[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2430-H2436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RAISING THE DEBT LIMIT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, tonight we want to come again before the
body and talk about raising the debt limit.
{time} 1930
It is fascinating, having been around this place for now almost 23
years, to hear and to see how various Members of this body react to
certain situations that come up, depending on whether they are in the
minority or in the majority. And there is no question that we have a
serious problem facing our Nation coming up beginning this week, and
then about June 28 it becomes of crisis proportion. Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill has formally requested Congress to increase the statutory
limit on the publicly held debt by $750 billion, and that is billion
with a ``b,'' up from the current level of $5.95 trillion to $6.7
trillion.
[[Page H2431]]
Just today, Secretary O'Neill wrote the Congress again telling us
that he will use up our borrowing authority by the end of this week and
that we will have to begin juggling with the books in order to avoid a
default, and by the end of June, at the latest, he will run out of
maneuvers.
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report indicating
that revenues are coming in much lower than expected and the deficit
will be much higher than they projected earlier this year. It is likely
we will borrow the entire Social Security trust fund and then some and
still have a deficit of over $150 billion this year.
The need for an increase in the debt limit of the magnitude requested
by the administration cannot be explained by the economy and cost of
the war. The administration projects that under the President's budget
policies the national debt will be roughly $2.75 trillion more debt
than was projected at the beginning of last year, before the
President's budget policies and this body enacted them. The cost of the
war and the downturn in the economy explain roughly $800 billion of
that increase in projected debt, which leaves nearly $1.9 trillion more
debt than was projected a year ago that is not explained by spending on
the war on terrorism or the economic downturn.
In fact, the administration acknowledged prior to September 11 that
the debt limit would need to be raised much earlier than it projected
when the President submitted his initial budget proposal in January.
Last August, the administration indicated that it expected that the
debt limit would have to be increased in 2003, 5 years earlier than
they projected when the budget was submitted. Well, a year ago, the
administration indicated that we would not need to raise the debt limit
for 7 years and actually claimed that there was a danger that the
government would actually pay off the debt held by the public too
quickly.
The Blue Dogs warned about the danger of making long-term commitments
for tax cuts or new spending programs based on projected surpluses and
proposed setting aside half of the on-budget surplus for a cushion to
protect against unforeseen changes. In fact, we supported a budget here
about a year ago that would have been much more conservative than the
budget that passed and was signed into law; but we, being in the
minority, lost.
It is interesting when one listens to the leadership of this body,
and here let me give a little quote. When President Clinton asked for a
new bill to increase the debt limit, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey), now the majority leader of this body, said: ``He will get it,
but with conditions.'' That was January 23, 1996. The same majority
leader of this body, responding on April 9, called the debate over
raising the debt limit ``an academic question'' and described the whole
idea of a debt ceiling as ``political.'' He said, ``My recommendation
is to take the President's number and move it. Whatever number that is,
I don't care.'' On January 23, 1996, the majority leader said, ``House
Republicans insist that any increase in the debt limit must be tied to
substantial concessions by the White House in talks over balancing the
Federal budget.'' On April 10, 2002, the same majority leader of this
body said, ``Congress and the House of Representatives should quickly
approve President Bush's request for a $750 billion increase in the
on's borrowing authority.''
Now, I agreed with Majority Leader Armey 6 years ago when there was a
Democrat in the White House that was not putting forward a plan that
would bring us into balance as quickly as we needed to. I agreed with
the majority leader then, but I disagree with him tonight; and I
disagree with the leadership of this body in refusing to put forward a
plan to get us back on a balanced budget for our country.
That is what the Blue Dogs wrote the Speaker of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), last Friday. The leadership of
our Blue Dogs sent a letter to Speaker Hastert in which we offered in
good faith to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
to put together a blueprint, a new budget, if you please, that would
get us back on a path of balancing our budget and getting out of the
Social Security trust funds.
Now, I do not know why the leadership of this House has suddenly
taken such a turn that we have seen taken over the last several years
in which very seldom are ideas from this side of the aisle ever taken
into serious consideration. Just last Thursday, we had the defense
authorization bill on this floor, supported tremendously in a
bipartisan way, as they always are. But we had a situation there that I
do not recall seeing in previous years, in which Members on this side
of the aisle had amendments but were denied the opportunity to have
their amendment taken up and voted on on the floor of the House.
My colleague who will join me in just a moment, the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), had a couple of not unreasonable amendments.
He felt very strongly that this body, the Congress, and the House of
Representatives in particular, should have had an opportunity to debate
whether or not we are going to have a new base closing commission. Not
an unreasonable request. We had amendments that were allowed that had
10 minutes, 20 minutes; but the gentleman from Mississippi was denied.
He exercised his right to express himself, and I hope the leadership of
this body listened to what the gentleman was saying last Thursday.
