[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 41 (Thursday, March 13, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H1889-H1894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1730
THE BLUE DOG BUDGET PLAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Blackburn). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Loretta Sanchez) is recognized for the remainder of the minority
leader's hour.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I was sitting in a
military congressional hearing and could not get out in time, but we
are here now and really excited about having so many of our Blue Dogs
come here today to talk about the real problem on our hands.
And what is the problem on our hands? The problem is that a couple of
years ago, many of us who were here in the Congress understood that we
were in a surplus situation. We were getting more money in taxes than
we were spending. And so we had a surplus. In just 2 years, under the
Bush administration, we are in a deficit situation, a projected
deficit, anybody that you talk to in this year's budget, of anywhere
between about $300 billion and $350 billion. That does not include the
war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, our work going on in Afghanistan;
that is above and beyond the $300 billion-plus deficit that we are
running this year.
Add that to almost a $6 trillion debt load that we are already
carrying, and this becomes a major problem. Yet everything else seems
to be going wrong. People are being laid off. There are no jobs being
created under this administration with the plan that he had, his great
tax cut that was supposed to stimulate the economy. It has not.
Businesses are closing; bankruptcies are up. We read that in today's
newspaper. That is despite all the other problems that we are having in
the international world and with respect to a war. So our economy is
weak and in many cases, like in California, is getting smaller as we
speak.
So what do we do? The President's proposal has been to put forward a
budget with stated aims of saying that the economy should get moving,
that this budget of his would create jobs and that they would balance
the budget. Strike one, strike two, strike three. This budget misses
all marks of these three aims. I am going to go through that a little,
and then we have got some Blue Dogs here who want to talk about what
our proposal is for the budget of 2004.
First of all, economic stimulus. The way that the President has
structured his tax cut does not and will not stimulate our economy in
the short term. It does very little. In fact, even the President's plan
when you look at it, only 5 percent of his projected stimulus package
would have any impact now. Now, while people are being laid off. Now,
while unemployment benefits are running out. Simply put, the
President's stimulus plan is not stimulative at all. In contrast, we
Democrats, and in particular the Blue Dog budget, would help to expand
the economy. It would help those who have lost their jobs, and it would
call for immediate tax rebates. That puts money in the pockets of those
people who will spend it, not the people who already have money, but
the people who need it to live on a day-to-day basis. It is going to
create jobs.
Let us take a look at the President's tenure. Unemployment went from
4 percent to its current 5.8 percent. In other words, he has not
created jobs. We have been losing them. He has done a round of tax
cuts, over $1 trillion
[[Page H1890]]
worth of tax cuts. It did not work. It has not worked. And now he
proposes to do the same thing, another tax cut. But if his first one
did not work, his second one certainly will not work. We need job
creation, and we want it to include small business. Small business is
where jobs in America are created today. The stimulus effort needs to
be focused in part on small business. The Blue Dog plan calls for
immediate aid to small businesses by calling for increases in small
business expensing from $25,000 to $75,000 for equipment purchases in
2003 and 2004, right now. If businesses invest right now, we are going
to give them a tax break, and that is going to stimulate the economy.
Finally, the President's plan, he says, would bring down the debt.
But it will not. It would increase the national debt far into the
future. As my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner),
said, when we include the service on the debt, or the interest payment
that we have to make that the President's plan would generate, his plan
will cost at least $925 billion through 2013 alone, with no end in
sight. The Democrats, and the Blue Dogs in particular, believe that the
main thing we have to get under control is the debt, because when we do
that, when we bring down the debt, then the interest payment that we
make on that borrowed money becomes smaller and smaller.
When I first got to the Congress, it was about 17 cents of every
dollar was spent on interest on the debt. By the time President Clinton
got out of office, it was only 11 cents. We were bringing down the
debt. The Republicans, when President Bush came in, they were having a
hard time deciding, my God, what does the world look like when the
Federal Government does not have any debt? They were worried. They were
actually worried that we might bring down the debt and there would be
no debt in the United States. But they fixed that. They fixed it by
giving tax cuts, they fixed it with a bad economy, and now we are back
up to 18 cents of every dollar we bring in as tax revenue to the
Federal Government gets spent on the debt. We need to reduce the public
debt. It is a debt tax.
