[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 17 (Thursday, February 4, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H595-H599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DOES CONGRESS HAVE THE COURAGE TO CONFRONT THE ECONOMIC THREAT TO
AMERICA'S FUTURE?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. AKIN. Madam Chair, in the next hour we're going to be talking
about a subject that has caught the attention of Americans. It's,
generally speaking, a boring subject, but now it's not become boring
anymore, and that is the problem with the Federal Government
overspending, the problem with the budgets that have been proposed, the
problem of the financial trajectory of our country and the threat that
that trajectory poses.
I'd like to step back in time a little bit as a Republican to talk
about the fact that over a 12-year period, Republicans had deficit
spending in a number of years at about a hundred billion dollars or
maybe a little more. If you put that all together over 12 years, you
have over a trillion dollar amount of deficit spending.
But what we're looking at in 1 year now is over a trillion dollars.
In other words, the Democrats are spending more in 1 year than we did
in 12 years, or you could say that they're spending enough in 1 month
to compensate for every year of the Republicans.
Now, the past President was criticized that he overspent; he spent
too much money. His biggest deficit was in 2008 with the Pelosi
Congress at about $450 billion of excessive spending.
Just the number of billion dollars, it's hard for us to recognize how
does that relate to something. So let's put it in perspective and take
a look at it as a percent of the gross domestic product of our country.
The $450 billion deficit with the Pelosi Congress and President Bush,
that number would be about 3.1 percent of GDP. That is actually fairly
average for many different years and different Presidents.
The 2008 deficit was followed by 2009, of course, and it was, again,
the Pelosi Congress, but this time the Obama administration. And after
all kinds of criticism of the Republicans for spending too much money,
the budget was $1.4 trillion of deficit. That is three times worse than
the worst year of President Bush.
[[Page H596]]
{time} 1615
Now we have heard all kinds of complaints that it was the
Republicans' fault and all of these kinds of things. And yet the choice
to spend that much deficit was still a choice, a choice made by our
President and our current Congress under Speaker Pelosi, $1.4 trillion.
Now let's connect that, because $1 trillion is an awful lot of money,
and it's very hard for us to understand. How does that connect to gross
domestic product? Well, it turns out that 9.9 percent of our gross
domestic product was in debt. That's almost 10 percent, just under 9.
That's the highest level since World War II. That is an incredible
level of deficit spending.
Now the question in people's minds becomes, okay, I'm not used to
thinking in terms of billions and trillions of dollars. So how do we
put this in perspective? And what does it mean to just the average
citizen on the street? Well, one of the things it means is that we are
really pushing the financial solvency of our country. We are getting to
the point where we are spending money so rapidly, beyond our means,
that we are driving ourselves into a condition of bankruptcy which
could cause a massive collapse of our entire economic system. Nobody
knows exactly when or what could trigger that kind of event.
These are very serious questions we are going to be discussing in the
next hour. And I'm thankful to see Congressman Wolf, a very highly
respected Congressman from this area. He is also going to share with us
something about the situation with this budget and what it means.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized
for 54 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor
executed for his efforts in the Nazi resistance during World War II,
once said, ``the ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world
that it leaves to its children.'' These are timeless words that
resonate deeply today as our Nation struggles to confront our growing
national debt.
The release this week of President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget
projects a deficit of nearly $1.6 trillion, equivalent to 10.6 percent
of economic output. I am convinced that addressing ballooning debt is
not only an economic issue, but there is also a moral component to this
issue that goes to the heart of who we are as Americans. Yet I wonder
if we in Congress, America's political leaders, have lost the will to
make the tough decisions necessary, decisions that could well require
sacrifice.
The generation of Americans who came of age during the era of
Dietrich Bonhoeffer has been affectionately called the Greatest
Generation. Many of them have made unimaginable sacrifices, including
their lives, for their children and their children's children. If we
remember the legacy that we've inherited, the giants on whose shoulders
we stand, I believe we, too, can be moved to do our duty. It will not
be easy, but that which is worth doing rarely is.
However, should the 111th Congress fail to address the financial
tsunami approaching our shores, it will be judged by history as a
dysfunctional, fundamentally broken institution that neglected its
responsibilities not only to its constituents we came here to serve,
but to those future generations of Americans.
We are on that precipice.