What the gentleman was saying is, this body, the House of
Representatives, has been the envy of most of the rest of the world
since our very creation, in which individuals have the right and the
opportunity to bring up their ideas and have them discussed on the
floor of the House and voted upon. What is so unusual about that and
what is it that seems now that in most cases we do not have the kind of
committee hearings, we do not have a rule that allows various Members
to express themselves on this floor?
Well, tonight, we take this hour to talk about our willingness on
this side of the aisle to work with our colleagues, if there are any on
the other side that are interested, in restoring fiscal sovereignty,
fiscal strength to the budget of the United States of America. We say
this and we are prepared to offer some suggestions. In fact, it is
interesting, there are very few of these suggestions that are new. They
have all been tried. It matters not which side of the aisle. So this is
what we want to talk about tonight.
We would like to see, before we vote to increase how much money our
country can borrow, we would like to see a new plan, because the
current plan is now telling us that we will have deficits as far as the
eye can see. And as one Member who has spent a good part of the last 6
years trying to work in a bipartisan way, in a bicameral way on Social
Security reform, it pains me quite a bit to see that we cannot even
bring that subject up and talk about it. I hope that changes also.
Tonight we just want to again renew our offer, our plea to the
majority of this body that before we increase our debt ceiling, let us
take another look at the budget plan that we are operating under. If my
colleagues on the other side want votes on our side, we have already
said we will give those votes to increase the debt ceiling, but not
$750 billion with a blank check.
We are perfectly willing to give an increase in the debt ceiling that
will get us to September 30 of this year. Let us wait and see how the
CBO reestimates the spending and the revenue that are going to be
coming in; and then let us take that new estimate and when we come back
in September, let us pass a new budget, one of the better things we
could do for the economy of this country.
And in so doing, then we would be prepared to offer another short-
term debt ceiling increase to get us to next April or May. Again, let
the new Congress come back, the new Congress that will be elected in
November, and let us see what our economy is doing come January and a
new round of budget discussions and budget debates. It seems to us that
that makes sense. But it seems to the other side of the aisle that, no,
we passed a budget last year, and we are going to stay with it no
matter what.
The budget that was passed last year assumed 100 percent of the
projected surplus and left no margin for error. We put ourselves on a
course to run up our debt. Now that circumstances have changed, the
projected surpluses have disappeared. And while we agree that
[[Page H2432]]
the unforeseen war on terrorism and economic downturn have had an
impact on the budget in the short term, we do not believe that these
events should be used to justify a return to chronic, long-term
deficits or hide a $750 billion increase in the debt ceiling.
The leadership of this body has indicated that they plan to slip
language into the supplemental appropriation bill that will allow them
to hide an increase in the debt limit in an omnibus conference report
without any debate or vote. We do not believe that we should use a
spending bill to fight the war on terrorism to hide or justify a long-
term $750 billion increase in the debt ceiling absent a plan to improve
our long-term fiscal position.
Members on the other side were very willing to stand up and take
credit when we were passing legislation that put us into the situation
we face today and made an increase in the debt limit necessary. They
should be willing to stand up and be counted now that it has come time
to pay the bills by raising the debt limit.
We need a plan. Before Congress votes to raise the debt ceiling by
$750 billion, the President must work with Congress to put the fiscal
house back in order, just as a family facing financial problems must
work with a bank to establish a financial plan in order to get approval
to refinance their debts. We will not vote to approve an increase in
the debt limit to allow the government to continue on the current
course of deficits as far as the eye can see.
Let me quote another leader of our House, my fellow colleague, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), when he said, ``We said from the
beginning of this Congress that we want to negotiate with the
President. But we cannot negotiate with a President that does not want
to balance the budget. We do not want to negotiate over whether to
balance the budget or not, we want him to submit a budget that balances
by CBO, which he called for. We will negotiate with him in the
parameters of a balanced budget and negotiate over the priorities
within that balanced budget. But if the President cannot submit one,
how do we negotiate apples with oranges? You know, the saying goes, if
at first you do not succeed try, try again.''
Here again, this is one Member that agreed with the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay) back when he was talking to a different President. We
agree tonight. And I do not believe that we should have a confrontation
with this White House over this matter. I think the confrontation is
right here within the House of Representatives. And that is what the
Blue Dogs are offering again, the willingness to work with our friends
on the other side of the aisle to come up with a new budget plan that
does get us back into balance.
{time} 1945
Mr. Speaker, with those opening remarks I turn to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and yield to him to continue this discussion.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) will note that in the 6 years that our Republican
colleagues have controlled the House, despite the talk of desiring a
balanced budget, they have scheduled but one vote on a balanced budget
amendment. I regret to say they are not as serious about a balanced
budget as they promised the American people. But then again, they make
a lot of promises that they do not keep.
