[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6132-6137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1730
                        THE BLUE DOG BUDGET PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Blackburn). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Loretta Sanchez) is recognized for the remainder of the minority 
leader's hour.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I was sitting in a 
military congressional hearing and could not get out in time, but we 
are here now and really excited about having so many of our Blue Dogs 
come here today to talk about the real problem on our hands.
  And what is the problem on our hands? The problem is that a couple of 
years ago, many of us who were here in the Congress understood that we 
were in a surplus situation. We were getting more money in taxes than 
we were spending. And so we had a surplus. In just 2 years, under the 
Bush administration, we are in a deficit situation, a projected 
deficit, anybody that you talk to in this year's budget, of anywhere 
between about $300 billion and $350 billion. That does not include the 
war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, our work going on in Afghanistan; 
that is above and beyond the $300 billion-plus deficit that we are 
running this year.
  Add that to almost a $6 trillion debt load that we are already 
carrying, and this becomes a major problem. Yet everything else seems 
to be going wrong. People are being laid off. There are no jobs being 
created under this administration with the plan that he had, his great 
tax cut that was supposed to stimulate the economy. It has not. 
Businesses are closing; bankruptcies are up. We read that in today's 
newspaper. That is despite all the other problems that we are having in 
the international world and with respect to a war. So our economy is 
weak and in many cases, like in California, is getting smaller as we 
speak.
  So what do we do? The President's proposal has been to put forward a 
budget with stated aims of saying that the economy should get moving, 
that this budget of his would create jobs and that they would balance 
the budget. Strike one, strike two, strike three. This budget misses 
all marks of these three aims. I am going to go through that a little, 
and then we have got some Blue Dogs here who want to talk about what 
our proposal is for the budget of 2004.
  First of all, economic stimulus. The way that the President has 
structured his tax cut does not and will not stimulate our economy in 
the short term. It does very little. In fact, even the President's plan 
when you look at it, only 5 percent of his projected stimulus package 
would have any impact now. Now, while people are being laid off. Now, 
while unemployment benefits are running out. Simply put, the 
President's

[[Page 6133]]