We as Blue Dogs believe that we cannot simply stand around and
criticize, but that we must present our own solution to the problem,
that it has to be credible, that it has to be based in principles. The
Blue Dog principles are to bring down the debt, stimulate the economy,
create jobs, and get the economy moving again. That is why I am for the
Blue Dog enforcement bill, which we call Assuring Honesty and
Accountability in 2003.
All of the provisions in our budget enforcement bill are for debt and
deficit reduction. In very black and white terms, we have a plan of how
to bring down the debt and how to stimulate the economy. A handful of
my fellow Blue Dogs will be here tonight to speak about that. I believe
the next one that we have is the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Taylor), who will give his version of what Blue Dogs are trying to do
to help bring down the debt, create jobs, and put more money in
America's pockets.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentlewoman. I think it is
important that we remind the American public where we are now. When we
passed the Bush tax cuts in May, just 2 years ago, our Nation was
$5,643,680,010,418 in debt. Less than 2 years later we are
$6,445,790,102,749 in debt. That is an increase of over $800 billion.
If you were to track the American debt from the founding of the
American Revolution through the Vietnam War, our Nation had borrowed
that much money in about 180 years. In less than 2 years, our Nation
has borrowed that much money. What is particularly frustrating I think
for all of us is the complete flip-flop on the part of our Republican
colleagues.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) has been the Speaker of the
House now for, I believe, 1,500 days or something very close to it. In
those 1,500 days, he has never scheduled a vote on a balanced budget
amendment. I find this a bit ironic, because on March 17, 1994, then-
Member Hastert said clearly, ``Until our monstrous $3.4 trillion
deficit is eliminated, interest payments will continue to eat away at
the important initiatives which the government must fund. I will not
stand by and watch Congress recklessly squander the future of our
children and grandchildren.''
As I pointed out, the debt has increased $2 trillion since the
Speaker said that, then-Member Hastert. Yet he will not allow a vote on
a balanced budget amendment, and we are not even sure he is going to
allow a vote on the Blue Dog budget. As we know last year, it was so
thoroughly convoluted in the Committee on Rules that we were not given
a clear opportunity to offer it as an amendment. I hope, Mr. Speaker,
you will do so this year.
I would also remind you that on that same day, you said, ``The
American people have wanted a balanced budget amendment for a long
time, because they know it's the only way to force Congress to make
spending choices.''
Mr. Speaker, if you meant what you said in 1994, we are willing to
help you do just that, but you have got to give us a vote on it.
There are some other interesting quotes. The next year, January 25,
the Speaker said, ``Mr. Chairman, a national debt of $4.5 trillion, you
can see how it's growing, should finally convince every Member in this
Chamber that Congress has got no discipline to solve its own problems.
This balanced budget amendment will put discipline upon us.''
Mr. Speaker, I wish you would live by those words and give us a vote.
Here a few days later, ``The American people want their government to
be fiscally responsible. They want us to balance the budget in order to
lower our debt and make our children's future brighter.''
We could not agree with you more. You were right in 1995. Why are you
not for a balanced budget now?
Some other friends of mine on the other side of the aisle have said
similar things. Now Majority Leader Tom DeLay, it has been a while,
March 11, 1994:
``We are showing what we would do. If the Republicans were in charge
of this House and in charge of the Senate, it would be a much different
America. It would be a much different government.''
In the past 2 years, or less, you guys have run up $800 billion in
new debt. It is obviously different. I do not think it is better, but
there is always time to change. I think one of the ways that you can
change is to allow a vote on the floor next week of the Blue Dog
budget, which would get us back on the path to a balanced budget.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) had some interesting statistics.
This is from a speech that he gave on the House floor in 1995:
``In 1980, each child born that year immediately inherited a debt of
$4,000. That is government debt. By 1985, because no balanced budget
had been adopted, the children that year had inherited a $7,600 debt.
By 1990, our children were burdened with almost $12,800 in debt.''
This is again from Majority Leader DeLay's floor speech from 1995:
``Each year every child born in America this year will begin life
with a debt of more than $16,700. Is it any wonder that young families
have trouble saving money for a down payment on a house? Is it any
wonder that the Federal Government's consumption of more than one-
quarter of all our economic activity is driven in interest rates and
stifling economic growth?''
When the majority leader made that comment, our Nation was about $4.3
trillion in debt. We are now $2 trillion further in debt, so I think it
is fair to say that your $16,000 debt that you made reference to is now
a $25,000 debt for every American man, woman and child. Yet what really
troubles me, and I could go on and on pointing out very important
Members of the Republican Party: the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
One thing that strikes me as an American who tries to be objective
about all of this and who kind of enjoys watching other people's
political races, I remember distinctly then-candidate Al Gore being
severely beaten about the head and shoulders for flip-flopping on the
abortion issue. I know many people in this Chamber have different
opinions on this, but my Republican colleagues reminded the American
people that Al Gore ran as a pro-life candidate only to change to a
pro-choice
[[Page H1891]]
and accused him of flip-flopping. That is probably true. But if that is
true, then how can the Speaker and the majority leader, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) and others who came to this floor and gave
eloquent speeches, and they were eloquent speeches, about the
importance of balancing the budget, the importance of a balanced budget
amendment, that deficits are bad, that interest payments on the debt
are bad, how can they now look the American people in the eye and say
they are good?
{time} 1745
It is a fair question to each of you. It is a fair question the
American people ought to be asking my Republican colleagues. Do not try
to tell me that you never said it, because it is in the Congressional
Record.
So the question is, what did you really believe in? Did you believe
it when you said it then, or do you believe it when you are saying
deficits are not important now? Because they are totally opposite. And
all I think the American people are asking for is some honesty, some
honesty in budgeting, and some concern about the future of this
country, and that we quit sticking our kids with the bills.
The last thing I am going to say, and it is the analogy I use back
home because everyone understands it, there is not a Member in this
body who would go out and buy a car, and say, ``I don't care what it
costs, I don't care what the payments are, because my 6-year-old child
is going to pay the bill.''
There is not a Member in this House that would go out and buy a house
and tell the realtor, ``I want the nicest house in the county. I don't
care what it costs, I don't care what the payments are, because I am
going to stick my grandkid with the bill.'' That is precisely what we
have been doing as a Nation, and in less than 2 years we have stuck our
kids and grandkids with an $800 billion bill.
The Blue Dogs will give you an opportunity next week to start turning
that around. We are going to give you an opportunity to be men of your
words. I hope you will join us in trying to balance the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would live by your own words and
give us a vote on a much-needed balanced budget amendment to the United
States Constitution.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
from Mississippi.
Mr. Speaker, now to join us on the House floor is the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner), who has been a leader of the Blue Dogs and has some
nifty charts here, to really explain, in case any of you have just
joined us, that the Blue Dogs are about bringing down the deficit and
creating jobs and bringing the economy back, in contrast to what the
President and his Republican majority in the House and in the Senate
have presented with their 2004 budget. We have a different budget in
mind. We have a timeline to bring down the debt and bring this country
back into surplus.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for hosting
this hour for our Blue Dog group for the presentation of our budget
proposal.
The Blue Dog Democrats in the House are 35 members strong. We come
from all over the United States. Tonight we have had Members from
California, Mississippi, Tennessee and Florida. We will hear from the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) shortly.
This is a group that is united by one theme, and that is we believe
that our country must return to balanced budgets, we must try to pay
down our debt, which now stands at over $6.3 trillion, and, in order to
do so, we have to adopt a fiscally responsible budget in this Congress
this year.
Back in January the President revealed his budget plan, and we have
had the opportunity to look very carefully at his plan. As you know,
his plan calls for tax cuts and acceleration of tax cuts that were
implemented 2 years ago when we passed the largest tax cut in the
history of the country. That tax cut was to be phased in over a period
of about 10 years. Those tax cuts have been phasing in, and the Blue
Dog Democrats believe that the tax cuts that we have all received need
to remain in place.
We also believe that the future tax cuts that will accrue to the
benefit of low and middle income families need to be implemented
immediately in an effort to bring about a short-term stimulus.
But the Blue Dog Democrats disagree with our President on two
important points of his plan. First of all, we believe that it is wrong
for half of his tax cut plan to be dedicated to the elimination of the
taxation of dividends.
