[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 24, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6538-H6544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE NEED FOR A NEW BUDGET PLAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Platts). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I represent the 19th district of Illinois. I
am honored to be here in my second term in Washington, D.C.; and, Mr.
Speaker, tonight as one who is honored to be a member of the Blue Dog
Democratic Coalition, we will be joined by hopefully several other
members of the Blue
[[Page H6539]]
Dog Coalition tonight; and we want to focus our time on discussing the
budget situation, the negative consequences of a return to deficits and
debt, and the Blue Dog message about the need for a new budget plan.
It is one thing to have a budget plan as we started this session and
this budget year and as the President outlined in his budget plan. It
is one thing to head in the direction we intend to go and meant to go,
but then unanticipated obstacles, unfortunate happenings and incidents,
dreadful experiences deter the plans and get us off the path and the
goals in which we intended when we outlined our first intentions. Part
of that we know was the recession, deeper than any wanted to
acknowledge or to accept; and of course September 11, the impact that
it has had we are still feeling and will for some time: tax cuts,
spending. All that goes together in affecting that original plan that
the President set forth in the budget resolution.
So part of our job as elected people is to make sure, at least in my
estimation, that we are flexible enough to adjust to situations that
get us off that direction that we started. And our discussion tonight,
at least from the Blue Dogs' perspective, hopefully will be to point
out how far we have gotten off that path and to hopefully make
suggestions as to how we can modify our direction and stay within the
confines of a balanced budget, which, by the way, has not had any
discussion in the 4 years I have been here, soon to be. I have not seen
a balanced budget resolution brought to the floor, and I would think
that we, as near a bipartisan group as one can almost get, meaning that
one party does not have a super majority over another in either
Chamber, that should mean that we are working together more because we
have to, and the numbers dictate that. However, I have not seen that
happening in the last few months, in a couple of years at least.
Mr. Speaker, to get started on our focus and discussion of the budget
situation and the negative consequences of a return to deficits and
debt, our message is about a new budget plan and why we need to usher
in as quickly as possible to make sure we acknowledge some of the
things that happened that are not necessarily the fault of anyone and
we should not be pointing our fingers at each other at this time. That
is for sure. We can debate and talk about what happened, but we need to
acknowledge that it is a different situation now than it was September
11, 2001.
So we, as Members of Congress, try to depend and must depend on
authentic numbers, sound numbers that tell us how much resources we
have to work with, what is in the bank, what we owe, what we can
anticipate to come in from various sources of revenue, and what we know
are going to be expenses that we are obligated to pay and as we go
through a budget year in trying to reach a budget agreement before we
adjourn for this session, trying to anticipate what the costs will be
in this budget agreement. So we have a general outline. How we reach
the end of that process depends on how much we work together and all
the facts that come to us that were not there in the beginning of the
presentation such as I alluded to with the President's budget
resolution.
{time} 2030
So we find ourself in a new time, new day, new circumstances. Our
plea as Blue Dogs is we would acknowledge this as a body which has been
elected from every State in the country, and even within my own State
the great diversity that we face should help us instead of prevent us
in coming to a reasonable agreement.
We have fiscal reporting offices, bureaucracies, and departments to
give us an idea of our situation in the past few months, what we
thought we had and could depend on, what we have presently to depend on
with revenues and outlook, and what our plans should embrace depending
on the information we can best conjure up for the future, the short
term as well as the long-term future.
So most of the discussion about the budget, the tax cuts, the
receipts, the revenues and everything in the last 4 or 5 years has been
about a 10-year projection, which I personally feel is a false premise
to begin with. How in the world would anybody have anticipated
September 11 or the recession making as much impact as it did on our
economy?
So we need to weigh all those things now in a different light. So we
do have the Congressional Budget Office, which confirms what we have to
work with as Members of Congress so we can relate to our constituents,
the voters, the taxpayers, the citizens, just exactly how we should be
guided through the process that we were elected to do to arrive at a
financial, sound way of managing the resources that this country
produces and gives to the government sector, to give back through the
process of which we decide priorities that are outlined by everyone's
discussion here, the input that comes from individual Members. That is
why we are in the greatest deliberative body in the world right here in
the House of Representatives.
So the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, that is the fiscal
reporting group that should not be swayed or influenced and was put in
place by one party or the other, or leadership or those that are more
powerful to the seniority years. Those things are very important for us
to take into consideration when we receive the information from the
Congressional Budget Office.
So the Congressional Budget Office confirms that the surpluses
projected last year have been replaced by deficits and growing debt.
The CBO, which I will refer to the Congressional Budget Office as, has
released updated economic and budget projections for the next 10 years.
There again we are on this 10-year kick which I feel is shaky ground.
The report documents the continuing deterioration in the 10-year
budget outlook. Last year the CBO projected that the government would
run a budget surplus of $3.4 trillion, excluding the Social Security
surplus, meaning the Social Security revenue, FICA, that comes in from
those who work every day, coming from their earnings to pay into the
Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund.
That surplus was excluded from the $3.4 trillion surplus. The CBO now
projects that the government will run a non-Social Security, that means
not counting the Social Security receipts and revenues, budget deficit
of $1.5 trillion. That is reversal of nearly $5 trillion in a year and
a half.
The CBO projections do not include costs of additional tax cuts or
increased spending proposed by the President or being considered here
in Congress. Extending the expiring provisions of the 2001 tax cut law
would add more than $600 billion to the deficit projections over the
next decade, in which this Congress has chosen to choose the way to
project budget, give tax cuts, obligate spending and look at debt.
The first major violation occurred in our agreements over the last
several years when we broke the lock on the lockbox and raided Social
Security. For the past couple of years the other side has made promises
to protect Social Security. This budget is far from protecting Social
Security, and I defy any Member to prove to me otherwise. Many of my
constituents depend on Social Security as a means of comfort after they
have worked hard all their life, over the many years that they have
labored in their occupation.
This budget calls for tapping the Social Security Trust Fund to
support other government programs every year for the next 10 years for
a total of $1.5 trillion. Now, I am concerned about that, and that is
why I am spending my time trying to communicate the situation to the
American people and those who I represent in the 19th Congressional
District of Central and Southern Illinois.
Our Nation cannot afford to put our Social Security system at risk
when it is depended on by so many of our citizens. Social Security and
Medicare are the two crown jewels of social programs in the history of
our Nation. They have been very successful, but yet we have not managed
them properly, and we are about to get to that breaking point where it
is going to be unmanageable.
Let me just talk about running up the national debt before I
introduce my colleague. During the budget debate last year, Republicans
in Congress claimed there was a danger that the government would pay
off the debt held
[[Page H6540]]
by the public too quickly, something I laughed at and thought, my, what
a great fortune that would be. Little more than 1 year later, the
Congressional Budget Office now projects that the publicly held debt
will increase from $3.32 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2001 to
$3.865 trillion by the end of 2006, a $545 billion increase in the
debt.
As a former teacher, as a father and a grandfather, I have always
tried my best to do what is right for the next generation, the future
generations even beyond the next generation. We cannot afford to leave
our children in a mess that they cannot clean up. The administration
says the publicly held debt will begin to gradually decline in 2005.
Even if that is true and even if the debt does start to decline and the
government does its part in beginning to pay it down, we still need to
remember the impact this is having on our system of Social Security.
This is where our children are going to be impacted the most.
From my understanding, the total debt of our Nation is going to
continue to increase. That is right. Even though the administration
suggests that the publicly held debt will begin to decline, the fact is
that the total debt will continue to rise due to the fact that we have
not kept the commitment to save the Social Security Trust Fund surplus.
We all made that commitment. We have broken that commitment. That is
just fact. That is just the truth.
The statutory debt limit, which has increased by $450 billion to $6.4
trillion just 2 months ago, will need to be increased again next year.
I would gather that is why we are probably going to find ourselves in a
lame duck session because too many of these facts are too severe for
some of us to want to face and to tell the American people the truth
about the situation we face. So it is time to regroup. It is time to go
back to the table and say let us acknowledge what has happened. Before
it is too late, let us look at another plan. The Blue Dogs presented
that several months ago, and we have yet to receive or be responded to
in a serious nature from the other side of the aisle or from the
administration or from leadership here in the House.
Mr. Speaker, let me introduce a member of the Blue Dog Coalition who
came to Congress the same year I did, is a member of my same
Congressional class, and is one of my closest friends, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Phelps) for his leadership on this particular issue. I have come to
know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps) now in the last 4 years,
and he is in fact a dear friend of mine and we have shared a lot of
stories together. I have also come to respect his honesty and
integrity. When the gentleman says something, you can put it in the
bank that the facts have not been massaged and it is the truth. What
the gentleman said a few minutes ago is right on the mark and I applaud
the gentleman and what he does for his constituents back home in
Illinois.
Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity and challenge to get elected to the
Indiana legislature back in 1982, and during that time I will never
forget it, we went into a special session right away. In that special
session the legislature raised taxes to overcome budget deficits that
they were having in the State of Indiana.
Here in Washington during that time there was a new President who was
advocating tax cuts and increased military spending. In the process of
doing that, huge budget deficits occurred. It seems to me that we are
in that same situation now because if we look around the Nation, all
over America, State governments are increasing their taxes while
Congress is cutting Federal taxes, increasing the military spending
dramatically, and in many ways justified because of the war on
terrorism, and we are starting to run up huge deficits all over again.
It is deja vu all over again, just like it was in the 1980s. These are
policies that have been put in place that are getting in my view
undesired results because deficits are a problem.
During the 1990s, we changed course from the 1980s and we adopted new
economic policies. Our emphasis was on debt reduction. We were largely
successful in the 1990s for reversing those policies of the early
1980s.
{time} 2045
In the late 1990s when the gentleman from Illinois and I came to
Congress, we actually experienced budget surpluses for the first time
in many, many years. Then there was a Presidential race, of course, in
the year 2000. This Congress and this administration has returned to
the policies of the 1980s which again are resulting in huge budget
deficits. Some called it supply side economics. At one time it was
called voodoo economics. I do not know what to call it, but all I know
is we are running up huge deficits once again.
The Blue Dogs are a group of 33 Members of Congress, the gentleman
from Illinois and I are two of those 33, that believe that we ought to
be fiscally responsible and try to get us back on a path where we do
pay our debts just like every American family does all across America.
I have been back in the district for the last several weekends, and I
have discovered that people are hurting. The economy is not doing so
well. The families back in the ninth district in Indiana who are not
doing so well are changing their budgets to reflect the bad economic
times that they are having. They know, the good folks of southern
Indiana, just like the good folks in south central Illinois, that when
you fall upon hard times, you have got to readjust your budgets in
order to pay your bills. That is the honest way to do things. That is
the forthright thing for people to do. By and large, the good people of
southern Indiana that I have the fortune to represent redo their
budgets to reflect the times.
Congress for some reason feels like it does not have to do that. As a
matter of fact, we are spending money like it is growing on trees
again. The Blue Dogs are a group of 33 that thinks that we ought to sit
down as Democrats and Republicans in a bipartisan fashion and try to
come up with a plan to get us out of this deficit, just like families
back in southern Indiana do; they come up with a plan to get us out of
these deficits. Congress needs to do the same thing. The Blue Dogs have
been a strong voice calling for a budget summit, for us to come down as
Republicans and Democrats to figure out a way how we are going to get
out of this budget crisis that we are in.
I would like to cite some statistics. Last year, CBO, the
Congressional Budget Office, projected that the government would run a
budget surplus of $3.4 trillion excluding the Social Security surplus.
The Congressional Budget Office now projects that the government will
run a non-Social Security budget deficit of $1.513 trillion, a reversal
of nearly $5 trillion in only a year and a half. So those huge budget
surpluses that we experienced in the late 1990s are gone in a year and
a half, and we are accumulating a $1.513 trillion reversal.
The Congressional Budget Office projects the government will run a
unified deficit of $157 billion in the current fiscal year. When the
Social Security surplus is excluded, CBO projects an on-budget deficit
of $314 billion, $162 billion higher than that projected in January.
For fiscal year 2003, the CBO projects a unified budget deficit of $145
billion and an on-budget deficit of $315 billion when Social Security
is excluded. The government is projected to borrow virtually all of the
Social Security surpluses to finance deficits in the rest of this
budget.
The gentleman from Illinois was talking about how many of us, myself
included, pledged to put a lockbox around Social Security and not spend
the Social Security surpluses, to use Social Security for only what it
is supposed to be used for, and that is Social Security. If you ask
your people back home if that is the right thing to do, I guarantee you
overwhelmingly people will say that is the right thing to do. We should
not be using these Social Security surpluses to finance the debt that
we are incurring. It is irresponsible. Nearly $1 trillion, $964 billion
to be exact, over the next 5 years and more than $2 trillion by the end
of this decade will be used from Social Security surpluses. That is
wrong.
During the budget debate last year, some Members of Congress actually
came to this microphone and claimed that there was a danger that the
government would pay off the debt held by the public too quickly. As we
think about that today, that was just plain
[[Page H6541]]
laughable. Little more than 1 year later, CBO projects that the
publicly held debt will increase from $3.32 trillion at the end of
fiscal year 2001 to $3.865 trillion by the end of 2006, a $545 billion
increase.
I would assume that most people who are listening to these budgetary
figures, their eyes have got to be glazing over now. These are numbers
that nobody understands. So let me try to put it in perspective a
little bit better. If this holds true, if these deficits hold true, it
will be the largest increase in debt in the history of this country in
one year, the largest increase in the history of this country. So we
have returned to the early 1980s and those economic theories, where you
cut taxes here, the States have to raise taxes back in our homes, we
increase funding for military spending and we run up huge deficits
again. It is deja vu all over again.
The real problem is that the budget is projected to continue to run
on-budget deficits requiring the government to raid Social Security and
Medicare trust funds even after the economy recovers and returns to
strong growth. We face long-term budget problems that go far beyond the
impact of the war on terrorism or the downturn in the economy. Running
deficits and increasing the debt over the next decade and leaving in
place long-term fiscal shortfalls will make it even harder to meet our
commitments to workers who will retire in the next decade and beyond.
Higher debt means higher spending on interest payments. You want a tax
cut? Pay down the debt so that we can reduce interest, so that people
can buy their homes and their cars and make their loans more cheaply.
That is money in everybody's pocket.
The government will spend nearly $2 trillion paying interest on the
debt over the next 10 years. We will spend $170 billion in interest
payments just this year. And spending on interest will continue to
increase through 2007. Spending on interest on the debt is the most
wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. The amount of the budget consumed by
spending on interest takes away resources that could be used for other
priorities, such as defense, health care, education, et cetera.
More than $1 trillion of the national debt, roughly one-third of the
publicly held debt, is held by foreign investors. In 1998, the U.S.
Government paid $91 billion in interest payments to foreign investors.
The national debt places a drag on the economy and a burden on the
family budget by keeping interest rates higher than they would
otherwise be. Budget deficits and a large national debt have a major
negative impact on the economy and the finances of American families by
keeping interest rates high. Continuing to allow the national debt to
grow will impose an increasing tax burden on future generations to pay
for the current consumption. The President must work with Congress to
put its fiscal house back in order, just as families back in Indiana
facing financial problems must work with the bank to establish a
financial plan in order to get approved to refinance their debts.
In short, we need a budget summit, as the gentleman from Illinois has
already outlined. We need to reach out, Republicans and Democrats,
within the Congress of the United States and to the President, to try
to come up with a plan like families back in Indiana do themselves,
coming up with a plan to try to get us out of the problem that we face,
and it is a problem.
Mr. Speaker, our young men and women are fighting terrorism all over
the world right now as I speak. Of course we need to support them. It
is immoral for us to require them to fight these wars and then to come
home and in the later years when they are in the Congress of the United
States, be responsible for somehow figuring out how we pay this debt
off that we, our generation, has incurred. It behooves me and this
Congress and the people who might be listening, certainly the people of
southern Indiana, to get our fiscal house in order by calling a summit,
asking Republicans and Democrats to come together to figure out a way
how we are going to return to fiscal responsibility.
Mr. PHELPS. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. Let me just say,
knowing this gentleman for the last 4 years, we came in, as I said, the
same year. You would think as very enthusiastic freshmen, honored to be
elected and serve in this great body, naturally we shared some of the
same commitments and priorities as education and health care, those
things that are basic to our well-being and our communities and our
families, both of us, as well as all the Blue Dogs.
But as freshmen Members, I remember having the discussion how
important Social Security and Medicare protection was to us as
freshmen. As far beyond any other thing that we were concerned about,
that was at the top of the list. It was not rehearsed. It was not
something we conjured up. That is the way we felt when we first entered
this body. Now we find ourselves in this situation, and we have seen it
decline. As I said before, some of it is not our fault. It is out of
our own power that things have happened, and circumstances.
But it is within our power to recognize and acknowledge a problem and
say, what can we do together from here knowing this situation happened
9-11, the recession was deeper, we want to acknowledge or at least
accept; and the tax cuts, how much impact did all of that have and the
projections of 10 years being too rosy, painting a rosy picture,
downplaying the liabilities. That is what has got us in this situation.
So it is not time, even though it is right before the election, to
start pointing fingers and say that it is your fault, it is your fault,
but it is our fault if we do not recognize it is time to come together
and acknowledge and embrace a new plan that will reflect what has
happened to us.
