Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity to again show this chart which shows over the years the spending of the Federal Government.

Now, a picture is worth a thousand words. We see under the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter administration in yellow where the deficit was; we see what happened to the deficit during the Reagan and Bush years; and we see when Bill Clinton came in office under Democratic leadership, we passed a budget that reduced the deficit. Now, when this vote was taken in 1993, not a single Republican supported that budget. And right after that happened, we reduced the deficit. Slowly but surely each year the deficit became less and less and less until we started running a surplus. When President Bush came in, we reversed course. We cannot produce charts like this by accident.

Now, we have been asked, where is your plan? There is our plan. When the Democrats controlled the budget, that is, when the Democrats controlled the House in 1993 and the Senate in 1993 and the President, we passed the budget. In these years, President Clinton vetoed many Republican budgets. They tried to close the government down, he vetoed the budget anyway, because they were fiscally irresponsible. So President Clinton was the controlling force of the budget during his administration and produced those years. The budget introduced by President Bush was passed when he came in office, and this is what happened. We wonder what the plan is for the future.

As it has been mentioned, when he came in office, in 2000, there was a surplus. September 11 happened with only 3 weeks left in the fiscal year, so this was going to happen anyway, that is, spending virtually all of Medicare. The following year we spent all of the Medicare surplus, all of the Social Security surplus, and then $160 billion more. In 2003, almost $300 billion, after we spent all of Social Security and Medicare; and if we adopt the policies of the administration, we are going to be spending all of Social Security and Medicare for years to come.

Now, what kinds of tax cuts are we recommending now? I mean, we do not produce numbers like this by accident.

We have tax cuts like the repeal of the taxes on estates over $2 million. A husband and wife, $2 million tax-free going to the next generation. $2 million. Then we start taxing after that. So when we talk about repealing the estate tax, we are talking about repealing the tax on dead multimillionaires. That is what we are talking about. When we add to that the idea that they want to stop taxing dividends, we have a bizarre vision for America where people can inherit great wealth, invest it in stocks, live off the dividends tax-free, no tax on the estate, on the inheritance, no tax on the dividends. When we add to that some other provisions in this budget where we protect capital from taxes, we know what Leona Helmsley was talking about when she said, only little people pay taxes, because those with great wealth can shelter that wealth with no estate tax, no tax on dividends, and the other little provisions in the bill where capital is not taxed, only little people will pay taxes. Every time we cut another tax, it is down here. We have already gone through the surplus and Social Security and Medicare.

Now, what is the impact of this? When we started, the projection was that the entire national debt would be paid, held by the public, we would have paid off all of that by 2008, and going into pay-off of all of the debt on the trust funds by 2011, 2013. We would be debt-free. Instead, we are on this line: more and more debt.

Now, we cannot run up debt without consequences. What is the first consequence? The debt tax. This is what the family of four pays every year in interest on the national debt. As we run up more debt, we have to pay more debt tax, more interest on the national debt. It is around $4,500 for a family of four now; and because we are running up the debt, by 2008, almost $6,500 every year, a family of four will have to pay just on the debt.

We do not get anything for that. That has already been spent.

Now, when we look at how the debt tax is exploding and the burden on the Federal Government on just interest on the national debt is exploding, we have an interesting phenomenon that we have to deal with, and that is Social Security. We are running a surplus in Social Security now. By 2037, we will be running a huge deficit. We need to be piling up resources, reserves so that as the baby boomers retire and the expense of Social Security gets less and less, we have some way to pay it. No, instead, we are running up massive debts when we have the surplus.

What is the plan to pay Social Security later on? I would suggest that they have no intention of paying Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 18, the Obey motion to recommit with instructions, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more critical right now than responding to the very critical needs of our unemployed. We have almost a million people in this country who are unemployed, and for us to sit here and dally and not move forthright and push for the strongest measure we can, the people of this country are crying out for help. There are families to feed, there are bills to be paid, and we know we were derelict in our responsibilities not to do this last year, and it will be a shame if we do not move forcefully. Not just 13 weeks, we need 26 weeks of help at least, mainly because every economic adviser, every economic indicator, points out clearly that this economic downturn is going to last well into the next year.

Thirteen weeks is not enough. Furthermore, if we do it for 26 weeks, it will pump an immediate $18 billion into the economy where people would be able to spend it, where the need is greatest, and not only will it do the good of helping those with their unemployment benefits, but by doing this, pumping the $18 billion in, it will create badly needed jobs. The greatest need right now is not to dally, and with all due respect to the present administration, I say 13 weeks is not enough. We need 26 weeks. The people of this country are crying out for help, and they are looking to us in the Congress to speak with a loud voice for them.

I urge this House to move forthrightly, do the right thing. Let us not go home this week without passing the most significant resourceful bill we can that will help those in the greatest need.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my major concern is that we need not continue this abdication of our responsibility to the Senate. This is the second bill in a row that we have said let the Senate take care of it. The people of this country elected us in the House of Representatives to take care of some business as well.

The other point is that I would like to have a voice before we cut education, which this will do. I would like to have a voice before we cut veterans care and appropriations for our veterans who served in our wars, and particularly low income energy assistance, particularly at this time of cold weather. We will have none of that, none of that if we move in this direction. We cannot start this year by consistently setting a pattern of abdicating our responsibility here in the House of Representatives and keep saying let the Senate do it. Is that what we are going to do when we go back and we campaign and when the people ask ``What did you do on that vote? Did you have a say?'' No, we just voted to extend the shell, let it go over there to the Senate, let them do the work, and then they just pass it back.

So I urge the Members to let us take another look at this and let us do the will of the people and let this House of Representatives stand up and be the House that we are out there on the campaign trail telling people send me to the House of the people and let me do the people's will. Not one time did we say send me to the House and I will abdicate and let the Senate do our will.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore