[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 120 (Wednesday, September 15, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8366-H8371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fletcher). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has had just a fascinating discourse on a 
subject which is of extreme importance. I want to commend him for the 
diligence in which he has pursued a subject that is every bit of 
importance to our country as he has indicated that it is, and he makes 
a lot of sense and this is one Member that looks forward to working 
with him in the days ahead in this very important area.
  What I have taken this hour for, and I will be joined by several of 
our Blue Dog colleagues, is to once again talk about perhaps a little 
more mundane subject, the budget of the United States and the policies, 
or lack thereof. A lot of what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon) has talked about some of the shortcomings of the Congress and 
the administration in dealing with Russia, I think, can also be said of 
this body in dealing with the budget.
  Today, I guess we had a little ceremony in which we have now sent the 
tax cut down to the President, which he will veto, as he should. One of 
the policy objectives that the Blue Dogs have suggested all year long 
is let us be conservative with our actions now as we enjoy the newness 
of dealing with surpluses.
  We are for cutting taxes. Let no one be mistaken about that, but the 
Blue Dogs have suggested all along that there is a good way and a bad 
way to get to tax cutting. The bad way, we believe, is what the House 
and Senate concurring have said to the President, of having a tax cut 
with projected surpluses that may or may not materialize.
  What the Blue Dogs have said, quite clearly, all year long, let us 
deal with Social Security and Medicare first. Let us have an open and 
honest debate on the floor of the House, with the best ideas winning, 
as to how we fix Social Security for the future, because everyone now 
knows and admits quite publicly that the future of Social Security is 
bleak unless we, this Congress, make some tough decisions and very, 
very soon.
  We ducked on that one, and I must say that our President ducked on 
that one, which was unfortunate. Just because the President ducks is no 
sign that we in the Congress should duck. Here, at least some of us, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I, and we have been joined 
by colleagues on both sides of the aisle now, a few, proposing a Social 
Security fix.
  That is not what I am here to talk about tonight. What I am talking 
about tonight is the rhetoric that we continue to hear about why we 
need to have a big tax cut first before we deal with Social Security, 
before we deal with Medicare, before we deal with Medicaid, before we 
deal with these very important subjects.
  These are projected surpluses and one of the dangers that some of us 
see, particularly the Blue Dog Democrats, and I suspect there are some 
on both sides of the aisle that see the same danger, spending a 
projected surplus before it is real can get very dangerous; just like 
in families. If they have built up a debt on their credit card or 
personal debt to where it is becoming difficult to pay the interest on 
that debt and suddenly come into some money, most families will pay 
down their debt first before they go out and reward themselves with a 
new car or reward themselves with new options.
  That is not what the Congress has voted to do. That is not the issue 
today.
  To those that say well, we are only returning your money to you, that 
is true but they conveniently overlook one fact. Not only is it your 
taxes that we talk about and every dime that we spend is your money, 
but also your debt of $5.6 trillion that we have built up, $4 trillion 
of it basically in the last 10 years, 15, it is your debt.
  The Blue Dogs suggest that now is the time to be a little bit 
conservative with our children's and grandchildren's future. Instead of 
once again rewarding us, as this tax cut would do over the next 10 
years, we say use this opportunity to pay down the debt so that our 
children and grandchildren will not have as much debt to pay and as 
much taxes to pay in order to pay the interest on that debt.
  We think that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, we have not been 
able to convince a majority of the House and the Senate concurring that 
it does make sense, and we understand and we play by those rules and we 
also very strongly played by the rule that said if one is going to be 
critical of the other guy's proposal they better have something that 
they are for. The people back home in the 17th district that I 
represent, that is what they demand of me.
  As we have discussed and asked the question over and over, what do 
you want to do with this surplus, most people openly and honestly say, 
pay down the debt.
  I do not know why different Members get different answers to this 
question, except sometimes we ask it differently. If I ask the 
question, do you want to have a tax cut or do you want us to spend the 
money, you say tax cut. That would be my answer.
  Then we get into another little problem because we have had a whole 
lot of rhetoric around this body over the last several weeks now, and 
we are still playing this giant game of chicken of who is going to 
blink first on the caps, who is going to be the first one to admit that 
already this year we are spending the Social Security trust fund?
  Now, we have tried to outdo each other as to who has the best 
lockbox, who is going to do the best job of not touching Social 
Security trust funds next year. Well, I would say to my colleagues, let 
me share a little secret. We have already done it. This Congress has 
already dipped into the Social Security trust fund. No matter how we 
want to score it, it has already happened; little things like declaring 
the census an emergency, $4 billion; conveniently using OMB scoring 
when it suits our purpose of being able to score spending $16 billion 
cheaper.
  I used to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle quite 
regularly on this argument when we finally got around to saying our 
scorekeeper is the Congressional Budget Office. The White House has the 
Office of Management and Budget. We have the Congressional Budget 
Office. It is bipartisan. It is our scorekeeper. Let us quit fussing 
about whose numbers and whose projections we are going to use. Let us 
agree on the Congressional Budget Office.
  Every once in awhile we would say, where there is differences why do 
they not just add up the two and divide by two and take an average and 
that becomes something that we can use that is consistent.

