[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1251-H1257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 RESPONSIBLY MANAGING OUR NATION'S DEBT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I wish to address this body with 
respect to the problem of our Nation's debt and how we responsibly 
handle this debt in a time of budget surpluses. We are indeed fortunate 
as Americans to have the robust economy that we have experienced over 
the last 8 years. It is unprecedented. We have had the strongest 
sustained period of economic growth in the 220 year history of the 
United States of America.
  At the same time, we have a record debt. I would like to begin my 
remarks by sharing with my colleagues an anecdotal story that is 
commonly used in my home State of Minnesota and it refers to two 
fictitious individuals named Oley and Lena. I happen to be of 
Scandinavian ancestry and one of my grandfathers was named Oley, so I 
do not know if it is my grandfather, but in any event, the story goes 
as follows.
  Oley got up one morning and Oley went outside to do his business in 
the outhouse. And as he pulled up his bib overalls, a couple of 
quarters fell out of his pocket and down into the hole. Well, Oley was 
disgusted. He took out his wallet, took off his watch and he threw them 
down the hole as well. Oley went back in the house and did not have 
much to say and Lena said after a while, well, Oley, what is wrong? Why 
do you not talk to me?

                              {time}  1945

  Olie just said, humph. She kept pressing him. Finally, Olie shared 
with his wife Lena the account of what had happened out at the 
outhouse.
  Lena said, well, Olie that was a dumb thing to do. Why did you throw 
your watch and wallet down the hole? Olie said to Lena, well, you did 
not expect me to go down after 50 cents, did you?
  Well, this may be humorous and it may appeal to grade school 
children; but on the other hand, it holds a certain kernel of truth 
with respect to the problems that we face out here.
  We struggle with the losses that we have had as Americans, the losses 
in terms of an enormous national debt. We try to figure out what to do 
about it. Sometimes we think that by creating a little bit more debt 
and then going down and rescuing what we just created that maybe we 
have solved the overall problem. But I submit that is not the case. A 
lot like Olie, we go back into the house, and there is a certain order 
to us, and we really do not have any more to show than before we 
started.
  I would like to just use a couple of charts here to illustrate this 
problem with the accumulating national debt, and then I know I have 
some colleagues here; and I would like to make sure that they join in 
the colloquy here this evening and that we fully inform the other 
Members of this body as to the gravity of the situation and the 
opportunities that await us.
  This first chart shows the accumulation of the debt that we have at 
the Federal level in the United States. This goes back to 1980 when the 
debt was approximately $1 trillion, which would be about $4,000 at that 
time for every man, woman, and child in our country.
  As my colleagues can see, there is a tremendous amount of red ink. By 
the time we get to 1998, the debt has exploded to $5 trillion. It has 
expanded by more than 500 percent. Now it is up to about $5.7 trillion, 
or about $20,000 for every man, woman, and child in our country.
  So it is important for us as Americans to understand that, when we 
talk about a balanced budget, it does not mean there is no debt. 
Indeed, the debt is unprecedented. When we think of $20,000 for every 
man, woman, and child in our country, we are talking about a very 
serious situation. It is not just the humor of an Olie and Lena story.
  It is important for us to understand the difference between the words 
``debt'' and ``deficit.'' This next chart shows the birth and the sort 
of the difference between the debt and the deficit. Now, remember that 
we had that $5.7 trillion debt. The deficit is how much we have gone 
into debt each year. It is an annual figure.
  Again, if we go back to, in this case, we are going back to the 
1970s, 1969, we had a little bit of a surplus. That was in President 
Johnson's administration. Then in the 1970s, during President Nixon, we 
have some losses. We see the yellow. During President Ford's 
administration with the green, we have some more losses. President 
Carter's administration, now we can call it red ink. It is getting red. 
During President Reagan's administration, we have an enormous amount of 
red ink. During President Bush's administration, we can see the 
turquoise.
  So these are deficits. Each year we are accumulating more debt. That 
is what leads to the $5.8 trillion we talked about.
  Here is President Clinton coming in. We can see that we have a large 
deficit the first 4 years. The fifth year, it is a fairly modest size 
deficit. Then finally we begin to show some surpluses here in 1999 and 
2000.
  So this talk about a surplus has to be understood against the fact 
that we have an existing $5.7 trillion debt. We cannot be confused by 
the difference between the debt and the deficit. It is kind of like, 
Mr. Speaker, we have got to go back to budgeting 101.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to 
continue our discussion because there are many more developments here 
that are important for us to consider if we are going to do a 
responsible job as Members of Congress in developing a budget for the 
year 2001.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Minge) for yielding to me. I thank him for his leadership on the budget 
and for his calling this special order tonight to talk about deficits 
and debt.
  The Blue Dog budget that will be hopefully eligible or allowed to be 
considered tomorrow is one in which we emphasize paying down the debt. 
We are going to hear a lot of rhetoric perhaps later tonight, and I 
know we will tomorrow, about surpluses.
  One thing that everyone needs to understand, Mr. Speaker, is when we 
are talking about $4 trillion in projected surpluses, they are 
projected. The lion's share of those surpluses are projected to occur 
in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Now, who among us can predict 
tomorrow much less predict 5 years, 6 years, 7 years from now?
  That is why the Blue Dogs have taken the position for the last 2 
years that the conservative thing to do with projected surpluses is to 
apply as much of them to our debt as we can. That is the conservative 
thing to do just in case they do not materialize.
  That is why we have suggested that any non-Social Security, and let 
me emphasize that because the record will clearly show that both sides 
of the aisle are now dedicated to not touching Social Security 
surpluses or Social Security trust funds, and that is good. That is 
positive. It is the non-Social Security Trust Fund or surpluses or 
dollars yet to be achieved that we are talking about.
  Just for rounding off purposes tonight, we are talking about $2 
trillion. Many people are going to contend that that is your money, 
meaning the American people's money; and, therefore, it ought to be 
returned to you. But some of us will be contending that it is also your 
debt.
  There are charts that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has 
just shown, the one that stands to his right right now showing the 
build up of the debt and then the building of the debt and showing that 
we now owe approximately $5.6 trillion.
  Now I ask all of you who are so exuberant about a tax cut so we might 
return it to those of you earning it today, what about your children 
and grandchildren? Why not take this longest sustained economic 
expansion in the history of our country that has occurred in the last 7 
years, why not take this period in which a lot of folks are doing very, 
very well and use this opportunity to pay down some of that debt which 
this generation has built up?
  That is the message that we are going to continue to hammer on. We 
think it makes sense. We think it is the conservative thing to do. We 
do not

