[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17422-17429]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          DEBATING THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say tonight rather than the 
usual monologue by one Member, and of course it depends on who the 
Member is as far as the interest level; and usually if it is your own 
monologue, you find it very interesting, but the rest of Congress and 
the American people may not agree, and so the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) of the infamous Blue Dog Caucus has suggested that we have a 
debate about the budget and spending and other matters of great 
importance before this House.
  With that in mind, I want to yield to the gentleman from Texas and 
his team, and then our team will speak. Our team looks like the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and me, and hopefully other Members 
will be running down here as they see it is our turn at bat.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
we look forward to having a discussion on the issue of our Federal 
debt, national debt, deficits, what is causing them. We look forward to 
this discussion tonight, and it will be informal and hopefully it will 
be productive; and to those watching, hopefully it will be interesting.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) to 
introduce our team.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, we have assembled a team of Blue Dogs. First 
of all, we want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for 
agreeing to debate us. We think that it is good for the American people 
and good for this institution. Honest disagreements and spirited 
debates are sometimes put aside just for the sake of political 
bickering, and we hope tonight we can carry on a dialogue that will be 
fruitful for the American people.
  We would like to begin our opening remarks, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for participating in this.
  We bring this issue to the Nation's attention because I think there 
is no greater threat to our country's future than our Nation's 
worsening financial situation.
  On March 17, 1994, about 9 years ago, then Member of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), said, ``I will not stand by and 
watch Congress recklessly squander the future of our children and 
grandchildren. In light of Congress' exhibited inability to control 
spending and vote for fiscal responsibility, it is imperative that we 
have a balanced budget amendment to compel Congress to end its siege on 
our financial future.'' That quote comes from the Congressional Record 
of March 17, 1994.
  It might be interesting to note that in the 1,650 days that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) has been Speaker of the House, 
not only has the deficit gone up, but Members of this body, 
conservatives like the Conservative Action Team over on the Republican 
side, the Blue Dogs over on this side, have not been given a single 
opportunity to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  What we have had is a number of opportunities to reduce revenues to 
our Nation, any number of opportunities to increase spending. All told, 
the Bush budget that passed on May 9, 2 years ago, caused the largest 
decrease in Federal revenues in 50 years and the largest increase in 
spending in 20. I would hope that the American people would pay 
particular attention to that because we are always told it is those 
liberals, those guys from Massachusetts who are increasing spending.
  I would remind the American public, since 1994 those liberals do not 
run the House. Guys like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) do. 
I also remind the American public, and I am sorry this is so small and 
I hope the cameraman would work with me on this, but the fact of the 
matter is, and I hope the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is 
forthright in addressing this, since May 9, 2001, the Federal deficit 
has increased by $1,260,853,144,608. Most of my colleagues probably 
over the course of their life have written a thousand-dollar check for 
rent, a house note. If you wrote that check a thousand times more, you 
spent a million. If you wrote a thousand million-dollar checks, you 
spent a billion; and if you wrote a thousand billion-dollar checks, you 
have gotten up to the trillion.
  You have increased the Federal debt more in 25 months than in the 
first 200 years of our country, and yet do you ever hear them say we 
are proud of running up that big deficit and squandering that much more 
interest on the national debt? That is why we are here tonight because 
I know that is not what you told your constituents when you sought this 
office.
  As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) on May 
9, 2001, the day this budget became law said, ``We are going to first 
put our priorities on top, Social Security, Medicare, education. Then 
we are going to take care of the normal functions of government, our 
obligations for roads and bridges and for all departments, national 
parks, fish and wildlife. Then what we are going to do is pay down the 
public debt. This, Mr. Speaker, is the first budget that we have been 
able to pass I believe that actually does pay down the public debt to a 
zero level which I think is extremely important. Then we get the 
leftover amount.''
  The gentleman did not pay down the debt. It was increased by a 
trillion dollars. In the course of that time, we now owe the Social 
Security trust fund $1.4 trillion. There is not a penny in it. This is 
no lockbox or account number. Ask your Congressman the account number 
for Social Security. There is nothing but IOUs.
  We owe the Medicare trust fund, and this is direct line on people's 
taxes, $284 billion. There is no lockbox. There is no account. There is 
nothing but IOUs.
  We owe the military retiree system $176 billion; and even more 
interesting, we owe the Federal employees who contributed to their own 
retirement fund $600 billion.
  Now the President this week is talking about weakening the safeguards 
in the retirement system in the private sector. Well, heck, maybe he 
ought to do what Congress did and just steal it all, because there is 
not a penny in that account.
  It gets even more frightening when we think about who we owe that 
money to. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), let us talk about 
your place in history. Just during those 2 years under the budget of 
President Bush, which you and your colleagues have passed, I voted 
against them, we have increased the national debt over $1 trillion. You 
have increased the debt by $544 billion in the past 12 months. In just 
over 2 years, you have borrowed $371 billion from Social Security to 
cover your deficit spending. You have borrowed $167 billion from 
Medicare, people's payroll taxes, military retirement, Federal 
employees retirement,

[[Page 17423]]

that should have been paid into accounts that should have been saved 
for them. Instead, they have been used to pay for your deficits.
  In 2 years you have borrowed $259 billion from foreign investors to 
pay for your deficits. That includes $50 billion from Communist China. 
We owe them. And it includes $82 billion to Japan. We now owe $1.25 
trillion to foreign nations and their investors, including $119 billion 
total to the Communist Chinese thanks to your budget deficits. Our 
children have to pay back China, Japan, foreign creditors; and then 
they have to pay back Social Security, Medicare, and their retirement 
funds. They have to repay these debts, and until they repay them, they 
are going to continue to squander $1 billion a day on interest.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) used to be for 
a balanced budget amendment. What happened? We have one that has been 
languishing for 1,650 days. We have a discharge petition sitting at the 
desk that I have begged you and your colleagues to sign so we can have 
an up-or-down vote on it so the American people can know who is really 
for a balanced budget.