I remember this one in particular. I remember flying up from my
district in 1995 around Christmas when there was a government shutdown
going on. The children of folks who had a mom or dad in a veterans'
hospital were concerned. People in the shipping business wanted to know
if the channels were going to get dredged. Americans were worried about
illegal immigration and if the staff of a veterans' hospital were going
to show up. There were a lot of concerns about shutting down the
government.
One of the ways that the Republican leadership tried to mislead the
American public that everything was fine, they ran this ad. This is
Haley Barbour, the former head of the Republican National Party, a
fellow Mississippian. It starts off, heard the one about the
Republicans cutting Medicare, and he is holding a check for a million
dollars, your name here.
It says, the fact is the Republicans are increasing Medicare spending
by more than half. I am Haley Barbour, and I am so sure of that fact
that I am willing to give you this check for a million bucks if you can
prove me wrong. Sounds simple, right?
So here is the challenge. Here is why you have no chance for the
million dollars, and it is a form to be filled out. It says, ``The
Republican National Committee will present a cashier's check for $1
million to the first American who can prove the following statement is
false: In November, 1995, U.S. House and Senate passed a balanced
budget bill. It increases total Federal spending on Medicare by more
than 50 percent from 1995 to 2002 pursuant to the Congressional Budget
Office standards.'' Responses must be postmarked by December 20, 1995.
I guess I am one budget wonk, I do follow these things, and I knew
from the minute that he printed that ad, that it was a lie. You see,
the budget that passed in 1995 was projected to be $200 billion in
deficits; and let us remember, we are not talking a small amount of
money. A lot of Americans pay $1,000 a month on their house or rent
note. If you made that payment 1,000 times, you have spent a million
dollars. If you made that payment a thousand more times, you have then
spent a billion dollars. The budget that he is calling balanced was
$200 billion in deficit.
So I called the Congressional Budget Office, and I got a copy of
their budget projections; and I went over to the Republican National
Committee and left a letter for Mr. Barbour saying you have misled the
American people. As a matter of fact, it is false, and I would like the
million dollars. And since I used my office to do this research, I do
not think it would be fair for me to keep the money, so I am going to
give it to the University of Southern Mississippi to train people to be
better mathematicians than you are. That was in December of 1995.
At the time Mr. Barbour said this, our Nation was $4.973 trillion in
debt, but he promised the American people to have passed a balanced
budget bill. At the end of that year, their budget added $250 billion
to the deficit. A year later, $190 billion more. A year later, $113
billion more. A year later, $146 billion more; all of the way up to
year 2000, another $20 billion.
What particularly irks me is after answering Mr. Barbour's challenge,
and about 80 other folks around the country did so, the Republican
National Committee, instead of saying gee, we misled you or maybe
admitting they made a mistake, they sued us. I had to hire a lawyer to
defend myself for filling out their form. The case is still now in
court, interestingly enough. But Mr. Barbour, not only did you not
balance the budget, but since the passage of that bill, we have added
over $1 trillion to the national debt.
See, like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I was appalled
when a year ago a lot of my colleagues, the Speaker of the House, the
majority leader, the majority whip were running around saying
Washington is awash in money, huge surpluses as far as the eye can see.
We do not know what to do with the money; therefore, we have to pass
these tax cuts.
When the President said that a year ago right now, our Nation was
$5,661,347,798,002.65 in debt. Since the passage of the tax cuts, the
debt has increased by $323 billion. For those following this debate, I
am going to do something a little different than what the Speaker or
the majority leader and the President of the United States did. I am
going to ask Americans to check my numbers. They are available to every
American at www.publicdebt.treas.gov/, and see for yourself just how
broke America is.
What is particularly galling, for those with teenagers who have a
job, and who look on their pay stub and say, What is this FICA?, that
is your Social Security taxes; and they are taken with the solemn
promise that they are to be spent on nothing but Social Security.
If we could find the mythical lockbox that a lot of presidential
candidates talked about, and opened it up, all that would be there is
an IOU for $1.260 trillion.
Further down on the pay stub we see money is deducted for the Federal
health insurance program, Medicare. In that lockbox all we would find
is $263
[[Page H2433]]
billion is owed. The money has been spent on other things.
If you work for the Department of Defense and wanted to find their
so-called lockbox, $167 billion is owed to it. The Civil Service
Retirement Fund, a lot of people work for our Nation, border agents,
people in the Customs Department, Coast Guard, $527 billion is owed to
their trust fund right now.
Mr. Speaker, you have been the Speaker for almost 4 years. You come
from the party that claims to be for fiscal responsibility. Yet in the
4 years you have been Speaker, you have not scheduled one vote on a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Almost every city has that.
When I was a city councilman down in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, I
remember the city attorney telling me next month we are going to put
together the budget and it has to balance. If it does not balance, you
and other council members are personally liable for the difference
between what is collected in taxes and what is spent. I can assure
Members, we balanced the budget.