stimulus plan is not stimulative at all. In contrast, we Democrats, and 
in particular the Blue Dog budget, would help to expand the economy. It 
would help those who have lost their jobs, and it would call for 
immediate tax rebates. That puts money in the pockets of those people 
who will spend it, not the people who already have money, but the 
people who need it to live on a day-to-day basis. It is going to create 
jobs.
  Let us take a look at the President's tenure. Unemployment went from 
4 percent to its current 5.8 percent. In other words, he has not 
created jobs. We have been losing them. He has done a round of tax 
cuts, over $1 trillion worth of tax cuts. It did not work. It has not 
worked. And now he proposes to do the same thing, another tax cut. But 
if his first one did not work, his second one certainly will not work. 
We need job creation, and we want it to include small business. Small 
business is where jobs in America are created today. The stimulus 
effort needs to be focused in part on small business. The Blue Dog plan 
calls for immediate aid to small businesses by calling for increases in 
small business expensing from $25,000 to $75,000 for equipment 
purchases in 2003 and 2004, right now. If businesses invest right now, 
we are going to give them a tax break, and that is going to stimulate 
the economy.
  Finally, the President's plan, he says, would bring down the debt. 
But it will not. It would increase the national debt far into the 
future. As my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), 
said, when we include the service on the debt, or the interest payment 
that we have to make that the President's plan would generate, his plan 
will cost at least $925 billion through 2013 alone, with no end in 
sight. The Democrats, and the Blue Dogs in particular, believe that the 
main thing we have to get under control is the debt, because when we do 
that, when we bring down the debt, then the interest payment that we 
make on that borrowed money becomes smaller and smaller.
  When I first got to the Congress, it was about 17 cents of every 
dollar was spent on interest on the debt. By the time President Clinton 
got out of office, it was only 11 cents. We were bringing down the 
debt. The Republicans, when President Bush came in, they were having a 
hard time deciding, my God, what does the world look like when the 
Federal Government does not have any debt? They were worried. They were 
actually worried that we might bring down the debt and there would be 
no debt in the United States. But they fixed that. They fixed it by 
giving tax cuts, they fixed it with a bad economy, and now we are back 
up to 18 cents of every dollar we bring in as tax revenue to the 
Federal Government gets spent on the debt. We need to reduce the public 
debt. It is a debt tax.
  We as Blue Dogs believe that we cannot simply stand around and 
criticize, but that we must present our own solution to the problem, 
that it has to be credible, that it has to be based in principles. The 
Blue Dog principles are to bring down the debt, stimulate the economy, 
create jobs, and get the economy moving again. That is why I am for the 
Blue Dog enforcement bill, which we call Assuring Honesty and 
Accountability in 2003.
  All of the provisions in our budget enforcement bill are for debt and 
deficit reduction. In very black and white terms, we have a plan of how 
to bring down the debt and how to stimulate the economy. A handful of 
my fellow Blue Dogs will be here tonight to speak about that. I believe 
the next one that we have is the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor), who will give his version of what Blue Dogs are trying to do 
to help bring down the debt, create jobs, and put more money in 
America's pockets.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentlewoman. I think it is 
important that we remind the American public where we are now. When we 
passed the Bush tax cuts in May, just 2 years ago, our Nation was 
$5,643,680,010,418 in debt. Less than 2 years later we are 
