Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 66 (Tuesday, May 21, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 21, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2810-H2815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BLUE DOG COALITION TAKES STRONG POSITION REGARDING DEBT CEILING

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here tonight to address a
very important issue, the issue of fiscal responsibility, and I am
joined tonight by some of my colleagues who are members of the Blue Dog
Democrat coalition. That group of 33 Democrats in the House who believe
in fiscal responsibility, who believe in balanced budgets, who believe
in controlling spending, who believe in paying down our national debt,
which now consumes, just to pay the interest, 14 cents out of every tax
dollar. In fact, $1 out of every $4 of individual income tax payments
made into the Treasury every year goes solely to pay the interest on
our national debt.
The Blue Dogs have taken a very strong position with regard to an
issue that is pending before this House and may very well be debated
this week, and that is the issue of the debt ceiling. As we all know,
there is a law on the books that controls the amount of debt that the
United States Government can incur. That statutory debt ceiling has now
been reached and, just in the last few days, the Secretary of the
Treasury has been manipulating our Federal accounts to ensure that we
do not go into default with regard to the obligations of the Federal
Government. In fact, the Secretary of the Treasury has used the Federal
Employees Retirement Fund as a means of

[[Page H2811]]

avoiding, violating the statutory debt ceiling. And for a period of
time, until the Congress acts to increase the statutory debt ceiling,
the employees of the Federal Government will have their retirement
funds being used to avoid the default in the obligations of this
Federal Government.
The Blue Dog Democrats believe that we need to address the issue of
the debt limit in an honest and responsible way. We believe that the
debt ceiling, rather than an arbitrary amount that has no great
significance, as some would suggest when they propose that we raise the
debt ceiling by $750 billion, we believe that that debt ceiling is one
of the last tools that this Congress has to promote fiscal
responsibility and to require balanced budgets.
Just a year ago when this Congress voted the largest tax cut in
recent history, we were projecting over the next decade record
surpluses. Here we are just one year later and we no longer project
surpluses, but we are projecting deficit spending and ever-growing
national debt.
In 1997, this Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. The Balanced
Budget Act was one of the first pieces of major legislation that I
voted on as a freshman member of this Congress. It put us on the road
to fiscal responsibility and for 4 years this Congress produced
balanced budgets. In fact, we produced budgets with surpluses, and we
were able to begin the process, the slow process of paying down our
national debt which totals close to $6 trillion today. That act was one
of the most significant pieces of legislation that this Congress has
dealt with in an effort to end the practice of deficit spending. In
fact, the Congress, for 30 years prior to 1997, engaged in deficit
spending and accumulated this almost $6 trillion national debt.
This year, the Congress, once again, is back into deficit spending.
In fact, if we look at the first 7 months of this fiscal year, we will
see that we have accumulated a $66.5 billion deficit, and many estimate
that the deficit for this fiscal year will be as high as $150 billion.
That means that we are spending the trust funds of the Federal
Government to run the rest of the government's operations. We are doing
what this Congress pledged in previous years not to do, and that is, we
are raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, the retirement fund of the
American people, to run the rest of the government. We believe that is
wrong. We believe that is fiscally irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, that $66.5 billion deficit that we already run in this
fiscal year for the first 7 months compares to a surplus that we had at
this point in time one year ago when, 7 months into the previous fiscal
year, we were running $166 billion surplus. We clearly have seen a
dramatic change in the financial picture of the Federal Government.
The Blue Dog Democrats believe that we must return to balanced
budgets, and we have a plan to get us there.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have on the floor of the House with me
tonight the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), who has been a member
of the Blue Dogs and who has stood up consistently for fiscal
responsibility, who has represented his district in the way that I
think most Americans want this Congress to be represented and that is,
he has fought for balanced budgets and for paying down the debt. It is
a privilege to have him on the floor tonight and to yield to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner) for taking the lead tonight on what has been a continuing
effort on the part of the Blue Dog Coalition to raise consciousness
about this issue, because we are about to approach what we have been
talking about for the last few weeks.
Let me just briefly review the circumstances that we have gotten into
at this point.
By law, Congress has to set the debt limit for how much debt this
country can have. We have had the benefit in the last few years of
running some surpluses, so Congress has not had to vote on the debt
limit for a while.

{time} 2130

Now, I am a newcomer to this Congress. This is my first term. I came
in with a stated desire to carry on with the Blue Dog agenda of being
fiscally responsible, of trying to pay down our debt. Those are
critical issues for me.
Now, circumstances have changed and some of these things, of course,
no one could predict. With the events of September 11, the ensuing war
on terrorism, the need for additional resources for homeland security,
and a recession that this country has faced, the projections have
turned around. We are running deficits, as the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner) just indicated.
We understand that as Blue Dogs that there may very well be, and in
fact I think there is, a legitimate call to increase that debt limit by
some degree because we have encountered these tough times right now.
A number of us have cosponsored legislation that calls for an
increase of $150 billion in the debt limit, coupled with the fact that
we have to sit down and identify with the President and Congress a
budget that is going to put us on a path back to balance by 2007.
We as Blue Dogs support the war on terrorism. We support efforts to
upgrade homeland security. We support those efforts wholeheartedly. We
recognize that is a need this country must address. We understand that
in that context of the short term we are going to be running a deficit
right now.
But the concern we have is this request came in, and this request
came in to raise the debt limit by $750 billion. We throw numbers
around Washington all the time, but $750 billion is a lot of money. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) just indicated that maybe the
projections this year are maybe the deficit will be $150 billion. So
why do we need to raise the debt limit by $750 billion?
The real concern, and it is something that as Blue Dogs we have been
talking about for week after week after week on the House floor, is
that we are being asked to increase this limit by this huge amount with
no indication of a plan on how we are going to get out of this deficit
spending. There is no indication of a plan that someday we are going to
turn this around and not saddle future generations with more and more
debt.
There are a lot of people in this body on both sides of the aisle who
strongly desire a reduction in the tax burden on our society. Well, in
terms of future generations we are not doing them any favors, because
we are piling up debt, and the tax burden is going to be laid on them
to pay the interest on that debt.
So that is really the issue we have been trying to raise over the
last few months: Why, why $750 billion? Why give Congress and the
administration in effect a blank check to run up that much more debt
over the next few years with no plan to turn it around?
We have come on the House floor, and we have talked about how, in the
private sector, when you go out and borrow money, whether it is for a
car or a home mortgage, or whether you are a business getting a loan,
when you go to the bank you have to be able to tell the bank a story, a
credible story about how you are going to pay the debt back. They are
not just going to give you the loan without you justifying your
capability and identifying a plan for how you are going to pay that
back.
Blue Dogs do not claim to have every answer in the book, but we
certainly claim to have the desire to sit down, put the papers and
numbers out on the table, and let us articulate a way, let us identify
a way to turn this financial ship around, so instead of running more
deficits we can get back to balanced budgets.
As I said, we have been talking about this for many weeks. That
really brings us to where we are today. What is really disturbing is
perhaps we have got a lot of people thinking about this, and they do
not want to have this vote on whether we should increase the debt limit
by $750 billion. What we hear from reports is we are going to sneak
this debt limit increase in on the supplemental appropriations bill.

Now, this is a bill that is an important bill. The supplemental
appropriations bill is for emergency spending, and it contains
significant spending regarding defense issues that are important to
this country. Some would describe it as a ``must pass'' bill. When you
have a ``must pass'' bill, maybe there is a desire to tuck in another
provision that otherwise you do not want to have to put in front of us
for a straight up-or-down vote.

[[Page H2812]]

That is not the way we should be working here. That is not what
democracy is about. That is not what my constituents elected me to do,
and that is not what constituents across the country elected their
Members of Congress to do. They elected us to take on the issues and
stand up and be counted.
What is really interesting is this is being done in a very innocuous
way. The language that is going to be added to the supplemental
appropriations bill does not really say $750 billion. All it says,
well, there is some innocuous language about maintaining the full faith
and credit of debt obligations that this country can incur.
Then the idea is, and this is where we are getting into total inside-
Washington process discussions, and I hate to have to go into that, but
that is what is going on here, is that it is going to go to the
conference committee with the Senate and we are going to have a debt
limit increase happen, where here on the House floor, as a stand-alone
item, we will never have voted for it.
I find that a shame. I find that a shame, because we are going to set
ourselves on a path for running up massive amounts of debt. If we are
going to set ourselves on that path, then by golly, we ought to all
stand up and see who wants to vote to do that.
That would be my request of people on both sides of the aisle here in
this body, that we take the time to have a good debate and discuss
fiscal policy, fiscal responsibility, how this government is going to
move ahead in the next few years, how we can take actions to stop
running up more debt, to stop saddling the next generation with so much
debt, and to do what our constituents expect us to do.
When you come to this job, you know you are not always going to have
easy votes. You face tough votes a lot. But this is a tough vote I hope
we can face, because I fear we are not going to face that tough vote.
It is getting tucked into this other bill. It is getting tucked in
where we cannot even force an up-or-down stand-alone vote on that item.
So that really is why we are here tonight. After many weeks of
talking about this, my Blue Dog colleagues have come to the floor
Tuesday after Tuesday after Tuesday to try to raise consciousness about
this. It is something we believe in so much.
I have been so proud to be associated with the Blue Dog Coalition
because of their position on this very issue. And I pledge, first of
all, and I speak for me and for the Blue Dogs, we are ready to work
with people. We really are. We want to roll up our sleeves and try to
come up with solutions.
I would make a request that everyone on both sides of the aisle try
to join us in this effort. It is too important to play with election
year and partisan politics. This is too important, when we take a look
at the next generation. It is important we take on this issue. Let us
make sure we have a true up-or-down vote on this issue. Let us
articulate what our policy is going to be.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah. I
appreciate his strong stand for fiscal responsibility. He is so right:
we have the supplemental appropriations bill which is being considered
as we speak by the Committee on Rules of this House, and it has been
rumored that there will be an effort to sneak into that supplemental
appropriations bill, which contains needed spending to fight the war on
terrorism, language that would allow the debt ceiling to be raised
without a full and adequate debate.
Because of the significance of the growing deficit and the ever-
increasing national debt that results from that, Blue Dogs believe very
strongly that that issue should have a straight up-or-down vote by the
entire Congress and should not be tucked away out of the light of day
in some other piece of legislation.
I am pleased that we are also joined on the floor tonight by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), one of the most respected
spokespersons that we have in the House on fiscal matters, a gentleman
who has fought his entire career in the Congress, over 20 years, for
fiscal responsibility, and who has gained the respect of all his
colleagues for his consistency with regard to his interest in balancing
