H 5118 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

State Department Foreign Assistance

Authorization.

The bill was ordered reported by the

Committee on International Relations

on Monday of this week, and the report

is expected to be filed tomorrow night

according to the last unanimous-consent request. The House is expected to

begin general debate and the amendment process next Tuesday. The rule

will likely require that amendments be

preprinted in the amendment section of

the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD prior to

their consideration.

Members should use the Office of

Legislative Counsel to ensure their

amendments are properly drafted to

the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on International Relations that

will be made as base text for amendment purposes. A copy of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute will be published in today’s

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by the gentleman from New York [Mr. GILMAN],

the chairman of the committee, for reference and drafting purposes. It will be

available at the offices of the committee.

Since the rule will not be structured

as far as the limiting of amendments is

concerned, there is no need for Members to file their amendments with the

Committee on Rules or to testify before us. If Members have any questions,

they can contact Dave Lonie in our

Committee on Rules at 57985.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, my question relates not to the immediate subject, but the prior subject of the rule

on the budget. Let me just simply

make sure I understand that rule in

terms of the 6 hours of debate.

As I understand it, the first hour is 1

hour of general debate controlled by

the chairman and myself. The second

hour is reserved for the Joint Economic Committee, the time to be controlled by the Chair of the Joint Economic Committee and the gentleman

from California [Mr. STARK], the ranking minority member. Then we revert

to the general debate on the budget

resolution.

Mr. SOLOMON. That is the normal

procedure. it is what we have followed

in the past. We will follow it this year

as well.

Mr. SABO. The reason I ask, 2 years

ago, we had a little disconnect. One

side was on JEC for a period of time,

and the other side was not. So the plan

this year is the first hour would be

budget debate, the second hour JEC debate, and then hours three through six

general debate on the budget resolution.

Mr. SOLOMON. The chairman of the

Committee on the Budget is nodding

his head yes, that is correct.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON

THE BUDGET—FISCAL YEAR 1996

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 149 and rule

XXIII, the Chair declares the House in

the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent resolution,

House Concurrent Resolution 67.

b 1420

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union for the

consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting forth the

congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 1996, 1997,

1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with Mr.

SENSENBRENNER in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the concurrent resolution is considered as having been read the first

time.

Under the rule, debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and

shall not exceed 6 hours, including 1

hour on the subject of economic goals

and policies, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. KASICH] and the gentleman from

Minnesota [Mr. SABO].

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Ohio [Mr. KASICH].

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I have to confess, as I

get ready to speak, I am nervous. I cannot remember the last time I was,

frankly, this nervous or anxious. But I

guess it is the way it needs to be, because, ladies and gentlemen, we are

about to engage in a historic debate

The House is about to consider a document that truly represents a bold, innovative, and some have called it, and

frankly they are probably right, a revolutionary document and a vision for

where America should go.

I have been amazed over the last couple weeks just walking through the

hallways here. In fact, I just had a husband and wife grab me as I was getting

ready to come in the door, and I do not

know where they are from, I do not

know what their names are, but you

know what they said? ‘‘Thank you,

Thank you, Mr. KASICH, and thank

your team for what they are doing.’’

I am hearing it everywhere I go. I

think the American people have, in

fact, decided that we have this week a

rendezvous with destiny, that, in fact,

we cannot continue down the path of

more deficits and more red ink, because in the guts of every mother and

father in this country there is a sinking feeling that if in fact the politicians, the elected representatives of

our country, do not stand up and do the

right thing, their children will be at

risk, their future will be called into

question.

That is why when people have had

some problems with some of the specifies in this proposal, they never stop

like they did over the last several

years and say vote it all down. They

are saying ‘‘Maybe we can fix that.

But, please, Congress, do not take your

eye off the ball. Please work to save

the country.’’

That is what we are hearing. And I

got to tell you, when I was out here

with the Contract for America, paying

for the family tax credits, and let me

say this, if there is anything beyond

the balanced budget we ought to be emphasizing into the 21st century, if there

is anything in this country we ought to

be reinforcing, it is the American family. If there is anything that can provide a building block for superlatives

for individuals in this Nation into the

next century, it is the family, isn’t it?

It is the family structure that served

this country well for 200 years, and the

families are going to benefits under

this.

The beautiful thing though is back

when we were passing the contract,

people said ‘‘You can’t give us tax relief. You can’t have growth incentives

and balance the budget.’’ And I said

then, along with my wonderful budget

team, and we speak as a team, I do not

speak as JOHN KASICH, I speak as a

leader of a group of wonderful men and

women who are the tip of the spear in

terms of this new American revolution,

we said that we would come back here

in May and we would lay a document

down that would get us to zero, to balance this budget, and save the future.

And that is precisely what we are doing

today.

Isn’t it wonderful? Isn’t it wonderful

in America that a group of elected officials are keeping their word? And you

know why we are doing it? You know

why we came together and we put this

revolutionary document together? For

two basic reasons. One is the next generation. This is about the children.

This is about a growth society, an opportunity society, as our Speaker likes

to say, that in a no growth economy

the rich get richer and the poor get

poorer.

But in a growing economy, and Alan

Greenspan painted a picture for us, if

we can balance the budget by 2002, if

we can balance the budget, Alan Greenspan said we cannot begin to chart the

kind of prosperity that we can have in

America.

As the son of a mailman who got to

be in the Congress and the chairman of

the Committee on the Budget, how

wonderful is it that in the United

States of America, that every kid in

America, using our system, can learn

to fly. That is right, ladies and gentlemen, we can fly. That is right, ladies

and gentlemen, we can fly. We can

dream, and it is not about just dreams.

It is about accomplishing those

dreams.

That is why the Committee on the

Budget and the Republicans in the

House, along with our courageous colleague on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5119

PARKER], has said that we need to balance the budget to save the next generation, to provide for growth in our

economy, for opportunity in America,

and to preserve the greatest American

legacy, and that is that your kids will

be better off than you were.

You know what else it is about? It is

about the pendulum. People try to describe this plan as radical. Let me actually tell you about the pendulum.

For the last 20, 30, or 40 years, we have

sent more power, we have sent more

money, we have sent more control to

the Federal Government. And over

these last four decades the Federal

Government has done a lot of wonderful things for Americans: Medicare,

educational programs, elimination or

an attempt to eliminate the terrible

abuses in human rights in America.

But you know what Americans have

been saying for about the last decade?

And we have not been hearing them

here in the Capitol. They spoke real

loud and clear last November. You

know what they are saying? Folks, we

would like some of our power and some

of our money and some of the control

over our own lives back in our hands,

because we can do it better in our

neighborhoods dealing with our problems than the Government in Washington can.

Now, let me just show you what this

plan calls for and how reasonable this

program is. Over the last 7 years, the

Federal Government spent $9.4 trillion.