                              {time}  2045

  Because you know what? Because now the gentleman is going to tell me 
we are at war. Doggone it, we had the Revolutionary War, then the War 
of 1812, then the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-
American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and in all 
that time they borrowed less than $1 trillion. In 25 months you guys 
have borrowed $1 trillion.
  So do not tell me it these unique challenges to our times. Americans 
have always had challenges, but previous Americans always rose to those 
challenges. Previous Americans like us who were lucky enough to be home 
when somebody else is fighting a war were at least willing to pay for 
those wars. That has changed under this administration. This 
administration says we are going to ask the 21- and 25-year-olds to go 
fight this war right now, and, by the way, when they get home, we are 
going to stick them and their kids with the bill.
  Tell me that is right. Tell me that is why you really ran for 
Congress was to bankrupt the country. And under your budget, under your 
budget the debt will increase to $13 trillion, and interest payments 
will once again be the largest expenditure of our Nation, spending more 
money on interest on the national debt than even on national defense. 
Tell me that is why you came here. Tell me that is what it is all about 
is to stick your kids and your grandkids with bills you are not willing 
to pay.
  I have asked before how many of the Members would buy a car and tell 
the dealer they don't care what it costs because their kids are going 
to pay for it? How many of the Members would buy a house in Savannah or 
in Florida or any of the States that they come from and say I do not 
care what it costs, I do not care what the interest payments are, I do 
not care what the note is because my grandkids are going to pay for it? 
That is precisely how you are running this Nation. If you will not do 
that to your kids individually, then collectively let us not do that, 
and that is why we are asking you tonight to sign the discharge 
petition for the balanced budget amendment and let us start getting 
this country back on the path that you promised them you would and I 
promised them I would. The problem is I cannot do it without your help.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me respond on a few points that the 
previous speaker made. And I wanted to say that, as the gentleman 
knows, the passage of laws is not always perfect, and it is not always 
neat, particularly when we are in the majority and have to make some 
decisions and keep the train moving.
  My preference on the budget, incidentally, was the one introduced by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), H. Con. Res. 95, which 
actually balanced the budget in 4 years and reduced spending far more 
than the Republican budget that passed and far more than the Blue Dog 
budget that passed. And I would point out to my colleague that if we 
are bringing up past votes, there was not one Democrat who voted for 
that budget, which was the model in fiscal restraint. So rather than 
stand here and just point fingers, I want to talk about some of the 
realities that we are faced with.
  I note the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) is here from the 
Committee on Appropriations. I think there are six things that help get 
spending out of control in the House that hurts all of us. One of it is 
that we do not go to zero-based budgeting. Every year appropriations 
starts out where they left off last year. This has been the case for 
many years in the Congress no matter which party is in charge, and I 
would love to see us go back to zero base when these agencies come in 
to justify their budgets and ask do they really need it? One of the 
examples is the western forest fires. When they have a forest fire 
disaster, and we fund firefighting at a certain level, the next year if 
we reduce that because we have handled the fire, we get called for 
cutting forestry money. And the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and I 
have to battle that all the time.
  The other thing that I want to mention, the second issue that helps 
drive up the cost is the matter of mandatory spending, and I would 
think that is a little bit ironic because we are the U.S. Congress, and 
things do not have to be mandatory when someone is the one setting the 
rules. But mandatory is basically the automatic spending, and here is 
the budget breakdown for the year 1980, and the part in green is the 
mandatory spending, the Medicaid, Social Security and so forth. And the 
discretionary, the red part, which is almost 50 percent of the pie, 
that is the amount that we actually can vote on and squeeze and twist 
and do different things, whereas this is all kind of on automatic 
pilot.
  As the years have gone by, and that was again 20 years ago, this is 
fiscal year 2002, and the mandatory portion has gotten bigger and 
bigger. The discretionary portion, which is the part we can control far 
greater, it has gotten smaller. And what that means is the part where 
there is honest debate we control a lot better. The part where 
everybody is afraid to touch Social Security, except for the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I want to commend him on the work that he 
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) have done over the years.
  Veterans spending, Medicare spending and so forth, these are all 
issues that we tend to shy away from in terms of honest debate, but 
look at these charts just to show the impact of these. Here is the 
veterans spending since 1995. And I am not making a judgment on if the 
spending is worthwhile or not. I am just saying this is the reality of 
that big portion of the chart. Veterans.
  Here is Medicaid. That is the healthcare for the poor, straight up 
during the period since 1995.
  Here is Medicare, the healthcare for the seniors. It has gone 
straight up.
  And I would say one of our big problems is if we are really going to 
get a serious handle on spending, we have got to quit using veterans 
and senior citizens and the poor as our partisan wedge shield that is 
going to scare the other party into not touching it, because if we are 
really serious about this stuff, we have got to get into that.
  I have three other points that I wanted to make, but I wanted to 
introduce the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Does the gentleman want to react to the previous speaker, because I 
kind of have a track here myself.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would. But if the 
gentleman would like to continue, I would be happy to jump in later.
  My concern is we are hearing a lot about the debt, and we care about 
the debt, but what is the goal? Is the goal to get it in balance no 
matter how it is, and how we get there really does not make any 
difference, whether it is raising taxes, as there is included in the 
Blue Dog budget; or is it controlling spending? And I think the real 
challenge we need to do is that there is a difference in terms of how 
we achieve that, and I believe that the way that