[[Page H8367]]

  Well, by conveniently thus far using $16 billion of OMB scoring, it 
allows us to spend money. Well, this might help us on the budget caps 
debate, but it does not change the bottom line when we finish the year.
  Any spending for any purpose, whether it is an agricultural 
emergency, which we have, whether it is the health care emergency that 
we have in rural America, whether it is the shortchanging of home 
health care, which we are doing under current law, unless we change it, 
all of these spending decisions are going to be real dollars. So 
somehow, some way I hope that we can find a way to accept what the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and I and, if the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin) does not get over here I have a statement that I 
want to put in for him, and if some of our colleagues who are perhaps 
here and are going to be joining us soon, we the Blue Dogs are both 
extending our hand to both the leadership of the House and to the 
President of saying take another look of what we propose and how we 
propose it and if they do not like what we are talking about, perhaps 
there is some compromises that can be reached.
  One thing we feel very strongly about, that we should not spend 
projected surpluses for any purpose until they materialize. If they do 
and we pay down the debt, to me and to us, the best tax cut we can give 
all of the American people is to reduce the debt sufficiently that the 
Federal Reserve is convinced that we will maintain fiscal 
responsibility in our spending habits and instead of increasing 
interest rates over the next several months, as they have done twice in 
the last month, month and a half, if we can bring interest rates down 
we know that a 1 percent reduction in the interest rate that affects 
student loans, credit card bills, home mortgages, car auto loans, all 
of the things that all of working America use every day, it is 
estimated at $200 billion to $250 billion a year.
  Why is that so difficult for our colleagues who continue to believe 
that the best tax cut is the one that they send to the President of 
which he is going to veto? I do not understand. We do not understand 
that.
  To those that suggest spending, let me make this suggestion, and this 
is a Blue Dog suggestion. This has been in our budget proposal all 
year. Let us all acknowledge the fact that spending caps have worked. 
We, the last two, three, four Congresses, have done a fairly 
responsible job in reducing discretionary spending. In fact, we went a 
little too far in the area of defense and we are now having to put some 
of it back because this is no longer a safe world, and we heard the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) talking about a little 
different component of that.
  The caps have worked. But why is it so difficult to admit that 
perhaps what we did in 1997, in which most people acknowledged then 
that it was going to be difficult to make those cuts because we back 
end loaded it, what does that mean in plain English?