What is a trillion? Well, if you started

a business when Christ was on Earth, if

you lost $1 million a day 7 days a week,

you would still have to lose $1 million

a day 7 days a week for the next 700

years to get to $1 trillion. In the last 7

years we spent $9.4 trillion. We have a

national debt approaching $5 trillion.

What does the Republican plan call

for? The bipartisan plan, frankly, it is

not just a Republican plan, it is a bipartisan plan thanks to the efforts of

the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.

PARKER]. We are going to go from $9.4

to $11.9 trillion. Some people would

have us grow to $13.3 trillion. I am

going to tell you, you want to grow to

$13.3 trillion? We are going to give the

kids a dark tomorrow. But if you can

restrain the growth in spending to this

$11.9 trillion, we have a chance to preserve America.

Entitlements, take a second and talk

about entitlement spending. Over the

last 7 years, we spent $4.5 trillion on

entitlements. If we do nothing, we will

spend $7.7 trillion. And what does this

bipartisan plan call for? Growing the

entitlement programs from $4.5 to

more than 6.4 trillion.

Medicare? Boy, we are hearing a lot

of stuff about Medicare. Shame on

those that want to scare people. Shame

on those that want to scare people. We

will go in Medicare from $924 billion to

almost $1.6 trillion in spending for

Medicare. If we go to $1.8 trillion the

system goes bankrupt. What we are

going to do is dramatically increase it,

improve it, guarantee high customer

satisfaction, and guarantee choice to

our senior citizens.

b 1430

So my colleagues, the question is,

can we restrain ourselves, can we as

Americans who do not want to mortgage the next generation, after all, we

would not in our private lives ring up

all the debt and pass it onto our kids,

we should not do it with our country. If

we can just grow at a $9.4 to $11.9 trillion increase, we can do it.

Let me just say to all of my colleagues, as I am about to close, you

have got to examine your hearts. You

have got to examine your conscience,

because I am going to tell you, folks,

there are things called windows of opportunity and we have it now. Why?

Because the American people want this

done. Why else? Because we have the

leadership in the Congress that is willing to put their careers on the line for

the next generation. And those two efforts together can allow us to pass a

plan that will guarantee a renewed

America.

In 1969, the last year that we balanced the budget in America, Neil

Armstrong walked on the moon. Neil

Armstrong came to this Chamber and

presented this flag to the U.S. House of

Representatives and the U.S. Senate in

a joint session. One thousand nine hundred sixty-nine was the last year we

balanced the budget. Walking on the

moon for a kid from Ohio meant that

Neil Armstrong really did learn to fly.

And that day that he walked on the

moon, we were all there with him, were

we not? We were all there with him because it represented the hopes and the

dreams and the goodness and meeting

the challenges that America has been

all about for these many 200 years.

Neil Armstrong gave us this flag.

Today, 26 years later, we have a

chance, when we vote on this resolution, to have one very big step for this

House and one very giant leap for

America. Pass the resolution.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, first let me congratulate, as I

did in committee, my colleague from

Ohio. We are both participants and observers of this process. I congratulate

him for getting the Republicans on the

Committee on the Budget together. I

assume when the 2 days of debate are

over, he will have the votes and he will

pass his resolution, which has required

an exceptional amount or work by himself and the other majority members of

the committee.

I have very fundamental disagreements with that resolution, but I

watch your discipline and your hard

work with admiration. So I congratulate you for putting a product together

that is before this House today and

really presents the opportunity for

some very fundamental debate.

However, let me make one observation as an observer before I say some

words as a critic. The question is

whether your plan will achieve its stated goal. Let me simply say that we are

not quarreling over a few numbers here

and there, and we might find some that

we might dispute. But I, frankly, think

for you to succeed requires a significant amount of luck.

I think if this were a unicameral

body of the Congress and this were the

final product, it simply would not succeed. There are some things you have

put into place and have put into law already. Your beginning assumption has

been a big tax cut, which adds roughly

$90 billion to the deficit in the year

2002.

You assume as a separate vote that

you are going to make huge cuts in

Medicare in a separate vote removed

from the balance of the budget to come

in September.

My friends, if that bill were before

this House with those kinds of cuts in

Medicare, with the numbers in your

resolution, I would predict that such a

bill would not pass this House.

The numbers are sort of interesting.

The tax cut is $90 billion in the year

2002. The projected Medicare cuts are

$86 billion. If that did not succeed, a

whole series of other numbers that you

use would come unraveled.

Mr. Chairman, that is merely an observation about the plan that is before

us today. It would require significant

luck to succeed. But that is not my

fundamental objection.

Mr. Chairman, we have had two very

fundamental things occur over the last

15–20 years in this country. For the last

20 years, we have had a revolution

where income flows in this country.

The very rich have gotten much richer,

and the rest of the American public,

who work hard, working families are

struggling to get ahead, many with declining income.

We have also had, since 1981, an escalating Federal deficit. Two years ago

we passed the President’s program to

make a significant dent in that deficit.

Part of that program was asking the

most affluent to pay a little more, and

our Republican friends all said no.

They all said if we passed that program, we would throw the country into

a recession. The opposite happened. We

have had unprecedented growth over

the last 2 years. Unemployment is

down. The economy is growing. The

deficit went down.

But more is left to do, and we come

to that now in this year 1995. Again, we

have to reduce that deficit, but we

face, again, a country where income

continues to flow in increasing

amounts to a very few and the bulk of

the American people are left struggling.

We now have the Republican proposal

on how to deal with the deficit. Who is

asked to sacrifice? It is clear that people who depend on Medicare and Medicaid will be asked to sacrifice. And then

in a series of incredible, numerous decisions, struggling Americans, who are

working hard, working Americans, find

their chances to move ahead, they will
H 5120 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

find those doors sometimes slammed

shut; other cases, sort of gradually

closed in a series of cut, after cut, after

cut, whether it is students trying to go

on to college, people seeking to get new

training for jobs and retraining, whether it is a parent trying to put their

child in a Head Start Program, cuts on

them frozen.

The TRIO Program for kids, to get

them to go through high school and

into college, abolished. Low income

seniors who have problems with fuel

bills in cold parts of this country, program abolished. Child care reduced.

Just one series, mass transit operating

assistance reduced, a little tougher to

get to the job, a little harder to get the

training, a little harder to get to college, all cumulative on person after

person. Cuts that are unrealistic in

Medicare and Medicaid.

Why? To pass a tax cut to benefit primarily those who have also been rewarded most by our economy in the

last 20 years. So struggling American

working families, hoping for the kids

to go to college, needing retraining,

maybe needing some assistance with

day dare so they can work, worried

about how they get to the job, maybe

in rural U.S.A., maybe in urban areas,

rural communities trying to develop

economically, all seeing doors shut so

we can pass a tax cut to benefit the

most affluent in this country.

Mr. Chairman, it is the wrong priorities. We are told at times by people

that we are talking about renewing

American civilization. Mr. Chairman

and Members, this plan does not represent the best of American values. It

represents, in my judgment, some of

the worst of American values. We can

do better.

Mr. Chairman, to the majority I simply would say there are many months

ahead. At some point, sometime before

the year is over, you will be called on

to move away from ideology, to practical reform that reduces our deficit in

a fair and equitable manner. When you

are ready to move away from ideology,

we stand willing to help because the

challenge is big.

So today, to the Members, I simply

urge you to vote no when we come to

final passage tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance

of my time.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. KOLBE], a

member of both the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the

Budget.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to

congratulate the chairman of the Committee on the Budget as well as the

ranking member and particularly pay

tribute to the ranking member for the

decency with which he has comported

himself and the members of his committee throughout this debate. It has

been in the Committee on the Budget,

it has been truly an outstanding debate. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Chairman, we are at a historic

crossroad. This is, as the chairman of

the Committee on the Budget said, an

historic moment in our time. The previous speaker just talked to us about

this not being the right plan, that we

can do better. I think in the course of

this debate in the next day and a half

we are entitled to ask, what is the alternative plan? If ours is not the right

plan, what is their plan? Where is the

President in this budget battle? I

would say, AWOL, absent without leadership.

Our bottom line is fairly simple, our

bottom line is shown. It is too small I

guess to see here, but on page 7 of the

budget report, the last year, 2002, it is

a plus. It is tiny, 0.6 billion, $600 million in the scheme of a $1.8 trillion

budget that year. That is tiny, but it is

everything. It is the first positive number we have seen in the budget since

1969.

This is another way of looking at it.

All we are trying to do is get this line

of what we spend here down to the red

line of how much that we are taking in

in revenues so that we have a balanced

budget. Spending will go up. Spending

will continue to increase but at a slower rate of growth. And we think that

we can do that. Yes, there are tough

choices here, but they are tough

choices for the next generation.

b 1445

Not long ago I was asked to come

down for a little ceremony to one of

the work sites in my place, the United

Parcel Service, a company I really

enjoy because they are hardworking

people, they are really motivated.

At the end of this little ceremony

where we had a presentation there, one

of the delivery men came up to me and

said ‘‘Mr. KOLBE, when you go back to

Washington, would you just tell them

that it is my money they are spending?

It is my money. I have got three kids.

I am struggling. It is my money they

are spending, just keep that in mind.’’

Mr. Chairman, I hope in the course of

the debate here the next 2 days that we

will keep that simple idea in mind

from one of the hardworking Americans that makes this country work,

and what it is. It is their money. It is

our money as taxpayers we are spending, and we ought to be remembering

that in each of the parts of this debate.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CLAY].

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

opposition to this budget proposal. The

Republicans’ 100-day war on children

marches on. Their assault began in the

cafeteria, with the attack on the

school lunch program. Republicans

have now moved their war machine

into our Nation’s classrooms, libraries,

and finally, to our college campuses.

The Republican budget before us

would virtually obliterate the Federal

role in education. Over $73 billion in

education and training programs would

be cut over the next 7 years. It is a repudiation of this Nation’s longstanding

bipartisan national commitment to

educating all of her citizens. The Republicans would abolish or slash extremely successful education programs, programs like Head Start,

which they would reduce by $209 million in 1966.

They would eliminate efforts in 47

States to improve reading and writing

skills, to put computers into the classroom, and to improve academic standards through Goals 2000. Their budget

proposal would virtually eliminate the

safe-and-drug-free school program,

even though drug use is on the rise

among school children. It would jeopardize teacher training for 400,000

teachers.

Programs that target assistance to

700,000 at-risk disadvantaged children

would also be abolished under this proposal. They show shameful hostility to

programs designed to lift disadvantaged children out of poverty through

learning.

Having spread their devastation to

the cafeterias and the classrooms, they

would eliminate Federal support for

public libraries, would cut student aid

by well over $18 billion, as one way to

finance tax cuts for the rich and privileged. The elimination of the in-school

interest subsidy would increase loan

costs for close to 5 million students,

adding as much as $5,000 to the total

loan cost for each student who would

take out a loan.

Middle class families are especially

hit hard. The Republicans want to

make it harder for their kids to attend

college, so they can finance the tax cut

for the rich and the privileged.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Republican proposal to eliminate the Department of Education is myopic and reactionary. It would leave our country as

one of the few industrialized nations in

the world without a national commitment to education. Not only is this

proposal dumb, it is unpopular. The

vast majority of the American public

supports the Department of Education,

and a strong Federal role in education.

Mr. Chairman, this budget proposal

is the most irresponsible assault on

education by any political party in our

history. We must reject this attack on

education. We must reject this contract with ignorance. We must reject

this Republican budget proposal, because it is being released 5 months prematurely. A turkey like this should

surface somewhere around Thanksgiving.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4

minutes to the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. HOBSON], a very distinguished

member and a dear friend of mine.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I might

point out that the previous speaker,

the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.

CLAY], voted for the Clinton tax increase, the biggest one in this country’s history, and it costs his district

$520 million in new taxes. It is also interesting to note that he voted against

the balanced budget amendment. We

should take that into context when we

review his remarks.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5121

Mr. Chairman, we are coming up on

what I expect to be the most important

vote of my career in this House. Today

we meet the challenge of balancing the

Federal books and restoring fiscal security for America’s next generation.

Today we vote on, and I encourage

my colleagues to vote for, the House

Committee on the Budget resolution,

and restore hope to that next generation. For 26 years, our Federal Government has spent more money than it

has taken in, financing this debt by

borrowing money. The legacy of chronic deficit spending is passed to our children as a $4.9 trillion national debt.

Staying on this track will undoubtedly bankrupt our Nation. This subject

has particular meaning for me right

now, because my 15-month-old granddaughter is in town visiting. When I

think why we are balancing the budget,

I think of Katy. A lot of grandfathers

think that way. My other daughter is

going to have another baby, so you

think a little differently about the future when you become a grandfather. I

think a lot of people can equate to

that.

What this balanced budget is about,

it will not allow her to have the same

opportunity the rest of us have if we do

not balance the budget. Putting the future of Katy and the other children in

this country first is what balancing the

Federal budget is all about. Protecting

the next generation from a financial

crisis means acting now in a decisive,

responsible way.

The House Committee on the Budget’s 1996 budget resolution does this by

balancing the Federal budget by the

year 2002. We also close the doors on

several agencies that run up costs but

fail to contribute meaningfully to our

Nation’s well-being. Those operations

that are useful are transferred to other

agencies or sent back to the States.

The waste and duplication is eliminated.

Mr. Chairman, our budget also protects our children’s future by preventing a crisis in Medicare, the health

care system of our Nation’s seniors.

According to the Medicare trustees appointed by President Clinton, Medicare

will run out of money in 7 years. Our

budget resolution provides the structure needed to protect, preserve, and

improve Medicare, and then it goes on

to increase benefits to seniors from

$4,816 for beneficiaries in 1995 to $6,376

in 2002. That is an impressive increase,

by anyone’s standards.

