[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19791-19797]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            ``THE REST OF THE STORY'' ON THE BUDGET SURPLUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we will be taking this hour, I will be 
joined by many of my fellow Democrats, Blue Dogs, and perhaps several 
others today, to talk about the budget, to talk about debt reduction, 
and, as Paul Harvey says quite often, to talk about ``the rest of the 
story,'' that which we are not hearing in much of the rhetoric that is 
going on today.
  The first point I want to make is that through August 31, 2000, there 
has been no surplus, other than trust fund surpluses. You would not 
believe that with the carried-away rhetoric that all of us have been 
guilty of using of late.
  The $4.6 trillion projected surplus over the next 10 years, remember, 
that is projected. But, more important, remember that as of August 31 
of this year, there still has been no surplus, other than trust funds, 
and, therefore, that is why many of us on this side of the aisle have 
been arguing that before we spend these projected surpluses, that we 
ought to fix Social Security and Medicare first, that we ought to be 
doing the Nation's business today. Instead of adjourning at 3 o'clock 
in the afternoon, or completing business at 2:15, we ought to be 
dealing in the respective committees with how do we fix Medicare and 
the tremendous needs of rural health care.
  Why have we been on the floor for the last several weeks talking 
about tax cuts of $1.3 trillion, when you add them all up, again 
spending projected surpluses, before we fix Social Security and 
Medicare? Again, let us calm ourselves and acknowledge the fact that as 
of August 31, there is no surplus, other than trust fund surpluses.
  That is why today the Blue Dog Democrats reiterated the plan that we 
were talking about at the beginning of this session of Congress, the 
same plan that we brought to the floor of the House that got, if memory 
serves me correct, 177 votes, 144 Democrats and I believe 37 
Republicans joined with us. That would be 181. Not quite a majority, 
but there was a significant bipartisan group that recognized that you 
needed a plan if you were going to accomplish all of the rhetoric that 
both sides take part in from time to time.
  Today we come to the floor to discuss in quite some detail the plan 
that the Blue Dogs put forward months ago that we reiterate today. The 
Blue Dog outline demonstrates that it is still possible to reach an 
agreement on a fiscally responsible budget plan that pays off the debt, 
maintains fiscal discipline and provides substantial tax relief, 
including estate tax relief and marriage penalty repeal.
  The Blue Dogs have been advocating debt reduction since surplus 
projections first materialized 2 years ago. The Republican leadership 
has adopted Blue Dog rhetoric in the last few days on debt reduction, 
but only for 1 year, and the question we ask today of the leadership of 
this House is why only 1 year? If debt reduction is truly something 
that we all agree on in a bipartisan way, why not do it over a 10-year 
period?
  The Blue Dogs believe that to be meaningful, a commitment to debt 
reduction must be long-term. That is why we are calling on the 
leadership of this House to extend the principles of their debt 
reduction lockbox for 10 years. Under the Blue Dog framework, $3.65 
trillion, 80 percent of the unified surplus, would be devoted to debt 
reduction over 10 years. This would put us on the path to eliminate the 
publicly held debt by 2010.

                              {time}  1500

  That is what we say we are for.
  Why do we not have policies on this floor that do that which we say? 
Why do we continue on having political rallies talking about debt 
reduction when we really do not mean it except for 1 year? That is a 
question we ask, and hopefully someone will come to the floor and 
answer that question. It would be nice to have some simple discussions 
of these points, instead of just one side talking to the other in the 
absence of the other. We will be here.
  By contrast, the debt reduction lockbox passed last week would only 
reserve 60 percent of the unified surplus for debt reduction over the 
next 10 years. Blue Dogs say 80, Republican leadership says 60, and 
still says we are doing a better job. We do not understand that.
  The Blue Dog framework would result in the budget being balanced 
without counting any trust funds beginning in 2001.

[[Page 19792]]

