Baron Hill

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, the Blue Dogs are going to be taking this hour to talk about the debt ceiling. And for those who are listening, the Blue Dogs are about 35 Democrats in the House of Representatives who believe that we ought to be fiscally responsible. The debt ceiling, for those who are listening, too, is a process by which we pass a budget and we say that we are going to pay for items in the budget. And if we do not have the money to pay for the items in the budget, then we have to borrow the money. That takes an act of law. About 7 or 8 months ago, we did not have enough money, so we raised the debt ceiling by approximately $450 billion. Now 7 or 8 months later, to fast forward to today, we are going to have to do it again. We are going to have to raise it $984 billion. This is at the same time that a conference committee in these halls of Congress are debating a multi-billion dollar tax cut. Many of us are not in agreement with that, but there are many in this body and the other body that believe that we should borrow the money in order to do a tax cut. In President Bush's State of the Union address, the President said, ``This country has many problems. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents and other generations.'' I am quoting from the President of the United States. But that is precisely what we are doing in our current budget and economic policies. The House majority is trying to hide a $984 billion increase in the debt limit, the largest increase in the debt limit in history. This comes less than 8 months after we raised the Federal debt ceiling by a whopping $450 billion. When the President proposed his initial budget in the year 2001, the administration actually claimed there was a danger that the government would pay off its debt by the public too quickly. The administration's request for the second increase in the statutory debt limit is less than a year and shows just how farfetched those warnings were. The majority no doubt hopes that this increase in the debt limit is large enough to avoid dealing with the issue of our increasing national debt until after the election next year. If the majority honestly believes that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, they should be willing to vote to increase the national debt to pay for their tax cuts, instead of relying on undercover, parliamentary tricks. We Blue Dogs are firmly opposed to increasing the borrowing authority by $984 billion without efforts to restore fiscal discipline into the future and protect taxpayers from higher and higher debt. We understand that we have to borrow monies sometimes to pay our debts, and we feel like we should do the responsible thing and do that, but there ought to be some kind of road map put in place for the American people so we can see somewhere down the line how we are going to get out of this mess, and we are not doing that. The one tax that cannot be repealed is the debt tax, the cost of paying interest on our national debt. The debt tax consumed 18 percent of all government revenues to pay interest on the $6.4 trillion national debt last year, including interest on debt held by government trust funds. We are willing, as I said before, to support a short-term increase in the debt ceiling to avoid the impending risk of default, but we will not support an increase in the debt limit of nearly a trillion dollars to allow the government to continue on the course of deficits as far as the eye can see. It is irresponsible to provide a blank check for increased borrowing authority without examination of the conditions that make such an increase necessary. Just like a credit card spending limit serves as a tool to force families to examine their household budget, the debt limit reminds our Nation to evaluate taxing and spending policies. A farmer or small businessman who needs an extension of their credit must work with the bank to establish a financial plan in order to get approval from the bank. We should be following that principle by working on putting our budget back in order before we raise our credit limit. A thorough debate on lifting the debt ceiling is particularly timely as Congress considers tax cuts that could add more than a trillion dollars to the national debt over the next decade. Every dime of tax cuts being pushed by the majority will come from borrowed money. Under the majority's budget, the national debt would exceed $10 trillion by the year 2009 and $12 trillion by the year 2013. The borrow and spend policies of this current majority will leave a crushing debt for future generations who do not have a say in what we are doing and do not benefit from the tax cuts and spending programs. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) who has been an expert on this issue and a great spokesman.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) for those thoughtful remarks and would like to now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. HILL. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for being a continued champion on this particular issue. I am into my third term here, Mr. Speaker. I came to know the gentleman from Tennessee right away. He has consistently been a voice of reason on this particular issue. He has not changed a bit, unlike others who have changed in this body, about the importance of managing our Federal deficit. Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the senior Blue Dog, of the 35 that are here, and has been the leading voice for the Blue Dogs on this particular issue. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HILL. The gentleman, of course, is a champion in this area as are the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), and all the Blue Dogs. We talk in terms of billions, sometimes trillions of dollars. For people who may be listening in their living room, maybe eating dinner to the debate that is going on here this evening, why is this an important issue to them? Why should they care about this?