                              {time}  1815

  It said, Congress, in 1997, chose not to make the tough decisions, we 
punted it to the 1999 Congress. That is why we are having such a 
difficult time.
  Why do we not go back and do it the way we used to do it around here, 
2 years ago, 3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago. Why do we not go 
back and have a new set of budget caps on appropriation bills that are 
set and will be agreed to by a majority on both sides of the aisle of 
what the new spending restraints ought to look like. As I answered a 
businessman's question earlier today in another meeting I was in, he 
said when in 1997 when the Congress did what you did, the markets 
reacted favorably, because they believed that you were going to get a 
fiscally responsible Congress for a change and markets react to that, 
and I said there is no reason why we cannot do that again. We can do 
the same thing again. We can have a new set of caps that we live with 
that will get us on track. Why is it so difficult for us to do?
  Let me pause right now and recognize one of my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for any comments that he might like 
to add at this time.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to compliment the gentleman on his strong leadership that he has given 
to us in this Congress on fiscal issues. He has always stood for fiscal 
conservatism, and I think the issues that we are talking about today we 
need to have a full debate and discussion on them.
  I had the opportunity over the last few weeks during our August 
recess to stop in 70 communities in my east Texas district, and I did a 
little coffee shop tour and I went around and visited with folks in 
those coffee shops where we all know they solve a lot of problems early 
in the morning. And I just talked to them about this tax reduction 
proposal that had just passed in the Congress, I talked to them a 
little bit about the national debt, and it was indeed refreshing to me 
to see how well the people of my district understand what is really 
going on here in Washington. A lot of folks up here have talked about a 
surplus, and we all know the truth of the matter is the surplus that is 
being talked about is merely a projection of what might happen over the 
next 10 years. In truth and fact, it is based on some assumptions that 
may not even turn out to be true. We really may never have a surplus.
  In fact, I will not forget what one gentleman told me down in Willis, 
Texas at the first stop that I made at the Willis City Hall, and he 
said to me, after I began to talk about the surplus and the national 
debt, he raised his hand and he said, Congressman, he says, you all do 
not have any surplus in Washington, you have a $5 trillion national 
debt. You cannot have a surplus if you owe $5 trillion. And that makes 
a lot of sense.
  It is hard to understand how, after the Federal Government spent more 
money every year for 30 years, ran up a $5.5 trillion national debt 
that we would come up here in this hallowed hall and declare we have a 
surplus, particularly when the surplus is only an estimate. It is not 
here yet; we have not seen it yet; it may never show up. And yet, the 
majority in this Congress saw fit to pass a $792 billion tax reduction 
over 10 years that absorbed all of the anticipated, hoped for, not here 
yet surplus in the general fund of the Federal budget.
  Now, that was just irresponsible. The people of this country 
understand that it was irresponsible, and they understand that if one 
is fiscally conservative, one pays their debts. And now that we have a 
hope of better economic times in the Federal budget, what we ought to 
be doing is paying down that $5.5 trillion national debt.
  The Blue Dog Democrats made a proposal on the floor of this House 
just before the recess when we were debating that $792 billion tax cut. 
We had an alternative that we voted for. In fact, most of the Democrats 
in this House voted for it. That was a very simple plan. It said, if we 
do have a surplus over the next 10 years, what we ought to do is 
dedicate half of it to paying down that national debt, and we ought to 
set aside 25 percent of it to be sure that we save Social Security and 
Medicare, both of which, by the way, are going into bankruptcy. After 
all, 30 years from now, they tell us there are going to be twice as 
many people over 65 in this country as we have today. And the 
projections have been before this Congress for months, for years, that 
Social Security and Medicare will be insolvent.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been real lucky with Social Security for a long 
time. We put more money in the trust fund every year in payroll taxes 
than we took out in benefits. But to tell us that in 15 years when most 
of us baby boomers begin to retire, that is going to change. We are 
going to be paying out more money in benefits every year than we take 
in.
  One of the reasons that we feel so strongly about paying down the 
national debt is that it will allow us to pay back that debt that we 
owe the Social Security Trust Fund, because somebody some years ago in 
this Congress decided it was a smart thing to do to use the surplus in 
the Social Security Trust Fund to run the rest of the government that 
was running in a deficit instead of borrowing it from the public. So it 
borrowed from Social Security. We are going to need that money in the 
Social Security Trust Fund real soon. It is time to start paying back 
that debt, and we can do that, by paying down the national debt, 
because $800 billion of that $5.5 trillion

[[Page H8368]]

national debt is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund, and we need to 
pay it back.
  We also think that it is important to dedicate 25 percent of any 
future surplus to save Social Security, to save Medicare, and the final 
25 percent should be dedicated to reducing the taxes of the American 
people. That is a balanced plan; that is a plan that preserves the 
economic security of this country; it preserves the retirement security 
of all of us; it preserves our health care security. It is the right 
thing to do for America. It is not an irresponsible plan that would 
give away in a tax reduction plan all of a surplus that is not even 
here yet.
  Now, there were some on the floor of this House that argued in favor 
of that tax cut and they said well, we cannot trust this Congress, 
because if they get a surplus, they are going to spend it. Well, that 
is pretty cynical, particularly when coming from folks that currently 
are in the majority. We have enough sense in this body, collectively, 
to save the surplus, to pay down the debt, to save Social Security, to 
save Medicare. We have that ability. We just need to sit down at the 
table together, work together in a bipartisan way and do the right 
thing.
  The President is right to veto this $792 billion tax cut. It is the 
wrong thing to do for America, and if we pay down the debt, we can 
actually do more for working families than anything in this $792 
billion tax cut. In fact, if we look at the tax cut closely, what we 
will find is that there is really no tax cut next year. The tax cut 
follows the anticipated surplus which, as I said, may never show up. 
But next year, under that tax plan, only six-tenths of 1 percent of the 
total tax cut would be realized, and most families would not even get 
anything. In fact, an average family making $50,000 a year would not 
see any significant tax reduction until the tenth year when they would 
see $300 in tax reductions.
  Now, we can do more for working families in this country simply by 
paying down the national debt, because the economists tell us that 
paying down the national debt will reduce interest rates for all of us, 
and a mere 2 percent reduction in interest rates for a family that is 
paying off a $50,000 home mortgage would save that family over $800 in 
interest costs, almost three times what they would get out of this 
irresponsible tax cut in the tenth year of the plan.