  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has been the one that 
continues to bring the record from Treasury, source monthly statement 
of the public debt that anyone can pick up, which is what I was talking 
about when I started my comments today. There is no surplus except 
trust fund surpluses. If we are conservative in our approach, we can 
begin paying off the debt without using any of the trust fund surpluses 
beginning in 2001.
  If we can only reach an agreement on a 10-year debt reduction plan, 
it will establish a foundation that will make it much easier to reach 
an agreement on significant tax cuts, including estate tax relief and 
repeal of the marriage penalty, without jeopardizing fiscal discipline.
  The Blue Dogs are prepared to work within the 90/10 framework for 
fiscal year 2001 to balance competing priorities. Ironically, where we 
have been talking about 50/25/25, for 10 years, 90/10 fits almost 
exactly with where we believe we ought to be in the year 2001.
  The Blue Dogs believe that it is important that Congress and the 
President look beyond the short-term cost of legislation and keep in 
mind the long-term impact of budget decisions we make today. Before 
agreeing on any tax cuts or new spending programs, we need to know how 
all of these proposals add up over the next 5 to 10 years, even if they 
fit within the 90/10 framework for next year. It is important that this 
Congress consider the 10-year costs of any tax cuts and new spending 
initiatives, not just the cost in fiscal 2001.
  Likewise, once Congress and the President agree on the level of 
discretionary spending for next year, and this is what is being fought 
out. It bothered me considerably when I see on the front page of the 
Washington Post this morning that members of the other body in the 
other party are talking about ``spending is going to go out of the 
window.'' It should not. All we have to do is agree on a framework of 
what spending should be this year, in a bipartisan way, working with 
the White House. I believe that is achievable. That is the Blue Dog 
plan.
  Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the President's proposals. We have 
looked at the Republican budget, and we have said somewhere in between 
is where we need to be, close to the middle. I think if all of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle would look at this proposal, we 
hope they would find the same degree of enthusiasm for it that we bring 
to the floor today.
  Once we get through the 90/10 for 2001, let us talk about the 10 
percent. How do we propose spending that 10 percent of the projected 
surplus? Remember, there is no surplus as yet. It is projected. But we 
do believe if we stay fiscally conservative with our spending and our 
tax-cutting euphoria, that what I am saying today can be achieved.
  We have a projected surplus of $268 billion for fiscal year 2001. Ten 
percent of that is $26.8 billion, and that is to be divided between tax 
cuts and spending, divided equally between Medicare provider 
restorations and discretionary spending and tax cuts. The Blue Dog 
framework would allow a tax cut of $8.5 billion in 2001 and $377 
billion over the next 10 years. This will allow for estate tax and 
marriage tax penalty relief with room for other tax cuts of $4.4 
billion in 2001 and approximately $200 billion over the next 10 years.
  Why should we be considering today going home without dealing 
responsibly with the marriage tax penalty? Why should we be going home 
in a few weeks or days without dealing responsibly with the death tax, 
when everyone in this body knows there is a good, sound, conservative 
middle ground that would be very appealing to every single small 
businessman and woman in the United States and give significant relief 
to everyone above $4 million in estates? Why would we go home without 
completing our work?
  Devoting an additional $8.5 billion for discretionary spending will 
provide room to increase spending in the appropriation bills to fund 
agricultural disaster relief, increase funding levels for education, 
health care, veterans and military retiree health care, all of which 
have bipartisan agreement that we do need to make some increases in 
those areas.
  We also provide for $8.5 billion in 2001 to address problems facing 
health care providers as a result of the reductions of the 1997 
balanced budget agreement, the kind that our rural hospitals are 
clamoring, praying for the relief so that they do not have to close. 
All of this can be achieved within the framework of debt reduction, 
sincere debt reduction, recognizing also that the surpluses that 
everybody talks about are projected.
  One of the fundamental questions this body should be concerned a 
little bit about is when we look at this debt that we are talking 
about, one-third of it is owned by foreign interests and the question 
that we all want to answer, I think, sooner than later, how much longer 
can our economy continue to grow at the unprecedented rate that it has 
for the last 8 years? How much longer can we go in the longest 
sustained peacetime economic expansion in the history of our country? 
Can we go another 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years? No one 
knows the answer to that question.
  But the Blue Dogs believe that the most conservative thing we can do 
right now is spend our time discussing how we fix Social Security and 
Medicare for the future. And until we do that, let us pay down the debt 
and let us be very fiscally prudent with the expenditure of our 
taxpayer dollars. That is our message.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I am glad to yield to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) for yielding to me, and I also thank him for his work on this 
issue. He has been a real bulldog at dealing with fiscal matters of 
this Nation.
  I just left a Blue Dog press conference just hours ago, and our 
message was very simple. It is that there is still time in this 
Congress to get something done. I believe that there are some people in 
this Congress that have thrown in the towel, have raised the white flag 
and said: we are not getting what we want, so we are going to go home. 
Go back to the American people and say they would not let us do 
anything.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the wrong approach. I think we give up 
a golden opportunity to do something because we have it in hand. What 
we heard the gentleman from Texas so eloquently articulate, our 
position, is not a new position. It is a position that we have been 
advocating for over 2 years now: 50 percent for debt reduction, 25 
percent for targeted tax cuts, 25 percent for priority spending.
  But we underscored today in our press conference that it was good 2 
years ago, it was good last year, it was good 2 weeks ago, and it is 
better today because there is no other plan on the table as 
comprehensive as this is today.
  I believe it is reasonable for this body to come together and do what 
I think the American people want us to do: be conservative with their 
money. I frankly think being conservative with their money is being 
conservative, is looking at it as we would in our families, in our 
businesses. What is the first thing we do with a windfall? Pay down our 
debt. The Blue Dogs have talked about debt reduction until we are blue 
in the face, frankly; and it finally caught some traction. Now everyone 
is talking about it. No one was talking about it a year ago; but now 
they are talking about it, and I think it is a good thing.
  The best tax cut that we could give our children and our 
grandchildren is keeping down the interest rates on our credit cards 
and our mortgages. How do we do that? We get out of debt with this 
country. That is what the centerpiece of our proposal is. Whatever the 
surplus is, let us pay down the national debt.
  Another piece of our puzzle is 25 percent to targeted tax cuts. We go 
home, and we have heard in this Congress a lot of rhetoric about tax 
cuts. Well, I am for this tax cut, I am for that tax cut, I am going to 
be for this, and I am going to be for that. But I believe that it has 
been all rhetoric up to this point in time.
  Frankly, that is the legislative process. We take 2 years to debate, 
talk