[[Page 17424]]

we need to get to the balanced budget is we need to kick-start this 
economy, get it moving north, generate tax revenue as well as we need 
to control that spending, and that is where we need to have some more 
talking. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is right on how do 
we control spending mandatory and discretionary. So I would be happy to 
talk about that more.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about spending, this is the 
record on spending, and we have to remind my friends on the other side 
of the aisle since 1994, they have been in charge. It is not Democrats 
that have been in charge, but you have been in charge. And, therefore, 
if we are talking about spending, spending is going up. And the Blue 
Dogs agreed with President Bush and with you in the budget on total 
spending this year in the budget. We are not asking one dime more to be 
spent than what the gentleman is talking about spending. This is the 
record of spending, and it is going up.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, actually I am glad the gentleman mentioned 
this, because we are the majority party, we take responsibility for 
governing. There is no question about that. We get the credit if it is 
good. We get the blame if it is bad. But let us also admit that often 
the forces that cause more spending and cause us to get away from the 
budget, which has always driven me up the wall where we passed a budget 
in March, but we actually passed the final spending bills in the fall 
of the year, and by then March is ancient history. No one is really 
worrying about the budget. They just want to go home and cut a deal, 
and often it is the other body or the White House that causes large 
increases.
  On the topic that the gentleman is talking about, the Republican 
spending, let me say what the Democrat record is in claiming that 
nearly every single appropriation bill that we have is not enough 
money, and I have a copy of some of the amendments that I will get into 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offers every single time 
on appropriation bills, and the gentleman knows how this business is. 
The gentleman wants to say we are the majority to help with the 
Democrats, but it is not just a matter of numbers. The gentleman has 
split philosophies in his party. The gentleman has some extremely 
liberal folks; we have some extremely conservative people. And every 
time they pick up a group here, they lose some votes here. So as they 
are trying to pass a bill, they get a net 3, but they swap around 9 or 
10 votes, and that is one of the things that drives up spending that I 
want to talk about that.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am kind of losing track of the time 
here, but just to keep it going, I want to yield to the gentleman from 
Florida, but I also want to be sure that we are not going to 
shortchange me at the end of the evening.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding. I assume that the gentleman and Mr. Hill will keep track of 
the time, along with the Speaker.
  I know that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my 
appropriator friend, has spoken about mandatory spending, which I think 
the American people know which is required spending by Congress unless 
there is a law change, and the gentleman very eloquently addressed 
that. Of course, that law could be changed by the majority party in the 
House and the Senate, which are Republicans, but they have chosen not 
to change that to bring in check some of this mandatory spending.
  But let us talk about the discretionary spending side, because there 
have been some accusations made certainly by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) about the discretionary spending and how the 
real answer to solving this problem is to hold down discretionary 
spending. I do not think I could agree more, but I want to lay the 
facts on line.
  Here are the facts in this chart. This chart starts in 1993 over on 
the left side with the blue bar graphs and ends up on the right side 
with the red bar graphs in 2003, a 10- or 11-year period. In 1993, we 
had a Democrat-controlled White House, Democrat-controlled Senate and 
House, and we see that discretionary spending, and these are raw 
numbers, raw numbers, went down 8.4 percent, 10.4, 11.2, .5. This is 
the year that we achieved the balanced budget agreement, working 
together. The Republicans had taken control of the House and the Senate 
in 1995. So then with achieving a balanced budget agreement, 
discretionary spending began to go up; still a Democrat administration, 
but a Republican-controlled House and Senate.
  Here is what happened in 2001 when the new administration came in. 
Look at these numbers. These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. These are the 
raw numbers. Discretionary spending grew at a rate of 1.6 percent, I 
think, during this 8-, 9-year period. During this last 3-year period, I 
think that growth rate is in the neighborhood of 8 to 9 percent.
  So I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) that the 
old argument about the key is holding down spending, we agree with him. 
The problem is that since the Republicans have control of the White 
House, the House and the Senate, that the discretionary spending has 
began to skyrocket. So I think we ought to make sure that the public 
understands what the real numbers are here.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would add that a big part of 
the difference which would make that chart look radically different is 
we have not felt that defense spending is discretionary spending, and 
all of that and more of the decreases were done on the back of reducing 
our preparedness to respond to emergencies. If we took defense 
spending, left it out of that chart, we would see, I am sure, during 
the Democrat-controlled periods, a fairly significant increase in the 
discretionary period spending. A big part of the spending that we have 
had to do in the last several years in response to tragedies that this 
country has suffered has been to rebuild our military capabilities, 
prepare our homeland for defense against terrorist attacks.
  So I think if we smoothed out that, we would see a story that is very 
consistent with what I put forth, that we need to control spending. We 
need to do it in a way that we are not doing it on the backs of the 
security of the American public.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. If I may, I think one of the things 
you cannot do is have it both ways. You cannot come to the floor of the 
House one day and accuse the Republicans of not spending enough, which 
was exactly what happened here during the Medicare bill debate, which 
is exactly what happened during the budget debate; and then later say 
we are spending too much. Which one is it? Do you believe that we are 
spending too little, or do you believe we are spending too much?
  I happen to believe that, if anything, we are spending too much. But 
I think what you cannot do is have it both ways. That is what I kept 
hearing, since I have been here, anyway.
  Mr. BOYD. If we could, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), 
would you like to jump in on that point?
  Mr. TANNER. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) referred awhile 
ago to mandatory spending. There is no more mandatory spending than 
interest on the national debt. What we are doing as Americans, not 
Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans who represent the American 
people here, all 435 of us, with the charts that the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) showed, we are building in a tax increase on 
the American people that is structural, because we are borrowing so 
much money today.
  You are spending money. You are just not spending it today; you are 
spending it tomorrow. And you are spending it in the form of interest, 
additional interest, on the debt, because that is mandatory spending. 
The interest has to be paid. And when you talk