[[Page H1252]]

think there is anything conservative about giving a tax cut and 
spending our children and grandchildren's future now, particularly when 
these surpluses may not occur.
  This is one thing that has really bothered me and why I have on 
occasion said that the trillion dollar tax cut proposed by some is the 
most fiscally irresponsible bill to come before the House of 
Representatives in my 21 years here. Many people almost get to fighting 
with me when I say that because they say I can point to others. I say, 
no, you are misunderstanding what you are saying. It is not the current 
effect of the tax cut that worries me. It is 2014. It is when this debt 
to our Social Security retirees, the baby boomers, are about to retire.
  It is in 2014 when we are going to see the surpluses built up by 
Social Security suddenly evaporate, and then that Congress in 2014 will 
either have to increase taxes or reduce benefits, promised benefits to 
that generation.
  Now, to me that is fiscally irresponsible. It is why we are saying 
that, when we look at tax cuts that start slow and then explode in 2010 
to 2014 to 2020 at exactly the same time that the economy to pay off 
Social Security is going to require tremendous additional dollars, it 
is irresponsible for this Congress in 2000 to have a tax cut that 
ignores that debt and that deficit that will occur in 2014. No one 
disagrees with that.
  This is why, again, going back to the short term, and that is 
tomorrow and the budget, why the Blue Dogs have proposed a budget that 
will pay down the debt held by the public by 2012. Now that may not 
sound like much compared to 2013. The Republican substitute says that 
they will pay it down by 2013. We say we will do it by 2012, one year.
  But here is the significant thing about our deficit reduction 
package. We retire over 30 percent of the debt held by the public 
within 5 years, and 80 percent of the debt held by the public would be 
retired within 10 years because we have a plan that actually reduces 
the debt.
  I believe it was the idea of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) 
who came up with the 50/25/25. I do not remember. But I think it was. 
He came up with this proposal originally when we started down this 
path, taking 50 percent of any surpluses and using that to pay down the 
debt.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know we struggled with 
this question, what is an appropriate balance. I think that most of us 
in our Blue Dog Coalition Group felt that our responsibility is first 
to our children and grandchildren; and that reducing the debt and the 
interest burden on the next generation is critical; and that our 
generation has had the benefit of many of these Federal expenditures. 
We should not demand that we continue to eat dessert indefinitely and 
that part of what we needed to do was to pay down the debt. So the 
first 50 percent there. Then we also recognize that there are some 
priority programs, especially for young people, for veterans, other 
sectors of our society that are struggling; and, finally, that some tax 
relief is needed. We have some inequities in the tax code. 
Simplification should be done, and these adjustments in the tax code do 
affect Federal revenue. So we try to strike a balance of that.
  One thing that we have noticed is we are joined by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). I know that he has fought long and hard with 
respect to this challenge of how we responsibly deal with this era of 
surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
to give him a chance to share his views. I know that he is very 
forceful on this subject.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that one of the 
thoughts I could leave with the American public tonight is that, yes, 
Congress did balance the budget last year; but there was a lot of 
trickery in the budget to achieve that goal.
  One of the tricks that I regret the most about that budget that was 
done in order to balance it was the fact that the troops have 
traditionally been paid on the last Friday of the month. As the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) pointed out earlier, we have 
a lot of troops who are just getting by.
  It is interesting to note that a higher percentage of people in 
uniform are married than the general public, about 60 percent of them. 
Many of those young couples have instant families, two, three, four 
children within a very short period of time. They tend to be the ones 
who end up on food stamps because they simply are not getting enough in 
their pay and in their benefits.
  So I found it particularly distressing that, in the Republican budget 
this year, that in order to balance the budget, they delayed the pay 
raise for the troops from Friday, September 29 to October 1, the 
following Monday.
  Now, for a Congressman who is making very good money, over 130,000 a 
year, delaying our pay for 2 days really is not a big deal. But when 
one is an E4 or an E3 and one has three kids, probably several of them 
in diapers, that means a weekend of somebody digging around in the 
cushions of the couch and rolling pennies so one can have diapers for 
the babies and formula for the kids, and that is wrong.
  So to run around and, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
talked about, give away a trillion dollar tax break when one is playing 
games just to make ends meet is highly irresponsible.
  Something the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) mentioned, and 
again I do not think it can be said often enough, yes, it is their 
money. Yes, it is their country. Yes, it is our debt. Almost all of 
this debt has occurred in our lifetimes. If you are listening to me 
tonight, most of that debt has occurred in your lifetime. Between 1776 
and 1980, our Nation acquired $1 trillion worth of debt.