  So, Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing. Let us lay it on the 
table. Let us be honest with the American people. They already 
understand that there is no surplus in Washington, and they understand 
that we need to pay down the national debt. That is the right thing to 
do.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and the 
leadership he has given, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), 
who has also worked very hard on this issue, and I think if we persist 
in our efforts, ultimately, both sides of the aisle will see the wisdom 
of doing the right thing.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for making those 
comments. Let me fill in a couple of blanks, or supply a little bit 
more information on Social Security before I recognize the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  When we are talking about Social Security, I think it is important 
that everybody understands why some of us are as concerned about the 
tax cut. For example, a lot of folks have really questioned me quite 
personally when I have said on this floor, as I am about to say now, 
this tax cut that is going to the President is the most fiscally 
irresponsible bill to come before this Congress in the 20 years that I 
have been here. And I say that for one reason and one reason only, and 
that is, when we look at the effect of the proposed tax cut, at least 
the one that was talked about, not the one that was conferenced, 
because it is interesting, when we sunset a tax bill in 8 years, that 
one is interesting. But the effect of a tax cut literally explodes by 
about $4.5 trillion in the second 10 years.
  Now, my colleague talked about the baby boom and the Social Security 
Trust Fund and it being exhausted, and the year is 2034. That is when 
the Social Security Trust Fund under current projections will be 
exhausted provided we do not do anything. Well, it is our hope and 
expectation that we will do something, and therefore, when we talk 
about this, there is no reason for anyone 65 years of age and older, in 
fact, 55 years of age and older to worry about that. That is a given.
  But in 2014, that is only 14 years from now, that is when we will 
begin paying out more out of the Social Security Trust Fund than will 
be paid in. That is when the problem becomes a reality. It will take 
$7.4 trillion of money from somewhere between 2014 and 2034 in order 
just to meet the current obligations of the Social Security Trust Fund. 
And the Blue Dogs have said, why do we want to do that? Why would the 
Congress, for any reason, want to increase the liabilities on the 
ability of the Federal Treasury to make the commitments that we promise 
everyone on Social Security, why would we want to reduce the amount of 
revenue available to pay off those commitments at exactly the same time 
that the baby boomers are going to be retiring at the top of their 
numbers.
  I do not understand that. I have never understood why the leadership 
of the House this year did not choose to fix Social Security first, but 
they did not, we did not. And therefore, we find ourselves in a 
position of having a bill go down to the President which he will veto, 
which he should veto; it is in the best interests of our country that 
he veto it. Then, it will be in the best interests of our country that 
we now begin to look at putting together the kind of a compromise piece 
of legislation that will fix Social Security, fix Medicare, deal with 
rural health problems, and I hope that my colleague, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry), since he has been the coordinator and the 
chairman in the Blue Dog effort dealing with health care might have a 
few comments about that, and I would recognize him at this time, the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for any comments that he might 
like to add to this discussion.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague, 
the gentleman from Texas, for his great leadership on this matter. I do 
not know of any Member of this House that has worked harder or been 
more dedicated to the cause of seeing that this Nation is fiscally 
responsible than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  I also want to thank my other distinguished colleague, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner), for his efforts here this evening, and also 
all the time he has been in the House.
  We are a great Nation. We have been unbelievably successful. The 
reason that we have been successful is because we have made good 
decisions over the years. We cannot be this successful without making 
good decisions. It is absolutely amazing to me that we are even having 
this discussion.
  We all know, and as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner) just talked about, as we were in the district over the August 
recess, we would go from one spot to the next and meet with people, and 
they are not up here dealing with this every day like we are, but they 
do not have to be. They know that this is a bad idea. They know that 
this tax cut, they know this surplus, is a fantasy. They know that the 
surplus does not exist. They know that if we do this tax cut, we are 
going to put ourselves in worse shape than we are already in.
  They also understand very well what it takes for us to be successful. 
Certainly, the best thing that we could possibly do for our children 
and grandchildren, and those that come after us, would be to pay this 
debt off. Certainly we should not spend any surplus until it is there, 
and then we should pay the debt off and take care of social security 
and Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, mentioned health 
care a few minutes ago. We have got a commitment to our senior citizens 
in this country that we made a long time ago, and it is the right thing 
to do, that we are going to provide them with health care in their 
senior years. That is a commitment that we cannot and should not walk 
away from. We should use the monies, while we have the opportunity, to 
take care of social security, to take care of Medicare, and be sure 
they are there for all of us for years to come. It is just unbelievable 
to me that we would talk about doing anything else.