Now, there are many wealthy Americans who have a lot of stock and who
would greatly benefit from eliminating the tax on dividends. But most
Americans have very modest stock investments, and we believe it is
wrong to dig the deficit hole deeper and to increase our national debt
by proposing at this time the elimination of the taxation of dividends.
We also believe that at a time when our Nation is on the verge of
war, that we as Members of Congress need to call upon the American
people to share in the sacrifice that is being made by the young 18,
19, 20, 21-year-olds who are now gathered around the borders of Iraq,
poised for military conflict.
In time of war, all Americans must share in the sacrifice. By
eliminating the part of the President's budget plan that eliminates the
tax on dividends, we believe we are calling upon those Americans who
are best able to share in the sacrifice to postpone that part of the
President's plan.
We also believe that American families who have incomes over $170,000
a year should be willing to defer the tax cuts that they would get
under the President's plan in order to share in the sacrifice necessary
to fight and pay for the war in Iraq.
That is the Blue Dog plan: Accelerate the tax cuts for the lower and
middle income families, for all families who have incomes below
$170,000 a year; but those who have greater incomes than that, they
will get the tax cuts that would naturally accrue to the cuts in the
lower tax brackets. They will get the benefit of the Blue Dog plan for
accelerating the child tax credit and eliminating the marriage penalty,
as will all Americans. But as far as a reduction of the top rates,
those families at $170,000 and above should be willing to wait, wait
until we get through this war, wait until our budget situation
improves.
The difference in those two plans, the Blue Dog plan and the
President's plan, has a dramatic impact upon our Federal budget. If you
look at the chart to my right, you see the President's plan will dig
the budget deficit hole deeper to the tune of $2.7 trillion in debt
over the next 10 years. Our present $6.3 trillion debt under the
President's plan at the end of 10 years will stand at $10 trillion. We
think that is wrong. We think that is bad for the country. We think
that is digging a hole that we will have a very difficult time getting
out of.
The second chart I have shows that the amount of interest that every
American family of four will have to pay just to service that debt that
we will have under the President's plan. As you can see by the chart,
currently every family in America pays $4,624 in interest just to
service that $6.3 trillion national debt. That is what we call the
interest tax, and the interest tax is the only tax that you cannot
repeal, because the interest obligation on the $6 trillion debt must be
paid every year by the taxpayers of this country.
So if you look at the President's plan, by the year 2013, 10 years
from now, every American's debt tax will double. Every American family
will be paying $8,458 every year, just to pay the interest on the ever-
increasing national debt.
We believe that is wrong. We believe it is a tremendous waste of
taxpayer dollars to invest that much in interest.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. If I may ask the gentleman a
question on that, right now you are telling us we are paying about
$4,400 for a family of four just on the debt that this Nation carries
in 2003, and if the President's budget gets passed and signed by him,
we are going to be looking at increasing that geometrically, basically?
Mr. TURNER of Texas. That is correct. As we said, by 10 years, the
end of the budget period that we are now looking at, the tax paid by
every family would be $8,458, just in interest. Today, 18 percent of
every tax dollar collected by the Federal Government goes to pay
interest.
[[Page H1892]]
To look at it another way, if you took only the Federal personal
income tax, about 25 percent of every dollar we pay, 25 cents out of
every dollar that we pay, goes just to interest on the national debt.
What a waste. We talk about wasteful spending, there is no greater
waste in any area of spending than what we waste every year just paying
interest on this debt that we have accumulated. The Blue Dog plan is to
stop that hemorrhaging.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I would say to the gentleman from
Texas, this does not include what it costs for us to go to war with
Iraq.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. That is correct. All of the discussion currently
ongoing about the Federal budget, the levels of spending, do not
include the cost of a conflict with Iraq or the cost of rebuilding Iraq
once the conflict is over. The President has said that is a separate
item, that it should be treated as a separate item. He has promised he
will send a supplemental request to the Congress to pay for that if and
when it occurs.
So we are actually talking about very conservative estimates of the
size of the national debt, and the Blue Dog budget plan we are
contrasting tonight with the President assumes the President's levels
of total spending.