                              {time}  2000

  From 1980 to 1988, the debt doubled, from $1 trillion to $2 trillion. 
But, sadly, it continues to get worse. From 1988 until now, our Nation 
is now $5.7 trillion in debt. And just like anyone else who is in debt, 
not only does it have to be paid off, but it has to be paid off with 
interest. The biggest shocker for most of the people I encounter is 
when they find out that the biggest expense of their Nation, the 
biggest outlay of their tax dollars is interest on that debt; a billion 
dollars a day.
  I come from an area that is very pro military. We have a number of 
shipyards; we have a number of military bases; a lot of kids enlist. I 
regularly have moms and dads write me saying why is my son flying 
around in a 30-year old helicopter? Why is he flying around in a 30-
year old transport plane? Why is he traveling on a 30-year old ship? 
Well, the truth of the matter is for what we are squandering in 
interest, we could be buying a destroyer a day for the United States 
Navy. A new destroyer a day.
  Instead, because of a lack of money, we are only going to buy three 
destroyers this year. For what we are squandering in interest, we could 
buy 10 B-22s a day, or about, geez, 30 new UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters. 
The list is endless for what we are squandering on interest.
  The other thing I really think our citizens need to be aware of is 
the change in demographics. Because not only do we have to pay off this 
debt, but the window of opportunity for paying off this debt is rapidly 
closing. My dad is still living, and my dad was born in the 1920s. 
Therefore, when my dad was a teenager in the 1930s, when Social 
Security was just starting, there were 19 working people for every one 
retiree. Right now, the year 2000, there are three working people for 
every retiree. If I live to 2030, and I hope I do, there will be only 
1.5 working people for every retiree.
  So not only has this generation run up an incredible debt, but the 
number of workers available to pay that debt off is shrinking, and it 
is shrinking on a daily basis. And it will simply be impossible for 
that young person who is a page today up here, that young person who is 
in grammar school, or that young person who is in high school, when 
they reach their peak income earning years it will be physically 
impossible for them to pay their house note, take care of their kids 
and retire our national debt if we do not take those steps right now. 
That is something I would hope Americans would consider.
  Quite frankly, I am distressed when I hear folks tell me, 
particularly young

[[Page H1253]]

folks, I want a strong military, but do not ask me to serve. I want a 
strong Nation. I want this to be the best Nation on earth. I want the 
best roads, the best canals, the safest air travel, with the most 
secure future as far as medicine, the most secure future as far as my 
retirement but, by the way, I do not want to pay for it.
  It is the same thing. We do not get to be the best by taking the easy 
path. And what troubles me the most about my Republican colleagues when 
they talk about these tax breaks is that they somehow imagine we can 
spend all kinds of money and not pay for it; that we can somehow have 
great health care, a great defense, that we can have great roads and 
great public safety in the air and on the roads, but that we do not 
have to pay for it. That is not what life is all about. Life is if we 
want good things we have to earn them. And if our Nation wants to 
continue to be the best, we have to earn that as well.
  Demographically, we are going to have, as I mentioned, in 2030, an 
extremely small percentage of Americans who are eligible to serve age-
wise in the military services. That is why we need to modernize our 
military. In the past few weeks, the Joint Chiefs of Staff came before 
the House Committee on Armed Services and identified $16 billion worth 
of unfunded requirements for this budget. And that is why I want to 
commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and the other people who put together the Blue 
Dog budget, because the Blue Dog budget would increase the Fed's 
spending this year and for each of the next 5 years $15 billion over 
the Republican plan.

  Better than that, the people who made this Nation great, the greatest 
generation, the people who got us through World War II, they are 
reaching that point in their lives where they need some help 
healthwise, and particularly our veterans. Because, again, I mentioned 
the travesty of cheating the troops on their pay, but what aggravates 
me even more is that for 3 of the past 4 years the Republican Congress 
has flat-lined the VA budget. No increase at all. And only last year, 
after a group of us got together and said what is more important, 
taking care of our veterans or tax breaks, did they finally realize 
that taking care of our veterans was more important.
  The Blue Dog budget would increase veterans care by $10 billion more 
than the Republican budget over the next 5 years and fully pay to 
fulfill the promise of free lifetime health care for our military 
retirees. The Republican budget does not do that.
  Great nations keep their words. One of the words that we have to keep 
are those words to our military retirees that they would be given free 
health care for themselves and their dependents the remainder of their 
lives if they served their country honorably for 20 years. The Blue Dog 
budget, which will be on the floor tomorrow, will do that; and I 
commend all my colleagues for making that possible.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague from 
Mississippi. He has been an outstanding fighter, one of the most 
articulate Members of this body, in forcefully addressing this problem 
of how do we responsibly deal with the surplus.
  I would like to next yield to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), 
who has worked long and hard on this. And I know he has a little levity 
that he can share with us on how we should assess our Nation's 
priorities.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Minnesota for 
yielding to me, and I commend his work, as well as the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) on the Blue Dog budget. I am not a member of the 
Blue Dog Coalition, but I have consistently in the past supported Blue 
Dog budgets when they have been offered as alternatives during these 
budget resolution debates that we have had, because I feel that when we 
put these Blue Dog budgets together that they are more in line with 
where I think the American people are and where our priorities really 
should exist.
  Tomorrow we will have a very important day on a budget resolution. 
This establishes the blueprint of where the Federal budget is going to 
be heading throughout the duration of this year and for many years to 
come. We are in a position now with the strength of our economy, with 
some projected budget surpluses around the corner in the future, that 
hopefully will materialize, to do some extraordinarily good things for 
the future of this great Nation of ours.
  I am afraid, however, that when we start the debate tomorrow it will 
be, as Yogi Berra once said, ``Deja vu all over again;'' that what the 
majority governing party in this Congress will be offering on the floor 
tomorrow will be an emphasis on their first and main priority, which is 
trying to pass the biggest tax cut that they possibly conceivably can 
do here in this Congress, as they have now over the last couple of 
years.
  Fortunately, we have had a President in the White House who has felt 
that that has not been the fiscally responsible best approach that we 
should be taking as a Nation. And yet tomorrow we will be seeing a 
budget resolution which is very comparable to past years' budget 
resolutions, ones with a heavy emphasis on large tax cuts.
  That is also unfortunate because the district I represent in western 
Wisconsin, I think, brings a lot of common sense to this debate. They 
tend to view the Federal budget process similar to their own family 
finances, and that is that if they start running into some good times 
in their family, what should be the first obligation is taking care of 
already existing obligations, and that includes already existing family 
debt, before they give themselves a vacation or spend whatever excess 
funds that they might have on a new item for the family.
  I think if this Congress were to operate under the same type of 
principles and values, we would be a lot better off as far as securing 
economic opportunity and ensuring a very bright and hopeful future for 
all of our children.
  I have two young little boys back home in Wisconsin, Johnny will be 4 
in August, Matt will be 2 the end of May. Much of what I do here in 
Congress in the votes that I cast are done through their eyes and with 
the hope of a very bright and prosperous future that they have to look 
forward to. With the advancements of medical science we are seeing 
today, which is truly mind-boggling, these young kids that are being 
born today could, in all likelihood, live to see the 22nd century, 
which is amazing when we think about it. So the decisions that we are 
making are not just decisions that are going to affect us today and 
tomorrow and for the next fiscal years but for generations to come.
  That is why I think it is so important that we make these decisions 
and get them right. That is why I feel so strongly that a $1 trillion 
tax cut that will be proposed tomorrow over the next 10 years, one that 
is anywhere from $150 billion to $200 billion over the next 5 years, 
which would virtually spend every nickel, every dime of a projected 
surplus that, hopefully, will materialize, and there is no guaranty 
that the surpluses will materialize to that magnitude, with the energy 
crisis we are in today, with a lot of indications out there where this 
economy could turn south on us, that if we pass large permanent tax 
cuts today, they could come back to haunt us tomorrow.

  Mr. MINGE. If my colleague would allow me to interrupt for a moment, 
he referred to the energy costs and tax cuts. I had a very interesting 
experience just this last week. I visited a small trucking company, and 
the founder of the trucking company pulled me to one side. He is an 
older gentleman. And he said, I always want tax cuts. I always want tax 
relief. We are going to have a bad year or two here with these high 
fuel costs. But he said I want you to go back to Washington and pay 
down on the debt.
  And I must say that that made a deep impression on me, because he 
shared his priorities. He said, I vote Republican almost every 
reelection, but this is what I think is right for the Nation.
  Mr. KIND. Well, that is what I am hearing back home as well, from 
Republicans, from wealthy families. They understand we have existing 
obligations that really need our attention at this time.
  We have a $5.7 trillion national debt. I am glad the gentleman was 
able to bring those charts tonight highlighting when this debt was 
accumulated. By and large 85 percent of that $5.7 trillion was 
accumulated during the 1980s and

[[Page H1254]]

1990s, relatively recently. This is a new phenomenon for this Nation. 
We have never seen a debt burden of this magnitude, except during time 
of war, such as the Second World War, and it was accumulated recently, 
with our generation.
  If we want to talk about morals and values in Congress and what we do 
around here, what is more immoral than passing on a huge debt burden on 
to our children and grandchildren and future generations? That is 
exactly what we will be doing tomorrow if we pass a budget resolution 
that places the first and foremost priority on large tax cuts in the 
future rather than getting serious about debt reduction.
  There are a lot of merits to debt reduction, a lot of economic 
benefits to it. And people do not have to take our word for it tonight, 
they should just listen to what Chairman Greenspan consistently 
testifies about when he is before our committees here on Capitol Hill. 
He has consistently, over the recent years, said that if we do anything 
with projected budget surpluses, we should first see if they 
materialize and, if they do, use it for debt reduction, because that 
will mean less Federal borrowing in the private sector. It will enable 
the Federal Reserve to lower long-term rates in this county, which is 
going to make it cheaper for people and businesses, farmers, even 
students to borrow money for their purposes, and create jobs. Invest in 
the infrastructure. With lower rates, that is really the key, I think, 
of this extraordinary growth that we have seen in this Nation.
  I brought with me today just a few quotes from Chairman Greenspan 
based on his previous testimony before Congress. When asked about the 
wisdom of passing large tax cuts today, his response was, and I quote,

       I'm saying hold off on tax cuts for a while. I'm saying 
     that because the timing is not right.
  What he means by that is if we pass a large tax cut now, which will 
spur consumption in this country, it has the potential of igniting 
inflation. And with the increase in inflation, or any type of 
inflationary indicators out there, the first thing the Fed is going to 
do is really start raising rates up, as they have been trying to do 
recently by tapping on the brakes. But with a large tax cut that could 
spur inflation, they will slam their foot on the brakes, and that is 
going to stop the growth that we have had in the country.
  That is why Chairman Greenspan is saying hold off, make sure what we 
do not do is something that will be inflationary in our economy. He 
also stated, and I quote,

       Therefore, as I have said previously, my first priority, if 
     I were given such a priority, is to let the surpluses run. To 
     me, currently, the first best is to allow the surpluses to 
     run and the government debt to run down.
  Why is this important? Again, no one has to listen to us here 
tonight, listen to what Chairman Greenspan has had to say, someone that 
I think has an incredible amount of credibility when it comes to 
managing the economy in this country. He went on to say,

       It is precisely that imprecision and the uncertainty that 
     is involved which has led me to conclude that we probably 
     would be better off holding off on a tax cut immediately, 
     largely because of the fact that it is apparent that the 
     surpluses are doing a great deal of positive good to the 
     economy in terms of long-term interest rates, in terms of the 
     cost of capital and the ability effectively of the American 
     government to borrow when it has to. Because as we reduce the 
     amount of debt outstanding, the borrowing capacity of the 
     Federal Government rises, which is a very important long-term 
     issue.