A couple of years later I was elected to the State senate.
Mississippi has a balanced budget amendment to its constitution. Again
we were informed that if we spent more money than we collected in
taxes, that we could be thrown out of office. Those are good rules.
They are very good rules because it prevents this kind of nonsense from
happening.
What is particularly distressing about this $5.984 trillion debt that
the President wants to raise by another $750 billion, if the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) were on this floor on January 1, 1980, that
number would have been less than $1 trillion. What is particularly
disturbing is that the children of the greatest generation, if they do
not change the way they are doing things, could be remembered as the
worst generation. I do believe that my parents' generation was the
best. They survived the Great Depression, got us through World War II,
Korea, Vietnam, built the highway systems, the Intercoastal Waterway;
and they did it all for less than $1 trillion in debt. As a matter of
fact, if we went all of the way from the time George Washington became
President until Ronald Reagan became President, our Nation was less
than $1 trillion in debt. Now 20-something years later, we are almost
$6 trillion in debt, and yet we cannot have a vote on a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I know you are a busy man, and I know the time on this
floor is very busy. But you know what, today you scheduled a vote on
the Nutria Eradication Act, and it is important to protect the
marshland on the Chesapeake, it is important to those folks, and I know
that they are doing a lot of damage to the marsh; but you scheduled 40
minutes of debate on the Nutria Eradication Act, and yet we cannot have
a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
You scheduled another vote on concessions maintenance and wildlife
refuge repair, and wildlife refuges are very important to a lot of
Americans and seeing that they are properly maintained is important.
You scheduled 40 minutes of debate on that, and yet you cannot find
time to have a debate on a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
We found time to talk about the Waco Mammoth Site Area Study. They
want to see whether or not they want to put a park there. You scheduled
40 minutes of debate, yet you cannot find time to have a debate on a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
As a matter of fact, you found time for all of those things, yet you
did not have time to let this body decide whether or not we wanted to
vote to kill the whole base closure process.
I particularly think base closures is a particularly dumb idea. It is
not saving the taxpayers a dime; it puts a heck of a lot of people out
of work. It has lost us vital defense installations like Cecil Field
outside of Jacksonville, Florida. Three 8,000-foot runways, another
10,000-foot runway. Right now our military is looking for a place to
put the new Joint Strike Fighter, they are looking for a place to put
the F-18 E and Fs, and they are going to spend billions of tax dollars
to build a brand new field for them when Cecil Field would have been a
perfect match. The problem is that a previous round of base closures
closed Cecil Field, and we gave the property away.
That was not done just once or twice; it was done over a hundred
times around the United States of America. Places like the Presidio in
San Francisco, given away. Places like Governor's Island off New York
City, just a month ago the President gave it away. I was stationed on
that island. It is probably worth half a billion dollars. The President
gave it away.
Time after time, the so-called savings of BRAC were not; but there
was one thing they did not tell the American public, before they gave
these properties away, they had to clean them up. And we spent over $13
billion of money to clean up bases that were given away so that the
local governments could do what they wanted with them. In many
instances, they sold them, and their city reaps a profit.
Mr. Speaker, you find time for a lot of fund-raisers and charitable
events, and that I applaud. I would hope in the time remaining when you
are Speaker, and you are guaranteed to be Speaker until December 31,
that you would find time for this House to vote on a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution so this generation can start digging
itself out of the label of being the worst generation.
There is not one parent in America who would walk into the local
Cadillac or BMW dealership and say, I want the most expensive car on
the lot, and you can bill my 5-year-old 20 years from now when they are
working, and let them pay the interest on it, too. There is not one
American who would say I want the most expensive house in the county, I
do not care what it costs because I have a 4-year-old grandchild, let
them pay for it. But that is precisely what this generation of
Americans is doing by running up $5 trillion worth of debt in the past
22 years. There is no end in sight.
Mr. Speaker, if you care about kids and grandkids, if you really care
about the future of this country that so many other Americans
sacrificed their lives for, why not schedule a vote to see that it is
here for our kids and grandkids? What is so terrible is not only owing
that money, but until it is paid off, every single day, $1 billion of
the taxpayers' money is squandered on interest on that debt; and one-
third of that interest is owned to German and Japanese lending
institutions.
If the thought of two lending institutions of two foreign countries
owning one-third of the American debt and being in a position to wreck
our economy anytime they want, if that does not frighten the gentleman,
I am sorry. It does frighten me.
I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the Blue Dogs
for writing the Speaker and asking for a vote on a balanced budget
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I am putting you on notice right now: I will not vote to
raise the debt. Enough is enough.