[[Page 19793]]

about different angles, let everyone come in. That is the American way. 
It is representative democracy at its best, and it has worked.
  But now is the time to fish or cut bait, as we say back home in 
Louisiana. This is the only program on the table that can be done. It 
is doable. It is reasonable. It is affordable.
  In the area of tax cuts, I believe we would be derelict in our duties 
in this Congress not to go home with a significant tax cut. A 
reasonable tax cut. Something we can afford. We could not afford a 
trillion dollars. That is why the program failed. But I believe there 
is room for it, and this is the way to go.
  Estate tax. Everyone talks about estate tax. I left a press 
conference just 30 minutes ago, right after our Blue Dog press 
conference, where we unveiled the Estate Tax Relief Now plan of the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). A wonderful plan. If my 
colleagues are truly for estate tax relief, they must embrace this 
plan. It is the only plan on the table. It is a plan that my friends on 
the other side of the aisle have basically abandoned, saying we either 
want repeal or no repeal.
  Well, I have come to this Congress to compromise. We do it in our 
business life every day. We do it in our married life every day. We do 
it in State legislatures, and it is done here every day. Compromise. 
And if we do not do it, we go home with nothing; and I think that is a 
serious mistake.
  What does the Tanner bill do for estate tax? It cuts the rate in 
January 1, 2001, 20 percent. I have heard from every person in my 
district, from the coffee shops to the bus stops, to the rice fields, 
to the boats that we need to cut the rates. We ought not to pay 55 
percent of our income just because one of our loved ones has passed 
away. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think they are correct; and that is what 
this bill does. And it does not backload it, and it does not phase in. 
It starts January 1. It cuts the rate 20 percent.
  What else does it do? It doubles the deduction from $675,000 to $1.3 
million, which is $2.6 million for couples. It is a reasonable plan. It 
covers most small businesses and also small farms, and it is what we 
should be doing. It fits in the Blue Dog proposal. It fits in any 
reasonable proposal. It fits very well.
  The marriage penalty, I think we ought to do it. I have voted for it 
in the past. It was vetoed by the President. But what do we do? Take 
our marbles and go home? I do not believe that. I think if we look at 
marriage penalty and double the deduction, for a married couple double 
the deduction, that is marriage tax penalty relief in its truest form.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are so many more other smaller tax 
cuts that we can do if we live within the means and not just go off on 
some spending spree and say we are going to do all of these tax cuts or 
we are not going to do any. I would tell my colleagues, there is middle 
ground and this is it.
  The other part of our program is 25 percent of whatever the surplus 
is to priority spending. My farmers in southwest Louisiana have been 
devastated. Salt water intrusions in our wells have killed our rice 
crop. Prices are low because this Congress has not been able to, I 
believe, fulfill our promise in the Freedom to Farm bill and open new 
markets, especially Cuba. We need to give our farmers a break.
  Disaster relief. Something that we can do that fits in priority 
spending. Veterans and health care. Education. Our Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act that is now in the midst of being enacted into law. We 
need some priority spending and we ought to spend it on programs that 
are important to the American people.