[[Page 17425]]

about mandatory spending, you are building in more mandatory spending 
and have in the last 25 months than any of the Democratic numbers there 
would indicate.
  So I just want to say, mandatory spending is a problem; but interest 
is certainly a part of that.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, 
again, what I am saying, though, is you cannot have it both ways. 
Because what I have heard, and I know I am relatively new here, what I 
have heard consistently in the Committee on the Budget, is Republicans 
are not spending enough. Every single proposal, by the way, including 
the Blue Dog proposal, spends more. Yet my dear friend, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Boyd), whom I respect immensely and whom I have a 
friendship with, now says that we are spending too much. Which one is 
it? Which one is it?
  Mr. STENHOLM. We want to keep it based on the facts tonight, and the 
Blue Dog budget did not spend one dime more than the Republican budget.
  Mr. BOYD. If I might respond to my friend from Florida (Mr. Mario 
Diaz-Balart), and, by the way, he and I served in the Florida 
legislative body for 15 years and he is my friend, I would say we are 
not here asking to have it both ways. We are here to set the record 
straight and show what the numbers are.
  We are here so when someone gets up and says, oh, it was those 
liberals over there that had the high spending numbers, we are here to 
show you that is not the case. In fact, quite the opposite was the 
case. The discretionary spending levels increased by an average of 1.6 
percent for 8 years in the previous administration, and in this 
administration they have increased by 8-plus percent on an average 
basis.
  I want to make one more point on the need to pay down the debt. I 
want to quote. It says: ``We also feel that we need to pay down the 
debt. We have a debt of $5.4 trillion, which costs the American 
families on average for a family of four about $2,000 a year. That is 
$2,000 for college tuition, for house payments, for a nice vacation, 
for a car, for whatever the need of the family is. Now it just goes to 
pay interest on the debt. It does not even pay down the principal.''
  That was a statement by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) on 
March 3, 1999. Do you know what? I agree with the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) in that statement. That is the basis of the Blue 
Dog philosophy and theory, is that we ought to balance the budget and 
pay down the debt.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. If the gentleman will yield for a 
second, it is nice to say those things; but on the floor we had votes 
on the budget, and the votes on the budget were a partisan vote. I may 
be wrong, but I think the Blue Dogs voted against the Republican 
budget, and the argument there was that we were not spending enough 
money.
  If you look at the Blue Dog budget, here is the Blue Dog budget. In 
2006 to 2011, it raises taxes by $124 billion. By the way, it would not 
make the tax cuts permanent. There is the vote.
  So it is very nice. We can say anything and it kind of gets diffused 
in the air, but the facts are the facts. I am glad you said that, sir. 
Let us talk about the facts. The votes were there. We had two budgets: 
a much larger budget, the Democratic budget, and a smaller, tighter, 
more responsible budget, and you all did not vote for that. Those are 
the facts.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, first of all, as we 
said on this side, the Blue Dog budget did put us back on a course 
toward a balanced budget and would have balanced much quicker than the 
budget that the Republican majority adopted. And when you look at 
spending, I think what we have to acknowledge in terms of the Federal 
fiscal condition, the tax cuts and spending both increased the national 
debt.
  If you look at the results since January of 2001, when President Bush 
came into office, 58 percent of the deterioration in the national debt, 
the increase in the national debt is attributable to tax cuts; 28 
percent is attributable to increase in defense spending; and 22 percent 
attributable to the war against terror and Iraq. That is from the 
Congressional Budget Office. So what we believe is that it is dangerous 
for this country to continue down the road of increasing the national 
debt.
  I want to read to you from an article by one of your own in the ``New 
Yorker,'' June 8 of this year, an article written by Peter Peterson. 
Mr. Peterson is the chairman and cofounder of the Blackstone Group, the 
chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, a former Secretary of 
Commerce under President Nixon; and here is what he had to say about 
your borrow-and-spend policies:
  He said, ``Since 2001, the fiscal strategizing of the Republican 
Party has ascended to a new level of fiscal irresponsibility. For the 
first time ever, a Republican leadership in complete control of our 
national government is advocating a huge and virtually endless policy 
of debt creation. The numbers are simply breathtaking. When President 
Bush entered office, the 10-year budget balance was officially 
projected to be a surplus of $5.6 trillion, a vast boon to future 
generations that Republican leaders firmly promised would be committed 
to their benefit by, for example, pre-financing the future costs of 
Social Security. Those promises were quickly forgotten.''
  He goes on to say: ``In just 2 years, there has been a $10 trillion 
swing in the deficit outlook. We are now looking at almost a $5 
trillion projected debt. Coming into power,'' he says, ``the Republican 
leaders faced a choice between tax cuts and providing genuine financing 
for the future of Social Security. What a landmark reform that would 
have been. They chose tax cuts. After September 11, they faced a choice 
between tax cuts and getting serious about the extensive measures 
needed to protect this Nation against terrorist attacks. They chose tax 
cuts. After war broke out in the Middle East, they faced a choice 
between tax cuts and galvanizing a Nation behind a policy of future-
oriented burden sharing. Again and again, they chose tax cuts. The 
recent $10 trillion deficit swing is the largest in American history 
other than during years of total war.''
  This is one of your own. This is a Republican speaking here, speaking 
the truth.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If the gentleman would yield, I would strongly 
suggest that this kind of debate is excellent, and I compliment the 
Blue Dogs and certainly the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). But 
may I suggest that maybe we are going about the debate the wrong way. 
Instead of trying to blame each other, let us start looking at how we 
might work together.
  We all know that there is tremendous pressure coming from lobbyists 
and user groups that want more spending for their particular interests. 
Lobbyists in this Nation's Capital are very effective. We realize it 
takes a lot of money to get reelected now. I have got a chart here, 
but, still, we are all to blame. We all have our special interests.
  The Blue Dogs said, let us increase entitlement spending and borrow 
$400 billion for adding prescription drugs to Medicare. That is because 
there is a demand out there, and there are enough people that think 
that it is going to be to their advantage on getting reelected or that 
it is a good thing to do. But the fact is, that even that kind of a 
program, which seems to have some merit, tremendously puts a burden on 
future generations.
  So how do we deal with prescription drugs, which is very popular, 
especially with seniors? How do we deal with some of the Republican 
proposals for increased spending to try to come together?
  There are enough Republicans and enough Democrats that, instead of 
arguing across the aisle, if somehow we could decide on some of the 
issues we agree on. The increase in the total debt held by government 
continues to go up, regardless of the administration.
  When there is a Democrat President, we heard a lot of claims that the 
reason that we had balance in that couple of years was because of the 
leadership of the White House, and now we are

