May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4961

really does. That is why I want to get

out the facts.

To those who oppose this plan I say,

what is your alternative? Where’s the

Beef? How would you balance the budget?

The President’s plan produces $200

billion deficits as far as the eye can

see. He never balances the budget.

Now, let us talk about this budget.

First, as we promised, Social Security

is off the table.

Second, we freeze defense, and make

clear that defense spending will continue to undergo the kind of scrutiny

of other aspects of the budget.

Third, we reduce all discretionary

spending, including foreign aid.

We abolish three Cabinet agencies:

Commerce, Energy, and Education.

This plan also eliminates 283 programs, 14 agencies, and 68 commissions.

Overall this budget simply slows the

growth in spending to just over 2 percent a year. The difference is that

under current forecasts we grow over 5

percent a year.

This plan is not perfect. But it is far

superior to other options, and far superior to doing nothing. This is the best

plan that has been put on the table in

years. It produces a balanced budget. It

is a budget for our children.

Now let me talk about health care.

This is important because it will be the

source of much distortion in the coming days.

First, we do not cut Medicare or Medicaid, both grow under our plan. Let us

look at this chart. It shows why we

have to slow the rate of growth in Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs are

growing at over 10 percent a year.

The rest of the Government is growing at much slower rates. This is not

sustainable.

In fact, the Medicare Trustees Report, released in April, and signed by

three members of the President’s Cabinet, says that Medicare will go broke

in 7 years if we do nothing. That is why

we slow the growth in both programs.

Let me focus on Medicare. We slow

the growth to 5 percent a year. This

means we will increase Medicare spending over 7 years, from $4,700 per beneficiary today to $6,300 per beneficiary

in 2002. This preserves the solvency of

Medicare.

Now, enough statistics. Why are we

doing this? Why is a balanced budget so

important for our children and grandchildren?

Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the

Federal Reserve, summed it up very

well when he testified before the Budget Committee earlier this year.

Let us go down the list on the chart.

If we balance the Budget:

One, our children will have a higher

standard of living than their parents.

Two, there will be improvement in

the purchasing power of incomes.

Three, a rise in productivity.

Four, reduction in inflation.

Five, strengthening of financial markets.

Six, acceleration of long-term economic growth.

And most important, seven, a significant drop in long term interest rates.

Now, what does all this mean to

American families. It means a higher

standard of living.

It means families will pay less for

their home mortgage because of lower

interest rates.

It means more families will be able

to afford college for their children.

It means lower car payments.

This week’s Time magazine has an

excellent article on this topic.

It explains how balancing the budget

can help revive the American dream.

The article talks about how lower

deficits mean lower interest rates, and

therefore more job creation by U.S.

business. The article provides one very

specific example of a young couple who

are considering a new home.

Under a mortgage rate of 8 percent,

they would pay $734 a month on a

$100,000 mortgage. If interest rates are

1 percent lower, this payment if cut to

$665.

This would save $28,000 over the life

of the mortgage. This would be enough

to put one of their future children

through a year of college.

Similarly, I have been using the example of farmers, because there are reductions in agriculture subsidies in

this budget.

However, it is estimated that a 1.5-

percent reduction in interest rates

would save the farm sector over $10 billion in interest payments on their debt

over 5 years. This more than offsets the

reduction.

These are examples of what it means

to balance the budget. This is not just

an exercise in accounting. It really

matters. It will make a difference in

the lives of every American. It will particularly, make a difference in the livers of our children and grandchildren.

I urge my colleagues to join me in

supporting the first balanced budget in

33 years.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

A CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP

fthe Speaker’s announced policy of May

12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Texas

[Ms. JACKSON-LEE] is recognized during

morning business for 5 minutes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker,

good morning. It comes to mind, as I

have seen the week’s last activities,

that there is a crisis of leadership

amongst those who would claim themselves bearers of the Constitution and

members of the National Rifle Association. Interestingly enough, it is because of this Constitution that we

allow those who have certain ideas to

gather together.

But yet as we gathered to acknowledge and honor our mothers, on this

past Sunday, Mother’s Day—nurturers

to a one, those who love children, promote peace, and work to comfort their

young ones, we are bombarded with

newspaper articles evidencing the selfrighteousness of an organization who

would be so irresponsible to send letters out claiming that Federal law enforcement officers are just ‘‘boot-wearing thugs.’’ And, yes, they have the

sheer audacity to claim that the

former President of the United States

of America, George Bush, should reconsider his membership in the NRA.