                              {time}  1515

  That is your program. Our program is very simple and very 
straightforward. And it is very serious. It is a proposal that I 
commend and I beg the other side that we need to get engaged with, with 
only 2\1/2\ weeks left, because I can say all I want about how I fought 
for my people of the seventh district, but I do not want to go home and 
say we could not get a budget package together, a framework, and bring 
us forward for the next 10 years, because I know I would do that in my 
business, and I know my constituents want me to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to look at the Blue Dog plan 
seriously. I beg of the Senate, the administration and the other aisle, 
because I think it is the way that we should go. And as we say so many 
times, ``follow the Dogs, we'll lead you out of this problem.''
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the 4th 
District of Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) for allowing me to be up here and thank him for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess this gets down to priorities; and when we are 
talking about priorities do we care more about tax cuts or do we care 
more about protecting and giving our country a future? I was talking to 
the Rotary Club and a lot of businessmen were in the Rotary Club, and 
one of the gentlemen asked me a question, ``do you think it is more 
important to give tax cuts or pay down our national debt?'' I said to 
him paying down our national debt, and when I got on the stand, there 
was applause for me for making that recommendation, because it is true; 
the future in this country is in us paying down our national debt. The 
Blue Dogs have the right idea, that is the reason I am proud to be a 
Blue Dog.
  We have our 50-25-25 plan to lower the national debt, protect Social 
Security and Medicare, lower taxes, secure health care, promote family 
life policy and in supporting and helping our farmers. It is the 
safest, most affordable and workable plan being offered today, and I am 
proud to be a part of it.
  Let us think about what are we going to do with Social Security. 
Well, the first thing we ought to do, let us say this is the Social 
Security surplus, we ought to set it in a trust fund and take it off 
budget and let us leave it off budget and let us leave it for Social 
Security. The same thing with Medicare. That way we are working with a 
true budget surplus, 50 percent of the nonSocial Security and nonbudget 
Medicare budget surplus will eliminate the national debt by 2010.
  Let us think about it, 50-25-25. We take Medicare, Social Security, 
Medicare off budget, we operate from a true budget surplus. We take 50 
percent of our budget surplus and pay down our national debt. Within 
several years, we will have our debt down to what it was in 1970. 
Helping to lower interest rates, what does that do? That keeps 
businesses going.
  What started the economy going any way was lowering interest rates. 
These are the things that are going to give our children and our 
country a future.
  What do we do with the rest of it? We have 25 percent that we can use 
for tax cuts. We were talking about this estate tax in the press 
conference that went on a while ago. And I guess all of us here 
supported some kind of elimination of the estate tax one way or the 
other or cutting down on it, that is something we should do.
  The marriage penalty tax, we ought to do something about that. Tax 
incentives for retirement savings; tax incentives for small business 
for employers to provide their employees with insurance, give them tax 
credits for that; tax credits to expand access to health insurance, 
which we have already said; tax incentives for school construction and 
educational tax breaks; tax incentives to encourage economic 
development in distressed communities.
  There are so many things that we can do to help reinvest into our 
people in this country, and we ought to be looking for that.
  The other thing we ought to go look at is the other 25 percent of the 
balanced budget surplus, that ought to go into priority spending 
programs. We were talking about prescription medicine.
  I will tell this story. I did a bus tour in our district last year. 
We made 17 speeches in 4 days, and what we did, we took 30 Federal 
agencies and State agencies in the district and we went to courthouses 
and we asked people to sit there, and the people who were having 
problems to meet there, having problems with housing, medical, health

[[Page 19794]]