[[Page H8369]]

  Then we should pay this debt off, use any major portion of an 
accumulated surplus in these times of prosperity to increase the 
national savings by improving the financial integrity of the Federal 
Government. Reducing the national debt is the best long-term strategy 
for the U.S. economy.
  Reducing our national debt will provide a tax cut for millions of 
Americans because it will restrain interest rates, saving them money on 
mortgages, new mortgages, auto loans, credit card payments. Each 
percentage point increase in interest rates would mean an extra $200 to 
$250 billion in mortgage costs to Americans.
  Reducing the national debt will protect future generations from 
increasing tax burdens. Currently more than 25 percent of individual 
income taxes go to pay the interest on our national debt. Every dollar 
of lower debt saves more than $1 for future generations, a savings that 
can be used for tax cuts or for covering the baby boomers' retirement 
without tax increases.
  Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly advised 
the Congress that the most important action we could take to maintain a 
strong and growing economy is to pay down the national debt. Earlier 
this year, Chairman Greenspan testified before the Committee on Ways 
and Means that debt reduction is a much better use of surplus than tax 
cuts.
  He said,

       The advantages that I perceive that would accrue to this 
     economy from a significant decline in the outstanding debt to 
     the public in its virtuous cycle on the total budget process 
     is a value which I think far exceeds anything we could do 
     with the money.

  Virtually all mainstream economists agree that using the surplus to 
reduce the debt will benefit the economy and stimulate economic growth 
by increasing national savings and boosting domestic investment. 
Increasing national savings is vital to achieving the productivity 
growth that will be necessary to compensate for the reductions in the 
labor force in the next century.
  All of this is very simple. It is not complicated. We are making it 
complicated to achieve political goals that will not last, and will 
cause us tremendous problems in the future.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues from Texas for their leadership 
in this matter. Certainly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), as I 
said, has been a granite rock in this fight to see that we are fiscally 
disciplined. Again, I want to thank him for his leadership in this 
area, and challenge all of us to make good decisions to see that this 
country continues to be successful for the many, many years to come, 
and certainly for our children and grandchildren and those who come 
after us.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and 
his leadership within the Blue Dog Coalition, trying to do that which 
we talk about today. We get accused of a lot of things in Congress. 
Some of it we deserve, some of it we do not deserve. But one thing that 
has kind of bugged us is the lack of serious attention to policy.
  We spent about 4 hours today in the Committee on Agriculture dealing 
with agricultural problems, of which we have been a little derelict in 
dealing with our policy decisions. Decisions were made that have not 
quite worked out. When we make a decision that does not quite work out, 
what we do is change it. We have a budget of about $1,700,000,000,000, 
every dollar of which benefits somebody. It is important to somebody. 
It is our decision or our responsibility to decide which is the most 
important, and to be as frugal as we possibly can with our taxpayer 
dollars. That does not mean that we ignore real problems. When they are 
there, we deal with them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and 
I have been in this Congress, in this House, a little over 2 years now, 
and the gentleman has been here over 20 years. I would be interested in 
the gentleman's observations about the impact of our budget situation 
on Medicare, Medicaid, particularly in light of the fact that so many 
of us have begun to hear from the health care providers, the hospitals 
in our district, that they are increasingly feeling the pinch of 
reductions in reimbursement rates under Medicare.
  In fact, in Texas they estimate that there may be as many as 50 
hospitals closed if we in the Congress fail to provide some additional 
funds for Medicare. We all know in this projected budget surplus, the 
assumption is that there will not be any increase in Medicare. In fact, 
it goes down under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and thereafter 
remains below the increase that would be necessary just to keep up with 
inflation.
  I think a lot of our health care providers understand that, and they 
are warning us that unless we are going to be willing to act 
responsibly with regard to funding Medicare and Medicaid, that we may 
lose some of our hospitals. For those of us in rural areas of the 
country, to lose a hospital would virtually close down our communities.
  Mr. STENHOLM. This is one subject, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman in 
the Chair now, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey), if the rules 
would permit him to participate in the debate at this time, I believe 
we would have a four-way discussion of some of the needed changes as it 
pertains to Medicare.
  The gentleman brings up a very good and valid point. The balanced 
budget agreement of 1997 was a good agreement. I supported it, and 
everyone who was here supported it, if Members claimed to be fiscally 
responsible, fiscally conservative.
  Do I regret supporting it? No. That was the proper thing to do. There 
were compromises reached dealing with Medicare and Medicaid and other 
spending that needed to be done, and it was judged by the best judge of 
our actions, the market, to be responsible, because the market reacted 
favorably to what we did.
  Unfortunately, there were some unintended consequences. Some of the 
proposals that were made and the changes in the delivery of health care 
have had unintended consequences. When we have unintended consequences, 
reasonably intelligent people make decisions to change that which we 
did not intend.
  We have a unique situation today in which, because we have always 
done it this way, we reimburse some hospitals more than others. If you 
happen to be in a major metropolitan area, you can get reimbursed 30 
percent or 40 percent more for doing the same thing than in that rural 
small town hospital.
  We hear this, and a lot of times our constituents raise the flag of 
concern, and we react to them. Sometimes they are crying wolf when they 
ought not to be, or they are making it out worse than it really is.
  But in this case, I do not think there is anyone out there today that 
suggests that the rural health care concerns are not very real. I 
always ask, whatever subject we are talking about, when somebody says 
they have a problem with the government and I am involved, I ask them 
to prove it to me, show me, give me some hard numbers.
  I will not mention names, but I will use this example. There are two 
hospitals, one in my district, one I used to represent just outside my 
district, two hospitals 20 miles apart. One is in the Dallas-Fort Worth 
metropolitan area. The other is just outside. They brought me the hard 
evidence. The one in the rural area received $900,000 less last year 
for doing the exact same services, apples to apples. The only 
difference is the reimbursement area.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that most folks, both at HCFA, health and 
human services, and we in the Congress in the relevant committees, 
would say, as we say privately, it seems, those with the 
responsibility, say, yes, that is wrong. It needs to be changed.
  Here it is, September 15. I met with about 20 of my 24 hospitals when 
I was home during the August break, all of them with an urgency of the 
fact they are running in the red and they are having a difficult time, 
saying, when are you going to make some of these changes?
  I hope next week. I hope we will truly bring this to the floor, to 
the relevant committees, deal with it in a responsible way. But that is 
the thing that gets overlooked from time to time here. We made a 
decision with the balanced budget agreement, but that is not written in 
stone, particularly if it is having unintended consequences and is not 
working as was intended.
  I do not think any reasonable people, and I would like to believe 
that our