[[Page 17426]]

hearing claims that the increased debt and spending is because of the 
same kind of spending leadership that we might have in this White 
House.
  How do we come up with the kind of policy that is willing to deal 
with a $9 trillion unfunded liability for Social Security, an estimated 
$7 trillion unfunded liability if we add prescription drugs to 
Medicare, and the willingness to continue to spend more money?
  I agree with the Blue Dogs, and the Blue Dogs have done a great 
service, I think, during some of the minority years that Republicans 
were in the minority, of adding some votes to some of the spending 
projects that would put some limitations on it.
  So it is, of course, my frustration that we do not deal with some of 
the unfunded liabilities. The unfunded liabilities are just as 
important to the burden that we are putting on future generations as 
any increase in discretionary spending or in what we consider the debt 
subject to the debt limitation.
  In fact, we should be holding this discussion based on the total 
obligation of our kids and our grandkids, and that includes not only 
the debt and the tremendous interest that we are paying on the debt; I 
think somebody mentioned $1 billion a day on the debt. But that is at 
the lowest interest rates we have seen in many years. If interest rates 
go back to normal, then we are going to be looking at half a trillion 
dollars a year in interest rates, if not more.
  The solution I have might be that we just start working together, 
instead of blaming each other, to maybe come up with some of the 
resolves that we should all be working together on.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman from Texas wants to speak a little bit 
about the issue you mentioned about the lobbying groups in town who are 
out fighting for their little chunk of the pie, because I think his 
approach to fiscal restraint in the form of tax reform makes some 
sense. I wanted to make sure the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) has 
an opportunity to speak.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Actually, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) brought it up so eloquently right 
at the start of his discussion, about zero-based budgeting. Of course, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner) know this, because in our home State of Texas, the State 
legislature this session faced a $9 billion deficit. They passed a 
budget with no tax increase by using a zero-based budgeting system.
  To tell you the truth, gentlemen, my hat is off to the legislature 
and the Governor, both sides of the aisle, for getting that down in our 
home State of Texas. As we see the situation in California deteriorate, 
perhaps we will be able to attract some of those businesses that are 
looking for a more favorable tax climate in which to relocate.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) said it so well, 
you cannot continue to say, day in and day out, and we heard it tonight 
here on the floor of this House, you are not spending enough on 
veterans, you are not spending enough on Head Start, you need to take 
that $400 billion for Medicare and just pay for the catastrophic 
coverage.
  Gentlemen, you cannot have it both ways. You had an opportunity to 
join with the Republicans at the time the budget was passed and vote 
for H.Con. Resolution 95. I wish you had. I wish we could have 
partnered on that. But it was not to be. That was a budget that 
provided some real cuts, that we could have been proud of.
  I am sorry the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) left, because, 
yes, that is why I came to Congress. But it was not to be. We had a 
compromise on the Republican side, and, at the end of the day, we got a 
budget passed.
  I am a proponent for some significant tax reform in this country. I 
think we can tinker around the edges all we want. But until we get some 
type of tax reform that gives us a single rate that gives us fairness 
across the board, I honestly do not see that we are going to be able to 
get back to any type of fiscal sanity in this country.