                              {time}  2015

  That is why I think we are right now at the crossroads of being able 
to pursue what is a very fiscally responsible and disciplined course.
  As a member of the New Democratic Coalition, that is our first 
priority is to maintain fiscal discipline and bring fiscal 
responsibility into the creation of these budgets and in these budget 
debates. But it is sad that we are having a rehash of previous year 
budgets that we are going to have tomorrow morning, an emphasis on 
large debt reduction, less of an emphasis on the need to reduce the 
national debt, less of an emphasis as far as taking care of our 
existing obligations, which means shoring up and saving Social Security 
and Medicare for future generations.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the insights of the 
gentleman on this. I think it is helpful to those of us in Congress. It 
certainly, I hope, is helpful to the staff and everyone else that we 
work with.
  It is interesting, there are several groups, my colleague has alluded 
to one, the New Democratic Coalition, the New Democratic Network. We 
have the Blue Dog Coalition. So within the Democratic Caucus here, the 
205 or 207 Democrats in the House of Representatives, we have subgroups 
that have a deep commitment to reducing the Nation's debt. The people 
that are speaking here this evening are drawn from these two subgroups 
of the Democratic Caucus.
  One thing that is also of interest to me is that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I are from the upper Midwest, so we started at 
the northern end of the country, Minnesota, went down to Texas, went 
over to Mississippi, now we are up to Wisconsin. And we have got a 
couple of colleagues here from the east coast and the west coast; and 
as much as we sometimes think could we not just let those coastal areas 
go out to sea, we better also get the benefit of their wisdom here.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, before we conclude with our comments tonight, 
I again commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) for the 
outstanding leadership that he has provided on this issue. But I do not 
want people to be under the impression that we do not believe that we 
can provide some tax relief in these budgets. I think we can as long as 
we do it in a fiscally responsible and disciplined manner so we do not 
lock into some long-term commitment that could come back and haunt us 
and start adding to rather than detracting from the debt.
  It is sad tomorrow we are going to have a budget resolution that 
virtually spends the entire projected surplus that may not even 
materialize. But what is even sadder is that we have got the Republican 
candidate for President out there running who is calling for an even 
larger tax cut plan than what is being proposed in the majority party's 
budget resolution tomorrow.
  I just brought with me today what perhaps is the saddest part of this 
whole debate, and that is that there is a comic strip in this country 
that is probably more reflective of where the American people are on 
our responsibilities and Social Security and Medicare and debt 
reduction than the governing parties in this Congress.
  I do not know how many of my colleagues saw the Doonesbury cartoon 
that appeared about a week ago or so, but I thought it was very 
insightful as far as the feedback I am getting from my constituents 
back in the district.
  Just to go through it real quickly, there is a group of men here 
talking amongst themselves it looks like in a cafe. One guy says, 
``Heads up. He's coming this way.'' There is an empty hat that appears 
that I think is supposed to depict Governor Bush. And one of the other 
gentlemen says, ``Try not to make eye contact.'' Governor Bush says, 
``Hi, fellas. I'm Governor Bush and I am asking for your support. If 
you vote for me, I will give you a huge tax cut. How is that for a 
straight deal, huh?''
  The gentleman responds, ``Well, I'm not sure. I mean, I can see how 
the wealthy might get excited. They will be averaging $50,000. But it 
wouldn't mean much to a guy in my bracket. Besides, I care a lot more 
about shoring up Social Security and Medicare and paying down our 
national debt.''
  ``Yeah, didn't fiscal responsibility used to be a Republican issue,'' 
another gentleman says. And then the Governor responds, ``But, but, 
but, you don't understand. I'm offering you something for nothing, free 
money. Don't you want free money?''
  ``Sure, but not until we pay our bills.''
  ``What is the matter with this country,'' Governor Bush says.
  ``I guess we have grown up a lot as a people. I know I have.''
  I thought that comic strip was very insightful of what I think is, by 
and large, where the American people are on this issue, that if we do 
have surplus money, let us use it for debt reduction to secure future 
generations opportunities in the country and let us start taking care 
of Social Security and Medicare rather than putting ourselves in this 
box that we have created.