$6,445,790,102,749 in debt. That is an increase of over $800 billion. 
If you were to track the American debt from the founding of the 
American Revolution through the Vietnam War, our Nation had borrowed 
that much money in about 180 years. In less than 2 years, our Nation 
has borrowed that much money. What is particularly frustrating I think 
for all of us is the complete flip-flop on the part of our Republican 
colleagues.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) has been the Speaker of the 
House now for, I believe, 1,500 days or something very close to it. In 
those 1,500 days, he has never scheduled a vote on a balanced budget 
amendment. I find this a bit ironic, because on March 17, 1994, then-
Member Hastert said clearly, ``Until our monstrous $3.4 trillion 
deficit is eliminated, interest payments will continue to eat away at 
the important initiatives which the government must fund. I will not 
stand by and watch Congress recklessly squander the future of our 
children and grandchildren.''
  As I pointed out, the debt has increased $2 trillion since the 
Speaker said that, then-Member Hastert. Yet he will not allow a vote on 
a balanced budget amendment, and we are not even sure he is going to 
allow a vote on the Blue Dog budget. As we know last year, it was so 
thoroughly convoluted in the Committee on Rules that we were not given 
a clear opportunity to offer it as an amendment. I hope, Mr. Speaker, 
you will do so this year.
  I would also remind you that on that same day, you said, ``The 
American people have wanted a balanced budget amendment for a long 
time, because they know it's the only way to force Congress to make 
spending choices.''
  Mr. Speaker, if you meant what you said in 1994, we are willing to 
help you do just that, but you have got to give us a vote on it.
  There are some other interesting quotes. The next year, January 25, 
the Speaker said, ``Mr. Chairman, a national debt of $4.5 trillion, you 
can see how it's growing, should finally convince every Member in this 
Chamber that Congress has got no discipline to solve its own problems. 
This balanced budget amendment will put discipline upon us.''
  Mr. Speaker, I wish you would live by those words and give us a vote.
  Here a few days later, ``The American people want their government to 
be fiscally responsible. They want us to balance the budget in order to 
lower our debt and make our children's future brighter.''
  We could not agree with you more. You were right in 1995. Why are you 
not for a balanced budget now?
  Some other friends of mine on the other side of the aisle have said 
similar things. Now Majority Leader Tom DeLay, it has been a while, 
March 11, 1994:
  ``We are showing what we would do. If the Republicans were in charge 
of this House and in charge of the Senate, it would be a much different 
America. It would be a much different government.''
  In the past 2 years, or less, you guys have run up $800 billion in 
new debt. It is obviously different. I do not think it is better, but 
there is always time to change. I think one of the ways that you can 
change is to allow a vote on the floor next week of the Blue Dog 
budget, which would get us back on the path to a balanced budget.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) had some interesting statistics. 
This is from a speech that he gave on the House floor in 1995:
  ``In 1980, each child born that year immediately inherited a debt of 
$4,000. That is government debt. By 1985, because no balanced budget 
had been adopted, the children that year had inherited a $7,600 debt. 
By 1990, our children were burdened with almost $12,800 in debt.''
  This is again from Majority Leader DeLay's floor speech from 1995:
  ``Each year every child born in America this year will begin life 
with a debt of more than $16,700. Is it any wonder that young families 
have trouble saving money for a down payment on a house? Is it any 
wonder that the Federal Government's consumption of more than one-
quarter of all our economic activity is driven in interest rates and 
stifling economic growth?''