There are a lot of folks around here who believe very strongly, as I
do and the Blue Dogs do, that we spend too much money and we have to be
conservative in our spending. The President has sent us a budget that
calls for significant reductions in the levels of spending that we have
seen over the years. But even if you abide by the President's spending
recommendations, which our budget does, his tax cut policies will
increase our national debt to the level to the tune of $10 trillion by
the end of this decade.
So, what we say is as long as we are facing war, facing growing
deficits, those who are most blessed economically in our country should
be willing to defer the future tax cuts they have yet to receive in
order to help us dig our way out of this ever-deepening hole of debt
and deficit.
The chart I have to my right shows in a line graph the differences
and the surplus under the Blue Dog defense budget and the deficit that
will occur over the next 10 years in the President's budget. The blue
line shows the President's budget. The red line shows the path to a
surplus under the Blue Dog budget.
As you can see, after 10 years, our Blue Dog budget has seen several
years of improved fiscal condition of the Federal Government, and we
have returned to surplus. We will have returned to a surplus by 2009.
By the end of the decade, we will have returned to what we call a true
surplus that does not account for the influx of Social Security funds,
which we are currently spending, just to run the rest of the
government.
This Congress a few months ago voted on several occasions never again
to borrow money from the Social Security Trust Fund to run the rest of
the government. We had 1 year, the last year of the Clinton
administration, when we did that, when we accomplished that. But now we
are back into deficit spending, we are using Social Security money once
again to run the government, and the Blue Dog plan is a plan that will
get us back to a point where we will no longer do that. The President's
plan, to the contrary, does not accomplish that goal.
Just in the last 2 months, the Congressional Budget Office in
revising its economic forecast on Federal income said that the Federal
debt at the end of the 10-year period would be half a trillion dollars
larger than they have said it would be in just January of this year. So
the slide into ever-deepening debt has been dramatic.
The Blue Dogs call upon our President to take a look at the same
numbers that his Office of Management and Budget produces, which are
very similar to the numbers that our bipartisan Congressional Budget
Office produces, and acknowledge and recognize that our picture, our
financial picture, has changed dramatically, even since he announced
his budget recommendations in January of this year.
I think, based on those changed numbers, the President should join
with the Blue Dogs in trying to move toward a balanced budget within
this decade, rather than continuing to dig this deficit hole deeper and
deeper.
So, I hope tonight as the Blue Dogs have gathered on this floor, that
we will be able to persuade not only our Democratic colleagues, who are
well aware of this severe deteriorating budget situation, but our
Republican colleagues, that they should take a good, hard look at the
Blue Dog budget alternative.
It should be appealing to many of them, because for many years
Republicans were known to be fiscal conservatives, and it has only been
in the last 2 years when we have seen Republicans abandon that, and in
fact on many occasions tell us that deficits really do not matter.
The truth is, common sense still prevails, and as you go along
spending more money than you take in, eventually it is going to catch
up with you. I have never seen a family that could sustain itself for
very long incurring debts that they could not repay, and neither can
your Federal Government.
{time} 1800
So we believe Republicans will be attracted to our plan because we do
not dig the deficit hole deeper. We believe that our spending levels,
which are the same levels as the President's, will also be attractive
to Republicans because they, I hope, would follow their President's
recommendations on spending.
So we hope this plan will be well received, and we look forward to
the opportunity to debate it when this House considers the budget
resolution for this year.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the
gentleman. Congratulations, by the way, at being named the ranking
member of the new Committee on Homeland Security, another area of
government that we will see, undoubtedly, some spending happening this
year. I know with the gentleman's fiscal conservative principles that
he will really hold the line and try to make America safe, but do it
within a budget and without too much overspending, as we see the
Republicans are attempting at this point. I thank the gentleman for
being here tonight.
Next we have the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), who has been a
Blue Dog now, I do not know, maybe 4 years, or maybe 2 or 3. He is
going to talk about the Blue Dog budget. I yield to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California. We
have heard a lot of talk tonight about the Blue Dogs. There are 35 of
us in the United States Congress who are conservative Democrats that
make up the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. We have one mission as a
coalition, and that mission is to promote fiscal discipline, fiscal
responsibility, and to bring common sense to our Nation and its budget
process.