With that let me thank the gentleman. If he would like to interject
anything from now to the end of our time allotted, feel free. We can
have open discussion, but it is my honor to now introduce, I started to
say the oldest Blue Dog, but I will just say the most senior of the
Blue Dogs who actually was instrumental in forming this coalition
which, I think, has had its impact on the Nation and someone who has
been a mentor to me, even though we come from extreme distances away,
from Texas to Illinois, believe me, it is scary how close our thinking
is on line together, my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. I thank my friend from Illinois, and I thank my friend
from Indiana for their discussions tonight. I want to begin by building
on the major points that they made in their conclusions. We are here
tonight not for fingerpointing, but in an offer to work in a bipartisan
way for a solution. We offered ours last year in the budget debates and
we were turned down. That is perfectly the prerogative of this body.
The majority can ignore the minority anytime you would like. You passed
your economic plan. We thought it was poorly conceived, but you did
not. And now we have the results. Today the stock market reached the
lowest point that it has been in 6 or 7 years. Unemployment is
beginning to move up. We have a lot of concerned people around this
country, concerned about whether or not their jobs are secure, their
savings are secure; and we still have the very real concern about
Social Security, because we can talk all about, we can blame all we
want to, and I am a little bit perturbed with both sides regarding the
Social Security arguments that are taking place today, but the one
thing we cannot say is that anybody is doing anything about it.
If you are perfectly satisfied with running the largest deficit in
the history of our country, then continue to come to this floor and
demand to continue to follow the economic game plan that we are now
under and that is a perfectly honest position to take and then assume
the responsibility for what that policy brings. Because that is what is
happening today. We cannot undo it, what has happened to this point;
but we can make a difference in what is going to happen from this day
forward.
{time} 2100
That is where I think the market is crying out for some direction and
leadership and for us in this body to quit the finger pointing.
We had two sense of Congress resolutions on the floor last week that
were, with all due respect, ridiculous; us, we in the House of
Representatives, who have only passed five appropriations
[[Page H6542]]
bills, blaming the Senate because they have not passed a budget, and
the only thing that divides us is $9 billion. $9 billion is what the
finger pointing is all about, and this body and the wonderful
leadership we have here is saying it is all the Senate's fault.
Now, that is laughable. From where I come from in Texas and from
where I think the gentlemen from Illinois and Indiana come from, if you
are going to finger point, my people want me to say okay, then what
would you do differently?
Well, here we have offered and we will continue to offer what we
would do differently. We need a summit on the budget. We need to sit
down and put everything on the table and work ourselves out of a very
difficult situation this country finds itself in, very difficult. But
there seems to be no interest in that.
You know, here we had some safeguards, some policy procedures, that
were put into effect in the 1997 budget, even going back to the 1990
budget, in which we suggested that having caps on spending agreed to
would be helpful to resolving our budget differences. Now, this year
the Blue Dog Democrats said, in agreement with the majority, that the
$759 billion number is a good number and we are prepared to support our
colleagues on that number, or at least some of us are.
Pay-go, we have had a pretty good little budget process in which if
you are going to propose increasing spending, then pay for it. If you
are going to propose additional tax cuts, pay for it. Do not borrow it
on our children's and grandchildren's future. That expires September
30. I am told, and I hope I am wrong, and I would love to be proven
wrong and have someone come to the floor of the House and say right
now, Charlie, you are wrong; we are going to reimpose the pay-go rules.
We are going to have those rules, and, by the way, instead of ignoring
them, as this body has done for the last 2 years, we are going to live
up to them.
It is kind of amusing to me sometimes, we are out here arguing for
pay-go rules, and we waive them every time a rule comes to the floor
that has something to do with sense of Congress resolutions, or with
spending resolutions, or the favorite is tax cutting resolutions. If we
are going to have a rule of the House, live by it.
We are prepared to back the majority party, and we will propose on
the CR tomorrow, or the next day, when we have the continuing
resolution, which is an indication of a failure of this body to do our
work, when we cannot pass 13 appropriations bills and send them to the
other body. If we passed our 13 and sent them to the other body and the
other body did not act, then we would have the right to criticize the
other body. But the gall of my friends on the majority side who will
stand up and be critical of the other body when we have not done our
work, it just defies my imagination.
Mr. Speaker, we increased the debt ceiling earlier this year, and at
the rate we are borrowing money now and with the projected additional
spending over and above what is in current law, the gentleman from
Indiana a moment ago stated it correctly, this Congress is going to
preside over the largest single increase in our Nation's debt in the
history of this country, and yet the majority claims they are
conservative.
Now, that, with all due respect, is argumentative, and I would love
to see a serious debate on some of these issues, other than just the
stone-walling and the blaming and the finger pointing that is going on
and trying to blame the other body because of inability of this side to
pass appropriations bills.