[[Page 6134]]

  When the majority leader made that comment, our Nation was about $4.3 
trillion in debt. We are now $2 trillion further in debt, so I think it 
is fair to say that your $16,000 debt that you made reference to is now 
a $25,000 debt for every American man, woman and child. Yet what really 
troubles me, and I could go on and on pointing out very important 
Members of the Republican Party: the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  One thing that strikes me as an American who tries to be objective 
about all of this and who kind of enjoys watching other people's 
political races, I remember distinctly then-candidate Al Gore being 
severely beaten about the head and shoulders for flip-flopping on the 
abortion issue. I know many people in this Chamber have different 
opinions on this, but my Republican colleagues reminded the American 
people that Al Gore ran as a pro-life candidate only to change to a 
pro-choice and accused him of flip-flopping. That is probably true. But 
if that is true, then how can the Speaker and the majority leader, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and others who came to this 
floor and gave eloquent speeches, and they were eloquent speeches, 
about the importance of balancing the budget, the importance of a 
balanced budget amendment, that deficits are bad, that interest 
payments on the debt are bad, how can they now look the American people 
in the eye and say they are good?

                              {time}  1745

  It is a fair question to each of you. It is a fair question the 
American people ought to be asking my Republican colleagues. Do not try 
to tell me that you never said it, because it is in the Congressional 
Record.
  So the question is, what did you really believe in? Did you believe 
it when you said it then, or do you believe it when you are saying 
deficits are not important now? Because they are totally opposite. And 
all I think the American people are asking for is some honesty, some 
honesty in budgeting, and some concern about the future of this 
country, and that we quit sticking our kids with the bills.
  The last thing I am going to say, and it is the analogy I use back 
home because everyone understands it, there is not a Member in this 
body who would go out and buy a car, and say, ``I don't care what it 
costs, I don't care what the payments are, because my 6-year-old child 
is going to pay the bill.''
  There is not a Member in this House that would go out and buy a house 
and tell the realtor, ``I want the nicest house in the county. I don't 
care what it costs, I don't care what the payments are, because I am 
going to stick my grandkid with the bill.'' That is precisely what we 
have been doing as a Nation, and in less than 2 years we have stuck our 
kids and grandkids with an $800 billion bill.
  The Blue Dogs will give you an opportunity next week to start turning 
that around. We are going to give you an opportunity to be men of your 
words. I hope you will join us in trying to balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would live by your own words and 
give us a vote on a much-needed balanced budget amendment to the United 
States Constitution.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Mississippi.
  Mr. Speaker, now to join us on the House floor is the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner), who has been a leader of the Blue Dogs and has some 
nifty charts here, to really explain, in case any of you have just 
joined us, that the Blue Dogs are about bringing down the deficit and 
creating jobs and bringing the economy back, in contrast to what the 
President and his Republican majority in the House and in the Senate 
have presented with their 2004 budget. We have a different budget in 
mind. We have a timeline to bring down the debt and bring this country 
back into surplus.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for hosting 
this hour for our Blue Dog group for the presentation of our budget 
proposal.
  The Blue Dog Democrats in the House are 35 members strong. We come 
from all over the United States. Tonight we have had Members from 
California, Mississippi, Tennessee and Florida. We will hear from the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) shortly.
  This is a group that is united by one theme, and that is we believe 
that our country must return to balanced budgets, we must try to pay 
down our debt, which now stands at over $6.3 trillion, and, in order to 
do so, we have to adopt a fiscally responsible budget in this Congress 
this year.
  Back in January the President revealed his budget plan, and we have 
had the opportunity to look very carefully at his plan. As you know, 
his plan calls for tax cuts and acceleration of tax cuts that were 
implemented 2 years ago when we passed the largest tax cut in the 
history of the country. That tax cut was to be phased in over a period 
of about 10 years. Those tax cuts have been phasing in, and the Blue 
Dog Democrats believe that the tax cuts that we have all received need 
to remain in place.
  We also believe that the future tax cuts that will accrue to the 
benefit of low and middle income families need to be implemented 
immediately in an effort to bring about a short-term stimulus.
  But the Blue Dog Democrats disagree with our President on two 
important points of his plan. First of all, we believe that it is wrong 
for half of his tax cut plan to be dedicated to the elimination of the 
taxation of dividends.
  Now, there are many wealthy Americans who have a lot of stock and who 
would greatly benefit from eliminating the tax on dividends. But most 
Americans have very modest stock investments, and we believe it is 
wrong to dig the deficit hole deeper and to increase our national debt 
by proposing at this time the elimination of the taxation of dividends.
  We also believe that at a time when our Nation is on the verge of 
war, that we as Members of Congress need to call upon the American 
people to share in the sacrifice that is being made by the young 18, 
19, 20, 21-year-olds who are now gathered around the borders of Iraq, 
poised for military conflict.
  In time of war, all Americans must share in the sacrifice. By 
eliminating the part of the President's budget plan that eliminates the 
tax on dividends, we believe we are calling upon those Americans who 
are best able to share in the sacrifice to postpone that part of the 
President's plan.
  We also believe that American families who have incomes over $170,000 
a year should be willing to defer the tax cuts that they would get 
under the President's plan in order to share in the sacrifice necessary 
to fight and pay for the war in Iraq.
  That is the Blue Dog plan: Accelerate the tax cuts for the lower and 
middle income families, for all families who have incomes below 
$170,000 a year; but those who have greater incomes than that, they 
will get the tax cuts that would naturally accrue to the cuts in the 
lower tax brackets. They will get the benefit of the Blue Dog plan for 
accelerating the child tax credit and eliminating the marriage penalty, 
as will all Americans. But as far as a reduction of the top rates, 
those families at $170,000 and above should be willing to wait, wait 
until we get through this war, wait until our budget situation 
improves.
  The difference in those two plans, the Blue Dog plan and the 
President's plan, has a dramatic impact upon our Federal budget. If you 
look at the chart to my right, you see the President's plan will dig 
the budget deficit hole deeper to the tune of $2.7 trillion in debt 
over the next 10 years. Our present $6.3 trillion debt under the 
President's plan at the end of 10 years will stand at $10 trillion. We 
think that is wrong. We think that is bad for the country. We think 
that is digging a hole that we will have a very difficult time getting 
out of.
  The second chart I have shows that the amount of interest that every 
American family of four will have to pay just to service that debt that 
we

