[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4598-4599]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LANCE. Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss the health care 
legislation that has just been signed into law and to discuss the state 
of the American economy and, in particular, the state of Federal 
spending and Federal debt.

[[Page 4599]]

Regarding the health care legislation that the President signed into 
law today, it was unanimously opposed on our side of the aisle; and in 
my case, it was opposed principally as a result of what I believe is a 
fiscally irresponsible approach. Certainly we need to reform health 
care in this country, and I was supportive of a proposal that permitted 
the purchase of policies across State lines, major medical malpractice 
insurance reform, making sure that young people have the opportunity to 
stay on their parents' policies until their mid-twenties, and the 
pooling of small businesses together. I think that this would have been 
an approach that would have received wide bipartisan support.
  However, the bill that became law today is not balanced over the next 
10 years. The Congressional Budget Office reported over the next 10 
years that this does not include spending for the so-called doctors' 
fix that is roughly $200 billion, and there is no one on either side of 
the aisle who believes that we will not engage in that appropriate 
expenditure. In other words, if that were included in the cost over the 
next 10 years, the bill is not revenue-neutral. It is in the red.
  There was an interesting op-ed piece in The New York Times on March 
21 by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, formerly the director of the Congressional 
Budget Office. Mr. Holtz-Eakin is widely respected on both sides of the 
aisle. The Congressional Budget Office, obviously, is nonpartisan in 
nature. And what he states is that unless there is a realistic 
assumption of what is going to occur, then there cannot be a realistic 
assumption of the total cost involved. He states, ``Fantasy in, fantasy 
out.'' And the first gimmick he sites is the fact that ``the bill 
front-loads revenues and we back-load spending.'' In other words, 
revenues increase over the next 10 years, but the spending does not 
increase until 4 years from now--10 years of revenue increases as 
opposed to 6 years of spending. This can only occur once, and moving 
forward into the second decade, of course that will not be possible. 
This is an excellent example of why over the first decade, the health 
care bill is not deficit-neutral. It, in fact, is in the red, something 
that should be of concern to all Americans.
  This is an example of a larger problem in this country. The larger 
problem in this country is that we have a $12 trillion debt, and that 
debt is rising rapidly. Last year, our annual deficit was $1.42 
trillion. This year it is expected to be $1.6 trillion, the highest 
annual deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product since 1945, at 
the end of World War II. Over the course of the next 4 years, debt will 
increase dramatically, and I urge the Obama administration to begin to 
address this fundamental issue that really confronts us as a Nation and 
certainly confronts the next generation.
  Moody's, the rating house, has indicated that it is not clear that we 
will be able to retain our AAA bond rating. And this, of course, would 
be tragic for the American people, tragic for our taxpayers, and 
indeed, tragic moving forward, making sure that America remains in its 
position of preeminence in the world. Moody's cites three different 
criteria as to whether it will reduce the AAA bond rating of this 
country. First, the amount of debt we are taking on, and of course that 
includes not only debt here at the Federal level but also debt at State 
and local levels as well. We are taking on enormous debt, as I have 
indicated. So that's not a good sign. Then of course whether or not 
Federal deficits will increase over the next decade and as a percentage 
of gross domestic product. This is the highest it has been since the 
end of World War II.
  Moody's is also watching another factor to see whether we borrow less 
in the future and whether or not we raise taxes, which I oppose, or cut 
spending or both. Moody's is looking at that. Certainly we should 
engage in fiscal responsibility in a way moving forward to get our 
fiscal House in order.

                          ____________________