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his eloquence and leadership on this issue and for his explanation, and we look forward for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to continue to assert his leadership in this area. One of the things that the gentleman from Tennessee was talking about was the debt tax that we cannot repeal. He talked about billions of dollars that we are spending in interest. Sometimes people's eyes glaze over when we talk in terms of billions of dollars. What that means to an average family is, if they pay $1,000 in taxes, approximately $175 of that goes to pay the interest that we accumulate. So if we would put our house in fiscal order, perhaps we would not have to pay such high interest payments; and that would be a tax reduction in a roundabout way. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) who came into the Congress at the same time that I did. We became fast friends right away. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. He represents the State of Kansas very well, and I am honored to call him my good friend.

Mr. HILL. I thank my friend from Kansas for taking the time to talk about this very important issue and for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Blue Dogs, the gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his eloquence and his leadership on this particular issue. Mr. Speaker, that is the number of Blue Dogs who will be speaking tonight. We feel very strongly about this issue, as you have heard and the American people have heard. It is very hard to get the message out across because interest rates are very low right now, but there will come a day that, if we do not put our fiscal House in order, we could return to the days where interest rates were very, very high; and I do not think we want to do that, for the sake of not only this generation, but the next.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog plan that we are offering today combines short-term economic stimulus and immediate tax relief for all taxpayers with long-term fiscal discipline to balance the budget by 2009 and return to saving the Social Security surplus by 2013. The Blue Dog budget has nearly $2 trillion less debt than the President's budget from the year 2003 to 2013. The Blue Dog budget calls for tough spending limits by adopting the President's overall spending levels but does not rely on unreasonable or unrealistic spending cuts from the President's proposal. The Blue Dog budget will hold Congress accountable for the increase in the debt tax by limiting increases in the debt limit and requiring regular votes by Congress to raise the debt limit until the budget is on the path towards balance. We strongly support the President in the war on terrorism and in keeping a strong defense. Our budget provides the President with everything he requested for defense and homeland security and sets aside a reserve fund for additional funding for homeland security if the administration requests it. The Blue Dog budget is good policy, plain and simple. For every $1,000 each taxpayer sends to Washington, an income tax roughly $180 goes to pay the interest on our national debt. The Blue Dog budget reduces that burden while the Republican budget increases that burden. That is what we call the ``debt tax.'' Eighteen percent of the Federal budget, over $2,500 per person, over $4,000 per family, and it only gets worse if we follow their plan. Bob Dole called it the stealth tax in 1996. It was mentioned in a 1995 Republican-authored resolution, and it was referenced in the first plank of the 1994 Republican Contract with America. The debt tax is money that goes towards nothing, and it is a tax that cannot be repealed. It does not make our Nation stronger. It does not make health care more affordable. It does not make our schools better. It does not provide more jobs, and it surely does not make our economy more robust. It is time to get back on the track towards balancing the Federal budget. We cannot and should not send our troops, our brave men and women, into battle, then saddle them with the bill. It is not the right thing to do, and everybody in this body knows it. The Blue Dog budget will restore fiscal responsibility, stability, and accountability to Federal budgeting process. A great American from the great State of Tennessee once said that no nation has ever been free, strong, and broke. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), a new Member, and a fine one at that.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a great American. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the strongest voice in this House about the era of Federal budget deficits.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Iowa for his hard work on the committee, and to thank him for allowing the Blue Dogs to make this presentation here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, our Reserves make up more than half of the Armed Services. Clearly, they are a key part of our national defense. As of today, more than 175,000 National Guardsmen and Reservists from all over our country have been called to active duty. Much has been demanded of our National Guardsmen and Reservists since September of 2001, and much more will surely be demanded of them as we move forward, facing new threats, new enemies, and new challenges. These men and women are involved in military operations ranging from peacekeeping and humanitarian relief to homeland defense and active combat. Every day they work side-by-side with those on active duty around the world protecting Americans at home and abroad. It is important to remember that these men and women, in answering their call to duty, have left behind spouses, children, parents, friends and jobs. Nearly every community in every State has been affected. One such community happens to be in my district, in Dubois County, Indiana. It is the folks of Jasper who know firsthand about the commitment of these young people to our country. Therefore, I am here on the floor today to commend the service and sacrifice of the men and women of Indiana's 1st Battalion and 152nd Infantry. These National Guardsmen, known as ``Predators,'' come from not only Jasper but from many other towns in southern Indiana. This battalion has a rich 150-year history. They defended the Union in the Civil War, they fought alongside our European allies in both World Wars, and now these Hoosier soldiers have once again answered the call of duty in a time of need. Nearly 650 of Jasper's finest are in Kuwait, and an additional 140 are preparing to depart. Only one other National Guard unit in the country, also from Indiana, has sent more troops to Kuwait. The Jasper soldiers are also a part of one of the Nation's 15 elite reserve units. These elite units receive specialized training to ensure that they are ready to move rapidly to a war zone when needed. I am proud that these men and women work to both protect the State of Indiana and, when asked, to defend the national security interests of the United States.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, I was having dinner with my good friend from New York (Mr. Weiner) and he posed the question, who was more influential in the country, Justices of the Supreme Court or United States Senators. I remarked that I have thought United States Senators, to his surprise, and probably to the surprise of some Members in this body. But I say that because it was my Senator, my former Senator, Senator Birch Bayh, who did some astonishing and good things for the United States. One of the things that he did was push through Title IX, which afforded women and children all across this country the opportunity to compete as men compete in athletics and other curricular activities. I had a particular interest in Title IX myself, being the father of three daughters who were given the opportunity to play soccer, volleyball and other outside activities, the same as men. Today, my good friend, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), introduced a bill to rename the Federal courthouse and government building in Indianapolis after the former Senator. From his humble beginnings in Terre Haute to his 18 years of service in the United States Senate, Birch Bayh remains one of the most respected and beloved Hoosiers of all time. He is the first person since the Founding Fathers to offer two amendments to the Constitution of the United States, amendments 25 and 26. His accomplishments are a point of pride for Indiana. I mentioned title IX. His years since his Senate service have been marked by his championing of numerous social causes, including his advocacy for senior citizens, the handicapped, women, and minorities. I am proud to support the dedication of a Federal building in Indianapolis in our State's capital. It is important and appropriate that this Congress honor the service and commitment Senator Bayh gave to Hoosier constituents and the institution of the United States Congress.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps) for his leadership on this particular issue. I have come to know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps) now in the last 4 years, and he is in fact a dear friend of mine and we have shared a lot of stories together. I have also come to respect his honesty and integrity. When the gentleman says something, you can put it in the bank that the facts have not been massaged and it is the truth. What the gentleman said a few minutes ago is right on the mark and I applaud the gentleman and what he does for his constituents back home in Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity and challenge to get elected to the Indiana legislature back in 1982, and during that time I will never forget it, we went into a special session right away. In that special session the legislature raised taxes to overcome budget deficits that they were having in the State of Indiana. Here in Washington during that time there was a new President who was advocating tax cuts and increased military spending. In the process of doing that, huge budget deficits occurred. It seems to me that we are in that same situation now because if we look around the Nation, all over America, State governments are increasing their taxes while Congress is cutting Federal taxes, increasing the military spending dramatically, and in many ways justified because of the war on terrorism, and we are starting to run up huge deficits all over again. It is deja vu all over again, just like it was in the 1980s. These are policies that have been put in place that are getting in my view undesired results because deficits are a problem. During the 1990s, we changed course from the 1980s and we adopted new economic policies. Our emphasis was on debt reduction. We were largely successful in the 1990s for reversing those policies of the early 1980s. In the late 1990s when the gentleman from Illinois and I came to Congress, we actually experienced budget surpluses for the first time in many, many years. Then there was a Presidential race, of course, in the year 2000. This Congress and this administration has returned to the policies of the 1980s which again are resulting in huge budget deficits. Some called it supply side economics. At one time it was called voodoo economics. I do not know what to call it, but all I know is we are running up huge deficits once again. The Blue Dogs are a group of 33 Members of Congress, the gentleman from Illinois and I are two of those 33, that believe that we ought to be fiscally responsible and try to get us back on a path where we do pay our debts just like every American family does all across America. I have been back in the district for the last several weekends, and I have discovered that people are hurting. The economy is not doing so well. The families back in the ninth district in Indiana who are not doing so well are changing their budgets to reflect the bad economic times that they are having. They know, the good folks of southern Indiana, just like the good folks in south central Illinois, that when you fall upon hard times, you have got to readjust your budgets in order to pay your bills. That is the honest way to do things. That is the forthright thing for people to do. By and large, the good people of southern Indiana that I have the fortune to represent redo their budgets to reflect the times. Congress for some reason feels like it does not have to do that. As a matter of fact, we are spending money like it is growing on trees again. The Blue Dogs are a group of 33 that thinks that we ought to sit down as Democrats and Republicans in a bipartisan fashion and try to come up with a plan to get us out of this deficit, just like families back in southern Indiana do; they come up with a plan to get us out of these deficits. Congress needs to do the same thing. The Blue Dogs have been a strong voice calling for a budget summit, for us to come down as Republicans and Democrats to figure out a way how we are going to get out of this budget crisis that we are in. I would like to cite some statistics. Last year, CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, projected that the government would run a budget surplus of $3.4 trillion excluding the Social Security surplus. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that the government will run a non-Social Security budget deficit of $1.513 trillion, a reversal of nearly $5 trillion in only a year and a half. So those huge budget surpluses that we experienced in the late 1990s are gone in a year and a half, and we are accumulating a $1.513 trillion reversal. The Congressional Budget Office projects the government will run a unified deficit of $157 billion in the current fiscal year. When the Social Security surplus is excluded, CBO projects an on-budget deficit of $314 billion, $162 billion higher than that projected in January. For fiscal year 2003, the CBO projects a unified budget deficit of $145 billion and an on-budget deficit of $315 billion when Social Security is excluded. The government is projected to borrow virtually all of the Social Security surpluses to finance deficits in the rest of this budget. The gentleman from Illinois was talking about how many of us, myself included, pledged to put a lockbox around Social Security and not spend the Social Security surpluses, to use Social Security for only what it is supposed to be used for, and that is Social Security. If you ask your people back home if that is the right thing to do, I guarantee you overwhelmingly people will say that is the right thing to do. We should not be using these Social Security surpluses to finance the debt that we are incurring. It is irresponsible. Nearly $1 trillion, $964 billion to be exact, over the next 5 years and more than $2 trillion by the end of this decade will be used from Social Security surpluses. That is wrong. During the budget debate last year, some Members of Congress actually came to this microphone and claimed that there was a danger that the government would pay off the debt held by the public too quickly. As we think about that today, that was just plain laughable. Little more than 1 year later, CBO projects that the publicly held debt will increase from $3.32 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2001 to $3.865 trillion by the end of 2006, a $545 billion increase. I would assume that most people who are listening to these budgetary figures, their eyes have got to be glazing over now. These are numbers that nobody understands. So let me try to put it in perspective a little bit better. If this holds true, if these deficits hold true, it will be the largest increase in debt in the history of this country in one year, the largest increase in the history of this country. So we have returned to the early 1980s and those economic theories, where you cut taxes here, the States have to raise taxes back in our homes, we increase funding for military spending and we run up huge deficits again. It is deja vu all over again. The real problem is that the budget is projected to continue to run on-budget deficits requiring the government to raid Social Security and Medicare trust funds even after the economy recovers and returns to strong growth. We face long-term budget problems that go far beyond the impact of the war on terrorism or the downturn in the economy. Running deficits and increasing the debt over the next decade and leaving in place long-term fiscal shortfalls will make it even harder to meet our commitments to workers who will