Whatever happened to the legislative process in which you have
differences of opinion and you sit down and work them out together? If
you have got the votes, you pass them, and, if you do not have the
votes, you fail them. That is kind of what the majority is doing today,
I suppose. But yet you seem to not be willing to assume the
responsibility of the actions that you continually vote out of this
body, and you seem to be wanting to blame the other body.
I do not understand that. I do not understand the logic of that. That
is why the Blue Dogs are going to be on the floor day after day after
day until we are adjourned asking the simple question, what is wrong
with a budget summit? What is wrong with sending a message to the
investment community, the investors of this Nation, saying we are going
to sit down and actually work on some new solutions, or come to the
floor and say we have the perfect solution and we want to continue and
we want the results to be our responsibility.
Social Security: I have been in this body now for almost 24 years.
When I was first elected in 1978, 2011 was a long time away. Today,
2011 is 9 years away. 2011 is when the baby-boomers, the greatest
generation, those that we rightfully pay homage to on a regular basis
for their tremendous patriotism and support in the winning of World War
II, it is when the baby-boomers begin to retire, that the largest
single drain on the economy of the United States in paying off the debt
to the trust funds that we must honor will begin to come due.
Instead of us dealing with that as the Blue Dogs asked and pleaded
last year when we were talking about a $5.6 trillion projected surplus,
we were emphasizing that is projected; do not spend money that is not
there. But we were not heeded.
We suggested taking half of that projected surplus and paying down
the debt, then the other half of that surplus divided equally between
tax cuts targeted for purposes that will benefit the economy and the
other one-fourth or half of the remaining projected surplus, increased
spending in priority areas which started with defense and then veterans
and then healthcare and then education and then rural America. That was
our priorities.
But we also said before we do any of that, let us sit down as a body,
Democrats and Republicans, and work out the answers to the future of
the Social Security system and the Medicare system and the Medicaid
system. We have got a crisis out there in our nursing homes all across
this Nation, in my home state and in every other state, and instead of
us dealing responsibly with trying to come up with policies that will
answer the nursing shortage and the tort reform and the malpractice
reform and all of the things we need to be doing, what are we doing? We
are going to pass a CR, a continuing resolution, and we are going to
punt into the next election, and we are going to poison the well on all
of these issues that will make it even more difficult to deal with it
next year.
We said, let us deal with it last year, but, again, the majority
said, no, we have got a better idea. And that is the prerogative, Mr.
Speaker, of the majority. Many times I come to the floor and I will get
a few calls that will come in and say, you Democrats are just spouting
sour grapes. Well, if that is your opinion, I respect everybody's
opinion. But we are sincerely here tonight, as we were last week, as we
will be tomorrow, saying we have got a problem.
No one, no one in the entire United States today, argues that there
is not a problem with the Social Security System, in the future. No
one. We all agree. We have got different solutions. I have got mine. I
worked with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for the last 6 years
on a proposal. We know what we are for, or what we think we are for.
But I respect anyone that has got an opinion. If we would just spend
some time in this body in the committees dealing with that problem,
instead of bringing sense of the Congress resolutions to the floor of
the House saying that it is really all the other body's fault, and
doing that with a clear, unsmiling face.
We are this body. We are the House of Representatives. We are the
people's House. We are the ones that are elected by a majority of the
people within our district. And, just as my colleague from Indiana said
a moment ago, the people in Indiana are asking us to come up with a
solution.
Why are we not? What is it about politics today that has all been
turned over to our promoters and issues, and no one ever, ever asks us
to be accountable for our actions except the blame game?
Well, Social Security and the trust fund and the trust fund problem
are very, very real, and I venture to say that not a single one of the
435 of us in this body tonight, both sides of the aisle, would disagree
with that very calm statement. But when you are in the minority, you
cannot effectuate
[[Page H6543]]
the direction of policy. Only the majority can determine what can come
to the floor and how it comes to the floor.
Yes, we are a little bit testy on the Blue Dog side, because when we
come to the Committee on Rules and ask to have some of our ideas
considered and voted upon, we have been denied and denied and denied.
What is it that the majority party of this body today that calls itself
conservative is suddenly afraid of ideas and letting ideas come to the
floor and be voted upon? What is it? I do not know. But I am a little
bit frustrated. But that comes with being in the minority, I am told,
and that is the way our system is supposed to work.