{time} 2000
Mr. STENHOLM. I thank my colleague for that historic lesson there. I
happened to remember one of the happiest days in my legislative career
here in this body was in 1995 when Speaker Newt Gingrich did schedule a
vote on the balanced budget constitutional amendment and it passed with
the required two-thirds vote. I remember one of the saddest days
standing in the back of the Senate a few weeks later and watching it
lose by one vote. If it had passed the Senate at that time, we could
not have passed the budget last year that we passed and we would not be
here tonight talking about asking for a new plan, or increasing the
debt ceiling.
You could have borrowed money to fight the war. That is totally
permissible. Emergency. But you could not borrow the money, $750
billion, to give this generation a tax cut with our children and
grandchildren's money. You could not do that, any more than State and
local governments could who have to operate under a constitutional
requirement.
That is what we are here tonight to talk about, and lest we get into
what I understand happened last week when our colleagues were here and
the next speaker came up and started lambasting the farm bill because
it spends too much and, therefore, it too is contributing to the
problems that we have with our debt ceiling. Criticism
[[Page H2434]]
has arisen that Congress has passed a budget-buster farm bill. Yet
Congress has been passing ad hoc emergency assistance legislation for
the last 4 years because direct payments to support farm income were
fixed and did not increase when farm incomes fell. Ad hoc assistance
has totaled $28 billion on agricultural programs, $36 billion when you
include nutrition programs. I can show you CBO's estimates of the bill
that passed and the President signed yesterday that shows that we will
spend less dollars of our taxpayer dollars each year beginning this
year, 2002, and each year through 2011 under the bill that the
President signed yesterday. That is less dollars. That is not inflation
increases. That is less dollars. Since farm prices declined in 1998,
farm program spending has averaged $24 billion per year. We will be
below $19.5 billion in each year projected currently under the farm
bill that passed.
Many will say that is too much money to be spent. On that we can
argue. We can argue that, yes, it is too much money to be spent, but
not if you live in farm country, not if you have been experiencing
prices received at the marketplace that approximate Depression-era
prices. Does this farm bill solve all of that? No, it does not. But one
thing it does do, it gives predictability to our farmers and gives us
an opportunity to answer the long-term problem, one of which I hope the
Senate will soon do, and that is pass trade promotional authority so
our President and his representatives can sit down and begin
negotiating away the tremendous amount of subsidies that are present in
the world today, including our own.
The spending for this bill the President signed yesterday was
approved in the congressional budget passed in 2001 that contained the
$1.6 trillion tax cut. The spending for the ag bill was in the same
budget. Congress has stayed within this budget in passing the bill. New
estimates have shown both the cost of the legislation increasing $9.3
billion and the cost of current farm programs increasing $8.3 billion.
These estimates are part of the same economic changes that have
contributed to the surpluses of 2001 becoming the deficits of 2002.
I do not stand here tonight to say we shut our eyes to any part of
the budget. The farm bill we passed last week fit within the budget
resolution we passed last year. It is not fair to single out
agriculture for being a budget buster when we complied with the budget
resolution if we are not willing to revisit all other tax and spending
items that were included in the budget resolution.
That is why we have come here to argue that we need a new budget
resolution that responds to the changes in the budget outlook which
looks at the entire budget.
We on the Committee on Agriculture are prepared to do our share in
making tough choices to reduce spending on our programs if it is part
of a comprehensive plan that puts everything on the table and makes
tough choices across the board.
This seems to escape a lot of people. There are those that believe we
should not spend one penny in subsidizing our farmers. They completely
ignore what is happening out there in the world. When other countries
have the advantage of a weak currency compared to our strong dollar, I
do not care whether you are producing cotton, wheat, corn, sugar,
widgets, airplanes, you name it, it is very difficult to compete when
we have as strong a dollar as we have and other countries have weak
currency. That is a temporary phenomenon. It was kind of like seemingly
that our income, our tax incomes were going to go up as far as the eye
could see because we have come through a very, very good period of
economic growth. The 1990s were unprecedented in economic expansion and
growth in this country. Some believed, I guess, that it would continue
to operate that way, but then, lo and behold, the stock markets quit
going up and started coming down and tax revenues came down and it
should not have taken a nuclear physicist to figure that out. But from
the standpoint of agriculture we are still out there competing in the
international marketplace and it is tough going right now.
But I made the argument last week when we passed that bill with 280
votes on the floor of the House that perhaps it is not a bad investment
for the American taxpayer to spend a few pennies of their hard-earned
money to support an agricultural system that has given America the most
abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply
at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world,
warts and all, subsidies and all, expenditures and all. No other
country in the world's people are fed within 1.5 percent of the GDP,
gross domestic product, in that country as well as Americans are,
including the cost of the farm bill.
Could we do better? I will never say that we could not do better. But
I think that some of the criticism that we are receiving from that is
criticism that should not be given with a full mouth, because many of
those who are criticizing are completely ignoring the fact that our
grocery stores are full, the prices at least as far as the farmer is
concerned and, well, let us just be totally honest, as far as the cost
of food to the American people, no other country in the world is fed
within 1.5 percent of the gross domestic product, and I submit to you
tonight that it is because of farm policy that we followed in the past.