Our budget also increases overall

Government spending by $1.2 trillion

over the next 7 years. That should be

plenty to do the things we need to do

at the Federal level. Where we can, we

send programs back to the States and

local governments.

In total, this process of decentralization, together with the removal of duplication and waste, justifies eliminating 283 programs, 14 agencies, 68 commissions, and 3 departments: Energy,

Commerce, and Education. This is just

one path toward balancing the Federal

books.

Over the next few months, the committees of jurisdiction will map out the

details. The job of balancing the budget

is a challenge we can meet. When we

are done, we will have a healthier,

stronger Nation in solid financial shape

for our children to inherit. I invite everyone here to join us in this historic

effort, and rise to the challenge at

hand. Vote yes on the Committee on

the Budget’s 1996 resolution, and keep

hope and opportunity alive for the next

generation.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all persons in the gallery that

they are here as guests of the house,

and that any manifestation of approval

or disapproval of proceeding on the

floor is in violation of the rules of the

House.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mrs. PASTY MINK.

(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

her remarks.)

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman,

I rise in strong opposition to the budget resolution. This resolution is being

presented based upon policy assumptions which must be challenged. These

assumptions are contained in the committee report. I hope that all of the

Members will read it.

For my limited time in this part of

the debate I want to direct attention to

the egregious assumptions that are the

basis for huge cuts in Function 500,

which deals with education, training,

and Head Start. The cuts contained in

this budget resolution in Function 500

amount to $82 billion over a 7-year period.

Despite what has been said by the

Republican majority about the resolution providing for a steady increase in

spending, I want to alert Members to

the fact that in Function 500, the current fiscal year 1995 budget authority

is at $58 billion, and 7 years from now,

it is $44 billion. This is a substantial

cut in one of the most areas of Federal

Government responsibility, which in

the past has enjoyed large bipartisan

majority support.

In the area of education alone, the

cuts are particularly devastating. Despite the avowed pronouncements

about being for family values, the Republicans in this budget resolution

have disavowed their support for the

most important goal of American families, which is quality education for

their children, enriching their experiences in education, providing for

science and math instruction, and help

for those who are disadvantaged by

poverty, by deficiencies in language,

and assuring that higher education is

available for all, regardless of age or

economic circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution

strikes a deep blow to the promise of

America to improve educational opportunity for all. The cuts in education

will hurt all school districts, most of

whom cannot possibly make up for the

huge losses in these funds.

I want to remind the Members of the

House that if they support this resolution, they are voting for the elimination of President Bush’s initiative

called Goals 2000, which was implemented by President Clinton. This was

an initiative that was promoted by the

National Conference of Governors, and

now it is being eliminated.

If Members vote for this resolution,

they are cutting about $5 billion in the

next 7 years in the Elementary-Secondary Education Act, passed some 30

years ago. The title that is being cut is

the concentration grants. Everybody

has been saying target the money to

the most poor, to the neediest districts. That is precisely what we did

last year, and this program is being

eliminated.

If Members vote for this resolution,

Federal funds to help schools prevent

drug abuse in their schools, the very,

very difficult issue which the Federal

Government has put money in, and

from which the schools have benefited

enormously, $3 billion are being taken

away.

If Members vote for this resolution,

they will be cutting the Eisenhower

Professional Development Program.

All of us know that quality education

is contingent on the quality of the

teachers, and it would be absolutely

criminal if we destroyed this program,

which helps school districts provide for

development of our teaching profession, allowing them to improve themselves and keeping up with the technological advancements in our society.

If Members vote for this budget resolution, they will be eliminating totally

the bilingual education program.

Think of the promises we have made to

the young children who have come to

this country with their families, whose

only fault is that they are deficient in

speaking and understanding English,

and we are taking away from them the

one chance they have to keep up with

their classes and to get into this educational system so they can benefit

and improve their lives.

All across America, Mr. Chairman, if

Members vote for this budget resolution, they will be cutting the only Federal funds in libraries that have been in

existence for decades. Our rural small

libraries all benefit from the library

program. This program is being eliminated totally. What a travesty on what

support the Federal Government has

been able to provide.

The last and probably most egregious

cut that is proposed in this resolution,

which if Members vote for they will be

a party to, and that is to take away the

interest subsidy of our young people

and others aspiring to a higher education, wanting to better themselves.

This is the American ideal. This is

what we talk about when we say selfsufficiency: ‘‘Get in there and work to

better yourselves.’’ When they do, we

have a Congress that is taking away
H 5122 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

that small subsidy which we have provided over the years.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on

this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the

budget resolution which is being considered

today. There are policy assumptions that must

be challenged in this resolution. These assumptions are contained in the committee report. For my time in this part of the debate I

want to direct attention to the egregious assumptions which are the basis for the huge

cut in Function 500 which deals with education, worker training, foster care, aid to the

disabled, and Head Start.

The cut contained in this budget resolution

in Function 500 amounts to $82 billion over

the 7-year period.

Current fiscal year 1995 budget authority for

Function 500 is $58 billion. The 7th year allocation for Function 500 in fiscal year 2002 is

$44 billion. This represents cuts in some of

the most successful programs that have been

in the past supported by large bipartisan majorities.

In the area of education alone, the cuts are

particularly devastating. The avowed pronouncements about being for family values,

the Republicans have disavowed their support

for the most important goal of American families, which is quality education for their children, enriching experiences in education, promoting science and math, and help for those

who are disadvantaged by poverty, by deficiencies in language, and assuring that higher

education is available for all regardless of age

or financial circumstance.

This budget resolution strikes a deep blow

to the promise of America to improve educational opportunity for all. The cuts in education will hurt all school districts, most of

whom cannot possibly make up for the loss of

these supplemental funds.

President Bush’s initiative, Goals 2000,

joined by President Clinton in implementing

them, will be eliminated. Remember this is an

initiative joined in the Nation’s leading Governors and goes to the heart of the national

effort at education reform. The cuts are $2.8

billion over 7 years.

Elementary Secondary Education funds,

Title I Concentration Grants, are eliminated.

These funds concentrate and target schools

with the highest concentration of poor children

which is exactly what the Republicans have

argued for in the past. This is one of the most

egregious of all cuts. The cuts are $5.1 billion

in 7 years.

Federal funds to help schools prevent drug

abuse and violence in the highly regarded program called Safe and Drug Free Schools program are also being cut. The loss of these

funds so desperately needed to help schools

deal with this problem is unconscionable. The

cuts are $3.5 billion in 7 years.

The Eisenhower Professional Development

program is eliminated. We have always supported ways to improve the quality of teaching.

Teaching is what schools are about. Schools

have grave difficulty in providing funds needed

to help in professional development to maintain education relevant to the challenging

times in which we live. The cuts are $2.2 billion in 7 years.

Bilingual Education is eliminated. To ignore

the needs of students whose primary language is not English is to punish and retard

their ability to learn. We give lip service to the

ambition of immigrant children to achieve their

goals and yet take away the help they need.