I simply say to that Texan and my

neighbor, George Bush, thank you for

having the integrity and leadership to

recognize that sometimes we simply

have to stand for what is right. How

appalled I was to see in the Houston

Chronicle a letter to the President

from the NRA suggesting that he just

wait and see what proposed hearings on

Waco might bring about, then he would

realize how right the NRA was.

I simply say to the National Rifle Association, the Constitution reigns. I

keep it close to me. You have a right to

organize and associate. The first

amendment protects your free speech.

But it does not give you the privilege

of crying ‘‘fire’’ in a crowded theater,

of fostering hatred and antagonisms

against people who are designated to

uphold the law.

As an African-American, I know full

well the abuses that can come about

through excessive government. But I

also know how Federal officers went

into the deep South and protected

those young students going into universities who would foster segregation.

I do know that there are heroes and

heroines in our law enforcement officers. I support them and they support

us everyday. If there is abuse, I simply

say to you we do have to stand up

against such abuse, and I will tell you

that good law enforcement officers

likewise do the same.

We have a task force in the House to

rid us of the assault weapons ban. How

frivolous and ridiculous. Not only are

they opposing the assault weapon’s

ban, but they are going into your

neighborhoods and telling you laws to

prevent guns in schools are illegal.

That is part of the proposed legislation. Not only is the task force saying

that, but gun safety and responsible

legislation, some of which I passed as a

council member, preventing young

children from getting guns, the task

force will be taking the Federal Government into your homes to intrude by

saying those laws to protect your children are illegal. How ridiculous.

Then my Republican colleagues want

to come forward and suggest that we

have hearings on Waco. I say fair

enough. As a member of the Committee

on the Judiciary, I am willing to own

up and look at issues that affect the

American people. At the same time, let

me say to you, where are they on the

issue of hearings on the militia? For

Waco is absolutely no excuse for Oklahoma City. And I will stand here in the

well of the House and claim to you that

those lives that were lost, over 160

lives, children, hard working individuals, the devastation to Oklahoma City

and the State of Oklahoma, the fear
H 4962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

that has been perpetrated on the American people, is absolutely no excuse for

Waco.

And I feel for the people of Waco.

Friends of mine that I loved were lost

at Waco. But this is a crisis of leadership. It is ludicrous. And this fascination with guns is not propelled by the

Constitution of the United States. A

concealed weapons law being discussed

in Texas is not called for.

Oh, yes, we have the right to have a

militia to protect the security of this

country, and we should not infringe

upon your right to safely own guns.

But to perpetrate violence, to have

children trying to understand why

adults are calling law enforcement officers just boot-wearing thugs? And putting it in print is not called for.

I call upon this Congress to be responsible. Vote against the repealing of

the assault weapons ban. We have lived

freely without the perpetration of mass

gun warfare in this Nation. Let us not

have a crisis of leadership.

Former President Bush, I thank you,

and I ask you, the American people, to

keep your voices raised high. President

Clinton, I thank you for your opposition to this kind of talk because this is

not a political issue. It is a question of

security and life and liberty. It is a

question of our children. It is a question of responsible speech. It is a question of integrity. And I maintain, have

hearings on the militia now. Understand that gun warfare is not called for

in this Nation, and let us wrap ourselves in the Constitution, yes, for freedom and liberty, but for safety and the

future of this Nation.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

COMMENTS ON THE BUDGET

fthe Speaker’s announced policy of May

12, 1995, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.

HOKE] is recognized during morning

business for 5 minutes.

Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I have some

charts that I wanted to share with you

this morning that talk about the budget, because we are going to be talking

about the budget all week and are

going to be passing for the first time

since 1969 a balanced budget resolution.

It will show a very important number

at the end of the year 2002. It is a small

number, it is a round number, it is the

zero number, and that is going to be

the amount of the deficit in 2002.

I want to show you this chart to

begin with because I think it pretty

well delineates where the problems are

with the budget that we have to get

control of. This is essentially the

President’s budget here. What you see

is projections from 1995 to 2002. You

will see the two accounts that are increasing or projected to increase twice

as fast as any others, and those are

Medicare and Medicaid, the medical accounts. Ten percent for Medicare, 10.3

percent for Medicaid. What about Social Security? Five point three percent.

One of the arguments that you are

going to hear this week from the other

side repeatedly is that well, we cannot

possibly slow the rate of growth of

health care spending, Medicare and

Medicaid, because of the demographics,

more people coming into the system,

and because of inflation. Your numbers

do not take that into account.