Things like the conservation title of this farm bill, the largest
single increase in the history of our country in one bill. Yet some who
purport to be environmentalists are criticizing it. It did not quite do
it the way they wanted it done. There again, that is the American way.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
The research, another strong part of this farm bill, continuing to
put some investment of our taxpayer dollars into research in finding
new and better ways and safer ways to grow our food.
Rural development. Out in rural America, things are not all going
real well. Whether it be health care, whether it be education, whether
it be jobs, all are directly dependent upon a sound and healthy farm
income and we do not have one. That is why I think almost two-thirds of
this body and two-thirds of the Senate passed and why the President
signed the bill yesterday.
But I repeat, tonight we are talking about the debt ceiling and I am
not about to stand on this floor and be as two-faced as some of the
leaders of this body are when they say one thing when they are talking
6 years ago and they say another thing today. Increasing the debt limit
is serious business. Having a budget game plan for this country that
will get us back into a surplus or balanced budget, not so much a
surplus although I would like to see us run a surplus and pay down a
little more of our debt, and I would like to see us address the
problems of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and do that before
we do some of the other things that we are now talking about doing with
the current economic game plan. We are not tonight suggesting to play
politics with the debt limit, and we are certainly not trying to force
a crisis.
Again, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we, at least a good number of us on
this side of the aisle, are prepared to vote to increase the debt
ceiling, but not $750 billion, and not until we have a new economic
blueprint in place. We do not think that is unreasonable. It is exactly
what you as the majority party were saying when it was a Democrat in
the White House, exactly what you were saying then. You were right
then. I repeat, you were right 6 years ago in forcing President Clinton
to have a new economic game plan that ultimately came and brought us to
the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. You were right then. Why are you
insisting on being so wrong today?
We are willing to support a temporary increase in the debt limit to
meet the expenses of the war and allow government to meet its
obligations, but hold off on a long-term increase in the debt until we
have a plan in place. We do not want to force a default on the debt,
but we do want to use this debate as an opportunity to reexamine our
long-term budget policies. It would be irresponsible to provide a blank
check for increased borrowing authority without taking action to
protect taxpayers from even further increases in the national debt.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the need of
scheduling another vote on the balanced budget constitutional
amendment. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and others, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) on the other side of the aisle,
are pushing for just that. I
[[Page H2435]]
hope we will see that vote later this year. We also would like to see
some strong budget enforcement rules. They are just as important a
component in restoring fiscal discipline and making sure the budget
remains in balance once we have done the hard work necessary to bring
it back into balance. The provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act of
1990 expire this year. Unless we renew our budget discipline, Congress
will continue to find ways to break its own rules and pass more
legislation that puts still more red ink on the national ledger.
Enforceable spending limits will serve as a fiscal guardrail to keep
our spending within the Nation's fiscal means. The Blue Dog ABC's plan
includes legislation introduced by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hill) which would extend and strengthen the provisions of the Budget
Enforcement Act that are set to expire this year. This legislation is
similar to budget enforcement legislation introduced by Budget
Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, but extends budget enforcement for 5
years and adds several provisions to improve enforcement of budget
rules and increase accountability in the budget process.
I know what Chairman Nussle wants to do. I think there are some areas
that we can in fact have some bipartisan support for because having
meaningful caps on discretionary spending, all 13 appropriations bills,
meaningful so that we live within them, is something that is good
budget policy and will help be a significant part of this new budget
plan that we have talked about.
Again, I repeat, those of us on Agriculture do not ask for an
exemption. Far from it. We believe that we should be part of any
changes in the budget process, including the criticism that is coming
of our farm bill from some of our foreign friends, competitors. We have
no intention, at least the bill that the President signed yesterday,
there is certainly no intention by the President of the United States
and no intention of the House Committee on Agriculture that we would
not live up to the agreements that we have signed and agreed to live
within and under in previous trade negotiations. What we said this
time, though, is that we intend to have our negotiators negotiate from
strength. We are allowed to spend in support of our agriculture in this
country $19.1 billion per year. We do not intend to spend $19.11
billion, or less if necessary, and I hope it is necessary that we spend
less, because one thing I hope the general public understands, the only
reason we are having spending at the level that we are today in support
of agricultural products is the fact that we have Depression-era
prices.
{time} 2015
Cotton is selling for 30 cents a pound and less; wheat, less than $3
a bushel; and corn, about $2 a bushel. These are the same price levels
that we saw back in the 1950s. If one's salary was 1950s vintage, one
had better be a lot more productive today than you were then, or you
would not be making too good of a living today. That is why, if prices
go up, the amount of subsidization goes down.