We rise tonight because we are concerned about this country and its
future. This country is $6 trillion in debt; and under President Bush's
budget that he just released to Congress, over the next 10 years, this
country will go from $6 trillion in debt to $9 trillion in debt.
This country spends $1 billion every single day simply paying
interest on the national debt. What does that mean to all of us? It
means a lot. Madam Speaker, $1 billion a day. We could build 200 brand-
new elementary schools every single day in America just with the
interest that we are paying on the national debt. I have several
interstate highway programs under construction in my congressional
district back home that will create jobs while the roads are being
built and will create jobs long term because of an improved
infrastructure which will allow more industry to come and locate in the
Delta region, one of the most impoverished regions of the country. I
could finish those highways in less than a week just with the interest
that we are paying on the national debt. I call it a debt tax. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) had it right. That is one tax that
cannot go away because as the debt grows, the amount of interest that
we as a Nation are required to pay on that debt also grows.
The first $2,559 that every single taxpayer in this country pays each
year does not go to educate our children, it does not go to improve
roads or to create jobs or improve health care, or to make it
affordable and accessible, or to
[[Page H1893]]
provide prescription drug coverage as a part of Medicare for our
seniors, no. The first $2,559 that every taxpayer in this country pays
each year simply goes to pay interest on the national debt. We have got
to get this debt under control. But now it is getting worse.
From 1997 through 2001, this country did not deficit spend. Last
year, President Bush's budget put us back in the days of deficit
spending to the tune of $199 billion. This year it will be $300
billion. It is projected to be $307 billion next year. We are headed in
the wrong direction. We must get out of the days of deficit spending,
and we must begin to pay down this debt.
Social Security. The President's budget for fiscal year 2004, he
wants over a 10-year period to borrow $2.3 trillion from the Social
Security trust fund. Our government has already borrowed $1 trillion
from the Social Security trust fund, and I think it is time for the
politicians in Washington to keep their hands off the Social Security
trust fund.
There are those in government who will tell us that we must invest
that money until the time that we need it somewhere, and that may be
true. But let me tell my colleagues something. When I go to the bank to
get a loan, they want to know how much I am going to pay back and when
I am going to pay it back. This country has already borrowed $1
trillion, getting ready to borrow an additional $2.3 trillion from the
Social Security trust fund with absolutely no provision on how it ever
gets paid back. Guess what? Assuming it does get paid back, Social
Security as we know it today is still broke in 2041, because beginning
in 2011, we will have more people earning Social Security benefits than
paying into the system.
Medicare as we know it today is broke in 2030.
Now, the President wants another tax cut for the wealthiest people in
America. I am not here to beat up wealthy people. This is America. Many
people grow and realize the American dream of being successful, and
there is nothing wrong with that. But we are asking our men and women
in uniform to now make a sacrifice. We are asking people all across
America to sacrifice during this heightened time with the potential for
war and terrorism. I think now is not the time to pass additional tax
cuts.
Let me say this, Madam Speaker. I was one of 28 Democrats to vote
with President Bush for his tax cut about a year ago. It was the
biggest tax cut in 20 years, $1.3 trillion. But a lot has happened
since then. We have gone from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus to a
$215 billion debt over the next 10 years. We have had 2.5 million
people in America, 2.5 million in America lose their jobs; and anyone
who has a retirement plan, a 401(k) plan or invests in the stock market
knows exactly what has happened there. We may need dividend tax reform,
but now is not the time to do it.
Madam Speaker, as I travel my district back home, I have people come
up to me and they talk about how they are unemployed for the first time
in their lives. They talk about how they are trying to get by on a $600
Social Security check with a $400-, $500-, $600-, even $700-a-month
drug bill. People come up to me and talk about how they are struggling
to figure out how they are going to afford to send their kids to
college; but never has anyone walked up to me back home or anywhere,
for that matter, and said, you know, I am having trouble feeding my
kids because I am paying too many dividends, too many taxes on my
dividends.
Now is not the time for that reform. Now is the time to be fiscally
responsible. Now is the time to begin to get out of the days of deficit
spending and to pay down, to begin to pay down this debt.
Here is why it is so important, and here is why the Blue Dog budget
addresses those things, and here is why the Blue Dog budget is the
right answer during these difficult times to begin the process of
getting us out of deficit spending and beginning to pay down the debt.
