Paul Kanjorski

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. If we want to have to go to war to defend this country, we have a win-lose situation. If we lose, we do not have a Constitution, we do not have Social Security, we do not have America.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Absolutely.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, that argument applies to the present day. There is not any doubt in any mind, we are at $5.5 trillion, if we want to become greater spenders, I think the economic theory indicates that we can spend ourselves into higher revenues and greater job creation. It is just we are going to end up with a much higher debt. That is really the issue I am much interested in. Where do we want to stop, or what do we want to do with this accumulated debt? See, in my mind, I can certainly justify debt in fighting a war. I would not care, if America were in world war, if we have to double or triple the debt; and, oftentimes, that is when debt did occur that way.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, clearly, we cut revenues, and we spent more money, and we ended up in debt. What we did is we financed America, as opposed to financing it by revenues and tax revenues, we financed it by going into debt. I mean one can justify that. And we probably can do that in the future to some extent. But the question is how far do we want to go into debt long-term in the United States, and who does it benefit, that debt, and who does it really hurt? I think we should talk about that debate. But let me set, if I can, the standard. So we went through this, that administration, and then we came into the Bush administration. Just prior to the Bush administration, the second tax bill was passed. In a way, I did not support that tax bill in the House, but I voted for it finally when it came out of conference, and I did it really for a simple reason. It was Bill Bradley who was the United States Senator at the time, and his argument was, I thought truthfully correct, that we should try and make our tax policy reflective of the free market, to free up decision making by corporations and individuals of where they make their investments and where they put their money, not based on tax avoidance that is a policy set by the legislators of tax policy, but that supply and demand of capital and funds be freed up to operate in the marketplace. That is one of the reasons we did away with the difference between capital gains and earnings. They were taxed at the same rate. That was the first time that occurred probably in 50 or 70 years in tax policy in the country. It was good policy. Our problem is the Christmas tree in 1986 when we brought the levels of tax rates down, even Mr. Reagan had advised to come down no lower than 35 percent on the top bracket, no, the Christmas tree makers in the House and the Senate were not happy. They brought it down to 28 percent and 14 percent on the low side.

Mr. KANJORSKI. No, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately, I was not here. But our predecessors were here. I have to say that that tax cut probably was not passed only by the Republican majority, because, as the gentleman from Arkansas knows, in the House, as a Representative, there are a lot of people pressing us for tax cuts. So it becomes a very popular political thing to do. Oh, let us get on the bandwagon. As a matter of fact, some of my friends that talk about that occasion call it the Christmas tree. Everybody had something to add on and give a gift to somebody back home or some industry or some group of people they were interested in. Anyway, what they did is they made this tremendous commitment to cut taxes and then, and I think rightly so, although I was not in favor of it at the time, I will quite frankly tell my colleagues that they did make an increase in the expenditures for defense. It was sizable; over the course of that decade, probably a trillion dollars for defense. Now, looking back with the hindsight and the ability to see what happened in 1989 and 1991, the Wall falling and the destruction of the Soviet Union as we knew it for 50 years of our lives, we could say, well, that was the expenditure, a greater defense expenditure to win the ``Third World War'' without fighting it. Because, in fact, we forced in a poker game, if you will, the Soviet Union to try and match the American capacity to spend for defense. They were great accomplishments. Fine. We brought the Soviet Union to dissolve into new states. Hopefully, over a period of time becoming more democratic and making the world more stable. We had a military that was fully equipped to handle the needs and protect the interest of America and, indeed, the free world; and it was accomplished. But in that price, it did not only cost us that trillion dollars for defense expenditures, it cost us an increase from 1980, when Mr. Reagan became President, of a debt of the United States, not a deficit, a debt of $800 billion to, at the end of his administration, it was about $3.5 trillion. It was a $2.7 trillion increase in the debt of the United States in that period of time.

Mr. KANJORSKI. No, because the gentleman is talking about interest, not the size of the debt. The interest payments are depending on what the interest rate of that year is. I can grow the debt and have lower interest rates.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Corporate taxes. All kinds of taxes. Not Social Security.

Mr. KANJORSKI. What we are doing now is taking all of the surplus from Social Security, but it is a little amount, from beyond Social Security, and we are actually doling it out by reducing taxes over assumptions that cannot be correct over 10 years.

Mr. KANJORSKI. No.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Matter of fact, let me talk about the lockbox.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Well, he knew that he made the promise no new taxes.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes. I am going to join the gentleman some day in sponsoring a statue to George Bush because he did have, he gave up his Presidency to do the right thing.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mississippi.

Mr. KANJORSKI. The Indian tribes of South Dakota, 75 percent unemployment. The unemployment rate in the delta of Mississippi was twice the national rate. But the explanation given by a lot of the officials, I think, I believe is the education level in the State of Missouri is 50 out of 50 States. And they said that is what we need before we can get people hired.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Well, to some of those people, they are living in poverty level even though they are working poor. They are working poor.

Mr. KANJORSKI. That is where we differ. I want to get to that point. Right now we are at the top level of our production of commodities, of materials. We are at about 90 to 92 percent of absolute capacity to produce. That is about the highest level we have been in in our lifetimes. There is not much productive capacity left in our economy.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Would you join me in the wish that we could perpetuate this economy as many more months or years as possible because it is increasing wealth for everyone in our system?

Mr. KANJORSKI. I agree.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Let me ask you a question. Would you agree that the economy of 1999 is probably the best economy that you have ever lived in in your lifetime?

Mr. KANJORSKI. No.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Sure.

Mr. KANJORSKI. And that is very serving to the economy, to have this type of philanthropic activity.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, may I clarify for the Record that, unfortunately, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) wanted to be here today to support this legislation, but his plane has been tied up, and he is unable to make it and asked me to substitute. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2565. This legislation, as amended, permits the Export-Import Bank to operate with only two board members until October 1, 1999. During this interim period, the other body should be in a position to confirm additional board members. This legislation is necessary to allow the bank to make legally- binding financing commitments on nearly $7 billion in pending U.S. export transactions. Mr. Speaker, in this era of record trade deficits, we must ensure that significant export transactions continue uninterrupted. Continued operation of the Export-Import Bank will allow U.S. companies to compete on a level playing field with their counterparts in other industrialized nations, who also have access to the important export financing tools, such as loan guarantees, that are offered by the Export-Import Bank. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, for sponsoring this legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.