Certainly I think the whole world would be better off if the amount
of subsidization goes down, not up. We are perfectly willing, in the
next round of negotiations, assuming the Senate will get on with doing
their job in passing the trade promotional authority and we can get on
with the negotiating, to reduce the amount of eligibility of
subsidization in the United States on a par basis with other countries.
The same is true on the budget.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Phelps), let me just conclude by saying that there are a significant
number of Democrats who would be willing to support an increase in the
debt limit as part of a responsible plan to restore fiscal discipline.
The approach outlined by the Blue Dogs, an immediate, temporary
increase in the debt limit with a larger increase allowed as part of a
plan to put the budget on a path to balance, accompanied by strong
budget enforcement legislation, provides a road map for a bipartisan
solution to our fiscal problems and gridlock on the debt limit.
That is our offer. We think it is a reasonable offer. We would like
very much to be included in being part of the solution, because
borrowing another $750 billion on our grandchildren's future is not the
best option for us to be considering in this year of 2002, one of those
years divisible by 2.
I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
The experience and wisdom that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm),
my good friend, brings to this body is invaluable, and I have watched
him very closely since I have been a Member of Congress, almost 4 years
now, and I have followed his lead as a member of the Committee on
Agriculture and our standing leader and ranking member there, and one
cannot go too wrong if one follows the reasoning and the thinking of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). So I thank the gentleman for
his input tonight. As a member of the Blue Dog organization and one of
the leaders of that group that the gentleman founded, I thank the
gentleman for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight on such an
important issue.
I know that we have been here week after week, night after night as a
group to try to drive a message home, one that many times is not all
that popular and not easy to accept. But when we took our oath of
office I, for one, took it very seriously to make sure that the
citizens in my district, in my State, and in this Nation absolutely
understand the truth and the numbers that we are dealing with and that
the decisions we make each day reflect what accuracy is all about, and
that we project that on to the taxpayers, to the voters, to the general
public.
The Blue Dogs have consistently focused on fiscal discipline, having
always advocated honesty and responsibility in the budgeting process.
When Congress considered the budget last year, the Blue Dogs warned
about the danger of making long-term commitments for tax cuts or new
spending programs based on projected surpluses. Now, in less than a
year's time, we have seen a dramatic reversal of the once promising
budgetary outlook. We now face projections of deficits and increasing
debt for the rest of the decade that go far beyond the temporary impact
of the economic downturn or cost of the war on terrorism, which we all
support and which we must address and do it quickly and effectively.
Congress and the President, as the gentleman from Texas said, need to
sit down, roll up our sleeves, and have an honest discussion about what
we need to do to put the budget back in order, starting with the
program that the Blue Dogs have outlined over the last several weeks,
the ABCs of Fiscal Discipline. Remember, we are here to deal with the
truth. The numbers that come into the Capitol's coffers, to the U.S.
Treasury should be clear. There should not be all that much confusion
on what we have on hand, what we have obligated to spend, and what we
are thinking about embracing for future costs.
Now, there are a lot of things that have happened in the last year,
in the last several months that have been unpredicted. Who would have
thought we would have had the horrific events of September 11 that hurt
our Nation in many ways, and it impacted us in an economic way. But we
have other things that have happened: the recession, the tax cuts, and
other spending that has been proposed and on the table now that we can
control, that is within our control, and that is why I think people
send us here to Congress to represent them.
My father is 81 years old, sitting out there now just recovering from
a heart attack not quite 2 weeks ago. I remember his words and his
generation, the elders of my church and the people that I think deal
with wisdom more so than many of us in this generation. If you do not
stand for something, you will fall for anything. Little did I know that
a country music artist would come along and make $1 million on that. If
I had known that, I would have written the song if I had thought of it,
I say to the gentleman. But it is so true. If one is not solid on
something that is very important, a matter of one's convictions, and
one does not try to pursue that goal in all the honesty and the
fortitude that one can muster up, things go wrong. A lot of things come
along that sound good and will divert you this way and that way,
distract you from the real goal, from the real truth.
[[Page H2436]]
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to accept sometimes what the real truth is,
but the fact of the matter is, we have a huge debt, and we have to
assure the American people that we will be honest and accountable.
People out there that work hard and play by the rules every day,
surely, surely their elected officials such as us that are here in this
body can afford them accountability and honesty in dealing with the
numbers.
The Congressional Budget Office has reported numbers; the Office of
Management and Budget, the administration's fiscal reporting group,
offer some other numbers. Remember, I come from the State of Illinois,
but make no mistake, I live almost 400 miles south of Chicago. So it is
really a different world which I represent, largely rural, small
farming area, coal mines, small businesses, people that are just
dedicated to generational hand-me-down crafts and work ethic that is
invaluable and immeasurable. But when I served 14 years in the Illinois
House, I saw the same thing happen there, the frustration of here is
the Economic Fiscal Commission reporting how much money they predicted
would come in or projected revenues or what is on hand, and then the
Bureau of the Budget, the Governor's reporting office. Well, guess
what? The Bureau of the Budget reported a year or so ago, almost 2\1/
2\, 3 years ago when the Governor took office in Illinois that we had
over $1 billion in surpluses. Guess what they all can agree on now? Mr.