our budget and paying down our debts.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Texas, for the overly generous words of introduction.
Straight from the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), I want to
report that our total public debt outstanding on April 30, 2002, is
$5,984,677,357,213.86. That is up $323,329,559,211.21 in the last 12
months. That is up. We have borrowed a public debt of $323 billion.
That is what we are here tonight to talk about.
We have now reached the debt ceiling of $5.95 trillion. In fact, we
are past it as of April 3, and Secretary of the Treasury Mr. O'Neill
has asked that this debt ceiling be increased $750 billion.
The Blue Dogs have said for the last month or 6 weeks that we are
perfectly willing to give a clean up-and-down vote on increasing the
debt ceiling, not by a $750 billion blank check to spend more money,
but to pay for the war and to pay for the necessary spending, and all
that we ask is that we have a new budget plan submitted by the
administration and taken up by this Congress.
The respected Concord Coalition has come out just yesterday and urged
Congress to have swift action on increasing the debt ceiling and not to
play games with something as serious as default on the United States of
America's debt.
They are right in that, and the action that will perhaps be completed
in the Committee on Rules any moment now is suggesting that rather than
have a clean up-and-down vote on the budget ceiling, we are going to
hide it in a supplemental appropriation. And not only are we going to
hide that, we are also going to hide some additional spending.
I would predict to the gentleman tonight, we will not know it
tomorrow because this is going to be added tonight, or sometime before
we vote tomorrow, but sometime in the next 2 or 3 or 4 days we are
going to find out there was some more spending, millions and millions
and millions of dollars that was added to this supplemental emergency
spending bill. It is going to be embarrassing for all who vote for it.
Back in 1993, I participated at that time with John Kasich and Tim
Penny, and that was back when we were in the majority, Republicans were
in the minority, and many of us on both sides of the aisle had grown
quite tired of having emergency spending bills loaded up with
nonemergency spending.
We introduced a bill, and I was proud to introduce the bill, and John
Kasich, who later became chairman of the Committee on the Budget, Tim
Penny, and it passed. It was thought to be such a good rule, and it is
pretty simple: emergency spending, since it comes outside of the normal
budget rules and regulations, should not have nonemergency spending
added to it.
In fact, people thought it was so good that when my friends on the
Republican side of the aisle became in the majority, they adopted this
as one of their first rules, and it is a good rule.
My question tonight, Mr. Speaker, is why would we waive a rule, a
rule that says that only emergency spending should be on an emergency
spending bill? Why would we waive that rule and allow additional
spending? Why not stick with the House rules? Why not say to everyone
that wants to add a little extra spending to this bill: Is it an
emergency? If it is not, wait your turn on the regular appropriation
process.
That is a good question. We will ask it again tomorrow. We have a
little more time tonight, because I suspect that this rule tomorrow and
the debate will be very controlled. I suspect that there will be no
amendments allowed. I wrote a letter that I sent to the chairman of the
Committee on Rules (Mr. Dreier) today saying ``Should you choose to
waive this rule, then why not also make it consistent to those of us
who would like to take the debt ceiling and separate it from the
supplemental, and have a clean up-and-down vote on the debt ceiling--
why not allow the rule to permit that? You are playing with fire.''
In fact, we are playing with the very economy of the United States
when we take a chance that somehow in the conference that will come
back from the Senate that the debt ceiling will be applied to that
conference. That is not