care, farming issues and agendas, something like this, to meet with us 
there and we would subdivide the group up.
  Mr. Speaker, I was standing there in the front and this elderly 
couple came walking up to me and said we need to talk about our 
hospital bill and prescriptions and our health care. Well, I directed 
them over to the lady that was handling them. Well, I was talking to 
some other folks, and I looked over there and the elderly man was 
crying and his wife was crying and the lady who was helping them was 
crying. We all started crying because of the situation.
  Well, what happened to this man? Here is a person, part of the 
greatest generation of this country, he worked hard, he was a 
carpenter. He provided for kids, they have good jobs and gone out on 
their own, and now he is having a problem with his health care. He was 
self-employed, and he cannot pay his hospital bills.
  He cannot buy the medicine for his prescriptions, now he is being 
turned in for bad credit because he cannot pay his hospital bills.
  These are the priorities we ought to be talking about. These are the 
priorities we ought to be investing into, we should be investing in our 
people. That is not throwing money away, reinvesting back into the 
people.
  Think about it, 50 percent of the budget surplus going to national 
debt, 25 percent of it going to priority spending, tax cuts, and then 
25 percent of it going for discretionary spending on priority programs, 
such as Medicare, prescription drug benefits, restored Medicare cuts 
that hurt our small health care providers, improving and extending 
safety net for our farmers who are going out of business and the 
gentleman from Texas was good enough to come talk to our farmers not 
too long ago, and our foreign military retirees, the men and women who 
have saved this country, who have given to this country so we can get 
on the floor and talk today about what we can do for this country. We 
are not keeping the promise to them, they are broken promises.
  The military retirees should have better health care benefits. 
Veterans, we are not providing those kinds of benefits, because we need 
to take this budget surplus and reinvest back in the people. Also 
increase defense spending, pass a patients' bill of rights, 
discretionary spending, with some increases in inflation for these 
hospitals, and for education, health care to our veterans.
  These are issues that are really close to our heart, and we feel 
really serious about it. Remember the formula, 50-25-25. It is the best 
deal in town, and we ought to take. I appreciate the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for this time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) for 
his contribution today and for his contribution to the 106th Congress 
and to the Blue Dogs. He has been one of our real bulldogs, as we heard 
him saying, in sticking with the plan.
  Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), my fellow 
colleague, let me kind of refocus why we are here. We are supposed to 
complete our work in this body by September 30, that is what the 
Constitution requires. We do not always do that. When Democrats were in 
control, we quite often did not accomplish that goal, but usually we 
ended up with a plan of how we were going to complete our work.
  We now have only two appropriation bills that have been completed. It 
seems to those of us on the outside of the appropriation process that 
the leadership of the House and the Senate are having a difficult time 
coming up with a plan to get us out of here. We are submitting the Blue 
Dogs' perspective that this is a plan that can get bipartisan support. 
We believe that it not only can get bipartisan support here, but that 
it can get Presidential support, that is what it is going to take for 
us to complete our work. And when we complete our work, it is something 
that we all want to go home and take a little credit for and take 
credit for it in an honest way.
  Mr. Speaker, so often around here, most of us tell the truth most of 
the time, if not all of the time, but many of us do not tell the truth, 
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and what the Blue Dogs are 
trying to say today is the rest of the story, the truth, the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth. There is no surplus yet through August 
the 31st.
  When we hear $4.6 trillion in projected surpluses, the word that 
should be emphasized is projected. We readily acknowledge that this is 
your money and we are just trying to give some of it back to you. And 
in the rhetoric prior to last week, certainly Congress has no money, 
other than what we take from the American people in the way of taxes, 
it is your money.
  But the Blue Dogs also remind you it is your debt, the $5 trillion 
678 billion debt as of August 31, 2000, which is $21 billion more debt 
than we had 1 year ago.
  It is your debt, and that is why we have suggested the 50-25-25, and 
that is why we come back to the floor today and reiterate debt 
reduction, program priorities, tax cuts targeted carefully towards 
meeting a real human need.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) for yielding to me, and I certainly want to thank him for the 
leadership that he has shown for so many years now on these budgetary 
issues.
  I am pleased to join with him and my fellow colleagues in the Blue 
Dog Democrat Coalition, our group of about 30 or so Democrats, who 
believe in the balanced budget, who believe in paying off the debt, who 
believe in a responsible tax cut plan. I think that the reason that we 
have come to the floor today is because of our mutual sense that the 
leadership of this Congress has failed in the area of budgetary policy.
  The Republican leadership started off this year with a big tax cut 
plan. Now, we all know it was based on some estimates of a future 
surplus that may never arrive, and so the Blue Dog Democrats put 
together our own budget plan.
  As has been said by previous speakers, it is really a pretty simple 
plan. It says keep your hands off the surplus and the Social Security 
trust fund, keep your hands off the surplus that accrues in the 
Medicare trust fund. And with regard to the general fund surplus, we 
call it the on-budget surplus, let us use 50 percent of that money to 
pay down the national debt, 25 percent to give reasonable and 
meaningful tax cuts to the American people, and let us reserve 25 
percent for spending priorities. That is the plan shown on the chart to 
my right, the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. Speaker, it provides debt reduction of $955 billion over the next 
10 years from the on-budget surplus, a net tax cut of $387 billion plus 
the savings of $91 billion in interest costs since we are paying down 
the debt with $955 billion. And program priorities, things like being 
sure we save our rural hospitals, who are struggling today to keep the 
doors open, to be sure that we have money set aside so that when the 
baby boomers retire and the stresses and strains come on the Social 
Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund, we will be able to 
take care of that generation; priorities like strengthening national 
defense.
  Within the Blue Dog budget, we take care of program priorities, areas 
where we can all agree we need to spend dollars, and yet we provide a 
meaningful tax cut for the American people.
  Our Blue Dog plan, I think, is the most fiscally responsible plan, 
and it is also the plan that recognizes as a priority debt reduction.
  On the chart that I am showing my colleagues now, we can see the 
comparison of the debt reduction plans that have been presented to this 
Congress. The first one that is mentioned is the Blue Dog plan that I 
have referred to which reduces the national debt $3.6 trillion over the 
next 10 years. That reduction, debt reduction plan, will totally 
eliminate the publicly held debt over the next 10 years.
  We went 30 years in this Congress spending more money every year than 
we took in. We are just now at the point where we are able to say we 
have a balanced Federal budget, that is because of the fiscal restraint 
that we

[[Page 19795]]

have exercised, and that is because the American people have worked 
hard to produce a prosperous economy. And those additional tax revenues 
have brought us to the balanced Federal budget.
  While times are good, we need to take advantage of what is, I think, 
a historic opportunity to pay off that national debt so our children 
and our grandchildren will not inherit the free spending practices of 
the past generation. And if we can pay off the national debt, we will, 
in fact, give our people the best tax cut they could ever have.
  Even the trillion dollars tax package that the Republican leadership 
advocated in this House, that would only give middle-income families 
about a dollar a day in tax relief. If we pay down the national debt, 
economists tell us that it will lower interest rates across the board 
for everybody that has to borrow money.