Speaker, a $1.5 billion hole in the Illinois budget, and they are like
a lot of States scrambling to try to come to the rescue to know what to
do. And then the decisions that they were elected to make become even
tougher decisions.
What can we do? Well, I think we need to avoid what is always
obvious. How would we in the world agree to the rosiest projections of
5 to 10 years on the very best of what can happen, rather than
preparing for what could be the worst? That is, to me, beyond reason
and comprehension. So budget enforcement. Unless we renew budget
discipline, Congress will continue to find ways to break its own rules
and pass more legislation that puts still more red ink on the national
ledger. Enforceable budget restraints will shine a light on deceptive
practices and construct a fiscal guardrail, keeping our spending within
the Nation's fiscal means, which is what we ask of the American people
and families to do every year, every day, and what they do is stay
within their means. Those that are not staying within their means have
the credit card debt stacked up; they have marriages falling apart
because of financial problems that they brought on themselves. What I
have found in life is that most of the problems that come their way are
not from some uncontrollable force; they are self-induced. We bring
them on ourselves. That is what we have done here. Maybe it has taken
decades and generations before us, other people that have served, and
other administrations, but we collectively, all of us, have to take
responsibility. So now collectively, let us admit we have problems. We
had September 11, we had recession, and we had tax cuts that gave 55
percent of the surpluses or more back, and now we have a problem. Where
is the new plan? Where are the people that want to be responsible
enough to step forward and say, let us sit down together as reasonable
people on both sides of the aisle or Independent, whatever one claims
to be, and work out of this mess. Not hope for the best and keep our
blinders on, but what shall we do?
Well, we need a balanced budget constitutional amendment, which I
have signed on as a cosponsor and feel should require the President and
Congress to submit and to enact a budget that is balanced, without
using the Social Security surplus. This amendment could be waived, of
course, in special times of war or military conflict or threats of
national security. But for the first time, all of the other balanced
budget constitutional amendments have been presented without addressing
whether or not we would use Social Security. This one we intend to
bring forth to say we should not use the Social Security Trust Fund. We
should balance the budget, and if we borrow from our children and our
grandchildren, then we get ourselves in a deeper mess.
So I hope that the Balanced Budget Amendment, constitutional
amendment, excluding the Social Security Trust Fund, would be one way
that we can show, one way that we can have a plan as to how we intend
to get our fiscal house in order.
I could say much more, there are so many other parts of the ABCs, but
in order the give time for other Members before we close out our time,
I will yield back.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be a member of the fiscally
responsible Blue Dog Coalition and to be fighting with the gentleman,
along with my other Blue Dog colleagues, for simple common sense in
budgeting. A lot of people think there is a lot of complications and
complexities with respect to how we budget in Washington, but the way
we do it should be no different than any household in America budgets,
how any small business budgets. We have to make sure that we have the
revenues. We have to make sure that the books are balanced. We have to
make sure that the checkbook is reconciled at the end of the month. If
we do not have revenues, somehow we increase them. I voted for every
single tax cut we could because the American people need that kind of
tax relief. Some say we have to cut expenses. What is there to cut? Are
we going to cut prescription drugs? Are we going to cut Social
Security? Are we going to cut defense budgets? Nobody supports that.
Others say we should borrow the money.
But there is another thing that we can do. We do not want to borrow
the money. We do not want to ask our children to shoulder the burden
for the fiscally irresponsible decisions that we make in Washington.
There is another alternative. Once again it was brought to our
attention in today's New York Times in a story by Paul Krugman called
The Great Evasion. We are losing about $70 billion a year in revenues
by irresponsible and unpatriotic American corporations who rush off to
Bermuda, open up mail drops in Bermuda, say that they are now doing
business as foreign corporations and do not have to pay their fair
share of taxes. They wrap themselves in the American flag to sell their
products and then renounce their American citizenship to do business
abroad and do not pay their fair share of taxes.
Now, there are colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have had
enough of this kind of irresponsible behavior. Rather than increasing
taxes, which so few of us want to do, and rather than gutting important
programs, which so few of us want to do, it is time for the
administration to step up to the plate and say, enough is enough.
{time} 2030
We are not going to allow American corporations to run to these
Bermudan tax havens, flee their fair share of taxes. No American family
is permitted to do that. No American family was able to register
themselves in Bermuda to escape their fair share of taxes. We should
not allow American corporations to do that as well.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
____________________