We are living in some very trying times, and I will predict that
there is going to be tremendous support for our President when we deal
with matters of tremendous importance and seriousness regarding
international affairs. We certainly will find strong bipartisan support
for standing with the young men and women that were mentioned a moment
ago that we will send perhaps into harm's way, as we already have in
Afghanistan. And, yes, there is a cost, a tremendous cost. War is not
something that should ever be taken for granted or expressed in
simplistic terms. It is one of the most serious matters to come before
this body, and we will deal with it in this body, and I have every
confidence that this is one issue that will have adequate airing and
discussion in the people's House.
But tonight we talk about the lack, the lack, of allowing serious
debate of a change of economic policy for this country. Again, if we
are wrong and we do not need this change and we do not need a summit,
then so be it. Obviously that is the answer coming from the majority
side. That is obviously the answer. ``We like the game plan we are
under and we are perfectly willing to stand up to that game plan
because it is working.''
Well, that is the kind of debate that we ought to have in a little
more open way, instead of the blame game. I hope tomorrow and the day
after that that we will get away from these sense of the Congress
resolutions, trying to blame somebody else for the inability of this
House to deal with our own problems. I will not call us a do-nothing
House, because we have done something. We have passed some resolutions.
We have done some good. But it is the big undone good that we have
tonight that we focus on as Blue Dogs, because by not facing up to the
economic problems of this country, by not facing up to the ticking time
bomb of 2011, by ignoring the interests of those who cannot vote, our
children and grandchildren, those who do not have a vote today, by
continuing to insist that the economic plan that we are under is good
and that they should be the ones to pay for the debt that we are
building up today, and standing on the floor as some are tempted to do
and saying the debt really has not gone up, when we know it has gone up
and will go up this year, the largest single increase in the Nation's
debt in one year in the history of our country, is coming under the
economic game plan that we seem unwilling or unable to make any changes
in.
The gentleman from Illinois, I thank him for taking this time
tonight, and I look forward to hopefully in the days ahead joining in a
spirited debate. Tonight, since we cannot seem to do it in the regular
hours of the day, we cannot seem to find it in our heart to be in
legislative session on anything but after 6:30 on Tuesdays and going
home on Thursdays, and yet we are blaming the other body for not doing
their work, that maybe we could have a little time in these hours at
night to have a serious discussion, and perhaps maybe some of our
friends from the other side of the aisle, and we have many, and there
are many more agreements in this body than there are disagreements, but
it is the call of the leadership that determines the manner in which we
debate it. That is my frustration.
So if we get another hour tomorrow night, I hope maybe we will be
joined by some of our colleagues, and we can have a good discussion as
to why it is somebody else's fault that we are not doing our job.
{time} 2115
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, there is not a more aggressive leader in
terms of how we deal with the budgetary challenges in this body than
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). Both sides of the aisle will
tell us in the corridors of this Chamber that the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) has provided leadership that is unique, courageous; and
the greatest compliment that one can have here is when they say that
someone tells the truth. Even when we are into debate openly, many will
not give credit for those terms; but the gentleman from Texas has
earned that right, and I thank him very much, my friend and colleague,
for his input and for his leadership to those of us who are new in the
Blue Dog Coalition in terms of telling us how to communicate the
urgencies at hands. I thank the gentleman for his input and for
allowing me this time to manage the time tonight. It is a great honor
for me.
I will continue on my points that I was outlining before I turned it
over to my colleagues, and the third point is that the deterioration of
the budget outlook demonstrates the danger of making commitments based
on uncertain budget projections, as I began my remarks tonight of how
we have embraced this 10-year projected outlook of budgets, debts,
obligations, priorities and everything else which I think is a false
promise to begin with.
But when Congress considered the budget last year, the Blue Dogs
warned then about the danger of making long-term commitments for tax
cuts or new spending programs based on projected surpluses and proposed
setting aside of half of the on-budget surplus for a cushion to protect
against unforeseen changes. The President and the Republicans here in
Congress promised that we could afford to fund priorities such as
defense, prescription drugs, agriculture, education, and many other
priorities, and enact the President's tax cuts, and save the Social
Security surpluses, and pay off the national debt. Well, the new budget
reports indicate that the government will return to deficit spending
and raid the Social Security trust fund, confirming that the warnings
made by the Blue Dogs last year about the dangers of making expensive
budgetary commitments based on these uncertain projections now are
taking place. With the new budget outlook, any increases to fund the
war on terrorism or other priorities will result in additional
borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and increase the debt.
While deficits may be inevitable in the short term, the real problem
is what has happened to the long-term budget outlook.