The fact is that Social Security

takes that exactly and precisely into

account, and, as you can see, the Social

Security number increases at 5.3 percent per year. That is in the projected

budget. This is our number, this is the

President’s number, this is current

law. This is the say that it is, because

we are not touching Social Security in

this budget.

Yet, adding the same new seniors, because you qualify for Medicare at the

same time you qualify for Social Security, and taking into account a cost of

living adjustment, a COLA, and that

does not even reflect the small adjustment we are projecting is going to take

place in CPI, you can see that clearly

Social Security does not run out of

control, but Medicare and Medicaid do.

So this is where the problem is with

the Federal budget. This is where the

challenge is in getting it under control.

The other here, which is everything

else, is at 4.1 percent. If we move that

down to about a 2-percent rate of

growth, we win. Winning means winning for our children, it means winning

for the future of this country, and winning for the next generation.

Let us look at the trust fund itself.

This is the part A trust fund, Medicare.

Empty in 2002. You can see, according

to the projections, if we do not change

things, this is where we will be in 2002.

There will not be any money in that

trust fund account.

I think better than the graphic illustration of it is exactly what the Medicare trustees concluded on April 3, 1995.

This is under the worst case scenario.

They said, ‘‘The fund is projected to be

exhausted in 2001.’’

Now, who said this? Is this a partisan

statement by Republicans who are trying to fearmonger so that senior citizens are worried they will not have

Medicare to look forward to? Is that

who is saying this? Is this created by

Citizens Against Government Waste or

the AARP? Has this been created by

the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute? Is it an interest group?

No, it is not. It is the trustees, the

President’s trustees, the trustees that

must be appointed to guard the assets,

to safeguard the future of the Medicare

trust fund. Robert Rubin, Robert

Reich, Donna Shalala, three members

of the President’s Cabinet. The fund is

projected to be exhausted in 2001.

So what do we do? What is our solution? What we say is we are going to

increase spending from $158 billion in

1995 to $258 billion in 2002. We are going

to increase spending at the same rate

of growth that Social Security is increasing, is growing. In other words,

the same rate of growth that a very

similar program that is a Federal program is increasing at, 5 or so percent.

That is what we are increasing Medicare. That is not just on a gross basis,

but also on a per capita basis, from

$4,700 to $6,300 per recipient in the

budget we are going to pass this week.

It increases about 5 percent per year,

the same amount as Social Security.

I bring this to your attention because

what you are going to hear from the

other side this week is a repeated chorus, a litany, over and over and over

again, that we are cutting Medicare

and that this is going to hurt seniors.

These are the facts. Keep the facts in

mind.

A SMALLER, LESS-INTRUSIVE

GOVERNMENT

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of May

12, 1995, the gentleman from Arkansas

[Mr. HUTCHINSON] is recognized during

morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, the

House Committee on the Budget under

the very capable leadership of JOHN KASICH is to be commended and congratulated for producing for us and for the

Nation a credible balanced budget plan.

As the budget plan was released last

week amid the howls of those who

would defend the status quo, one could

almost sense a collective nationwide

sigh as it sank into the American people that at long last there is a Congress

that is dead serious about balancing

the budget and confronting our debt

problem.

The litany numbers had become all

too familiar to millions of Americans:

Seventeen percent of Federal revenues

for interest on the debt; $200 billion

deficits as far as the eye can see, $1

trillion of new debt in the next 5 years.

We will pay more on interest than on

national defense by 1997. The impending bankruptcy of Medicare is spelled

out by President Clinton’s own trustees; $18,000 in debt assumed by every

new baby born in America.

But there is a glimmer of hope in

America this week as we prepare to

vote on this budget plan. Oh, it is

mixed with a lot of skepticism. Twenty-five years of deficit spending breeds

a lot of skepticism.

But there is a feeling that maybe,

just maybe, this Congress means business. Under the GOP budget plan there

will be a smaller, less intrusive and

more efficient Government. It forces us

to do what scores of corporations have

had to do, and that is downsize and

eliminate wasteful spending. It terminates 283 programs. As I talked about

the budget in my district this past

weekend, it was that line that received

the most applause, above all others, 283

programs eliminated. It eliminates 14

agencies and 68 commissions. It makes

real cuts in discretionary spending.

And the squealing has already begun.

We will hear from the ‘‘Prince of

Wails’’ over and over this week as the

defenders of the past wail ‘‘You can’t

do this.’’