retire in the next decade and beyond. Higher debt means higher spending on interest payments. You want a tax cut? Pay down the debt so that we can reduce interest, so that people can buy their homes and their cars and make their loans more cheaply. That is money in everybody's pocket. The government will spend nearly $2 trillion paying interest on the debt over the next 10 years. We will spend $170 billion in interest payments just this year. And spending on interest will continue to increase through 2007. Spending on interest on the debt is the most wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. The amount of the budget consumed by spending on interest takes away resources that could be used for other priorities, such as defense, health care, education, et cetera. More than $1 trillion of the national debt, roughly one-third of the publicly held debt, is held by foreign investors. In 1998, the U.S. Government paid $91 billion in interest payments to foreign investors. The national debt places a drag on the economy and a burden on the family budget by keeping interest rates higher than they would otherwise be. Budget deficits and a large national debt have a major negative impact on the economy and the finances of American families by keeping interest rates high. Continuing to allow the national debt to grow will impose an increasing tax burden on future generations to pay for the current consumption. The President must work with Congress to put its fiscal house back in order, just as families back in Indiana facing financial problems must work with the bank to establish a financial plan in order to get approved to refinance their debts. In short, we need a budget summit, as the gentleman from Illinois has already outlined. We need to reach out, Republicans and Democrats, within the Congress of the United States and to the President, to try to come up with a plan like families back in Indiana do themselves, coming up with a plan to try to get us out of the problem that we face, and it is a problem. Mr. Speaker, our young men and women are fighting terrorism all over the world right now as I speak. Of course we need to support them. It is immoral for us to require them to fight these wars and then to come home and in the later years when they are in the Congress of the United States, be responsible for somehow figuring out how we pay this debt off that we, our generation, has incurred. It behooves me and this Congress and the people who might be listening, certainly the people of southern Indiana, to get our fiscal house in order by calling a summit, asking Republicans and Democrats to come together to figure out a way how we are going to return to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, today, I have introduced legislation that will amend the legal definition of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail to include the expedition's route between Wood River, Illinois and the Falls of the Ohio, which rests between Clarksville, Indiana and Louisville, Kentucky. I am grateful that representatives Anne Northup and Mark Souder have joined me as original cosponsors of the Bill. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana is also introducing companion legislation in the Senate. In October 1803, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark first met at the Falls of the Ohio, recruited the first members of the Corps of Discovery and departed for the west from Clarksville, Indiana on October 26, 1803. Our country will begin commemorating the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition next year. Southern Indiana and Louisville, Kentucky will host a ``National Signature Event'' to mark the important events that happened at the Falls of the Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the upcoming bicentennial has caused many of us to more carefully examine the history of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. We discovered that many important sites like the Falls of the Ohio have not been properly recognized in the past. The Falls of the Ohio State Park in Indiana and historic Locust Grove in Louisville, Kentucky have now been certified by the National Park Service as official sites associated with the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. However, there is now a disconnect between the legal definition of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail passed by Congress in 1978 and the sites that have been certified by the National Park Service as significant to the Lewis and Clark story. This bill will extend the Trail corridor to include important sites between Wood River and the Falls of the Ohio. It will also do more than correct current law to include sites that both the Park Service and Lewis and Clark scholars have noted as significant. By extending the official Trail to include more Eastern sites, a larger portion of the U.S. Population will be within driving distance of the Trail. This means more people in the east will learn about the Lewis and Clark story and be more likely to make a point of exploring Western segments of the Trail. this will significantly boost tourism all along the Lewis and Clark Trail. Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the National Trails System Act is long overdue. With the upcoming Lewis and Clark bicentennial only months away, this is the perfect time to ensure the Lewis and Clark Trail properly reflects the expedition's history. I hope the House will soon consider this legislation and pass it into law.