[[Page H2813]]

a given. In fact, I hope that it does not come back with the debt
ceiling attached to it.
It is amazing how some of us stay inconsistent in this body. Less
than 6 years ago, 225 Republicans voted to soundly reprimand and
prohibit then Secretary Rubin from taking precisely the actions
outlined by Secretary O'Neill again this week.
The silence of the 147 Republicans who remain in the House today
implies far less anxiety about the same actions today.

{time} 2145

The fact that Secretary O'Neill must resort to short-term emergency
measures to meet our Nation's obligation drives home the fact that not
only that Congress failed to perform its duties, but also that budget
surpluses were a short-lived success which have now been replaced by
more deficit spending.
Again, lest people not understand what we are saying tonight, we Blue
Dogs are perfectly willing, in fact, we have sent letters to the
President, to the Speaker, in which we indicate we are willing to vote
to increase the debt ceiling. Not by $750 billion but enough to get us
through the August, well, the July reestimate of where we really are on
the economy. And then in October let us pass a new budget. We Blue Dogs
have suggested spending caps. In fact, we have already stated that we
are willing to live with the spending levels that are present in the
House-passed budget resolution. We are ready to go with that one and we
believe that is a reasonable amount of spending. But what we are
opposed to is hiding a very important and significant vote, hiding it
in the supplemental emergency spending, spending that is necessary to
pay for the war, something we are for.
I remember a speech my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner)
gave a few weeks ago on this subject and I have borrowed considerably
from the thought that he had that night in which the gentleman
acknowledged a little bit of concern in his own mind as to why we, this
generation, are sending our youngest and finest to risk their lives,
and we find that several have lost their lives in Afghanistan this
week, why we do that and we do it on borrowed money.
We are having to pay $1 billion a day now for interest on the
national debt. We have increased the national debt $323 billion in the
last year, and under the budget plan that we are now under that the
majority refuses, refuses to even reconsider, we are going to borrow
another trillion dollars in the next couple of years. Why would we do
that and then when our youngest and finest come home from defending
this country in the fight against terrorism, why would we do that and
then ask them to work and pay in taxes so that the interest on the debt
that we sent them over to fight with? It does not make us kind of like
the Greatest Generation, Tom Brokaw's book.
I remember the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) making that speech
and he was just as right as he could be. And I find that others are
kind of agreeing to that. I do not understand why our colleagues,
particularly some of them who purport to be conservatives and challenge
us and chastise us every time we take to the floor, at least there will
be one coming after us and saying, well, you Blue Dogs do this, you
Blue Dogs do that, but you really do not mean this. Well, judge us by
our actions and by our deeds, not by our words.
What we are saying tonight again, the Concord Coalition is right.
They urge swift action to avoid a debt crisis. By the end of June, Mr.
O'Neill will not be able to juggle the books. He will not be able to
borrow from the civil service retirement fund, from the military
retirement fund, from the Medicare trust fund. It will be fish-or-cut-
bait time.
We can avoid that tomorrow. We can avoid that tomorrow with a simple,
simple resolution that increases the debts by a smaller amount than
$750 billion, of which every Blue Dog will join with our colleagues on
the other side in doing that, provided they are willing to put a new
economic game plan in place. We think it is time to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing his
thoughts.
I know that all of us feel very strongly that this issue of the
statutory debt ceiling deserves a full and open debate of this House.
And with the national debt rising, with deficit spending back upon us,
somebody has to put on the brakes. Somebody has to say that we need to
control spending. Somebody needs to say that we ought to do the same
thing in Congress that we all have to do at our own households, and
that is we have to pay the bills. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) suggested, I have been very concerned about the fact that we
are asking young men and women to fight the war against terrorism, and
yet we are doing it on borrowed money, which means that when they get
back home and they are in their better income-earning years, they will
be the ones that will have to pay for the war that they fought.
So it seems to me that the right thing to do in Washington is the
same thing that we all try to do in our own households, and that is, we
pay our bills. We meet our obligations. We do not say that we are going
to incur debt without having a plan for repaying that debt. And that is
all that the Blue Dogs are asking with regard to the statutory debt
ceiling is to say that, yes, the economy is on the downturn. We are in
a war. Congress passed a major tax cut just a year ago and all the
surpluses that were heralded at the time we took that vote are no
longer there, and so the circumstances have changed.
Unfortunately, there seem to be many in Washington today who suggest
that even though the circumstances have changed, we do not want to do
anything differently. And we know that when our financial circumstances
change, we have to change our spending patterns. We have to change our
economic circumstances in a way that allows us to live within our
means, and Congress is not doing that today. So I am hopeful that we
will get a chance to have an honest and open debate about this debt
ceiling and we will, as Blue Dogs, support an increase of $150 billion
to account for the fact that there has been additional expenditures as
a result of war. But we have gone a long way from just a year ago when
the administration and the Secretary of the Treasury said that we will
not have to deal with the statutory debt ceiling for 7 years, to today
when we already know we have hit the statutory debt ceiling, and were
it not for the Secretary of the Treasury manipulating the employees'
retirement funds to keep the obligations of the United States
government from going into default, that we would have a catastrophe on
our hands today. And even after he pulls out all the tricks in the bag,
those are going to run out by the end of June, and this Congress will
have to raise the statutory debt ceiling in order to avoid a default on
the obligations of the United States government, in order to pay a
Social Security check, in order to be sure we pay the bills that are
keeping the military of our country operating today in Afghanistan, we
will have to raise the debt ceiling. We understand that. But we just do
not believe it is right to raise it $750 billion. In essence, giving a
blank check to this Congress and this President for ever-increasing
spending.
So we feel very strongly that we have got to draw the line here and
use this opportunity to remind this Congress and the American people
that it is important to pay your bills. It is important to control
spending. It is important to have a budget that moves us back to a
balanced budget within the next 5 years. And even to say that is being
generous because, in fact, most of us would like to see us move back to
a balanced budget next year. The problem is the Congress, through its
spending, and the Congress through the changed circumstances, and
through the large tax cut that was enacted last year, has put us in a
ditch. We are in a deficit ditch. And we have got to get ourselves out
of it, and to fail to do so is an injustice to the next generation
because the truth of the matter is the folly of unrestrained spending
today, the folly of ever-increasing national debt and deficit spending
means that our children and our grandchildren will be left to deal with
the consequences of our inability to control our own spending and to
balance our own budget.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield again to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm). I know that there is a