[[Page 6135]]

will have under the President's plan. As you can see by the chart, 
currently every family in America pays $4,624 in interest just to 
service that $6.3 trillion national debt. That is what we call the 
interest tax, and the interest tax is the only tax that you cannot 
repeal, because the interest obligation on the $6 trillion debt must be 
paid every year by the taxpayers of this country.
  So if you look at the President's plan, by the year 2013, 10 years 
from now, every American's debt tax will double. Every American family 
will be paying $8,458 every year, just to pay the interest on the ever-
increasing national debt.
  We believe that is wrong. We believe it is a tremendous waste of 
taxpayer dollars to invest that much in interest.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. If I may ask the gentleman a 
question on that, right now you are telling us we are paying about 
$4,400 for a family of four just on the debt that this Nation carries 
in 2003, and if the President's budget gets passed and signed by him, 
we are going to be looking at increasing that geometrically, basically?
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. That is correct. As we said, by 10 years, the 
end of the budget period that we are now looking at, the tax paid by 
every family would be $8,458, just in interest. Today, 18 percent of 
every tax dollar collected by the Federal Government goes to pay 
interest.
  To look at it another way, if you took only the Federal personal 
income tax, about 25 percent of every dollar we pay, 25 cents out of 
every dollar that we pay, goes just to interest on the national debt.
  What a waste. We talk about wasteful spending, there is no greater 
waste in any area of spending than what we waste every year just paying 
interest on this debt that we have accumulated. The Blue Dog plan is to 
stop that hemorrhaging.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I would say to the gentleman from 
Texas, this does not include what it costs for us to go to war with 
Iraq.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. That is correct. All of the discussion currently 
ongoing about the Federal budget, the levels of spending, do not 
include the cost of a conflict with Iraq or the cost of rebuilding Iraq 
once the conflict is over. The President has said that is a separate 
item, that it should be treated as a separate item. He has promised he 
will send a supplemental request to the Congress to pay for that if and 
when it occurs.
  So we are actually talking about very conservative estimates of the 
size of the national debt, and the Blue Dog budget plan we are 
contrasting tonight with the President assumes the President's levels 
of total spending.
  There are a lot of folks around here who believe very strongly, as I 
do and the Blue Dogs do, that we spend too much money and we have to be 
conservative in our spending. The President has sent us a budget that 
calls for significant reductions in the levels of spending that we have 
seen over the years. But even if you abide by the President's spending 
recommendations, which our budget does, his tax cut policies will 
increase our national debt to the level to the tune of $10 trillion by 
the end of this decade.
  So, what we say is as long as we are facing war, facing growing 
deficits, those who are most blessed economically in our country should 
be willing to defer the future tax cuts they have yet to receive in 
order to help us dig our way out of this ever-deepening hole of debt 
and deficit.
  The chart I have to my right shows in a line graph the differences 
and the surplus under the Blue Dog defense budget and the deficit that 
will occur over the next 10 years in the President's budget. The blue 
line shows the President's budget. The red line shows the path to a 
surplus under the Blue Dog budget.
  As you can see, after 10 years, our Blue Dog budget has seen several 
years of improved fiscal condition of the Federal Government, and we 
have returned to surplus. We will have returned to a surplus by 2009. 
By the end of the decade, we will have returned to what we call a true 
surplus that does not account for the influx of Social Security funds, 
which we are currently spending, just to run the rest of the 
government.
  This Congress a few months ago voted on several occasions never again 
to borrow money from the Social Security Trust Fund to run the rest of 
the government. We had 1 year, the last year of the Clinton 
administration, when we did that, when we accomplished that. But now we 
are back into deficit spending, we are using Social Security money once 
again to run the government, and the Blue Dog plan is a plan that will 
get us back to a point where we will no longer do that. The President's 
plan, to the contrary, does not accomplish that goal.
  Just in the last 2 months, the Congressional Budget Office in 
revising its economic forecast on Federal income said that the Federal 
debt at the end of the 10-year period would be half a trillion dollars 
larger than they have said it would be in just January of this year. So 
the slide into ever-deepening debt has been dramatic.
  The Blue Dogs call upon our President to take a look at the same 
numbers that his Office of Management and Budget produces, which are 
very similar to the numbers that our bipartisan Congressional Budget 
Office produces, and acknowledge and recognize that our picture, our 
financial picture, has changed dramatically, even since he announced 
his budget recommendations in January of this year.
  I think, based on those changed numbers, the President should join 
with the Blue Dogs in trying to move toward a balanced budget within 
this decade, rather than continuing to dig this deficit hole deeper and 
deeper.
  So, I hope tonight as the Blue Dogs have gathered on this floor, that 
we will be able to persuade not only our Democratic colleagues, who are 
well aware of this severe deteriorating budget situation, but our 
Republican colleagues, that they should take a good, hard look at the 
Blue Dog budget alternative.
  It should be appealing to many of them, because for many years 
Republicans were known to be fiscal conservatives, and it has only been 
in the last 2 years when we have seen Republicans abandon that, and in 
fact on many occasions tell us that deficits really do not matter.
  The truth is, common sense still prevails, and as you go along 
spending more money than you take in, eventually it is going to catch 
up with you. I have never seen a family that could sustain itself for 
very long incurring debts that they could not repay, and neither can 
your Federal Government.

                              {time}  1800

  So we believe Republicans will be attracted to our plan because we do 
not dig the deficit hole deeper. We believe that our spending levels, 
which are the same levels as the President's, will also be attractive 
to Republicans because they, I hope, would follow their President's 
recommendations on spending.
  So we hope this plan will be well received, and we look forward to 
the opportunity to debate it when this House considers the budget 
resolution for this year.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman. Congratulations, by the way, at being named the ranking 
member of the new Committee on Homeland Security, another area of 
government that we will see, undoubtedly, some spending happening this 
year. I know with the gentleman's fiscal conservative principles that 
he will really hold the line and try to make America safe, but do it 
within a budget and without too much overspending, as we see the 
Republicans are attempting at this point. I thank the gentleman for 
being here tonight.
  Next we have the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), who has been a 
Blue Dog now, I do not know, maybe 4 years, or maybe 2 or 3. He is 
going to talk about the Blue Dog budget. I yield to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California. We 
have heard a lot of talk tonight about the Blue Dogs. There are 35 of 
us in the United States Congress who are conservative Democrats that 
make up the

[[Page 6136]]

Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. We have one mission as a coalition, and 
that mission is to promote fiscal discipline, fiscal responsibility, 
and to bring common sense to our Nation and its budget process.
  We rise tonight because we are concerned about this country and its 
future. This country is $6 trillion in debt; and under President Bush's 
budget that he just released to Congress, over the next 10 years, this 
country will go from $6 trillion in debt to $9 trillion in debt.
  This country spends $1 billion every single day simply paying 
interest on the national debt. What does that mean to all of us? It 
means a lot. Madam Speaker, $1 billion a day. We could build 200 brand-
new elementary schools every single day in America just with the 
interest that we are paying on the national debt. I have several 
interstate highway programs under construction in my congressional 
district back home that will create jobs while the roads are being 
built and will create jobs long term because of an improved 
infrastructure which will allow more industry to come and locate in the 
Delta region, one of the most impoverished regions of the country. I 
could finish those highways in less than a week just with the interest 
that we are paying on the national debt. I call it a debt tax. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) had it right. That is one tax that 
cannot go away because as the debt grows, the amount of interest that 
we as a Nation are required to pay on that debt also grows.
  The first $2,559 that every single taxpayer in this country pays each 
year does not go to educate our children, it does not go to improve 
roads or to create jobs or improve health care, or to make it 
affordable and accessible, or to provide prescription drug coverage as 
a part of Medicare for our seniors, no. The first $2,559 that every 
taxpayer in this country pays each year simply goes to pay interest on 
the national debt. We have got to get this debt under control. But now 
it is getting worse.
  From 1997 through 2001, this country did not deficit spend. Last 
year, President Bush's budget put us back in the days of deficit 
spending to the tune of $199 billion. This year it will be $300 
billion. It is projected to be $307 billion next year. We are headed in 
the wrong direction. We must get out of the days of deficit spending, 
and we must begin to pay down this debt.
  Social Security. The President's budget for fiscal year 2004, he 
wants over a 10-year period to borrow $2.3 trillion from the Social 
Security trust fund. Our government has already borrowed $1 trillion 
from the Social Security trust fund, and I think it is time for the 
politicians in Washington to keep their hands off the Social Security 
trust fund.
  There are those in government who will tell us that we must invest 
that money until the time that we need it somewhere, and that may be 
true. But let me tell my colleagues something. When I go to the bank to 
get a loan, they want to know how much I am going to pay back and when 
I am going to pay it back. This country has already borrowed $1 
trillion, getting ready to borrow an additional $2.3 trillion from the 
Social Security trust fund with absolutely no provision on how it ever 
gets paid back. Guess what? Assuming it does get paid back, Social 
Security as we know it today is still broke in 2041, because beginning 
in 2011, we will have more people earning Social Security benefits than 
paying into the system.
  Medicare as we know it today is broke in 2030.
  Now, the President wants another tax cut for the wealthiest people in 
America. I am not here to beat up wealthy people. This is America. Many 
people grow and realize the American dream of being successful, and 
there is nothing wrong with that. But we are asking our men and women 
in uniform to now make a sacrifice. We are asking people all across 
America to sacrifice during this heightened time with the potential for 
war and terrorism. I think now is not the time to pass additional tax 
cuts.
  Let me say this, Madam Speaker. I was one of 28 Democrats to vote 
with President Bush for his tax cut about a year ago. It was the 
biggest tax cut in 20 years, $1.3 trillion. But a lot has happened 
since then. We have gone from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus to a 
$215 billion debt over the next 10 years. We have had 2.5 million 
people in America, 2.5 million in America lose their jobs; and anyone 
who has a retirement plan, a 401(k) plan or invests in the stock market 
knows exactly what has happened there. We may need dividend tax reform, 
but now is not the time to do it.
  Madam Speaker, as I travel my district back home, I have people come 
up to me and they talk about how they are unemployed for the first time 
in their lives. They talk about how they are trying to get by on a $600 
Social Security check with a $400-, $500-, $600-, even $700-a-month 
drug bill. People come up to me and talk about how they are struggling 
to figure out how they are going to afford to send their kids to 
college; but never has anyone walked up to me back home or anywhere, 
for that matter, and said, you know, I am having trouble feeding my 
kids because I am paying too many dividends, too many taxes on my 
dividends.
  Now is not the time for that reform. Now is the time to be fiscally 
responsible. Now is the time to begin to get out of the days of deficit 
spending and to pay down, to begin to pay down this debt.
  Here is why it is so important, and here is why the Blue Dog budget 
addresses those things, and here is why the Blue Dog budget is the 
right answer during these difficult times to begin the process of 
getting us out of deficit spending and beginning to pay down the debt. 
The reason is simple. My grandparents left this country just a little 
bit better off than they found it for my parents, and my parents left 
this country just a little bit better off than they found it for our 
generation. And I think we have a duty; no, I think we have an 
obligation to leave this country just a little bit better off than we 
found it for our kids and for our grandkids.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from Arkansas. I think there was a point that the gentleman 
made that is so important for America to understand, and that is that 
when one comes to this country or when one is born in this country and 
one realizes their potential, one is in the greatest market economy the 
world has known, and so it is great if one can use their talents and 
make money. It is the American way. My father did it coming to this 
country, my brothers and sisters and I have done it in this country. We 
want the same thing for everybody. And I tell people all the time who 
make good money, I say, when they complain to me about paying taxes, I 
say to them, is it not a great country, where you can make $1 million, 
$2 million, $500 million a year? Is it not a great marketplace? Is it 
not great to see the infrastructure we have, the communication that we 
have? The way our market works, the way people can come here with 
nothing and make something? Is it not a great place?
  Madam Speaker, one has to make money to pay taxes. I think it is a 
great thing that we pay taxes, because I see the improvements, I see 
what we have. We have a market economy where we can succeed. So we are 
not against rich people. We just want to tell people who are making 
money, there are the troops sacrificing, there are the unemployed 
sacrificing. There are teachers in classrooms sacrificing, taking out 
of their own pocket to buy supplies right now. Can you wait? Can you 
wait on your next tax cut? Would the gentleman not agree?
  Mr. ROSS. Well, let me say that this is not a partisan issue for me. 
I was one of those who supported President Bush's tax cut about a year 
ago. I just think now is not the time for additional tax cuts, not at a 
time when we are asking our men and women in uniform to sacrifice, and 
not at a time when we return to the days of deficit spending, and this 
country is $6 trillion in debt. Again, we are spending $1 billion a day 
just paying interest on the national debt. Now is the time to restore 
fiscal discipline to our national government, to pay down this debt, 
and to get out of the days of deficit spending.

