众议员：美债问题需两党合作解决，目前财政空间耗尽

Congratulations on getting the CR done. What happens on December 10th? Though, could it be another continuing resolution? Should we expect the regular appropriations process will be completed in the lame duck? Or could everything fall apart in the lights turn off before the holidays? Oh, Carrie, great to be with you. Uh, it. Look, it's sad to say, but for Congress, it's a big feat these days to actually come to some agreement on a continuing resolution, uh, versus shutting the government down.

We saw that last year over extending a Covid era, fraud ridden expansion of Obamacare. Uh, believe it or not, that was a 43 day shutdown, followed by another shutdown of Homeland Security. Uh, that was 76 days. So those were the longest shutdowns ever. Uh, hurt our economy in that one quarter. Uh, that would be the fourth quarter of last year. Uh, about a percent and a half of GDP. Not to mention the disruptions it causes on our country, taxpayer cost, and especially with respect to our defense now that we're in conflict.

So glad that we could get at least consensus on a continuing resolution. I think there's going to be great urgency and all the right impetus to find a full, full year sort of agreement for year for corner agreement rather from House and Senate, both parties. Uh, we've gone through regular order in the House carry we we passed all 12 appropriations out of committee. Uh, we were working through regular order, had three off the floor.

The Senate had zero like not one had they passed. We also, by the way, before we broke for, uh, August recess, uh, we put out a budget reconciliation measure, a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions to provide defense, which would be emergency supplemental funding for defense. And then, of course, we had the Save act and, uh, election integrity reform measures. Well, on the supplemental, what are you hearing from your counterparts in the Senate as to the future of that when they return from recess on September 14th?

Well, unfortunately, I don't know that the will is there. I really I say that with great grief because our our troops need to know we've got their back. Uh, certainly. Practically speaking, they need a replenishment of munitions. They they need to fill up the tanks, so to speak, to finish the fight and come home safely. I don't think there's a more important, uh, endeavor for us as Congress to deal with then to support the common defense and back our troops.

Uh, whether you can debate the conflict. You can debate all kinds of the strategies. We can't debate supporting our men and women in uniform. So that is paramount. And that's why we got it out of the house in a timely way. I just, you know, I hate to say this, but I don't have a lot of confidence we're going to get a reconciliation back prior to the election. Now going to lame duck. I think we'll have even a bigger aperture on what we can do through reconciliation.

Uh, in terms of investment in modernization of the military, not just supplemental resourcing for the current conflicts. Uh, but that's, uh, again, that's after the election. Uh, I just hold very little hope out prior to the election at this point that we'll get a return serve from the Senate. Well, and when we consider this supplemental funding, it was not planned that there would be offsets for this spending. And, Mr.

Chairman, I ask you this, knowing that in the bond market as we speak, we are seeing yields climbing to the highest level in decades. Uh, in terms of the longest duration, the ten year yields at 480. Right now, there seems to be a reckoning in the bond market about the outlook for inflation. Yes, but also for the reality of the fiscal situation the United States finds itself in. For how much longer can you continually spend without offsets for it?

Well, it's a great question and there's a lot to say about it. First, I would say you're right. We are running out of fiscal space. And and that space is needed because we're borrowing 2 trillion in a $7 trillion budget and climbing, by the way, also of the 2 trillion we borrow, half of that is just paying interest to service the debt. At some point, we're going to have a strain and even a difficult time borrowing, which would create austerity and potential tax increases, really bad scenario and economic harm.

Not to mention it would, uh, you know, uh, squeeze our ability to fund our national priorities like defense. Now, this has been going on a long time. Both Republicans and Democrats, uh, when they had control of Congress, have not sufficiently dealt with these structural deficits and imbalances in our large entitlements. That will only happen when Republicans and Democrats come together. We have lowered the cost, basically reduce spending on the discretionary side for three years straight.

CBO says it's over 2 trillion in a ten year budget window. We reduced mandatory spending, waste, fraud and abuse in entitlements, mandatory spending by 1.5 trillion. That's twice as much as anyone has ever done in the history of our country. But that still we're overwhelmed with the deluge of the demographic problem. 10,000 baby boomers every day getting onto Social Security and Medicare. The retiree to worker ratio is not it's not going in the right direction.

So Republicans and Democrats are going to have to come together, which is why in my next budget hearing, we're talking about a fiscal commission. We're talking about a Simpson-Bowles style commission where we bring both parties together to work out the solutions on all fronts. So we have a game plan in the long term to bend the curve on mandatory spending as we grow the economy? Because that's a big part of restoring the fiscal health of the country.

Have you been in conversation with the Treasury Secretary, Scott Benson, or the OMB director, Russ Vogt, about this? Because Secretary Benson recently has suggested that there is a coming plan around fiscal consolidation, in part to try to assuage the bond markets. Are you involved in that? Do you know what he's talking about? Well, I think I won't get into any details. I'll let them roll that plan out. But I will say they, uh, they have worked hand-in-glove with, uh, Congress in the first reconciliation bill that has set the table for pro-growth, uh, activity.

And we saw that prior to the conflict with even 4.3% GDP growth, uh, 10% increase in business investment. Uh, you know, on almost every economic, uh, Indicator in metric. It was moving in the right direction. But but again, there are the real drivers that I think are more politically difficult for both parties. And that's why they've everybody has sort of, uh, stayed away taking a pass kick the can down the road. And uh, we're just we're running out of room.

Social security, for example, will will go insolvent and there'll be a 27, 25% haircut for every beneficiary. If Congress doesn't get ahead of that and address it, and we can't do it in isolation from an either party, it has to be bipartisan, like Ronald Reagan did with tip O'Neill. Uh, the last time we addressed the insolvency and the sustainability of this incredibly important program for 60 plus million seniors. So that, I think, is this time calls for real leadership, and it calls for tapping into the the love of country and patriotism from both both sides of the aisle.

This is a unique challenge, and it's one that that has to be met. And it will be, by the way, on the watch of the next president, you will have this exploration of the Social Security Trust Fund. So we better start sounding the alarm. I think the American people have to engage in this. It's certainly going to be a front and center issue for the next president and the next presidential election. Well, you clearly feel very strongly about this, Mr.

Chairman, as well as of the need to address fraud. You have an op ed about that today. Uh, but I want to go back to what you were saying about the strong economic figures that we were