The cuts are $1.4 billion in 7 years.

Libraries support which is a basic Federal

help that has been available to the smallest of

our libraries, in the most rural of our communities is to be cut. This is the most backward

unthinking cut of all. Funds that are lost here,

will not be made up by local funds, which are

largely unavailable. The cut is $1 billion in 7

years.

Higher education loans—Stafford loans and

direct loans—will no longer have an in school

interest subsidy. This is negative thinking.

How can we believe that our nation’s future is

in our children and at the same time cut back

their higher educational opportunity? The cuts

are $18.7 billion in the 7-year period.

Federal Trio programs for outreach to highly

talented high school students to urge them to

continue with their education is what enlarging

opportunity means. Killing this highly successful initiative is to turn our back on talent. The

cuts are $3.2 billion in 7 years.

The much heralded early childhood education program, Headstart, is cut by $1.5 billion over 7 years. It is frozen at fiscal year

1994 appropriation levels. It freezes our long

hoped for full funding of this important program that has dramatically changed the future

of the poorest of our children.

This budget is a travesty of immense proportions. All the talk about adopting these cuts

for the future of children is totally wrong. It

cripples our children’s future. It casts a dark

shadow over the future of thousands of our

Nation’s children. Instead of hope and opportunity, supported by the country as a whole in

its Federal budget, our children will have to

struggle to attain their goals on their own with

their dreams shattered by politics which did

not include them or consider their future.

Vote down this budget resolution. It punishes our children. It robs them of a brighter

promise for their future.

Republicans who support the budget resolution also supported the balanced budget

amendment by arguing that it would force the

Federal Government to balance its budget just

as families, businesses, and the States do. If

this is so, why did the Republicans support a

balanced budget amendment and now support

a budget resolution that simply fails to make

distinctions between operating and long-term

investment costs in the Federal budget when

families, businesses, and all 50 States make

those very distinctions when they plan or

structure their budgets?

For example, when a family purchases a

home, the cost of this long-term investment is

accounted for over the 15- or 30-year life of a

mortgage. However, when the Federal Government decides to build, say, a submarine,

also a long-term investment, the entire cost of

the submarine is front-loaded in the first year’s

budget and shown as a debt in that year’s

budget.

If we establish a Federal capital budget, the

Federal Government will have separate operating and capital budgets just like all the 50

States, and the Federal Government will be

required to maintain a balanced operating

budget and reflect its long-term debts in its

capital budget, just like those States with balanced budget mandates such as my own

State of Hawaii.

We cannot look at this budget without considering the immediate impact it will have on

individuals and their families. This drastic

move to severely cut our investment in our

most important asset—our human capital—will

have monumental consequences on programs

which people depend upon everyday to help

improve life for themselves and their families.

Americans want nothing more for their families than to provide their children with a better

life, to be able to give them opportunities for

education, employment and economic

achievement. I know this is what the people of

Hawaii want over and above an effort to reach

a zero budget deficit just for the sake of doing

it, without regard to the impact it will have on

our overall economy, our future and most of

all the lives of individuals.

Many programs which the people of Hawaii

support and depend upon will be eliminated or

severely reduced under this plan:

East-West Center—eliminated; Native Hawaiian Education Act—eliminated; Native Hawaiian Health Care Act—eliminated; Student

Loans—cut by $18.7 billion; Impact Aid—cut

by $1.3 billion; Davis-Bacon Act—eliminated;

Travel and Tourism Administration—eliminated; Legal Services Corporation—eliminated; National and Community Service

[Americorps]—eliminated; Retired Senior Volunteer Corps [RSVP]—eliminated; National

Endowment for the Art/Humanities—eliminated; Support for the Public Television—

eliminated; National Biological Survey—eliminated; Head Start—cut by $1.5 billion over 7

years; Bilingual Education—eliminated; Library

programs—eliminated; TRIO programs—eliminated; National Writing Project—eliminated;

Homeless Assistance Grants—eliminated; Vocational Education/Adult Education/Job Training—block granted cut by 20 percent; Community Development Block Grant—eliminated;

and U.S. Geological Survey—cut by $798 million over 7 years.

These are not programs which can be eliminated without a significant impact on the State

of Hawaii. These programs help us invest in

education and training of our workforce, provides jobs in highly technical and scientific

fields of research, provides investment in infrastructure and housing to improve our rural and

urban communities. Davis-Bacon helps to stabilize Hawaii’s economy by preventing ‘‘fly-bynight’’ construction companies from the mainland from gaining an economic advantage

over our local construction companies in getting Federal contracts.

This budget resolution must be voted down.

b 1500

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker

talked about the cuts in education.

Let’s be very clear what we are preserving here.

We are preserving the title I basic

grants for disadvantaged students, the

impact aid for ‘‘A’’ students, the special education, the vocational rehabilitation, the Pell grants, the historically

black colleges grants, the campus basic

aid, and then we are creating 5 new

block grants. So let’s just be clear

what we are preserving here.

The issue about libraries. One percent of funding for libraries comes

from the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to

the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5123

WALKER], the distinguished chairman

of the Committee on Science and vice

chairman of the Committee on the

Budget.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding me the

time.

Mr. Chairman, there used to be a tradition in this country that you bought

the farm, paid off the mortgage, and

gave the farm to the kids mortgagefree. The Federal Government for years

has been now moving in a different direction, where what you do is buy the

farm, sell off the assets, and hand the

mortgage to the kids.

What we are hearing today is a debate between those people who want to

make certain that we do not continue

to hand the mortgage to the kids but

rather begin the process of ending deficit spending and ultimately paying off

the debt.

The surprising thing is that there is

a bipartisan consensus around that

idea. In January, fully 187 Democrats

voted for one or another of balanced

budgets that said to balance the budget

by the year 2002.

That is right. We actually had people

line up in January on the Democratic

side, 187 of them, nearly three-fourths

of their conference, and say they were

for some kind of balanced budget that

balanced the budget by the year 2002.

Now we hear today that, well, maybe

they were not really for that, that was

just a political vote they had to cast.

I must say that when it came to final

passage, many of them voted ‘‘no,’’ including the gentlewoman who was just

in the well, although she did vote for

one of the balanced budgets. The amazing thing is that they have come to the

floor today with no presentation of

their own of how they would get to

that balanced budget that they voted

for by the year 2002.

When they have told us before how

they will do these kinds of things, they

raise taxes. The gentlewoman who just

spoke, in her district she voted back in

1993 to raise taxes on her own district

by $522 million in order to bring down

the deficit.

Now we find out what they really did.

In the President’s budget that he

brought forward earlier this year, deficits begin to go up again at the end of

the 5-year period. Guess what? When

you get out into the 7-year period that

we assume in our budget, the deficits

soar out of sight, despite the fact that

they raise taxes, presumably to lower

deficits.

The question here is whether or not

we are going to do real things in order

to get the Federal books in order. I believe we have the capacity to do some

real things.

This budget does assume some things

that many, many people in this House

do not like. When you cut 283 programs, there are people who are tied to

the special interests that back those

programs, who simply do not want to

do the cut of 283 programs. When you

cut over 60 commissions, there are people who are tied to the special interests

who love those commissions, who then

come to the floor and argue for keeping

them.

When you eliminate three departments, there are people who are tied to

those three departments and the special interests who back those departments, who come here and defend those

departments. When you eliminate a

dozen and more agencies, there are people who are tied to the special interests

who love those agencies, who come to

the floor and defend it.

You are going to hear them all day

long out here, defending the special interests that defend those agencies and

saying that this is all in the name of

helping the poor and the downtrodden.

Nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, if you take a look at

the reality of this, what you are supporting in the budgets that we have

had over the last several years is huge

bureaucracy. Vote for a balanced budget.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply observe

the explosion of the Federal deficit occurred when we passed the Republican

program in 1981.

I hear this discussion of special interests. Let me remind this body that we

have before us a tax proposal that

would repeal the alternative minimum

tax for the largest corporations in this

country. To pay for that, we would repeal and make more difficult the getting of student loans by thousands and

millions of students in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 41⁄2 minutes to

the gentlewoman from California [Ms.

WOOLSEY].

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given

permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, contrary to the claims of the majority,

this is not a budget to protect our children’s future. This budget is an assault

on our children’s future, and an assault

on their grandparents as well.

It opens up tax loopholes for wealthy

special interests, and slams the door on

school cafeterias; college classrooms;

and hospitals all over this Nation. If

this budget represents the future of our

children, then the future looks grim. It

is no wonder Mr. KASICH says he is

nervous.

Mr. Chairman, education is our future. Education, not reckless spending

cuts, must be our Nation’s No. 1 priority. The most glaring mistake in this

budget is that it makes deep cuts in

education to pay for a tax break for

wealthy special interests.

Our children should be the most important special interest for this Congress, not the privileged few with influence over the Republican budget process.

It is too bad kids don’t have powerful

lobbyists here in Washington, because

many of the education programs which

are important to our children’s future

are being assaulted in this budget:

Goals 2000 is eliminated; Head Start is

cut dramatically; bilingual education

is terminated; President Clinton’s national service program will disappear

school lunch and school breakfast is

cut the entire Department of Education would be eliminated, clearly

demonstrating to the American people

the majority’s lack of commitment to

the future of our children.

This budget is not limited to attack

on our young children, it also attacks

low- and middle-income college students, and their families. On May 8,

1995, the New York Times called the

Republican budget resolution ‘‘the

strongest assault in recent years on

student-aid programs.’’

Mr. Chairman, this assault makes a

mockery of our Nation’s core values—

the opportunity to get a good education, and the opportunity to get

ahead. Taking away the college loan

interest subsidy, which the Government provides to students while they

are in college, amounts to taking away

the American dream from all but the

privileged few. Nationwide, college

costs will increase by an average of

$5,000. Low- and middle-income students and their families just won’t be

able to foot this bill. In addition, these

cuts in student aid threaten our future

economic health and our global competitiveness. In a time when our country needs people who are more educated, not less, in order to compete in

the global marketplace, this assault on

our low- and middle-income families is

also an assault on American’s economic future.

Also, if we want to get people off welfare and into the work force, these cuts

in education send us in the wrong direction. As a former welfare mother—

able to work myself off welfare because

I had a good education—I can tell you

for sure that these cuts are just plain

wrong.

Make no mistake about it, when

Members of Congress cast their vote on

this budget, they are providing their

constituents with a clear ‘‘yes or no’’

answer to the following question:

Should we take education and nutrition away from children; college aid

away from students; and health care

away from seniors in order to put

money into the hands of wealthy special interests?

I beg my colleagues to answer with a

resounding ‘‘no’’ by rejecting this

budget.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. FRANKS], a distinguished

member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.

Chairman, I yield to the gentleman

from Kansas [Mr. BROWNBACK].

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I

just noted the gentlewoman across the

aisle was saying that there are no special lobbyists for the children, no powerful special lobbyists for the children

back home. I know one man that is

standing right here who is a powerful
H 5124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

lobbyist for three young children in

Kansas. I am here representing them,

as many of my colleagues are. We are

terribly concerned about them. That is

why we are balancing the budget.

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.

Chairman, this is the most expensive

credit card in the history of the world.

This card has been used by decades by

politicians in Washington, DC, to buy

things that we simply cannot afford.

In the process, we have accumulated

deficit after deficit and piled up debt

upon debt. The very children that we

profess to be so deeply concerned about

are the people who are being asked to

pay off this enormous debt. The only

answer to ending this deficit spending

and to begin to pay down this enormous debt which is putting a burden on

our children and on our families is to

balance the budget.

Mr. Chairman, just like every American family who, when they have an

important objective to meet, sit

around the kitchen table and have to

prioritize what is essential, identify

what is important and talk about what

they can do without, that great historic discussion begins for the first

time in a generation right here right

now.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the

time for a balanced budget.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. SLAUGHTER].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding me

the time.

Mr. Chairman, one group of children

that no Member here is lobbying for—

and it is obvious we lobby for our own

and our grandchildren—are the homeless children in the United States,

numbering between 750,000 and 1 million on a daily basis. These are not

children that caused the deficit. These

are the children of parents who used to

work and who do not anymore.

This program, which is very modest,

has helped over 350,000 children since

1990. The number of homeless children

not in school because of this program

has dropped from 50 to 18 percent. Obviously it works.

A nation that believes that it is better to allow 750,000 to 1 million American children to grow up in shelters

and on the streets and not to be in

school has no reason to expect not to

reap the whirlwind that growing up

uneducated, unhealthy, and untrained

will assure us. This program that costs

so little and produces so much could

only be eliminated by meanness.

It is a total transfer of the benefits

for homeless children to the very rich

who benefit from the tax cut.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Staten Island, NY [Ms.

MOLINARI], a very hardworking member

of the committee.

Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding me

the time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say what

we have here today is a difference in

definition between the two political

parties as to the American dream.

The Democrats, as you hear, say it is

OK to add to the deficit. Increase

taxes, the Government will save the

day Over the next 6 or 7 hours, we are

going to hear from the other side, a

picking out of small programs throughout this budget that we believe the

country will absolutely fall apart if

they are not continued to be funded.

What you will not hear in their

American dream is how to balance the

budget, how to restore economic equity

to the next generation, how to positively bring back that vision of hope to

Americans regardless of their age.

The Republicans, on the other hand,

have defined the American dream, but

we have gotten that definition from

people who pay taxes throughout this

country, who tell us to stop runaway

spending, reduce the deficit, and balance the budget. ‘‘If you want to help

our children, really help our children,

let them grow up in an opportunity society that is debt-free.’’