[[Page 6137]]

  Let me tell the gentlewoman two things that concern me. If the 
President is just dying to spend $700 billion on something, let me tell 
my colleagues some things we ought to do in this country. We ought to 
quit talking about modernizing Medicare to include medicine for our 
seniors and we ought to do it, and we ought to fund it to where seniors 
can walk into the pharmacy of their choice, pull out their Medicare 
card and be treated just like they are when they go to the doctor and 
when they go to the hospital.
  We hear a lot about homeland security. We hear a lot of talk about 
it, but it is way underfunded. On February 7, four members of the Cuban 
Coast Guard on a 30-foot boat made the trip across the waters from Cuba 
to Key West. They docked at the marina at a hotel in Key West with two 
machine guns, and they walked the streets of Key West for a number of 
minutes trying to find somebody to defect to. Thank God it was the 
Cuban Coast Guard, and thank God they were here to defect. What if it 
had been terrorists? We have to quit talking about homeland security, 
and we have to fund it. We have to keep America safe. We have to keep 
our children safe. We have to keep our grandchildren safe.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is 
right. We need to protect and invest in America. Because we know what 
happens when we invest in America, when we invest in education, when we 
invest in a health care system, when we invest in our infrastructure 
and our communications system. When we invest, we reap more. And when 
we spend and drive up the debt, we get ourselves in trouble.
  When we are talking about 18 cents of every dollar going to pay down 
the debt, it is credit card amounts. It is what one would anticipate as 
being the highest cost of borrowing. And imagine if we have to go to 
war. That is outside of the President's budget. It is not included in 
the spending that he is proposing. So we will be even higher. And the 
Blue Dogs feel that the first thing we need to do is get down to 
basics. Hold down our spending, be good about that, tighten our belts 
in these tight times, spend on the right things, on investment, on 
homeland security, on education of our children, on our military. But 
we also believe it is not time for a tax cut. We believe that everyone 
must sacrifice during this time; and if we sacrifice and we do it 
right, we will bring down the debt that we see spiraling out of 
control. And when we do that, we will have more money, more money in 
the long run to spend on the things that make this country great.
  So I would encourage my colleagues, in particular on the Republican 
side, to come and ask us about the Blue Dog budget, because we think it 
will work and it will bring down the debt. And when we bring down the 
debt, we will see ourselves where we were 2 years ago: in a surplus 
situation.

                          ____________________