                              {time}  2115

  I think the President is on the right path. I think he is using the 
incremental changes to bring us to essentially a flat tax, which I 
support.
  I think when we look at what was happening with the economy from 
March of 2000, this economy was in a slide. We had Chairman Greenspan 
cutting interest rates hand over fist, as fast as he could, and he 
could not stop the slide. The slide was arrested. The deficit was much 
more shallow than it otherwise would have been because of the courage 
of George Bush and my Republican colleagues all. Because I was not here 
then, I cannot take credit for it. But, Mr. Speaker, the tax cuts that 
were passed in 2001 I think did an excellent job of stopping that slide 
into deficit.
  Well, I will not go into all of the points that I was going to try to 
make tonight, but I think some excellent ones have been made on this 
side. I am certainly willing to work with anyone. I do not think a 
discharge petition solves one single problem, and I, in fact, resent 
the fact that it was brought up here tonight. That was not the purpose 
that I came to this floor, to be beaten about the head with the issue 
of discharge petition. We know what that is.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we heard about some 
things where we could work together. I agree with the gentleman. My 
Democrat colleagues cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it both 
ways. You cannot on one side of your mouth say that we are not spending 
enough and, on the other side of your mouth, when there are no votes on 
the table, say that we are spending too much, which we keep hearing 
from our colleagues on the Democrat side.
  My colleagues will recall a couple of things that the gentleman may 
agree with me on. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget wanted to 
do a 1 percent cut in waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Mr. BURGESS. That is correct.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Does the gentleman recall if he got 
any Democratic support for that?
  Mr. BURGESS. To the best of my knowledge, I do not recall any.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, we have to talk about the 
facts. Let us talk about the facts.
  When our dear friends on the Democratic side just said a little while 
ago, kind of equating tax cuts with government spending, the thing that 
it really boils down to is what the differences are. There is a huge 
difference between more government spending and tax cuts. More 
government spending are Washington bureaucrats spending the taxpayers' 
money. Tax cuts is allowing taxpayers of this country, hard-working men 
and women of our country, and small businesses, to keep more of their 
money. So we have a huge philosophical difference when my colleagues 
equate tax cuts with more government.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, my point was that we can increase the 
national debt by either spending or by greater tax cuts, and we are in 
a position right now where we are projecting a $5 trillion deficit over 
the decade. Ten years from now the national debt will be twice as what 
it is under the Republican budget. Today it stands at a little over $6 
trillion. In 10 years it is going to be $12 trillion. We will be paying 
interest in excess of the largest category of Federal spending, and 
that is defense, in 10 years.
  So do not say that the differences are we are against tax cuts, or we 
are for spending and we are against tax cuts. We would love to cut 
taxes just like you do, but we believe you have to be intellectually 
honest about it. Just as Mr. Peterson said in this article in the New 
Yorker, and I will quote, ``For some supply side Republicans, the 
pursuit of lower taxes has evolved into a religion; indeed, a tax cut 
theology that simply disregards any objective evidence that violates 
the tenets of the faith.'' He says, ``The star of the government at the 
source strategy is not only hypocritical, it is likely to fail with 
great injury to the young.''
  So what we are doing is passing on a debt. We are passing on a debt 
to a future generation by the blind pursuit of

[[Page 17427]]

an irresponsible fiscal policy, and the Republicans are in charge, and 
the Republican Party is doing it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time we have 
left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gerlach). Fifteen minutes remaining.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Total?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, total.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Seven-and-a-half per side.
  Why do we not go into debt a little bit and borrow some from the next 
group? Just a joke, guys. We need to figure out our strategy for our 7 
minutes to close.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I think the comments of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith) comments were great, and I think there are some 
things that we can agree upon. The problem is, of course, that just us 
agreeing upon them does not make them happen. The majority party in the 
House and the Senate has to help make that happen. We cannot do it just 
because we agree upon it.
  I will tell my colleagues that the basis of those agreements, I say 
to the gentleman from Michigan, I think are twofold. One is the chart I 
had up earlier. Or here is the statement here by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston). It says, I think we should preserve Social 
Security, we should protect it. We should put 100 percent of the 
surplus back where it belongs into Social Security. This was during the 
days of the lockbox vote, which the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and others know a 
whole lot about. Probably the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) know less because 
they were not here in the days when we were talking about the lockbox.
  All of these guys, all of us guys voted for the lockbox, as you did. 
We would agree.
  The other statement was one that we should pay down the debt. That is 
what Mr. Kingston said on March 3. We agree.
  Now, the only thing we would ask is, you said those things, then let 
us figure out how to do them. And my Republican colleagues are in 
control, not us. Zero-based budgeting, a great idea, I say to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess). We cannot do that. Your party has 
to do it, as long as it is in the majority control of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, again, we had 
an opportunity, you had an opportunity to partner with us on H. Con. 
Res. 95 and would not do it. Not a single Democratic vote, as the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) so accurately pointed out, not a 
single Democratic vote on that budget, which would have led us to a 
balanced budget within 4 years' time.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I recall that in 1997 when the White House was 
controlled by a Democrat, and the Republicans were in control of the 
House and Senate, we sat down in a very thoughtful way, in a compromise 
way, everybody, and said, how do we do this? And we did it with 
spending caps, and we lived up to that.
  So I yield.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to do with whatever time is 
left on our side was give 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Kennedy), 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), 
and 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart); as 
I understand it, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) does not want 
any more time. And since you all have about equal time, I know you have 
some folks that want to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for you to tell us at 2-minute 
intervals? Could you just maybe tap your gavel every 2 minutes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman regulates the time that has 
been yielded under a special-order speech.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman who controls the time has no watch 
because I went skiing with it this weekend. Does anybody have a watch 
over there? All right. I have a very expensive watch here. Okay.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, you all go for 2 minutes, and then we will 
go for 2 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, people who are watching this are saying, 
no wonder they cannot get their money straight.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again, I agree that we 
should look at positive ways to agree. I would like to yield 10 seconds 
to anybody there who will answer: Would you all agree to that 1 percent 
cut that we tried to do? Would you vote for it?
  Mr. TANNER. Yes, I think you will find agreement over here. But I 
will tell my colleagues something. I think that has been pointed out 
here on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of 
time, but you did not vote for it, you did not support it.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, you did not support the Blue Dog budget 
either that would have resulted in $21 billion less in interest over a 
period of time.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim the 
time, I did not support the Blue Dog budget because it increased taxes, 
and those are the facts. I did not support the Blue Dog budget because 
it raised taxes on hard-working American people to fund more 
bureaucracy and more bureaucrats, while ours cut taxes. I did not 
support the Blue Dog budget because it did not make the tax cuts 
permanent. You better believe I did not support it.
  I am asking a specific question which I cannot get a specific answer 
to because we keep hearing two different sides of the solution. None of 
the Democrats supported the 1 percent cut on waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Those are the facts. That is the reality. This is the party that has 
got a balanced budget, that cuts taxes on the working people, that does 
not raise taxes, and, unfortunately, the Blue Dog budget did.
  Now, when you strip that budget down, it is not a Blue Dog budget, it 
is just a dog budget, it is a sad dog budget because it increases taxes 
on the American people to fund more bureaucracy. I think, again, if you 
want to work together, support, for example, that 1 percent tax cut on 
fraud and abuse that none of you, none of you did in committee. Those 
are the facts.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, the Blue Dog budget did not increase taxes. 
What the Blue Dog budget did was it put some of the tax cuts that were 
supposed to go into effect into the future off the table.
  I have heard the Republicans over and over again say we need to go to 
a zero-based budget, and if you have a spending increase that is not as 
much as you want, that that is some kind of cut, that that is what the 
Democrats say. Well, you cannot say that a tax cut that is not yet in 
effect, if it does not go in effect, is a tax increase. You cannot have 
it both ways on that one.
  But let me just point out, I agree with the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith). Let me say what I think anybody, any reasonable, sane 
person listening to this would have to conclude, and that is this 
country is on an unsustainable financial glidepath. The Republican 
budget that you are so proud of borrows in the next 10 years, in your 
budget cycle that you passed without our votes, that is true, because 
it borrowed another $6 trillion; the interest difference that we will 
pay as Americans, the mandatory spending that we have, because your 
budget passed and not the Blue Dog budget, amounts to $421 billion over 
the next year.
  I will give my colleagues 2 examples that just happened in the last 2 
weeks. You added $80 billion in borrowed money on the child care 
matter. Mr. Speaker, $80 billion at 4 percent interest is $3.2 billion 
a year in interest. By just that one bill, you spent $32 billion that 
night over the next 10 years.
  Then you had the medical savings account. You borrowed $174 billion 
for that bill. Just that bill alone is increased mandatory spending in 
interest over the next 10 years of $68 billion.