[[Page H2814]]

plan that we have laid out as Blue Dogs and I think it is important for
us to talk a little bit about that plan. Just the day before yesterday
several of us met together with the ranking Democrat on the Committee
on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who does
an excellent job of trying to persuade this Congress to move back
towards balanced budgets and to end deficit spending. We also had
several Blue Dogs there. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) co-
sponsored the legislation; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), one
of the co-sponsors of the legislation, along with the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and myself and the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Matheson). And that plan was a sensible plan. That was a plan
that should be supported in a bipartisan way by this Congress and by
every Member of this Congress who calls themselves a fiscal
conservative.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to
allow him to talk a little bit about that plan so we can have the
people understand tonight that what we are really trying to do is
restore fiscal responsibility.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding back.
We have the Blue Dog ABC plan. It is as simple as ABC. I have already
mentioned one tonight. We are prepared, in fact, we have indicated our
support for the House budget spending levels as indicated in the
budget, those numbers we tried to offer in our own budget this year,
but once again we are denied even having an opportunity to have an
alternative budget. But the spending levels are fine.
We need to recognize that strong budget enforcement rules are
important. The provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 expire
this year and one of the things we have learned over the last 10 years
is that meaningful caps on discretionary spending which tell our
appropriators this is how much you can spend and if you spend more, you
must offset it, it has worked. The appropriators have been responsible
when the caps were there and when they were meaningful. But the 1997
Budget Act got off, a little bit off of what would be considered
meaningful caps, particularly in the area of health care and rural
health care and what has happened when you put unrealistic caps on
without doing the policy changes.
Something else that the Blue Dogs have suggested in our plan is we
think we ought to have a vote on the balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution again; believing that as much as we would prefer not
amending the Constitution from such purpose, we believe that it would
be very helpful to have that amendment added to the Constitution so no
future president and no future Congresses can again do what is now
happening regarding the debt and borrowing money, borrowing money and
spending the money. It used to be it was tax and spend. It is now
borrow and spend. And the biggest difference between tax and spend and
borrow and spend, with the borrow and spend, our children and
grandchildren do not have a vote on it. If you tax, everyone in this
body will get unelected. If you propose taxing to pay for the spending,
that is different. But borrow and spend on our grandchildren, they do
not have a vote and that is easy to do; and that is what we will,
again, do tomorrow. And we will hide it in the supplemental emergency
spending, so that we do not have the guts to stand up and say that is
what we are going to do.
Well, some of us will not do that but, again, I repeat we are
perfectly willing to increase the debt ceiling to dig us out of the
ditch that we have dug ourselves into, even though some of us will say
we did not vote for the budget. It matters not. We are all responsible,
all 435 of us. We are perfectly willing to increase that debt ceiling.
The gentleman mentioned also the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt). One of the areas here, restore fiscal discipline, again, that
is in the bill and it will be offered. Perhaps we will have to do it on
the recommittal, perhaps we will have to do it in talking about
defeating the rule so that we might have an opportunity to provide for
a smaller debt increase. $150 billion, that would get us through to
September and then in September when we come back after the August
break, we will have a little, a little better idea of where the economy
of this country is. And we can then, in fact, deal with a new economic
game plan.
But, again, we do not seem to be getting through to our friends on
the other side. They do not seem to be willing to change the economic
game plan which will require that for the next 10 years we are going to
have to borrow at least 2.75 trillion more dollars. This $750 billion
down payment or installment is just the tip of the iceberg as to what
is going to be needed.