That is how we discourage homeless

children. That is how we increase educational opportunities. That is how me

make sure that we in Washington do

not define the American dream, but

create an economy that allows the

children and their parents throughout

this Nation to feel, to dream, and to

hope for a tomorrow that right now

today, under the current Democrat

spending plan of no new options, will

lead them to one big dead end.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues

and the people who are watching today

to dare to dream the American dream

and join in supporting the Republican

budget.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.

The Republicans want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, education, and a host of

programs to pay for a tax cut for the

rich.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 23⁄4 minutes to

the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms.

RIVERS], a distinguished new member

of our committee who has been outstanding in her work.

Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, at the

end of this month I will celebrate my

20th anniversary of graduation from

high school. The next day I will celebrate my 20th anniversary of my marriage.

b 1515

My husband and I got married the

day after high school. I was 18; he was

17. At the time we were married we had

few skills, little money, and a rough

row to hoe. By the time we were 21 we

had our second child. Today, 20 years

later, I have an undergraduate degree,

I have a law degree, and I represent my

community in the people’s House, the

Congress of the United States.

What made the difference for me?

What made the difference for me is

what has made the difference for many,

many Americans over the years, education, and an education was only

available to me because there were student loans, because I could borrow

money, because I could get a helping

hand. It made all the difference. It still

took me 15 years to get 7 years of education, but I would have been shut out

had I not been able to ask for help.

And yet now we see a Republican

plan that retreats from that position,

that makes it harder to go to school,

that makes it harder to get ahead.

Chairman KASICH mentioned the

American dream. Mr. Chairman, I will

tell you I have lived the American

dream. I have done what countless others have done. I have worked hard, I

have persevered. I have played by the

rules, and now that I have walked

through the doors of opportunity, I

would like to see them kept open for

others to follow.

I think it is a terrible hypocrisy for

folks on the other side, particularly in

the leadership, who have climbed the

ladder and now wish to pull it up behind them. We need to say no to this

budget and to make it clear that any

retreat in student aid is unacceptable.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the Chair state

that, before the time comes for the

Joint Economic Committee’s part of

this debate, the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. KASICH] has 31⁄2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota

[Mr. SABO] has 3 minutes 10 seconds remaining.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. KOLBE].

Mr. KOLBE. Just very quickly, Mr.

Chairman, the previous speaker talked

about the education of homeless children. What she is talking about is a

program that funds an Office of Coordinator of Education for Homeless Children and Youth in the State educational agency. And in the functions

of the Office of Coordinator, page after

page of State plans, local education

agency requirements. There is not one

bit of program for homeless kids in

here. It is a bureaucracy. It is a State

agency, it is a coordinator. There are

no programs in here.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30

seconds to the gentlewoman from New

York [Ms. SLAUGHTER].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I

just wanted to respond to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. KOLBE], because I have a report on the homeless

in his own district.

There are 64 children right now in

Amphi High School. Three earned a 4.0

grade average in 1992, another 5 GPA’s

at 3.5 or better. Ninety percent have

improved their grades since entering

the program.

None of the students served by the

McKinney grant dropped out of the

school in the first semester. We believe

the success of these students is due to

our policy of encouraging perfect attendance and academic excellence, as

well as to the support they receive

from the independent living class.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5125

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2

minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. OLVER].

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, if this resolution is

adopted the Republicans are going to

cut $4 billion every year for the next 7

years out of educational aid programs,

and that is in addition, all up and down

the line of education programs, and

that is in addition to one of the biggest

blows to education that you could

make, and that is the $19 billion that is

taken out of these in-school interest

subsidies for our college students.

Who does that interest-subsidy removal hurt? Here is an example of

someone in my district who depends on

student aid. Her name is Theresa

McGuire, a 34-year-old college student

at North Adams State College in western Massachusetts. She is a single parent, the mother of a 7-year-old daughter. She left a low-paying, no-benefits,

dead-end job to go back to school only

when she knew she would be able to get

that kind of financial aid. She now has

a 4.0 grade point average. She is two semesters from her bachelor of arts. She

is going to go on to graduate school.

And she would manage to finish because she is almost finished anyway,

but there are millions of others in positions like that who will not start or

will find that their school is made considerably more expensive.

Mr. Chairman, why in the world

would the Republicans focus on the

getting-ahead opportunities for people

like Theresa McGuire to pass a tax

cut?

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS], a member of the

Committee on the Budget.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman

for yielding time to me.

All my life I have wanted to serve in

Government, whether it was as a civil

servant or as an elected official, so it

was a dream come true for me to have

an opportunity to serve first as a State

legislator and then as a Member of

Congress.

When I was a State legislator and

first elected I started to notice that

Congress, unlike the States and unlike

my State of Connecticut, could spend

more than it raised. And I thought,

well, they can do it but they will not.

And I saw it happen one year, and I saw

it happen another year, and I saw it

happen another year. For 13 years I

watched Congress spend more money

than it raised. And I know who is hurt

by that. It is all of the children who

have to pay the bill.

So I saw my Congress spend more

than it raised. And when I was in Congress, along with a number of others, I

have been working and waiting for the

opportunity to vote finally for a budget

that will get our financial house in

order.

Today I have this chance. I have

waited 20 years for this day to get our

financial house in order, and that is

what we are doing and we are doing it

fairly. We are going to take 7 years admittedly, but we are going to spend 19

percent more in the seventh year than

we spend today. We are going to slow

the growth in spending.

Only in Washington. I know no other

place in the world, only in Washington

is an increase in spending called a cut,

only in Washington. Where else when

you spend more do they call it a cut? I

never found a place anywhere else but

in Washington.

We are going to spend more. Admittedly domestic spending is going to go

down, because we are going to downsize

and we are going to reorganize it and

provide better services in the process.

International, foreign aid is going to go

down; that is a cut. Defense spending is

going to stay relatively the same.

But Medicare and Medicaid, they go

up. Medicaid goes up 36 percent in the

next 7 years, it goes up, it does not go

down. I hear cuts. It goes up. It is $89

billion; it will be $121 billion. We are

going to spend $33 billion more in the

next 7 years than we spent in the last

7 years. That is a spending increase,

maybe not as much as some people

want, but it is not a cut.

But most importantly, we want to

save Medicare. It is going bankrupt. We

know from the President that in the

next year it starts to go bankrupt and

in 7 years it is bankrupt. We want to

protect it and we want to improve it.

We want to save Medicare. We are

going to have a 45-percent increase in

Medicare. That is a cut? Well, in Washington it might be, but nowhere else in

the world.

We are going to spend $659 billion

more in the next 7 years than in the

last 7 years. Is that a cut? No. We are

going to spend more. Only in Washington is an increase in spending called a

cut, and I am fed up with it.

What we are doing today is we are

having a sea change. We are going to

change the way Washington does

things.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Minnesota [Mr. SABO] has 1

minute and 10 seconds remaining during this part of the debate.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, if the minority does not object, I would like to

yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the

gentlewoman from New York [Ms.