It has been almost 4 years since I first came to the floor of the
House proposing an independent bipartisan commission to address
unsustainable Federal spending. The SAFE Commission, short for Securing
America's Future Economy, would operate in an authentic and transparent
way, holding a series of public meetings across the country to hear
from the American people. It would put everything on the table,
entitlements and all other spending and tax policy. Its recommendations
would not be made in a vacuum or over a weekend locked up at Andrews
Air Force Base.
At the time of introduction, and still today, it is the only debt
reduction commission legislation in play that mandates public
engagement on this scale. It also would force Congress to vote up or
down on the legislative package born from the commission's work. There
would be no avoiding of hard choices.
When I first introduced the bill in the spring of 2006, I discussed
the looming financial crisis facing our country and said that the
longer we put off fixing the problem, the more bitter the medicine
required to fix it would be. I also sought to address the objections of
some who said the problem was too big to fix, too risky, particularly
in a congressional election year, and an abdication of congressional
responsibility.
At face value, there may be some merits to some of those objections,
but these arguments ring hollow for the future that we face. They
paralyze the Congress from moving forward. They allow the Congress to
blindly continue to spend. They provide an excuse for the status quo.
They allow us to stick our heads in the sand, all to the detriment of
the country.
Consider that from 2011 to 2020, the Congressional Budget Office
projects staggering cumulative deficits of $6 trillion. Our Nation is
broke. The national debt is now over $12 trillion and growing at rates
that haven't been matched since World War II. Amazingly, the House
earlier today followed the Senate action to increase the Federal debt
limit to a staggering $14.294 trillion.
Significantly, these deficits are not first and foremost wartime
deficits. Rather, we have amassed enormous unfunded obligations to
ensure future entitlement benefits that, when added with liabilities
like the debt, total nearly $57 trillion. That means every man, woman,
and child owes $184,000.
Legitimate credit rating agencies have threatened in recent weeks to
downgrade the United States from its current Triple A bond rating. The
latest warning came just this week from Moody's, a top Wall Street
credit agency, reacting to the President's budget. Moody issued a
report saying ``unless further measures are taken to reduce the budget
deficit further or the economy rebounds more vigorously than expected,
the Federal financial picture as presented in President Obama's
February 1 budget will at some point put pressure on AAA government
bond rating.''
This news comes on the heels of Spain, Greece, and Dubai all seeing
their credit ratings downgraded. Losing this ``gold standard'' would
make it even more difficult to borrow money, would shake confidence in
the dollar, and could lead to a situation where the dollar is no longer
the primary international reserve currency. If that were to happen,
prices for everything traded internationally, including food and oil,
would go up.
Just this week, The Washington Post featured a piece by Allan Sloan,
Fortune magazine's senior editor-at-large. He focused on a recent
report from the Congressional Budget Office that shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than
it is spending on benefits. Sloan writes, ``Instead of helping to
finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our
Nation's biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep
benefit checks from bouncing--in other words, a taxpayer bailout.'' He
concludes, ``this year's Social Security cash shortfall is a watershed
event. Until this year, Social Security was a problem for the future.
Now it's a problem for the present.''
Social Security and Medicare are amassing huge deficits and are ill-
prepared for the coming flood of new baby boom retirees. When our
retirement security programs like Social Security and Medicare were
established, the ratio of workers supporting each retiree was more than
10 times the number supporting retirees today.
The American people understand the depth of the country's spending
problems and are leaps and bounds ahead of Congress in acknowledging
the need to deal with this issue. A national survey taken in November
revealed that 70 percent of those polled said a bipartisan commission
is the best way to tackle the growing budget deficits and national
debt. Seventy percent is a pretty convincing number.
Every Member of Congress knows how serious the Federal Government's
spending is. But where are those willing to deal with it? The lyrics in
Simon and Garfunkel's song ``The Boxer''--
[[Page H597]]
``man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest''--aptly
describe the mood on Capitol Hill when it comes to addressing Federal
spending.
Every day that passes without action is a day that entitlement
spending continues to diminish vital discretionary dollars currently
being used for domestic and foreign priorities.
But where will the money to meet the needs of the American people
come from if these dollars continue to shrink because mandatory
spending is taking a growing piece of that pie? If we do not begin to
rein in spending, every penny of the Federal budget will go to interest
on the debt and entitlement spending by 2028. The implications are
staggering. The New York Times ran an article on the front page the day
after the President's budget was submitted to Congress which captured
this approaching reality. It said, ``unless miraculous growth, or
miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over
the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic
initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors.''