{time} 2200

I do not understand why our friends on the other side do not accept
the hand that the Blue Dogs are offering to them and saying let us deal
with deficit spending openly and honestly, let us deal with the debt
ceiling openly and honestly, let us put spending caps back on, but let
us revise the economic game plan that we are on so that we do not have
to borrow the full $750 billion.
And do not hide it, do not hide it in an emergency supplemental and
do not waive the rules of which I agreed with my friends on the other
side of the aisle about 8 years ago when I said emergency spending
should be emergency spending. If it is not emergency spending do not
put it on an emergency spending bill. My colleagues will be surprised
the million, tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars that will be
voted on in this emergency supplemental that a careful analysis will
show is not emergency, and we will have to have a rule that waives,
waives, the rules in order to pass it.
We do not think that is the proper way to go. We will give my
colleagues a clean up-and-down vote on increasing that debt ceiling. We
will do what the Concorde Coalition is urging us to do. Let us not have
a debt crisis.
This plan does not work and it does not get added to the conference
coming back. Come about mid-June we are going to be in a crisis because
Secretary O'Neill cannot juggle the books forever without having an
economic crisis facing our country. It is too important for us to play
with that game, especially when there can be bipartisan support; and
all we have got to do is sit down and revise our budget.
Just like September 11, 9/11/01 changed America forever, and no one
could foresee that and, yes, it has added increased spending needs for
this country; but why if we need to have the increased spending do we
not see the need to change the economic game plan that we are under?
Why does the other side insist on staying with the same game plan while
at the same time saying everything has changed? I do not understand
that.
I yield back to my friend from Texas.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing some of
the elements of the Blue Dog plan for restoring fiscal discipline, and
I am particularly pleased my colleague mentioned the constitutional
amendment to require a balanced budget. That amendment was introduced
by one of our fellow Blue Dogs, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Berry).
I had the opportunity to serve in the Texas legislature, the Texas
House and Texas Senate, for 10 years; and in Texas, as in most every
other State in the Union, we have a requirement in law, in Texas it is
in our constitution, that we have a balanced budget. So every year when
the legislature convenes, they are required to not spend anymore than
is estimated to come into the next budget cycle; and if they fail to do
that, they have violated the Texas constitution.
If we had such a restraint in our Federal Constitution, we would not
be here tonight talking about a five, almost $6 trillion national debt.
We would have solved that problem a long time ago, and the gentleman
from Arkansas' (Mr. Berry) constitutional amendment makes sure that we
have a balanced budget by including that requirement in our
Constitution.
We know that when we amend the United States Constitution, it takes
two-thirds vote of both Houses and then the States have to ratify it,
three-quarters of them, and we all know that could take a long time. So
we also have other elements in the Blue Dog legislative package to
restore fiscal responsibility in the shorter term, and those bills, one
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), restores the budget rules
that this Congress has had in place for some years which now are
expiring, simply requiring that we set

[[Page H2815]]

