a better place, and our hearts go out tonight to Bill and his family in the loss of Darlene.