What does that mean in real terms?
Do you care about national defense and homeland security in a post-9/
11 world? There will not be any money left. Do you care about improving
our Nation's crumbling transportation infrastructure? There won't be
any money left. Do you care about returning a man to the Moon? There
will not be any money left. Do you care about this country leading the
way in scientific innovation and technological advancement? There will
not be any money left. Do you care about finding a cure for cancer,
Alzheimer's, autism and Lyme disease? There will not be any money left.
Do you care about helping the vulnerable populations around the
world, the orphan, the widow, the HIV/AIDS patient? There will not be
any money left. Do you care about sending aid to countries devastated
by natural disasters like Haiti after the earthquake? There will not be
any money left. No money. Zero. Every penny of the Federal budget will
go to interest on the debt and entitlement spending.
The sheer size of the Federal deficit and national debt are
astounding. But the narrative that will accompany these numbers if
Congress continues to do nothing will be even more devastating. Its
implications are not just economic but also encompass our national
security.
Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib made just this point last
week. He wrote, ``the Federal budget deficit has long since graduated
from nuisance to headache to pressing national concern. Now, however,
it has become so large and persistent that it is time to start thinking
of it as something else entirely: A national security threat.''
Foreign lenders already own nearly 40 percent of our domestic
economy. Our biggest ``bankers'' are China, Japan and oil-exporting
countries like Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was home to the 9/11
terrorists. Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi brand of Islam is taught in some of
the most radical mosques and madrassas around the world, including
along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Saudi Arabia continues to view
floggings and beheadings with a sword as legitimate means of
punishment. They have repressed women. They persecute Christians and
those of the Jewish faith. Their textbooks are filled with hateful
messages about minority faiths. Is this a country that we want to be
beholden to?
What about communist China, which routinely violates the basic human
rights and religious freedom of its own people, where Catholic bishops,
Protestant pastors and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their
faith? I've seen how they plundered Tibet with my own eyes.
The U.S. intelligence community notes that China's attempts to
penetrate U.S. agencies are the most aggressive of all foreign
intelligence organizations. According to the FBI, Chinese intelligence
services ``pose a significant threat both to the national security and
to the compromise of U.S. critical national assets.'' Weapons that
entities of the People's Republic of China supplied to Iran were
``found to have been transferred to terrorist organizations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.''
China is a major arms supplier and source of economic strength to the
regime in Sudan. They have been the major obstacle to ending the
genocide in Darfur. Our efforts to exert diplomatic pressure against
Iran's nuclear weapons program have been thwarted by China's opposition
to the U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran. Do we really want
China to be our banker?
These foreign countries, with vastly different aims than our own,
could end up negatively influencing U.S. foreign policy by threatening
to dump our currency in the world market. Such actions would not be a
historical anomaly. Recall 1956 in the Suez Canal crisis, which some
believed signaled the end of Britain and France as world powers. Egypt
announced that it was going to nationalize the canal, which outraged
the British and French, who then devised a plan to use military force
to keep control. The U.S. wanted to avert conflict at any cost. And
President Eisenhower threatened to sell the U.S. reserves of the
British pound, which would essentially result in the collapse of the
British currency. The British changed course.
Is it conceivable to imagine the Saudis threatening to dump our
currency if we don't withdraw from the region? Is it conceivable to
imagine China threatening to dump our currency if we don't stop
pressing nuclear-armed North Korea?
Simply put, we are presently borrowing hundreds of billions of
dollars from countries which pursue aims that are at odds with our
national interest and values, both directly and indirectly.
{time} 1630
How did America reach this unsustainable spending level? There is
plenty of blame to go around for lack of action from both political
parties. It has been an equal opportunity spending society.
I tried to get the Bush administration on board from July 2006 to
April 2008. I then wrote Treasury Secretary Paulson more than a dozen
letters imploring him to embrace the bipartisan SAFE process. Two
months before then, President-elect Obama took the oath of office. I
wrote to ask him to support the SAFE Commission initiative, which
Congressman Jim Cooper and I were advocating as the best way forward to
rein in America's debt.