discretionary spending caps and that we abide by them, requiring that
any legislation that deals with mandatory spending or revenues that
increase the deficit be offset with some savings in some other area.
Those kinds of basic rules are important to maintaining fiscal
responsibility, and that bill by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill)
would ensure that those rules continue.
Another piece of legislation introduced by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Moore) makes sure that we have a limit on how much we increase
this statutory debt ceiling and ensures that once we go beyond the $150
billion that we all acknowledge would be the appropriate amount, that
covers in the short term, that any further increases in the statutory
debt ceiling would be preceded by the Congress enacting a budget that
returns us to balance within 5 years without using Social Security
trust fund moneys to balance the budget.
Finally, our legislation that was introduced by another Blue Dog, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), says that we ought to require
this Congress have a two-thirds vote if we are going to incur debt.
All of those pieces of legislation as a package will move this
Congress back into balanced budgets and to reducing the national debt.
Some people say, well, what is the big deal about this national debt?
Well, I do not know if anybody can tell my colleagues for sure how big
the national debt can be before it gets us in trouble. I think the
folks in Argentina knew that they accumulated too big a debt and they
certainly had a crisis; but here in the Congress, we seem to be
oblivious to the size of the national debt.
Most Americans do not recognize and realize that one of the biggest
areas of government waste is the national debt, because it takes a
billion dollars of our hard-earned tax dollars every day just to pay
the interest on the national debt. When people pay their individual
income taxes every April 15, do they know that $1 out of every $4 paid
into the government goes to cover the interest on the national debt?
What a waste. What a waste.
So if we are really interested in cutting out government waste, the
first thing we have got to do is to get our debt under control. We have
got to begin to run surpluses in our annual budget because when we run
surpluses in our annual budget, that surplus pays down our national
debt; and the best gift we could give to our children and grandchildren
is be sure that we do not hand them this $6 trillion and growing
national debt.
We are here tonight to ask our colleagues in the Congress to deal
seriously with this issue of the statutory debt ceiling, to not try to
slip it in this supplemental appropriations bill that is coming to the
floor this week and hide it and tuck it away in there as if it is not
important, but to put it out in the light of day and have an honest
debate on it and to acknowledge to the American people that this
country, in terms of its finances, is going in the wrong direction.
Americans have been more patriotic since September 11 than I have
seen them in my lifetime. Some of those who fought in the Second World
War say that we are seeing an era of patriotism today that is like they
felt when they were young people during the Second World War; but if we
have a true spirit of patriotism in our country, we are going to be
sure that when we send our young men and women into battle that those
of us back home are going to be willing to make an equal sacrifice
which is to pay the bills, and if we cannot stand here tonight and
acknowledge that we should pay the bills for fighting the war and not
pass those bills on to the next generation, it would give reason and
give cause to question the sincerity of our patriotism.
Anytime that this country has been at war, Americans have been
willing to sacrifice; and the sacrifice that every American is going to
be called upon and should be called upon today to make as we find
ourselves in this war against terrorism is those of us here at home
should be willing to pay the bills. That is the least we can do.
So I am here tonight on behalf of our Blue Dog Democrat coalition to
urge our colleagues to return us to fiscal responsibility; to be sure
that we enact policies that allow this Congress and as an institution
to observe honesty in budgeting; to be willing to say that we are going
to balance the budget rather than to ignore it; to be big enough to say
that even though a year ago when we passed a major tax cut, which I
voted for at the time, when we were projecting a $5 trillion surplus
over the next decade, that today as we stand here tonight, when that
surplus is gone, that we have to be big enough to admit to the American
people that the circumstances have changed.
Every American family understands that. Every American family has
been through hard times. Folks have lost their jobs and had to make
readjustments on their spending patterns. The Federal Government has to
do the same thing if we are going to be honest with the American
people.
In just a few years, somewhere between 12 and 15, we are going to see
a tremendous increase in the population of our country that are over
the age of 65. The Federal Government will face one of the biggest
fiscal crises that we have ever seen, as those seniors will be ready to
receive their Social Security payments, they will be ready to receive
the benefits of the Medicare program that they have paid for in their
Social Security and Medicare taxes that they have paid all these years.
If this Congress is going to be able to deal with the retirement of
the baby boomers and the costs that are associated with those retirees,
we have got to get the financial house in order today. Is it not
wonderful that as we approach the crisis in the Nation that we were
looking back at 4 years of surpluses, so that we could deal with the
problems of the declining economy and the lost Federal revenues that
flowed from that and to deal with the cost of the war on terrorism?
What is it going to be like 12 and 15 years from now when the baby
boomers retire and all of those costs are on the Federal Government and
we look back to years of deficit spending?

Now is the time to get the financial house in order. Now is the time
to balance our budget and to pay our bills, and that is what we are
asking our colleagues in this Congress to join with us in doing.
I thank the members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition who have
joined me on the floor of this House tonight, and I appreciate their
stance for fiscal conservatism; and we look forward to the days ahead
as we work together to try to balance the budget and pay down our debt.

____________________