                              {time}  1530

  In fact, the economists tell us, and Alan Greenspan himself has 
testified before this Congress many times, that the best use of the 
surplus is to pay off the national debt. If we get the government out 
of the business of borrowing so much money every year and rolling that 
debt over year after year, the economists say that it will take this 
pressure off the credit markets, and interest rates will go down.
  So folks trying to borrow money to own a home, folks borrowing money 
to buy a car, people who borrow money to send their children to 
college, they will all experience lower interest rates. A 2 percent 
reduction in interest rates for a family that has a $100,000 home 
mortgage they are paying on, it would save them $2,000 a year. That is 
a much better tax cut than the $323 that a middle-income family would 
get under the trillion dollars Republican tax cut plan.
  Yes, we Blue Dog Democrats and all Democrats believe in tax cuts, but 
we believe that they must be granted within the context of reality. The 
reality is that, even though the surplus we are talking about is about 
$2 trillion over the next 10 years, it is just an estimate. If we cut 
taxes with about 70 to 80 percent of that number, which is Governor 
Bush's plan, we may very well find out that the surplus has never 
materialized. If the economy is not as strong as we assume it may be, 
that surplus may never arrive; and we, as the Federal Government, will 
be back into deficit spending again.
  Our Blue Dog plan leaves room for $77 billion of tax cuts over 10 
years. That is a conservative plan. That is a realistic plan. That is a 
plan that will keep us on the road to economic prosperity by lowering 
interest rates for the American people.
  But let us compare the plans. The Blue Dog plan reduces the national 
debt $3.65 trillion over the next 10 years. That is equal to using 80 
percent of what we call the unified surplus for debt reduction. The 
unified surplus simply means we devote all of the Social Security trust 
fund surplus to paying down that debt. We devote 100 percent of the 
Medicare trust fund to paying down debt, and we devote 50 percent of 
the general fund, the so-called on-budget surplus, to paying down debt. 
So 80 percent of the surplus that will accrue over the next 10 years 
goes to debt reduction.
  The Clinton administration budget allocates 75 percent of the unified 
surplus to paying down debt. Vice President Gore's proposal that he has 
talked about in his campaign dedicates 68.5 percent of the unified 
surplus to paying down the debt.
  If we look on the other hand at the Republican proposals, the 
Republican proposal in this House would dedicate 60 percent of the 
unified surplus to paying down debt. Governor Bush's proposal would 
dedicate only 58 percent of the unified surplus to paying down the 
national debt.
  The question I ask my colleagues is, who are the fiscal conservatives 
in the Congress? I think it is the party that advocates paying off the 
national debt. The Blue Dog plan would pay it off the fastest. This 
plan would pay it off in 10 years. Governor Bush's plan, by our 
calculations, would still, after 10 years, leave us owing a trillion 
dollars. We believe the thing that we should do for the American people 
is pay down the national debt over the next 10 years.
  It is interesting that our 50/25/25 budget plan has received 
bipartisan support. During the budget debates on the floor of this 
House, our plan was presented. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) mentioned, it received over 170 votes in this 435 Member 
House. Thirty-three Republicans joined with Democrats in supporting 
that Blue Dog plan.
  It is the right plan for the American people. It will ensure our 
future prosperity. It represents what my daddy always taught me, and 
that is, the first thing you do if you have a little extra money is pay 
off what you owe. That rule applies at my colleagues' house, it applies 
at my house, and it should apply in the people's house here in the 
United States House of Representatives.
  So we hope that our Republican leadership will adopt our plan. 
Frankly, I was disappointed in the Republican leadership after they so 
vigorously pushed for over a trillion dollars in tax cuts, not setting 
the priority that we wanted to on paying down the national debt. After 
their plans were vetoed, as the President vetoed tax cut after tax cut, 
they threw in the towel and said, well, we will just forget about tax 
cuts.
  Democrats in this House believe the American people need tax relief. 
We just believe that we need to give that tax relief within the 
framework of a sound and sensible Federal budget.
  With $377 billion in tax cuts under our plan, we can eliminate the 
marriage penalty; we can reduce estate tax. For all estates of $2 
million or less, that means a family, husband and wife, could be worth 
$4 million and pay absolutely no estate tax under our plan. It reduces 
all estate tax rates above that 20 percent.
  We believe that within our $377 billion plan, we can increase the 
amount that families can put in an IRA or put in their 401(k) plan, 
saving more for the future, and being able to deduct more on their 
income tax return.
  We believe we can provide some relief for our seniors, many of whom 
have to pay tax on their Social Security benefits. We believe we can 
provide meaningful tax relief to allow urban and rural areas some 
incentives to invest and do projects that would renew their 
communities.
  These are tax cuts that make sense for the American people. They are 
tax cuts that fit within an overall budget plan that will allow us to 
pay off the national debt over the next 10 years.
  I believe and I hope that our Republican colleagues will listen to 
this plan and listen to our appeal and join with us in these closing 
weeks of this session to put America on the right course for the next 
decade.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner) for his contribution today and, again, for the last several 
months as he has been, again, one of our Blue Dog bulldogs.
  When my colleagues sit here and they listen to what we are saying 
today and they listen to what our colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle are saying, I get confused sometimes as to what are we fussing 
about. What is it that divides us so much? What is it that causes 
colleague after colleague on the other side of the aisle to come over 
and point the finger at this side of the aisle and blame us for the 
impasse in the Congress?
  We Democrats are in the minority. We got there the old fashioned way 
in 1994. We earned it. We are no longer in the majority.
  It is my understanding the majority leader will be coming over to 
take his hour after we finish. I would be glad to yield the remainder 
of my time for an honest discussion with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey) regarding the plan that we are talking about and what is wrong 
with it. Perhaps we can change it.
  The Blue Dogs have suggested all along that bipartisanship is what it 
is going to take for us to do the Nation's work. A lot of times, we 
will hear we are spending too much. Well, perhaps we are. But let us 
work that out.
  The Committee on Appropriations gets blamed for doing a lot of 
things.