Last week, after years of effort, the commission finally got its day
of debate on the Senate floor, and we came as close as we have gotten
to creating this bipartisan panel legislatively. The Senate considered
a measure put forward by Senators Conrad and Gregg, in many ways
companion legislation to the SAFE Commission. During the debate,
Senator Conrad pointed to a recent Newsweek cover story, ``How Great
Powers Fall: Steep Debt, Slow Growth, and High Spending Kills Empires--
and America Could Be Next.''
He quoted from the article that ``this is how empires decline. It
begins with a debt explosion. It ends with inexorable reduction in the
resources available for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. If the
United States doesn't come up soon with a credible plan to restore the
Federal budget to balance over the next 5 to 10 years, the danger is
very real that a debt crisis could lead to a major weakening of
American power.'' Sobering words, but hardly alarmist.
Senator Gregg in his floor speech also described before us in stark
terms. He said, ``We are on an intolerable path, a path of
unsustainability, a path which leads us down the road to a Nation which
is less prosperous and has a lower standard of living than what we
received from our parents.''
Similar to the remarks of Senators Conrad and Gregg, underscoring the
crisis we face, The New York Times story referenced earlier also
reports candidly about this same issue and cites historical precedent.
The Times reported: ``The United States could begin to suffer the
same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt
grows more rapidly than income, the country's influence around the
world erodes.''
Charles Krauthammer in October also described the prospect of
America's decline but laid it squarely in our laps to choose. He said,
``For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice.
Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of
the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to
abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline, or continued ascendancy, is
in our hands.''
Last year, the well-respected Center for the Study of the Presidency
and
[[Page H598]]
Congress, published a report titled, ``Saving America's Future: A
Challenge to the American People.'' It paints a stark and troubling
picture of our Nation's challenges. One of its recommendations was to
create a bipartisan commission to deal with the looming financial
crisis.
At the press conference unveiling the report, the study panel's
cochairman, Norm Augustine, the former chairman and CEO of Lockheed
Martin, voiced a similar warning. He said, ``In the technology-driven
economy in which we live, Americans have come to accept leadership as
the natural and enduring state of affairs. But leadership is highly
perishable. It must be constantly re-earned.
``In the 16th century, the citizens of Spain no doubt thought they
would remain the world leader. In the 17th century, it was France. In
the 19th century, Great Britain. And in the 20th century, it was the
United States.
``Unless we do something dramatically different, including
strengthening our investments in research and education, the 21st
century will belong to China and India.''
George Will's column in The Washington Post today echoes these themes
of China's ascent. He cites Robert Fogel, a Nobel Prize-winning
economist, who predicts that ``by 2040, China's GDP will be $123
trillion, or three times the entire world's economic output in 2000.
China's 40 percent share of the global GDP will be almost triple that
of the United States' 14 percent.''
Despite these alarm bells these statements set off, the Senate failed
to approve the Conrad-Gregg amendment. The vote was close. A majority
was on board, but the final tally came up seven votes short: 53-46. I
salute Senators Conrad and Gregg, as well as the other 44 Senators who
voted for the commission, for the profiles in courage they showed.
In the aftermath of that defeat, the President, who only at the 11th
hour had endorsed Conrad-Gregg, proposed in his State of the Union
address the creation of a fiscal commission by executive order. His
budget document reflected that proposal, though only in broad terms
without any formal language or timeline.
When I first heard that he was considering such a plan, I came to the
House floor to voice my skepticism about an executive commission
without congressional approval. Those concerns are undiminished as more
details have emerged.
One of the most authentic provisions of the SAFE Commission is its
mandate for an up-or-down vote in the Congress. The establishment of
fiscal commission by executive order that does not require Congress to
vote on its findings is what could be called ``big hat, but no
cattle,'' a big hat used for political cover for elected officials who
aren't willing to make tough choices in an election year.
Simply put, a commission established through executive order will
make it look like Washington is finally doing something to address
runaway spending, but without the teeth to require action. It will
amount to nothing more than another report collecting dust on the
bookshelf. It will not make a difference. A real commission must be
authentic, accountable, and transparent. It must involve the American
people. It must require legislative action.
A commission through executive order fails on all those counts. It
will be viewed by the America people as cover for the billions of
dollars added to the deficit in recent spending legislation, such as
the $787 billion in economic stimulus that has failed to move the
unemployment rate below 10 percent, or the nearly $1 trillion in health
care reform being negotiated behind closed doors, or other huge budget
breakers widely unpopular in the eyes of the American people.