[[Page H8370]]

colleagues, those who are in urban areas that are not having this 
problem of payment reimbursement for Medicare and Medicaid, I would 
wish they would not be adverse to taking a few cuts. We have taken 
them. But if not there, the least we can do is raise the reimbursement 
level to the doctors and nurses and hospitals in rural areas up to a 
level that will meet their expenses.
  That is something that I guess we have always seen, and perhaps in my 
20 years, but not too long ago we recognized that health care was 
spiralling out of control. We all acknowledged that we have to do 
something about that, and we have, in a bipartisan way. Not everything 
we have done has been bad. But sometimes you have unintended 
consequences.
  Another one we have had now is dealing with home health care. We made 
some decisions on numbers that have had a very adverse effect on home 
health care delivery in rural areas. I would hope that we could change 
that, too.
  Mr. TURNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, one 
of the other things that comes to my mind as a member of the Committee 
on Armed Services is the fact that all this projection about a surplus 
does not take into account the very serious and legitimate needs that 
we have for funding national defense.
  I was a cosponsor of the legislation that we passed overwhelmingly in 
this House, and that has moved through the Senate and is now signed by 
the Senate, to create a national missile defense system for the United 
States to protect us against the growing threat of ballistic missile 
attack from nations like Iran, Iraq, North Korea.
  Yet, there is absolutely nothing in that estimate of a surplus that 
would allow any funds to be spent to develop a national missile defense 
system.
  I know the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) is very familiar with 
the problems being faced by agriculture, the problems of emergency 
expenditures. I know the gentleman certainly would be able to enlighten 
us some on the pressures on agriculture and the emergency spending that 
invariably we have to deal with that again is not accounted for in that 
estimate of surplus.
  Mr. BERRY. That is absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman 
will continue to yield. We not only have emergency spending we are 
going to have to do for agriculture this year to keep it in business.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, also just mentioned, these 
terrible shortfalls that we have in rural hospitals and all rural 
health care providers, home health care, all these things are creating 
a desperate situation in rural America.
  We also had this shortfall in the way we pay the men and women that 
fight for this country and serve in our Armed Forces.