[[Page H1255]]

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) is on his feet, and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to use this opportunity since it 
might appear to everyone listening to us that the Blue Dog budget has 
no tax relief. We do. We provide for approximately $250 billion in tax 
cuts over the next 10 years. We provide for a true and honest 
mitigation of the marriage tax penalty that we have talked about so 
much on this floor. But we truly attack the marriage tax penalty, not 
the added on $100 billion.
  We expand the earned income tax credit. We facilitate financing of 
school construction and renovation. We provide for increasing credits 
and deductions for tuition for postsecondary education. We have foster 
community development and combat urban sprawl relief.
  We reduce the death tax. Remember that one? This is one of which we 
provide that every small businessman or woman, farmer and rancher, with 
a $4 million estate would have immediate exemption from all death 
taxes. In this budget we are talking about, that is possible to do. And 
many others.
  So I do not want anyone to get the misimpression that we are opposed 
to all tax cuts. Remember the 50/25/25? We are saying any available 
surpluses, 50 percent should go to pay down the debt; 25 percent should 
be spent on priorities, of which the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) spoke so eloquently about, priority of defense, veterans' and 
military retirees, which we fully fund, at least the retiree part of 
it; and then we have 25 percent of the projected surpluses that can and 
will be and should be used for tax relief. That is in this what we are 
talking about.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I know that we are joined here this evening 
by our colleague from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) and I would like to 
yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, each of us are expected to balance our own 
checkbooks. We all go through that ritual usually at least once a month 
when we pay our personal and family bills and our business bills back 
home. So why should we ever expect any less from the Federal 
Government?
  Right now, with our debt being about $5.6 trillion, this is 
approximately $21,000 for every man, woman, and child in this Nation. 
That is outrageous. And as my colleague from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
spoke a minute ago when he was talking about the military, and I, too, 
serve on the Committee on Armed Services, we are spending more on the 
interest on the national debt than on our entire national defense 
budget.
  Now, when people do say why are we in 30-year-old fighter planes and 
40-year-old bombers and 30-year-old ships, we know the answer. Now is 
the time. Now is that window of opportunity to reverse this terrible 
trend and to restore financial integrity to our financial Government.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) was saying, we do want to 
have moral integrity in Government. We also need to have financial 
integrity. And that is part of what it means to offer the moral type of 
leadership in this Nation is to be honest with people and to quit 
running up debt. Because, after all, as we all will too well realize 
come April 15 next month, it is not the Government's money, anyway; it 
is the people's money. And this is the people's House. And as stewards 
of that money, we ought to be paying down debt.
  I had a phone-caller the other day on a radio show back home in North 
Carolina who said, why is the term ``surplus'' even being used? 
Personally, I think he made a good point. When we look at our budgets, 
if we owe money, I do not consider myself having a surplus if I owe 
money. And our Nation owes money. We owe a lot of money when we talk 
about $21,000 per man, woman, and child.
  So, under the Blue Dog budget, we have got a great opportunity now to 
pay off that debt; and by doing that we are giving the best tax break 
of all.
  We do have some targeted tax cuts, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) was saying. But we also get the across-the-board tax cut that 
everybody will feel who has a credit card or who has a home mortgage or 
has a car loan. That is most of all of us in America, whatever our 
socioeconomic status may be or whatever part of the country we may live 
in by reducing interest rates. Everyone will feel that type of tax cut 
by having lower interest rates on their credit cards and their home 
mortgage payments and their car loans.
  And by paying down the national debt, that puts us in a position of 
strength, strength to help us shore up Social Security, strength to 
help us shore up Medicare, and to allow families who do have debt ahead 
of them, such as for college education, to be able to better afford 
that for their children.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague would allow me to just 
illustrate the point he has made.
  Here is a graphic depiction of the type of interest rate reduction 
that Chairman Greenspan has said is realistic if we make a substantial 
reduction in the outstanding Federal debt.
  On a home mortgage, we could reasonably expect interest rates to drop 
by 2 percent if we reduce the public debt by about $2 trillion. On a 
home with a mortgage monthly payment of $844, that would provide a 
dividend of $155. That is an annual dividend that would be equal to 
what most families would expect in any tax cut.
  So not only do we reduce the debt, which is a benefit to our 
children, but we have this dividend, as well. That is exactly what the 
gentleman is talking about. And this plays out. We can look at the 
farmer buying a combine. We can look at the college student with his 
college loans. And that dividend is important. And that is a type of 
tax cut, if you will, in and of itself.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, that is the best of all because everyone 
benefits from it.
  The saying is that the time you fix a leaky roof is while the sun is 
shining. Well, thank the good Lord the sun is shining on our Nation. 
Some areas are not prospering as much as others.
  My home county and Robison County, North Carolina, and the adjoining 
county of Columbus County have more than twice the unemployment rate of 
our State. We are suffering. We need to find a way to help pay down the 
debt that we can then let people invest in their jobs and have job 
opportunity for economic growth in the underserved rural areas of our 
Nation, as well.
  This is the time, while the sun is shining, to fix the leaky roof 
that all Americans can share in the prosperity; and the best way to do 
that is to pay down the debt that we all, as Americans, owe.
  This, indeed, is our golden opportunity. As I said, it is not the 
Government's money. It is our money. Let us do the responsible thing 
and let us pay down the debt.
  With that, I look forward now to going from coast to coast with the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), as I know she is getting 
ready to speak, from North Carolina to California.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, like the gentleman has indicated, we are 
going to the west coast. We have a distinguished member of the Blue Dog 
Coalition and of the Hispanic Caucus, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Sanchez). Would she please share with us some of the analysis that 
she brings to bear on this from her perspective in California.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Minge) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really a pleasure, actually, to be a member of the 
Blue Dogs. I know that there are quite a few people across the United 
States that have not really found out about our group here in the 
Congress on the Democratic side. But the reality is that one of the 
reasons I really enjoy being a part of this group is because I do have 
a financial background, having a degree in economics and an MBA in 
finance and having been in the financial industry for 14 years before I 
got to this Congress.
  It is always important to me to apply the financial rules that I know 
that I use in my daily life or that I would expect somebody coming 
through the front door and asking for a loan to apply. And first and 
foremost of that, of course, is, What is your liability situation? What 
are your assets? What is the income that you are earning or what you 
think you are going to have as far as money coming in on a monthly or 
annual basis? And it should not be