[[Page 17428]]

You are spending money, you are just not spending it tonight. You are 
spending it over the next 10 years. Those two bills alone are $100 
billion in additional spending, mandatory spending on interest.
  Now, you can talk about spending all you want, but spending is 
spending, whether it is on interest, which is the most wasteful 
spending of all, because no one gets anything. And, as the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) pointed out earlier, we are borrowing 
money from foreign nations who may or may not agree with us, and when 
they call those notes, we have a real problem.
  So I am going to quit. Let us agree to do this again. We all know we 
have a major problem. And unless we can agree that we are on an 
unsustainable financial path, I do not know where we go.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have a whole 2 
minutes, but the Blue Dogs are probably not average for your 
conference, for your caucus. You are probably more conservative than 
the average of the total Democrats in the House. Probably this group is 
about average for the conservative ideas of the Republicans.
  But we have 20 Republicans that are very concerned about some issues 
that maybe increase spending in particular areas. So if we are going to 
end up accomplishing anything, we have to maybe work together. If the 
rest of your conference thought the Blue Dog budget was going to pass, 
my guess is they would not have voted for it. So maybe we need to sneak 
up on this side and sometimes give you enough votes to pass that Blue 
Dog budget if we can agree on, ahead of time, with this side of the 
aisle on what is the reasonable budget.
  But we do not like taxes because taxes sort of depress economic 
expansion. But on the other side of that story, we have to have enough 
intestinal fortitude, we have to have enough guts, to say that if we 
are going to spend the money today, we should pay for it.
  What we have to do also is live up to coming up with legislation that 
is going to deal with Social Security, to keep Social Security solvent. 
Most of my colleagues have not signed any Social Security bill. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has gone and walked the tight wire 
on Social Security, as I and some others have, and that is what we are 
going to have to do. My guess is this next campaign is going to say, 
let us try to get together and work with Social Security. We should do 
it ahead of time.
  But in conclusion, I agree. Let us do this again, and let us try to 
limit the blame from each side and try to work together for some 
conclusions of how we might work together to accomplish our goals and 
what my Democrat colleagues suggest are their goals.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. STENHOLM. Let me just try to end it on the same positive note, 
and I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Smith) contribution 
to this tonight and the major points they made. We are not here to 
blame. That is not the point. We were here to point out we have got a 
problem. Now, you can explain it away all you want to about the 
various, and we can have our political stump speeches which we heard 
from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) a moment ago on 
that line. And that is great, but that does not change the fact that 
where we started with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is we 
are going to owe $13 trillion at the end of the 10-year period 
following the budget that you passed. Yes, we did not support it. I do 
not support it tonight.
  When you talk about spending our budget, the Blue Dog budget spent 
$400 billion less than the budget that you passed that you are so proud 
of, $400 billion on interest. Yes, we did not cut taxes as much as you 
did because we said, let us not cut them until we see whether there is 
money to cut them with. And that was before the war. After the war we 
said, we ought to be fiscally responsible and not borrow additional 
money. It will be the first time since 1812 that the United States 
Congress did not raise taxes in order to pay for a war. First time. But 
we are saying we ought to be conservative. And it is not conservative 
to move ahead as the direction you are moving.
  Now, there are some things we can agree on. I do not know why we 
eliminate the pay-go provisions. I do not know why we said that if you 
bring a tax cut or a spending increase, you do not have to come in with 
offsetting revenue or expenditure. I do not know why you dropped that, 
because we agree with that. You can put together a pretty good majority 
of people to do that. These are things that I would like to see us 
discuss next week when we do this again.
  But let us end it on the same note that the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith) put out. We are not here to blame, but by the same token we 
are here to set the record straight. And there were some statements 
made here about the Blue Dog statements that are not factual. If you 
are going to come to the floor and speak about what we do or do not do, 
then keep it on the facts. Then we will take our share of the blame.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I would just say we are for reducing the 
debt. We did pay down $453 billion of debt from 1998 to 2001. We are 
for having that deficit come down. How did it get there? Eighty percent 
of the change from where we were when we had surplus and where we find 
ourselves with the projections now is driven by the economy. So are we 
just going to assume that we do not have an ability to get that economy 
rolling forward, again? We could, we believed, by spurring the economy 
through tax relief.
  We spend a lot of time talking about the government's budget today, 
and we have not talked about the families' budget and the aggregate of 
the families' budget in terms of national economy. And when you look at 
Reagan tax relief after he passed that tax relief, we had a 60 percent 
increase in tax revenue. If we get the economy picking up like we are 
hoping to with 25 percent increase in the stock market in the recent 
past, that can get that deficit paid off sooner rather than later.
  As a person who spent a lot of time balancing budgets, a person who 
was on the finance side of business for 20 years, as a retailer, when 
we face a tough economy, what did we do? Did we raise prices?
  Yes, this may be the first time since 1812 or whatever, but the last 
time anybody tried to raise taxes during a depression was Calvin 
Coolidge, and I do not think we necessarily want to follow that 
example.
  We need to, as a retailer would, say how can we lower the costs in 
the economy? That is what we have done. We need to say, how can we cut 
back on spending? And we need to join together to take a good, hard 
look. Yes, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) says you reduce 
spending on interest by $400 billion, but you are spending on other 
categories, all but 110 billion of that.
  I think those are the healthy discussions we need to say we need to 
not just have the tax relief the economy needs to spur, but we need to 
take a good hard look, working together to get control of this 
spending, to get our budgets back in line, not just for our 
governments, but for the burden on the American family and the burden 
on the economy. And I look forward to continuing this discussion and 
debate.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. I think what this all really comes down to is 
whether you believe that it is important for the future of this country 
to try to have a balanced budget. Every State in the Union has it, 
every city council, every school board, and every family certainly 
tries to. And if you incur debt, you figure out how to pay it back 
within a reasonable period of time. Your budget does not do that. In 
fact, the chart to my right shows the Republican budget in action. It 
shows it in fiscal year 2004 we will be paying in the red $338 billion 
in interest.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gerlach). The gentleman's time has 
expired.