And if by some miracle Congress were forced to vote on the
recommendations of such a fiscal commission, it would be after November
with a lame duck Congress filled with Members who are retiring and may
have already secured new jobs as lobbyists, or those who were defeated.
Where would the accountability to the constituents be that they
represent?
Just this week, the President submitted a budget that includes
unprecedented spending and borrowing: some $1.4 trillion in new taxes,
$8.5 trillion in additional deficits, $3.8 trillion in government
spending this year alone, and $100 billion proposed for another dubious
stimulus package, and all submitted with the claim that the
administration's fiscal commission will put the country on a fiscally
sustainable path. Where is the credibility?
There has been much analysis of Senator-elect Scott Brown's upset
victory in Massachusetts. For the record, Scott Brown, too, has voiced
his support for the bipartisan commission and said if he had been
seated before the vote on Conrad-Gregg, he would have voted for the
amendment.
One thing that the pundits and politicians in Washington ought to
take away from his election is that the American people lack trust in
their elected officials and have grown weary of the status quo. The
American people want their voices to be heard. The American people are
deeply concerned about record spending. The American people expect more
from their elected leaders. We have to prove to them that we are
listening.
I am among those who believe that Republicans can and will regain a
majority in the House; and when we do, I am hopeful that we will have
the courage to prove to the American people that we are listening. We
must take the bold action necessary to address runaway spending,
something that we failed to emphasize in recent years.
To Members of my own party who prefer to bide their time in the hope
that we are successful in November, I respectfully submit we cannot
wait to deal with this growing threat to our economy and standard of
living. In fact, I have been deeply disappointed that many with whom I
typically find common cause, Americans for Tax Reform and The Wall
Street Journal, among them, have been some of the most vocal in their
opposition to the commission idea, stating their fear that it would
ultimately prove to be a vehicle for tax increases.
Interesting, they have found themselves keeping company with
MoveOn.org, the service employees union SEIU, and AFL-CIO, and NOW, all
of whom have come out opposed to our legislation. Those organizations'
reason, of course, is entirely opposite, with the fear the commission
would cut their closely guarded spending programs.
Yes, MoveOn.org, which maliciously and unnecessarily launched
personal attacks on respected Army General David Petraeus. Remember the
General Betray Us ads? And the same Service Employees International
Union, whose president Andy Stern was the most frequent visitor to
President Obama's White House in the first months of his Presidency and
turned out more than 100,000 volunteers to fund his campaign. And the
same AFL-CIO which is pushing organized labor's agenda and legislation
that would strip workers of their right to a secret-ballot election
when it comes to union representation.
During the Senate consideration of the Conrad-Gregg measure, Senator
Voinovich, an early champion of the commission, aptly described the
political landscape: ``Since the possible passage of this commission
has become a reality, special interest groups on both sides of the
aisle have assailed it as terrible. The taxpayer organizations on the
right warn that the commission will increase taxes. The liberal groups
on the left warn it will result in cuts to Social Security, Medicare,
and other government programs. If the left and the right is so
unhappy,'' Senator Voinovich said, ``with this, this has to be good
legislation.''
I want to be absolutely clear: I am a fiscal conservative. I worked
with senior staff at the Heritage Foundation, a bastion of
conservativism, among others, in drafting the SAFE Commission
legislation. I believe that the economy grows when people keep more of
their hard-earned money, and my voting record reflects this belief. I
do not favor tax increases.
In fact, I would support a short-term moratorium on Social Security
payroll taxes as the ultimate economic stimulus to put more of
taxpayers' hard-earned money back into their hands so they can invest
in the economy. This would cost less than a so-called stimulus and
would create jobs.
As sometimes happens around here, positions are staked out before the
actual bill text is ever read. So I encourage my colleagues, especially
on my side of the aisle, to actually read the
[[Page H599]]
SAFE Commission bill. It is a bipartisan process.
The legislation text protects the minority by requiring a
supermajority, 12 of 16 of the commission's members, to be in agreement
before any legislative recommendations are sent to Congress for an up-
or-down vote. I do not believe that minority Members are likely to be
appointed to this type of commission by the Republican leadership. Paul
Ryan, ranking member on the House Budget Committee, and Dave Camp,
ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, they would not
waiver in their opposition to tax increases. To say that this would
bring about tax increases, it is wrong.