[[Page H1256]]

any different for what we do here in Congress.
  First and foremost, when we have the good times, as my colleague from 
North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) said, when the sun shines, we need to 
think about what we do with this extra money that is coming in.
  Most families, most businesses, a lot of us pay down the liabilities 
that we have, we pay down our debt. If we have gotten into tough 
financial times and we have had to go to the bank or we have had to put 
a second mortgage on our home, and then if it gets worse, we go and we 
use the credit cards we get through the mail, sometimes a little too 
easily these days, but we go and we get the credit where we can get it. 
And every time, I am sure most families think they are going to get the 
credit at the least amount and then, as they need more, they get more 
and more credit at a higher rate.
  This is what we did during that 1980's time period. We increased the 
debt to pay several programs that we had ongoing, without the money 
coming in to pay for those programs.
  Now we are in the reverse. Now we have a good economy. We have a 
strong economy. But it is not going to last forever. So what do they do 
when they finally have that good job where they are getting the extra 
money? First they pay down the credit cards. Then they take the second 
mortgage off of their home. They pay back their family the money they 
borrowed. And maybe they keep a little bit of debt. But they certainly 
do not keep all of that debt, because there will be at some point some 
sort of a downturn and they have to prepare for that.
  Sometimes we forget about that when we are in the good times. We have 
had 7\1/2\ years of really good times in the United States. And I, as a 
lawmaker, want to see all the people in my district and as many 
Americans continue that. But things do change, and we all know that.
  Today we have a prime example of that. When I was younger and first 
driving my first car, I remember standing in lines of 50 cars waiting 
to try to get some gas into my car the last time we had a real oil 
crisis.

                              {time}  2030

  At that time we paid almost anything just as long as we could get 
that gas in our cars to run it. While we were going through that, we 
said to ourselves as a Nation, as a people, we said, ``Never again. 
We're never going to let this happen again to us. We're going to drive 
more efficient cars. We're going to find alternative fuels.'' As the 
good times came, we began to forget that. Today, about 15 or 20 years 
later, here we sit again and guess what? The prices of gas are going 
up. I sit there and I think to myself, maybe we will have a recurrence 
of this. So we have to remember things go in cycles. We are in the good 
part of the cycle. We need to take that money and we need to pay down 
the debt. The Blue Dog budget does that. It says, ``Let's take care of 
the first thing first.''
  It also says we are not afraid of tax cuts. We realize that we can 
give tax cuts to people, tax cuts that are important if you are 
investing in a business, if you are investing in research, let us allow 
American businesses and people to do that. If you are investing in 
yourself, if you are investing in your children by getting an 
education, let us help Americans decide that that is the right thing to 
do. If we want to invest in our schools and new school construction 
like we all run around and say, then let us give tax credits so 
communities will step up to the plate and do what is right and build 
that new classroom or build that new high school that they need. Our 
budget allows Americans to do that. It also allows us to work on the 
programs that need to be worked on, like Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. MINGE. Maybe before the gentlewoman gets into any of the 
specifics there, we could just give some of the numbers actually on 
this debt reduction. The Blue Dog proposal which we have been talking 
about over 5 years would reduce the national debt by $85 billion. Given 
the size of the debt, that is just a small nibble. But compare that 
with the bottom line here. The Republican proposal with the tax cuts 
that they are including, modest actually by comparison to ones that 
they have proposed over these last few months, and if they are going to 
do the prescription drug correction that they have promised they are 
going to do, would leave us about one-tenth of that amount. In the 
middle is the proposal coming from the Democratic Caucus, which is, as 
you can see, fiscally more conservative than the Republican proposal. 
Let us take a 10-year projection. Here we are beginning to see larger 
sums. Approximately 10 percent of the debt would be paid down, maybe 9 
percent under the Blue Dog proposal. Under the Republican proposal 
actually we would go to more red ink. Again we are assuming the tax 
cuts that they have been talking about, we are assuming some of the 
program expansions that they have been proposing. So there is a 
dramatic difference. I think that we also have to be careful that we 
are not misled by talk about the so-called public debt and the 
privately held debt and all of these things. There are proposals to 
have Social Security trust fund money saved for Social Security and the 
net effect of that is to reduce the amount of debt that is outstanding 
in our hands as individuals, the Arabs, foreign investors and so on, 
but if you wrap it all together, the Social Security trust fund and the 
debt that is held by those of us as individuals, they in their 10-year 
plan will not be making a dent in that debt. It is still $20,000 
roughly for every man, woman and child that is owed to the Social 
Security trust fund and is owed to individuals, banks, institutions 
that hold these Federal bonds.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. I would agree with my colleague. I guess I will just end 
with the old adage. If it sounds too good to be true, then it is 
probably not true. The Republicans have offered an enormous tax cut. 
Granted not as enormous as the guy who is running for President that is 
a Republican, but it is enormous. They have promised to do the 
prescription drug benefits. They have promised to build defense up. 
They have promised that education is important to them and they are 
going to do something about it. Promise after promise after promise. 
You cannot do it all and get there. They have promised to help make 
Social Security safe for the next 60 years. You cannot do all of these 
all at once and offer the type of tax cut that they want to do. But 
politically, they think that you are going to believe all of that. So 
the reality is what do we choose to do? Let us bring down the debt. Let 
us give some tax cuts. Let us invest. And let us reward people for 
doing that. And let us make sure that our veterans are taken care of, 
that some schools are built for our children, and that we invest in 
education for our kids. I think that the Blue Dog budget reflects those 
priorities.

