[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 5774-5775]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE NATIONAL BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, here we go again. Here we are to talk about 
a subject our majority colleagues and our administration do not want to 
talk about. They are hoping it will just go away. That subject is our 
national budget or, more directly, the conspicuous lack thereof.
  Madam Speaker, my constituents ask me all the time, what do I think 
is the most important challenge facing our country? What is the one 
thing that we have to work on more than anything else? I can reply to 
them, in all honesty and candor and directness, that it is the very 
solvency of their Federal Government.
  Why should that be? Why is it not the economy? Why is it not 
education? Why is it not our deteriorating relationship with the rest 
of the world? Why is it not Social Security?
  The reason is simple. Without a strong fiscal underpinning, we cannot 
do everything or anything else. We can have a great old talk, we can 
have a great old debate, but unless the fiscal solvency of our country 
is strong, we are not going anywhere. Put another way, unless we take 
care of today, our children will not be able to take care of tomorrow.
  We think we all know now, do we not, that we are in pretty bad shape? 
In fact, we are in real bad shape; and we are going downhill fast. The 
largest deficits we have ever seen, no end in sight, debt going up, 
interest rates going up, irresponsible budgeting, like going out only 5 
years of a budget when we know that the big expenses come in the sixth 
year.
  And we all know that the budget passed by this House just a week ago 
by a mere three-vote margin is not going to solve that problem. In 
fact, it is going to worsen it.
  How did we get here? How did we ever allow ourselves to come to this 
place? Just 3, 4 years ago we were on the right track. We had spending 
under control. We had revenues coming in. We had budgets that were 
heading towards balance. We had debt ceilings that were low relative to 
GDP.

                              {time}  2000

  How did we arrive here? Well, the first thing we did is pretty 
obvious. We consistently reduced revenues while increasing expenses. 
What do we expect when we do that over a period of years? Second, 
though, we did not have basic rules to live by. When we are talking 
about whether to increase this particular program or increase this 
particular tax or reduce this particular tax or reduce this particular 
program, we can talk about that program or that tax all we want, but it 
has got to fit into a big picture. And those are rules to live by; and 
if we live within those rules within that box, we end up with balanced 
budgets because we make decisions that are related to each other.
  And, third, the rules that we did have, we ignored. We talked at 
length about the first consequence. We have talked about that for many 
years now. I think it is finally sinking in. We cannot both slash 
revenues and increase expenses and expect everything to be okay; and 
yet that is what the budget we just passed and sent into a conference 
with the Senate does.
  Yesterday, we talked at length about the second part of it, rules 
that have worked in the past and that we no longer have, PAYGO. PAYGO, 
a very simple concept that we pay as we go. That as we reduce in one 
area, we have to increase in another area. We talked about consequences 
that when we reduce over here, there is a consequence that has to be 
addressed over here. That is what balance is. This is balance. Those 
rules set the boundaries for what we could do. PAYGO, that is what this 
House just rejected yesterday on a vote of 209 to 209. That is what the 
Senate has done. I support the Senate and praise the Senate for its 
actions to institute PAYGO, and I beg those conferees going in on 
behalf of the House to do the right thing.
  But today I want to address the third part of it, rules that exist 
today that are not followed. We have under our system a debt ceiling. 
It is designed as a check and balance. It is designed to make each one 
of us stand up and say that no matter how much debt we accumulate 
because of the decisions, no matter how reckless, no matter how 
irresponsible, for that matter, we have to vote separately to increase 
the total debt that we collectively carry through our U.S. Government. 
And that is what we are doing. We are carrying debt. When we run 
deficits year after year after year, the money does not just grow out 
of nowhere. It does not grow on trees. It is not found in a stash 
somewhere. We borrow it. We issue notes, bonds. We take it out of trust 
funds. We borrow it. And the total

[[Page 5775]]

amount is supposed to be limited, and we have that on the books; but we 
are ignoring it. In 2001 when this administration started, there was a 
debt limit substantially lower than where it is.
  I want to say one thing in conclusion. A vote for the budget is a 
vote to increase the debt limit. We have voted to increase the debt 
limit. We have not taken a separate vote. So when people ask their 
Member of Congress, did he or she vote for the budget resolution, if 
the answer is yes, they voted for a substantial increase in the debt 
limit. Do not hide it. Let us be honest in our budgeting. Let us do 
this right.

                          ____________________