The primary source of the deterioration of the budget outlook in the
short term is the economic downturn and spending for the war on
terrorism. I completely understand, and united we stand behind this
President on the war against terrorism and the need for spending what
is necessary to win the war on terrorism and ensure the protection of
our fellow Americans here at home. However, we need to work together in
developing a plan that will fight the war on terrorism, but will also
protect the Social Security trust fund and benefit our future
generations. We really need to start thinking about our children's
future.
The real problem is that the budget is projected to continue to run
on budget deficits, requiring the government to raid the Social
Security and Medicare trust funds, even after the economy recovers,
hopefully, when it does, and returns to strong growth. We face long-
term problems that go far beyond the impact of the war on terrorism or
the downturn of the economy. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office,
estimated that the estimated budgetary impact of September 11 plus
associated interest costs represents only about 11 percent of the more
than $5 trillion total deterioration of the surplus since last year.
Similarly, the CBO found that the economic downturn is responsible
for just 10 percent of the deterioration of the budget projections and
that the deficits will continue long after the economy is projected to
return to strong growth. Running deficits and increasing the debt over
that decade and leaving in place long-term fiscal shortfalls will make
it even harder to meet our commitments to workers who will retire in
the next decade and beyond.
[[Page H6544]]
Higher debt means higher spending on interest payments. The most
wasteful spending possible is spending on interest payments on the
debt. The government will spend nearly $2 trillion paying on interest
on the debt over the next 10 years. We will spend $170 billion in
interest payments this year alone, and spending on interest will
continue to increase through 2007. Spending on interest on the debt is
the most wasteful, as I said, use of the taxpayers' dollars. The amount
of the budget consumed by spending on interest takes away resources
that could be used for our priorities such as defense, health care,
education, et cetera.
More than $1.2 trillion of the national debt, roughly one-third of
the publicly held debt, is held by foreign investors. In 1998, the U.S.
Government paid $91 billion in interest payments to foreign investors.
The national debt places a drag on the economy and a burden on the
family budget by keeping interest rates higher than they otherwise
would be. Budget deficits and a large national debt have a major
negative impact on the economy and the finances of American families by
keeping interest rates high. Congress must also enact rules or extend
rules enforcing budget discipline. Strong budget enforcement rules are
important, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) said, as a
component of restoring fiscal discipline and making sure that the
budget remains in balance.
Mr. Speaker, having the privilege to go back to my home district
every weekend since I have been a Member of Congress is one of those
things that just maintains one's sanity, and I am sure the gentleman
from Texas agrees; going back to the real world where the real problems
are discussed. Just this weekend, where I direct the music in my home
church, Sunday evening we had a church-wide groundbreaking for a new
building project of a Christian life center. Less than 9 years ago, we
broke ground for a new auditorium that seats nearly 500 people, the
third building program we have had since I have been a member and known
anything about that program, and building a church, the Star General
Baptist Church there in North Eldorado, Illinois, where my grandfather
was pastor way before I was born.
And at that groundbreaking, the best news that we all, as Democrats,
Republicans, Independents, and we do not even know party affiliations
and most do not care, all those who I grew up with and know and worship
with and serve in the community with and live with, that night we
celebrated the fact that we would start several $100,000 building
programs with a debt-free building program behind us. Debt-free. We
even purchased a parsonage in the last couple of years, paid off, debt-
free. We did not do that by fooling ourselves, knowing that the
mortgages and the debts that we created were incurred and that we would
not be foolish enough to take on a new project, knowing that we could
compromise our debt that we have at our local bank. That is integrity.
That is about family values. We are teaching our children there. One
does not start something bigger than what one already has that one has
to pay for.
Now, I realize in this body it may not be quite that easy, at least
it has not appeared to be. But surely, as a group of reasonable elected
people, we can acknowledge the magnitude of the problem. It is funny
that the gentleman from Texas mentioned the blame game, because my
pastor mentioned that Sunday morning, the blame game, shirking your
responsibility, side-stepping, telling someone else it is their fault
what has happened. Well, I do not think so. My son just turned 21 a
couple of weeks ago, and he knows by now life's hardest lessons, to
accept your own destiny, make your own decisions, and live by them.
That is what we are doing now.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can come to grips with coming together
and fashioning a Federal budget in the face of an economy that has been
impacted in ways in which we did not anticipate, which is no one's
fault; but let us acknowledge it is time to come to an agreement with a
new plan to save Social Security and Medicare, pay down our debt, and
still finance the priorities of the war on terrorism, education, health
care, and those things that we have all promised, prescription drugs,
and everything else that we would said that we would do.
____________________