  Mr. MINGE. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California. I 
see that we have been joined by another colleague from Texas. We have 
so many Texans here we cannot keep them all straight. They are a fairly 
tight, frugal bunch. They have a lot of good advice for us here in our 
country. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding, 
and I am honored to be a part.
  Mr. Speaker, I like others here rise to support the use of a portion 
of our surplus to pay down on our national debt. We have got a golden 
opportunity in front of us. For the first time in 30 years we have a 
budget surplus. During most of my tenure here, the great budget 
challenge has been to get control of the deficit. In the last 2 years, 
the landscape has completely changed. We are now focused on what to do 
with the surplus. That is a very good feeling. I am thrilled that the 
term surplus has entered our vocabulary up here. Now comes the hard 
part. Everyone has an idea as to the best way to use this surplus, tax 
cuts, new government programs, protecting the solvency of Social 
Security and Medicare and paying down the national debt.
  As a Member of the Blue Dog coalition, I think the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) are 
members of that coalition, we have advocated using half of the on-
budget surplus for debt reduction, a fourth for shoring up Social 
Security, Medicare, education and our national infrastructure and the 
last fourth or parts of it for tax cuts. That can be eased around and 
changed some, if it takes more for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,

[[Page H1257]]

infrastructure, national defense, whatever we see that is a necessity, 
that we can move that fourth from one to the other. But I think what I 
am hammering hard on is paying at least half of it on the debt. By 
applying the framework, this framework to the budget, we are told that 
we can pay off the national debt by the year 2012. It would retire over 
30 percent of the debt in 5 years. I think that is just amazing. Many 
of us can see 5 years down the road. I think this is the most sound way 
to both plan for the future and reap both short and long-term rewards 
from the growing surplus. As anyone outside the Beltway knows, when you 
have some extra money, it is important to pay off your debts. This is a 
simple idea that many Americans practice whenever they can. We should 
learn from them and do the same thing here in Washington.
  The benefits of paying down the debt are enormous and long lasting. 
One of the most important is the more we lower the national debt, the 
less we will have to pay in interest on that debt. As of 5 p.m. this 
afternoon, this very day, our national debt was approximately $5.75 
trillion. During FY 1999 we paid $229 billion, Mr. Speaker, in interest 
on this debt. To put that number in perspective, during the same year 
we spent $275.5 billion on national defense. That is only $46 billion 
more than our interest payment. Our interest payment is estimated to go 
down to $220 billion in our current budget year because we are paying 
off a small portion of the debt. It certainly affects it. This is a 
portion of our Federal budget that we cannot reduce by any other means 
other than paying down on the national debt. Imagine how we can reduce 
that number if we really dedicate ourselves to it. This is money that 
would be available for tax cuts, many of which I support, assistance of 
senior citizens and other efforts to maintain our economic growth and 
improve the future for our children and for our grandchildren. 
Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will vote on a framework for the coming 
year's budget. As we look at the surpluses from anywhere from $200 
billion to $637 billion over the next 5 years, the most responsible 
thing we can do is dedicate half of it to paying down on the debt.

  Mr. MINGE. I would like to thank my colleague from Texas for that 
comment. I would like to just emphasize for the benefit of all of our 
colleagues that we have heard from people from the Midwest, from the 
northern part of the country, we have heard from people from the 
southern part of the country, from the East Coast, from the West Coast. 
All areas have spoken out here this evening from within our ranks and 
said that the first goal has got to be to pay down on this enormous 
debt that we have, over $20,000 for each man, woman and child. If you 
hear anyone on the other side of the aisle claim that this is not what 
is happening, that the publicly held debt is going to be smaller, do 
not be beguiled by that. What is truly happening is they are hiding 
behind the Social Security trust fund and they are assuming that we do 
not have to prepay whatever the Social Security trust fund buys in 
terms of government bonds. That is just as much debt as any other debt 
that we have. Ask why is it under the Republican budget that we have to 
raise the debt ceiling, go up to $5.9 trillion? If we are reducing the 
debt, we should not be increasing the debt ceiling. I sit on the 
Committee on the Budget. I am embarrassed that that committee has 
reported out a proposal, the Republican proposal, which in a time of 
surpluses requires a higher debt ceiling than we have ever had before 
in this country. This is fiscal irresponsibility of the greatest order. 
You can tell from these charts, if what has been promised by the 
Republicans on the Committee on the Budget is going to occur, the path 
is towards a larger debt for this country, a greater burden for our 
children and our grandchildren. This does not make sense. This is 
fiscal irresponsibility. We have alternative budgets which will be 
presented tomorrow coming from the Democratic Caucus, from the Blue Dog 
group. They will respectively propose reducing our Nation's debt in a 
realistic fashion. It is not just by hiding behind the Social Security 
trust fund, it is by doing the heavy lifting and denying ourselves some 
of the dessert that we would like to be able to have and a promise on 
the eve of an election. I think that political strength and integrity 
depends upon saying to our constituents, there are certain things that 
are high national priorities and at the top of the list is dealing 
responsibly with our Nation's debt and using our surplus to reduce it; 
secondly, to recognize that tax simplification and tax fairness 
requires some modest adjustments; and, third, that we have some 
priority programs. This evening, my colleagues have discussed what 
these programs are. Veterans, certain defense investments, education, 
agriculture, health care. These are top priorities that we have as a 
country. We have to fit it all together. We would like to be able to do 
all things for all people. I would like to be in a situation where I 
did not have to pay any tax at all. But we know that we are not going 
to be able to sustain our country and deal responsibly with the affairs 
of state unless we address not only priorities but also the debt burden 
that we are leaving to the next generation.

                          ____________________