[[Page 17429]]


  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent for 5 
additional minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. But as the charts shows, under your budget in 
2013, the interest on debt we will be paying, the most wasteful 
government spending, is $656 billion in 2013. That is more than we will 
be spending under our budget on all of national defense, which is shown 
in the blue, which is $529 billion in fiscal year 2013.
  So the reality is that those of us on the Blue Dog side tonight 
believe that deficits do matter, and that it is wrong to pass on this 
kind of debt burden and this kind of interest payment to the next 
generations. And as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) said, it is 
important for us to work together. But to work together we have got to 
have an agreement that there are two ways that this debt continues to 
rise, and that is by spending or by continual pursuit of tax cuts that 
we cannot pay for. And I am one who believes it is wrong to ask those 
young men and women to go over there and fight for us in Iraq and tell 
them when they come home and get in their good years of earnings that 
they are going to have to pay the costs of that war because we charged 
it.
  So I really think that we have got a philosophical difference here 
with your side of the aisle saying that I have never seen a tax cut 
that I do not like, and we will cut taxes no matter how much we can 
afford to cut them.
  We Blue Dogs love tax cuts, and we want every tax cut we can afford. 
And back when we had a projected $5 trillion surplus, I voted with you 
for that tax cut. But it is different now. We are projecting a $5 
trillion deficit over the decade.
  So I say to you that deficits do matter. They are morally wrong 
because it is charging the cost of government to our children, and it, 
according to the economists, will result in higher interest rates in 
the years ahead. And for the average family who is trying to borrow 
money to buy a home, borrow money to buy a car, borrow money to send 
their kids to college, just a 1 percent increase in interest over the 
next decade can literally means thousands of dollars in costs to that 
family. So we just ask you to work with us and try our best to end up 
reducing our debt.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to respond real quickly on the tax cuts thing 
because, as you know, one of big problems we have is controlling 
spending on a bipartisan basis, and there is a lot of pressure, no 
matter what it is, there is not enough for education, not enough for 
seniors, not enough for the poor, not enough for the farmers. You name 
the group, this town is geared up in that direction.
  One great advantage of tax reductions, it is not just a matter of 
stimulating the economy, we do believe in economic growth and jobs. I 
think the more money that the people have, and it is not a matter of us 
affording the tax cuts, it is a matter of can the working folks pay for 
all the government we are giving them. The more you look at what tax 
cuts do for the economy, the more jobs that are created.
  This is just the Standard and Poor's increase since we passed the 
latest round of tax reductions. Here is the Dow Jones increase. All 
these mean more jobs out there, more people paying into the system, and 
revenues will go up. But the best part is the money does not come to 
Washington, so we do not spend it.
  I think that is something that we will continue to debate about, and 
I want to say this has made some progress tonight.
  I did not know that we had abandoned the pay-go system that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) had mentioned. I want to work with 
you on that.
  The balanced budget amendment, it would be an awkward position for me 
to sign the discharge petition, but philosophically I do support it. I 
want to help you get that bill to the floor, and I want to pledge that.
  I am glad we are all mutually interested in zero-based budgeting. Let 
us move in that direction.
  Another issue, if we could get away from just the terminology 
``mandatory spending'' and say, hey, that is automatic, we are too lazy 
to debate it year in and year out, nothing is mandatory for the U.S. 
Congress. That might be something that we can work together on.
  The gentleman extended this debate invitation originally. Let me 
right here extend one to you, and let us schedule for next week or 
whenever we can do it.
  With that, I yield back and thank the gentlemen for all 
participating.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. We thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).

                          ____________________