[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 149 (Wednesday, October 3, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11228-H11229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              ON OUR WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last evening I came to the House floor to talk 
about one of the most critical issues facing our Nation today.
  Our country's financial outlook is desperate. How do we stop the red 
ink and the bleeding? How do we come together as Republicans and 
Democrats and make certain that the American people don't suffer for 
our out-of-control spending?
  I'm talking about entitlements and other mandatory spending. How do 
we change course? Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security combined with 
interest on the national debt will consume all of the government's 
revenue by the year 2026.
  According to the GAO, balancing the budget in 2040 would require 
cutting total Federal spending by 60 percent or raising taxes by 2\1/2\ 
times today's level. Both would devastate the economy.
  The longer we wait to get serious about this reality, the harder and 
more abrupt the adjustments will be for the American people.
  I ask every colleague in the House, how will you feel when there 
isn't enough money for medical research, for cancer research, for 
Alzheimer's, for Parkinson's, or for autism? How will you feel when you 
know it was today's Congress, this Congress that we all have the honor 
to serve in, that passed the buck to the next generation, that avoided 
the issue, and said it was just too hard?
  I'm challenging every Member of this House to come together, to know 
that while we served in Congress, we did everything in our power to 
provide the kind of security and way of life for our children and our 
grandchildren that our parents and our grandparents worked so hard to 
provide us.
  Congressman Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee, and I have come 
together because we know what is at stake. We have a bill that we 
believe is the way forward to help stop the bleeding. And, quite 
frankly, I would say to my friends on both sides of the aisle the 
American people desperately want to see us working together, 
Republicans and Democrats, to deal with these important issues.
  The bipartisan SAFE Commission will send its recommendations to 
Congress. We will have an up-or-down vote

[[Page H11229]]

similar to the base closing process, which we now have in effect in the 
Congress, on getting our financial house in order.
  There are other ideas, too. I am inserting Robert Samuelson's op-ed 
in today's Washington Post. He hits the nail on the head when he talks 
about the need for bipartisan work, a bipartisan panel, to help us do 
our job. ``Everything else has failed,'' he says.
  I urge you to think about this issue and the real problem we face 
now. Not an issue for next week or next month or the next Congress but 
an issue for this Congress. An issue for now.
  In the song by Simon and Garfunkel, ``The Boxer,'' it says, ``Man 
hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' I urge us to 
tell the American people not what they want to hear but what they need 
to hear. And I urge us to come together and work in a bipartisan way 
for our young people, for our children, for our grandchildren, and for 
all Americans.

                [From the Washington Post, Oct. 3, 2007]

                      Escaping the Budget Impasse

                        (By Robert J. Samuelson)

       Almost everyone knows that the next president will have to 
     wrestle with the immense costs of retiring baby boomers. 
     Comes now a small band of Democrats and Republicans who want 
     to do the new president a giant favor. They want to force the 
     new administration to face the problem in early 2009. Why is 
     this a favor? Because dealing with this issue is so 
     politically unsavory that resolving it quickly would be a 
     godsend. Otherwise, it could haunt the White House for four 
     years.
       Let's review the problem (again). From 2000 to 2030, the 
     65-and-over population will roughly double, from 35 million 
     to 72 million, or from about 12 percent of the population to 
     nearly 20 percent. Spending on Social Security, Medicare and 
     Medicaid--three big programs that serve the elderly--already 
     represents more than 40 percent of the federal budget. In 
     2006, these three programs cost $1.1 trillion, more than 
     twice defense spending. Left on automatic pilot, these 
     programs are plausibly projected to grow to about 75 percent 
     of the present budget by 2030.
       Stalemate results because all the ways of dealing with 
     these pressures are controversial. There are only four: (a) 
     massive tax increases--on the order of 30 to 50 percent by 
     2030; (b) draconian cuts in other government programs (note 
     that the projected increases in Social Security and Medicare, 
     as a share of national income, are more than all of today's 
     domestic discretionary programs); (c) cuts in Social 
     Security, Medicare and Medicaid--higher eligibility ages or 
     lower benefits for wealthier retirees; or (d) undesirably 
     large budget deficits.
       The proposed escape seems at first so drearily familiar and 
     demonstrably ineffective that it's hardly worth discussing: a 
     bipartisan commission. But what would distinguish this 
     commission from its many predecessors is that Congress would 
     have to vote on its recommendations. The political theory is 
     that, presented with a bipartisan package that cannot be 
     amended, most politicians would do what they believe 
     (privately) ought to be done rather than allow pressure 
     groups, including retirees, to paralyze the process.
       There is precedent for this approach. Since 1988, Congress 
     has allowed more than 600 military bases and facilities to be 
     closed or streamlined using a similar arrangement. An 
     independent Base Realignment and Closure Commission evaluates 
     the Pentagon's proposed closings and listens to objections. 
     With the president's approval, it then submits its own list, 
     which goes into effect unless vetoed by both houses of 
     Congress. This process provides members of Congress 
     bipartisan ``cover'' and prevents amendments from weakening 
     the package.
       Two prominent proposals would adapt this approach to the 
     budget. The first, offered by Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and 
     Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the chairman and ranking minority member 
     of the Budget Committee, would create a 16-member commission, 
     evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. All eight 
     Democrats would be from Congress, as would six Republicans. 
     The administration would have two members, including the 
     secretary of the Treasury.
       Conrad's notion is that the impasse is political and that 
     only practicing politicians--people with ``skin in the 
     game''--can craft a compromise that can be sold to their 
     peers. The commission would report in December 2008. Twelve 
     of its 16 members would have to support the plan, with 
     congressional passage needing 60 percent approval (60 
     senators, 261 representatives). These requirements, Conrad 
     and Gregg argue, would ensure bipartisan support.
       The other proposal comes from Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) 
     and Frank Wolf (R-Va.). It would also create a 16-member 
     commission, with two major differences. First, only four of 
     its members would be from Congress. Second, though Congress 
     would have to vote on the commission's proposal, there would 
     be some leeway for others--including the president--to 
     present alternatives as long as they had the same long-term 
     budget impact Any proposal, however, would have to be voted 
     on as a package without amendments.
       A combination of these plans might work best. A 20-member 
     group would be manageable and should include four outsiders 
     to provide different perspectives and, possibly, to build 
     public support. Perhaps the head of AARP should be included. 
     And it would be a mistake to present the next president with 
     a take-it-or-leave-it package. The Cooper-Wolf plan would 
     allow a new administration to make changes--and get credit--
     without being able to start from scratch.
       This commission approach has potential pitfalls: It might 
     create a face-saving package that does little. But everything 
     else has failed. The main political beneficiary would be the 
     next president. It would be revealing if some of the 
     hopefuls--Democrats and Republicans--would show that they 
     grasp this by providing their endorsements. Otherwise, the 
     odds that Congress will even create the commission are slim.

                          ____________________