Senator Gregg underscored this point during consideration of the
Conrad-Gregg amendment. Senator Gregg said, ``One presumes that whoever
goes on this task force, if chosen by the leaders of their party in the
Senate, whether Senator Reid or Senator McConnell, or leaders of the
party in the House, Ms. Pelosi or Mr. Boehner, is going to reflect
fairly aggressively the viewpoints and philosophies of the different
parts. It will be a bipartisan report, or it will not be a report at
all. Then it comes to the Congress, and has to be voted up or down by a
supermajority. Once again, it basically moots the ability to game it.
One side can't game the other. The proposal must be bipartisan and
fair.''
In short, without Republican support, any attempt to raise taxes
would never see the light of day on the House floor. The SAFE bill was
carefully crafted to ensure a bipartisan process and to protect the
rights of the minority party.
Given the enormity of the challenge, the commission needs to be able
to look at every component of our fiscal policy to fairly assess where
we stand and how we can best move toward a sound financial future. In
looking at revenues, the legislative language is clear that any changes
in the Tax Code must help simplify the system and stimulate increased
economic growth and, thereby, tax revenue. But what no one is saying is
that by opposing the commission concept altogether, and failing to put
forward any viable alternative, those who most adamantly oppose tax
increases essentially ensure they will happen down the road.
The issue is that if we don't do something now about the deficit, the
debts that continue to mount at record levels will guarantee tax
increases in the future. The longer it takes to address this issue, the
more draconian the options will be when Congress is forced, which they
will most surely be, to change course.
I have repeatedly challenged colleagues on both sides of the aisle
who question the SAFE Commission to come up with another solution to
the deficit and debt crisis that can pass Congress.
Without a special process like the SAFE Commission, which is based on
the successful Federal base-closing process, I am convinced Congress
will never put a mechanism in place to control government spending.
Quite frankly, both parties have failed to face up to the entitlement
challenges in recent years. Given the enormity of the country's
financial turmoil, I remain convinced that the bold steps needed to
control deficit spending will never be taken through regular order in a
Congress that is so politically controlled by special interests. Our
entire political system is now so polarized that many only think in
terms of red or blue ideology at the expense of a shared national
interest.
Time is growing short. If lawmakers are serious about the debt and
the deficit, issues that Americans are increasingly worried about,
Congress will halt the budget gimmicks, the slick talking points, and
muster the political will to have an honest conversation with the
American people about where we are, where we are headed, and what
changes need to be made to get us back on track.
{time} 1645
That is what the SAFE Commission-like process is all about, a
national conversation. The people of this country deserve an honest
assessment about their Federal Government's future government savings
account and checkbook, a discussion driven not by politics but by
statesmanship. The American people deserve a discussion which elevates
the Nation's sights.
The consequences of inaction are simply too great to put this issue
on hold and rely on a fake commission. We need a process that will
produce measurable results, a process that will foster a renaissance in
the country, will allow us to honestly tell our children that the
foundation of America that they are inheriting is just as strong and
just as promising as the America that our parents left us. I long to be
able to tell my five children and my 15 grandchildren that that is the
case.
Abraham Lincoln, one of our Nation's most admired and greatest
Presidents once said, ``You cannot escape the responsibility of
tomorrow by evading it today.'' Yet that is exactly what Congress is
poised to do if it fails to act.
In closing, Madam Speaker, nearly 4 years ago I visited the site of
George Washington's crossing the Delaware River in anticipation of the
Battle of Trenton. The iconic scene is depicted in the painting which
hangs in the west wing of the White House. Washington was down to only
3,000 soldiers, and the cause of liberty looked to be headed for
defeat. Yet with great courage and sacrifice, Washington and his forces
were successful in changing the direction of the American Revolution,
and therefore the course of history.
Their legacy is a rich one, and it is ours. If we are mindful of this
legacy, of the sacrifices of so many previous generations of Americans,
I believe we will move to take action. I believe that we will rise in
our midst, profiles in courage. I believe we will make the sacrifices
necessary for the betterment of this country.
I close with the words of Washington himself, the cautionary words
from his 1796 farewell address. He said, ``We should avoid ungenerously
throwing upon posterity the burden of what we ourselves ought to
bear.'' Indeed, this is our burden to bear. I ask my colleagues, will
we falter under its weight or rise above it as befitting this great
Nation?
And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________