The reason is simple. My grandparents left this country just a little
bit better off than they found it for my parents, and my parents left
this country just a little bit better off than they found it for our
generation. And I think we have a duty; no, I think we have an
obligation to leave this country just a little bit better off than we
found it for our kids and for our grandkids.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the
gentleman from Arkansas. I think there was a point that the gentleman
made that is so important for America to understand, and that is that
when one comes to this country or when one is born in this country and
one realizes their potential, one is in the greatest market economy the
world has known, and so it is great if one can use their talents and
make money. It is the American way. My father did it coming to this
country, my brothers and sisters and I have done it in this country. We
want the same thing for everybody. And I tell people all the time who
make good money, I say, when they complain to me about paying taxes, I
say to them, is it not a great country, where you can make $1 million,
$2 million, $500 million a year? Is it not a great marketplace? Is it
not great to see the infrastructure we have, the communication that we
have? The way our market works, the way people can come here with
nothing and make something? Is it not a great place?
Madam Speaker, one has to make money to pay taxes. I think it is a
great thing that we pay taxes, because I see the improvements, I see
what we have. We have a market economy where we can succeed. So we are
not against rich people. We just want to tell people who are making
money, there are the troops sacrificing, there are the unemployed
sacrificing. There are teachers in classrooms sacrificing, taking out
of their own pocket to buy supplies right now. Can you wait? Can you
wait on your next tax cut? Would the gentleman not agree?
Mr. ROSS. Well, let me say that this is not a partisan issue for me.
I was one of those who supported President Bush's tax cut about a year
ago. I just think now is not the time for additional tax cuts, not at a
time when we are asking our men and women in uniform to sacrifice, and
not at a time when we return to the days of deficit spending, and this
country is $6 trillion in debt. Again, we are spending $1 billion a day
just paying interest on the national debt. Now is the time to restore
fiscal discipline to our national government, to pay down this debt,
and to get out of the days of deficit spending.
Let me tell the gentlewoman two things that concern me. If the
President is just dying to spend $700 billion on something, let me tell
my colleagues some things we ought to do in this country. We ought to
quit talking about modernizing Medicare to include medicine for our
seniors and we ought to do it, and we ought to fund it to where seniors
can walk into the pharmacy of their choice, pull out their Medicare
card and be treated just like they are when they go to the doctor and
when they go to the hospital.
We hear a lot about homeland security. We hear a lot of talk about
it, but it is way underfunded. On February 7, four members of the Cuban
Coast Guard on a 30-foot boat made the trip across the waters from Cuba
to Key West. They docked at the marina at a hotel in Key West with two
machine guns, and they walked the streets of Key West for a number of
minutes trying to find somebody to defect to. Thank God it was the
Cuban Coast Guard, and thank God they were here to defect. What if it
had been terrorists? We have to quit talking about homeland security,
and we have to fund it. We have to keep America safe. We have to keep
our children safe. We have to keep our grandchildren safe.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is
right. We need to protect and invest in America. Because we know what
happens when we invest in America, when we invest in education, when we
invest in a health care system, when we invest in our infrastructure
and our communications system. When we invest, we reap more. And when
we spend and drive up the debt, we get ourselves in trouble.
When we are talking about 18 cents of every dollar going to pay down
the debt, it is credit card amounts. It is what one would anticipate as
being the highest cost of borrowing. And imagine if we have to go to
war. That is outside
[[Page H1894]]
of the President's budget. It is not included in the spending that he
is proposing. So we will be even higher. And the Blue Dogs feel that
the first thing we need to do is get down to basics. Hold down our
spending, be good about that, tighten our belts in these tight times,
spend on the right things, on investment, on homeland security, on
education of our children, on our military. But we also believe it is
not time for a tax cut. We believe that everyone must sacrifice during
this time; and if we sacrifice and we do it right, we will bring down
the debt that we see spiraling out of control. And when we do that, we
will have more money, more money in the long run to spend on the things
that make this country great.
So I would encourage my colleagues, in particular on the Republican
side, to come and ask us about the Blue Dog budget, because we think it
will work and it will bring down the debt. And when we bring down the
debt, we will see ourselves where we were 2 years ago: in a surplus
situation.
____________________