                              {time}  1845

  It is absolutely unconscionable that we would put them in a situation 
where they are putting their lives on the line every day, and, at the 
same time, they have to worry about whether or not their families back 
home are being taken care of. They know that their families are living 
below the poverty level, and we should not, a great Nation that we are, 
ask our men and women in uniform to make a sacrifice like that at the 
same time we are asking them to protect us.
  All of these things just do not make any sense, and we know that we 
are going to eventually have to deal with them, and we should make 
allowances for that in how we spend our money and allocate our monies 
in this country.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the light of this conversation now between 
the three of us, if we were conducting a town hall meeting in the 17th 
District of Texas, someone would be just itching to stand up and say, 
``Yep, there you go. You are already talking about spending. That is 
why we need the tax cut so you will not spend it.'' To which my 
response is pretty simple: ``If you do not believe that necessary 
spending on defense is a prudent expenditure of your dollars, you are 
right.''
  But last time I checked, one of the most important responsibilities 
that this Congress has is to maintain the national defense because, 
without a strong America, all of these other arguments will pale.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Texas and the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) have heard from our veterans. At 
many of our town meetings, I have heard veterans come and talk to me 
about the problems they have experienced in getting veterans care 
because of some of the reductions that have already been put in place.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, what I say to that constituent of mine, 
okay, what we are saying in the Blue Dog budget, we are prepared to 
make the tough decisions and squeeze the budgets. We will work with our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get the most fiscally 
responsible budget that we can possibly get. We submit that we have got 
one, and it has been proposed. I am sure that now that we are through 
this little exercise of the tax cut to the exclusion of everything else 
that we will get serious about this, and my colleagues will find that 
they will not find a more fiscally responsible budget that can get 218 
votes than the one that we proposed 6 months ago.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I am very confident that, if we can bring 
both sides of this House together and get them down to the table, that 
we could come up with a plan that would look very much like the plan 
that the Blue Dog Democrats proposed months ago, which was, as the 
gentleman says, a balanced budget and one that took care of the 
legitimate needs that we face in this country.
  One of the interesting subjects that I have heard the gentleman 
address before that I want to ask him about is the impact of a $794 
billion tax cut that the President is going to veto here in just a few 
days. What that would do, not just on the short term, but the next 10 
years, which is what we have been talking about, but what would happen 
in the out years if we were to take such an action as reducing taxes by 
that much when we do not even have a surplus to do it from.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, that was the thing I was talking about a 
moment ago, which is why I call this the most fiscally irresponsible 
action because it is back-end loaded. We have had a little flury. I am 
not sure everybody in the country has seen this, but we had some folks 
in the other body suggest the way to get through this cap business is 
to increase by 1 month the number of months in a year. Apparently, they 
did it with a straight face.
  Now, back home, folks would be laughing about that. But I thought for 
a moment that, well, maybe that is a good way to see how serious the 
Y2K problem is if we could just postpone it for 30 days. We can see 
what is going to happen in there. But that is what some folks have 
seriously talked about doing. Well, that is not a good way to do 
business.
  The debt, $5.6 trillion, that is what we owe. We owe. The tax cut, 
$792 billion is projected, but they back-end loaded it. Instead of 
front-end loading, instead of moving spending, some are suggesting now 
let us spend it in the next 2 weeks because then it will not count 
against the caps next year. They conveniently overlook that spending is 
spending, and that is still going to come out of Social Security Trust 
Fund. Make no mistake about it. One cannot disguise the real numbers no 
matter how we debate it on the floor of the House.
  But that tax cut literally explodes by $4.5 trillion from 2011 to 
2020 in its effect on the drain of the Treasury which some people 
honestly want to do. They believe that is good policy. We tried that in 
the 1980s, and we participated. We were going to squeeze the revenue 
and balance the budget, and we borrowed $4 trillion trying out that 
little experiment. I do not want to do that.
  Now, I am not going to be around the Congress in 2014, but I do not 
want the actions that we take or do not take this year to put that 
burden on the 2014 Congress.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) is young enough, he is probably 
going to be here. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) is young 
enough, he is probably going to be here. But I am not going to be in 
the Congress in 2014, I do not believe for a moment. Why would we do 
that? That is why we have taken as strong a position as we have on the 
Social Security question, which is separate, but very important.

[[Page H8371]]

  We are not quite there yet as far as getting a solution, but I have 
resolved that Cindy and I, my wife, and I have two grandchildren, Chase 
and Cole, 4 years old and 2 years old, and I resolved when they were 
born, my being in Congress, that I did not want them to look back 65 
years from today and say, if only my granddad would have done what in 
his heart he knew he should have done when he was in the Congress, we 
would not be in the mess we are in today. That is the spirit in which 
we participate today.
  That is why I have enjoyed my association with all of my Blue Dogs, 
the two that have joined us today, and all, in the policy discussions 
that lead us to be able to come to the floor and to say these things 
and not apologize to anybody.
  We sincerely believe that paying down the national debt is the best 
thing that this Congress ought to do, with no exceptions. Then we 
believe that we ought to deal with the five priority areas that we 
outlined, and we have already talked about them: defense, agriculture, 
health care, education, and veterans.
  In some of those instances, we are prepared to say we need to spend 
some additional dollars in the short term to make the investment so 
that our country will meet those obligations. But we do it within the 
spirit of all of the Social Security Trust Funds going against the 
debt, paying down the debt, half of any projected surpluses being set 
aside, and then meeting those priorities, including a tax cut with the 
other 50 percent of that debt. That is what we are here to talk about 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield for any additional comments. We have got a few 
more minutes. If we are through, I am always a great believer, once one 
has said everything that needs to be said, nothing else needs to be 
said, and we will let these folks go home.