[[Page 19796]]

But if we give them the numbers of what they have to spend, they 
usually stay within that. But it is the majority of this body that 
determines what we are going to spend, and the majority is now in the 
other side of the aisle's hands.
  If we do not want to spend any more money on Medicare, say so. Let us 
tell our hospitals we are not going to spend any additional money. The 
solution for our Nation is to close the hospitals that cannot cut it 
with the balance-the-budget agreement, the plan that was put into 
effect in 1997 that was supposed to be the salvation of health care. 
Well, it has not worked out that way.
  Come to the floor and say we are not going to spend on Medicare. Come 
to the floor and say we are not going to deal with veterans and 
military retirees; that we are not going to deliver on the promise that 
we have made; that we have been shortchanging. Come to the floor and 
say we are not going to recognize the disasters that have occurred, 
weather related, fire, drought. Come to the floor and say we do not 
give a rip whether communities will not have drinking water because we 
do not wish to spend any more than the budget we submitted 6 months 
ago.
  That is an honest debate. It is an honest discussion to have. I think 
we will find that we will have bipartisan agreement, that we can find 
something close to what the Blue Dogs are suggesting.
  Do not take our marbles and go home because we did not get the tax 
cuts we were for. Respect some of us on this side of the aisle that say 
we are for dealing with the estate tax, the death tax. We just believe 
it ought to be done from a fiscally responsible way; that we ought not 
to leave the problems of Social Security 10 years from today to some 
future Congress because we want to deal with the repeal of the death 
tax in 2010. Some of us believe we ought to deal with it in 2001, but 
deal with it in a fiscally responsible way, an honest discussion, an 
honest debate. I feel very strongly that we could come to a bipartisan 
agreement.
  Understand the process around this place. The process is, if we have 
got 218 votes and 51 votes and a presidential signature, it becomes 
law. If we do not have 218 votes, 51 votes, and a presidential 
signature, it does not become law. That means we have to sit down and, 
in a good-faith effort, with folks on the other side of the aisle, if 
one is in the majority, to find that middle ground. That is the way our 
Founding Fathers intended that this place should work.
  Where have we lost that? Why is there no sincere effort ever to reach 
out to this side of the aisle from the current leadership when we are 
here extending the hand of saying we are prepared to work with you, and 
we offer a plan to start with? Did we say it is perfect? No. Can it be 
improved? Absolutely.
  Spending. We proposed today that we should not have abandoned caps on 
discretionary spending that worked pretty darn good for 3 years before 
we began to run into the unrealistic level of the caps. Because even 
those in the majority party refuse to live up to what they said we were 
going to do because it could not have been done. We would have gutted 
Defense had we done that.
  We are suggesting now, let us agree on the spending levels for this 
year within the 90/10 philosophy that we have heard espoused. Then let 
us set a new set of caps for the next 5 years at this year's level with 
inflation and demographic adjustment. We believe that that is a very 
fiscally prudent way for us to handle the prospects of future spending. 
If my colleagues disagree, come to the floor and disagree with us.
  October 6 is going to be here before we know it. What is the plan for 
getting out? Remember, we have to get a presidential signature or we do 
not go home, nor should we. But what is the plan? What is the plan that 
can get the kind of bipartisan support that is going to be required?
  This is what the Blue Dogs are saying today, and we say it not in a 
confrontational way. We remind our friends on the other side of the 
aisle, we were here in February, in March, in April, in May, in June 
and July and August. Now here we are in September saying the same thing 
that we have been saying all year. Here is a plan that can get support 
including presidential support. But somehow, some way, and I do not 
point this finger in an accusing way, because I was reminded a long 
time ago, when you point the finger, Mr. Speaker, there is always three 
pointing back at you. I accept the three pointing back at me.
  But I do not sincerely understand why the leadership of this House 
has chosen not to come forward and to have a serious discussion 
regarding how do we get out of this place and complete the 106th 
Congress.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the points that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) made there deserves our further discussion. I 
noted, when the Republican leadership abandoned their plans for tax 
cuts, they came back and began to talk as we have for 2 years now about 
debt reduction as a priority. I think they have said for this year it 
would be okay with them to use a portion of that surplus for debt 
reduction.
  I believe that when we look at what they have proposed for the next 
year, if we could just persuade them to put that in place, that plan 
for the next 10 years, we could basically have the Blue Dog budget plan 
that we have advocated.
  So I think we are really at a point where we could possibly reach 
some accord with regard to the future Federal budget and probably do 
the American people a great service by letting them know now that, in 
10 years, we will pay down the publicly held national debt, and we will 
provide some meaningful tax relief to the American people.

                              {time}  1545

  I think it all comes down to what the gentleman said earlier, and 
that is it comes down to one's view of how this process is supposed to 
work. The Republican leadership knew before they passed their almost 
trillion dollar tax cut bill that the President was going to veto it. 
He told them that. It was passed anyway. And that is fine, that is the 
process working its will. But once that occurred, then it seems to me 
that the right thing to do was to realize that a half a loaf, from 
their point of view, would have been better for the American people 
than none at all.
  And if we come back to a more realistic Federal budget plan that puts 
a priority on the national debt and that provides about $377 billion, 
as we have in our plan, in tax cuts, then we can tell the American 
people that we have done the people's work; that we have set our Nation 
on a course of fiscal responsibility and we have taken the good times 
that we have and the projected surplus and we have allocated it in a 
way that is going to work for the American people and work to keep this 
prosperous economy going.
  So I hope that this hour has not been spent in vain. I hope our 
Republican leadership will take a look at the Blue Dog plan, which we 
have advocated for 2 years now, and perhaps get us back to the point 
where we can come together and do the job the American people expect us 
to do, both Democrats and Republicans, and do the right thing. Even 
though it might not be what everybody wants, it will at least 
represents a true compromise. And after all, that is what the 
legislative process is all about.
  So I really appreciate the time that we have had here to talk about 
this issue. And again I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
for his leadership on this issue on our side of the aisle.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and will now yield 
to the gentleman from the 19th District of Illinois (Mr. Phelps), one 
of our Blue Puppies, that has now achieved the full rank of Blue Dog in 
this year.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and I want to also 
commend the gentleman from Alabama

[[Page 19797]]

(Mr. Cramer) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and many 
others. The leadership of the Blue Dog organization has been right on 
target and made me feel very comfortable in being a part of the 
membership. I have learned a lot as a new Member in looking at this 
budget.
  And I want to thank the Blue Dogs for being consistent. To me that is 
very important. My father gave me some advice a long time ago. He said, 
``Don't reject an idea just because it is not your own.'' I think that 
is what we are coming down to here.
  Mr. Speaker, as the budget discussions continue, I encourage my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look at the Blue Dog budget 
framework as a workable fiscally sound solution. This budget framework 
shows that it is still possible to responsibly pay down the debt while 
providing critical funding for education and health care programs.
  I am pleased to see that both sides are now focused on paying down 
the debt, something the Blue Dogs have supported from the very 
beginning. Under the Blue Dog plan, the debt reduction lockbox would be 
extended 10 years to save 100 percent of the Social Security and 
Medicare surpluses, plus half of the on-budget surpluses for debt 
reduction.
  We owe it to our children to not squander the surplus but invest it 
into their future by paying down what we already owe. At the same time, 
this budget would suggest that 10 percent of the fiscal year 2001 
surplus be divided between tax cuts, BBA relief, and discretionary 
spending. I have favored some of the tax cuts proposed this year, and I 
will continue to do so, but we must provide necessary funds for the 
problems we are now facing in health care and education.
  In my district these are critical funds. In my district, for example, 
education funding is critical to providing our students, especially 
those with special needs, with the education they need to make it in 
the real world.
  In my district, home health and rural health centers are the only 
point of access to health care for many people. Funding of these 
programs and providing them with BBA relief, which is included in the 
Blue Dog alternative, literally can mean life or death for these 
programs and the patients they serve.
  In 1997, with the Balanced Budget Amendment, we asked our citizens to 
accept cuts to put us on the path to a fiscally secure future. Well, 
now we are fiscally responsible and we have a surplus. It is our duty 
to also use the surplus responsibly by investing in our kids' education 
and providing access to necessary health care for our citizens. The 
Blue Dog alternative best meets these goals.
  It is not too late to come to agreement on a fiscally sound budget 
that pays down the debt, gives tax relief, and provides for health and 
education. I ask my colleagues to use the Blue Dog framework and 
agreement to come to the end of this budget impasse. I hope that we all 
are reasonable and will come forward and be sure that we act 
responsibly on behalf of our citizens.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
contribution.
  In closing, I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that we have taken this 
hour in good faith, in the spirit of which we have spoken. We believe 
that we have some ideas worthy of consideration, Mr. Speaker, and we 
hope that our colleagues will give them their just due.

                          ____________________