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I appreciate the compliment about our age. I 
am not sure we deserve it. But it has been a pleasure to join the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Berry) in this dialogue this evening.
  Mr. BERRY. It certainly has, Mr. Speaker. I think that the point that 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) made about our grandchildren, 
grandparents love to talk about their grandchildren, but I think that 
the point that the gentleman makes, that I do not want to have to face 
my grandchildren 20 years from now and look them in the eye and let 
them ask me, ``Why did you not do something when you had the chance?''
  I think we all know what we need to do, and it is a matter of having 
the political will and the courage to do the right thing and see that 
we do not leave our children and grandchildren with this huge debt to 
pay off. I think that is the responsibility that we have.
  We also have an obligation to the five areas that the gentleman just 
mentioned to see that they get taken care of, too. But, again, it has 
been a pleasure for me to join my colleagues this evening. I thank both 
of my colleagues for their leadership in this area.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, lest anyone misunderstand, the main point 
that we have made regarding the tax cut, we totally acknowledge all 
taxes belong to the taxpayer. We acknowledge that. I have no difficulty 
with those that say, if there is a surplus, we are going to return it 
to you because you can better make the decision of how to spend it, 
unless we are talking about national defense, and I would question that 
statement.
  But what we add to this, that simple statement is, also, it is your 
debt. The $5.6 trillion is current taxpayer debt of which you, if you 
are in your 30s, 40s, 50s, or 60s, you have enjoyed the fruits of the 
spending of this $5.6 trillion. Why not take some of your dollars to 
pay down that debt. The choice is to increase the debt and to pass it 
on to your children and grandchildren.
  The Blue Dogs say that is wrong. We encourage the President to do 
that which he is going to do, that is veto the tax bill. Then we hope 
that we can settle down and deal in a responsible way with the budget 
that does what we have talked about today.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken. They do 
not want Republicans to jeopardize this country's economic growth by 
forcing through an irresponsible, reckless tax cut and ignoring the 
growing national debt.
  I am a strong advocate of a sound budget and fiscally responsible tax 
cuts, but the best tax cut we can give the American people is a promise 
we will first pay down the national debt by setting aside some of the 
true surplus--the non-Social Security surplus.
  Our first priority in a budget discussion should be debt reduction. 
However, the Republicans have chosen to ignore this fiscal necessity 
and make promises they can't fulfill. Our primary goal should be to 
maintain the strong and growing economy that has benefited millions of 
Americans. Using that simple objective as our guide, it is clear that 
the best course of action this body could take is to use any budget 
surpluses to start paying off the $5.6 trillion national debt. Reducing 
the national debt is clearly the best long-term strategy for the U.S. 
economy.
  Economists from across the political spectrum agree that using the 
surplus to reduce the debt will stimulate economic growth by increasing 
national savings and boosting domestic investment. Paying down our debt 
will reduce the tremendous drain that the federal government has placed 
on the economy by running up a huge national debt.
  Listen to the American public--our constituents are telling us to 
meet our obligations by paying down the national debt. The folks I 
represent understand that, when you have some extra resources, you pay 
your debts first. They don't understand how we can be talking about 
giving away money we don't have on tax cuts we can't afford. They want 
us to use this opportunity to pay down our debt.
  We hear a lot of talk about ``giving the American people their money 
back''. We should start by paying off the debt. The best tax cut we 
could provide for all Americans, and the best thing that we can do to 
ensure that taxes remain low for our children and grandchildren, is to 
start paying down our $5.6 trillion national debt.
  Reducing our national debt will provide a tax cut for millions of 
Americans by restraining interest rates. Lower interest rates will put 
money in the pockets of working men and women by saving them money on 
variable mortgages, new mortgages, auto loans, credit card payments, 
and other debts. The reduction in interest rates we have had as a 
result of the fiscal discipline over the last few years has put at 
least $35 billion into the hands of homeowners through lower mortgage 
payment considering that more than twenty five percent of all 
individual income taxes go to paying interest on our national debt. 
These economic realities should teach us a valuable lesson: fiscal 
discipline, demonstrated by paying down the debt, is the best way to 
keep putting money into the hands of middle class Americans and ensure 
that future generations can enjoy a prosperous, stable economy.

                          ____________________