VELA ́ ZQUEZ], and we will take the 24

seconds out of the next hour.

Mr. KASICH. I do not know if we can

be that reasonable.

The CHAIRMAN. By the sufferance of

the Chair the gentlewoman from New

York is recognized for 1 minute and 30

seconds.

(Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

her remarks.)

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, we

have heard a lot of rhetoric from the

new majority this year. When it comes

to this budget, they outdo themselves.

They talk about saving our children

and grandchildren. What they do is the

exact opposite. They take Federal dollars away from our children to be able

to give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest families in this country.

With a $7 billion cut in education and

training programs, this budget will

deny thousands of children their

chance for a decent education and a

brighter future. The only ones who

have a brighter future under this budget plan are the wealthiest families in

this country. They will get over $281

billion in tax breaks under this budget.

There is no bright future for our kids

in this budget.

Saving our kids means giving them

new books, building them new and

safer schools.

Let us stop the rhetoric, Mr. Chairman, and speak to the truth. The only

savings that is going on here is in the

tax bill for the rich.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

agreement entered into prior to the

House going into the Committee of the

Whole, the next hour will be devoted to

a debate controlled by the members of

the Joint Economic Committee. Under

the rule, however, that time is controlled by the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. KASICH] and the gentleman from

Minnesota [Mr. SABO].

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent to yield my 30 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey

[Mr. SAXTON] and that he be allowed to

control the time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Ohio?

There was no objection.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30

minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. STARK], and I ask unanimous

consent that he be allowed to control

that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Minnesota?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON] will be

recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. STARK]

will be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. KLOBE], a member of the

Committee on the Budget.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, earlier

the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.

SLAUGHTER] was again talking about

the office of coordinator of education

for homeless children. Let me just read

that sentence from the Department of

Education’s budget:

This program provides formula grants to

States to operate an Office of Coordinator of

Education for Homeless Children and Youth

and to develop and carry out a State plan for

the education of homeless children.

The education comes out of Head

Start, out of title I; it does not come

out of this. We are talking about cutting out a bureaucracy. The tax cuts,

we are going to be talking now about

the tax part of this thing, go to take
H 5126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

care of senior citizens and children,

senior citizens and children, the next

generation of Americans and that generation now which deserves our help,

the senior citizens.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this

hour of debate is to focus on the economic implications of the budget proposal before us. I believe that this debate today is truly a very historic debate, and to the extent that the Committee on the Budget has worked very

diligently, I congratulate them on

bringing us to this historic point. For

the first time since the 1980’s Congress

is preparing to confront the tidal wave

of red ink drowning our country’s future. Listening to the prophets of

doom, one comes away with the impression that balancing the budget is

an exercise in group sacrifice, when in

fact we believe it is just the opposite.

Balance the budget is only painful if we

accept the premise that every American is dependent upon the Federal

Government. We reject that premise.

A true understanding of the economic rationale for balancing the

budget is that by reducing spending we

are freeing the economy from the burdens of the state. We are renewing the

time-honored American values of independence, responsibility, and hard

work.

However, we are faced with a dilemma. Do we once again attempt to

balance the budget by hobbling the

economy with higher taxes, or do we

balance the budget in a manner consistent with economic prosperity? That

is the big question, and I submit to my

colleagues today that the American

people told us last November to balance the budget in a way that makes

the economy grow, and they told us to

reduce taxes at the same time.

The American people understand

that these two goals are consistent,

and so it is essential for us to do both.

Why is it important to balance the

budget with lower taxes? Because balanced budgets alone have limited

power to unleash the competitive

power of America’s workers, which is

the basis of our economic prosperity,

not big Government.

b 1530

The President and his administration

have crowed about how wonderful this

recovery has been. Let us take a

minute to focus on the history of economic recoveries. Economic recoveries

do what their name implies: They restore the economic performance of a

poor economy to the economic performance of a good economy. Traditionally, during economic recoveries,

productivity, incomes, and job growth

are higher than the norm.

On the other hand, the current economic recovery has continued for several quarters. However, it has not created the prosperity of other economic

recoveries. Far from it. In the first 3

years of the expansion of this recovery,

real gross domestic product grew by

less than half, less than half of the

growth of GDPs in other recoveries.

The Clinton recovery has been a failure

in restoring productivity and in restoring incomes. Productivity grew by an

average rate of about 3.1 percent in the

two decades immediately following

World War II. However, during the

1970’s, productivity decreased alarmingly. Growth was again restored during the Reagan expansion. However,

since President Reagan, productivity

has declined to the level of the 1970’s,

which is totally unacceptable.

In the current recovery, productivity

gains in the service sector, have, in

fact, been negative. Incomes have also

been flat in the current economic recovery. Real median income increases

dropped in 1991, 1992, and 1993, unique,

unique for a sustained expansion. The

only other time in American history

post-World War II when GDP grew and

family incomes fell was in 1979 during

the Carter administration.

The Clinton recovery also is not providing Americans with quality jobs. If

real median family incomes are falling,

this means that new jobs created by

this recovery offer wages below the average.

What has the Clinton administration

done to counter this trend? They have

piled additional burdens on American

families with higher taxes and more

regulations. The major reason for stagnating incomes is that failure of the

economy to provide adequate capital

for a robust economy and robust economic growth. Net fixed investment

ran about 5 percent of GDP in the

1980’s, but has fallen to under 4 percent,

3.8 percent, to be more exact, today.

Economists have debated the reasons

for the slowdown of investment, but

they are almost unanimous in believing that it is the high taxes on capital

income that is primarily responsible

for lowering investment and subsequently lowering incomes.

When confronted with the positive

steps made by the House with the Contract With America and now with this

budget proposal, many of our friends

across the aisle and down Pennsylvania

Avenue have resorted to the timeworn

class warfare arguments. The Secretary of Labor is a great example.

Secretary Reich has labeled the problem of stagnating incomes the problems of the ‘‘anxious class.’’ Unfortunately, the administration has not

learned the lessons of the anxious

class. The anxious class spoke in November 1994. They said they are afraid

of a Government that takes a large

portion of their income in taxes, a Government that spends money imprudently, a Government that regulates in

capricious and cavalier manner, and

they rejected it categorically.

The Clinton administration, in its

economic report of the President,

states that the economy cannot grow

faster than 2.5 percent. Imagine, our

administration, the current administration, stating to us that the economy

cannot grow faster than 2.5 percent.

They look at the experience of the

1970’s and the early 1990’s to buttress

their claims that a faster growing

economy will generate inflation. Real

economic growth has stagnated in recent years. However, the postwar annual average of growth was 3.9 percent,

almost 4 percent. The difference between the postwar real GDP rate of

growth and the current real GDP rate

of growth has been labeled by economists as the growth deficit.

I might point to this chart at this

point and say that had growth continued as it should have, if taxes had been

kept low and if regulations had been

kept at a reasonable level, the red line

indicates what GDP growth would be

today, and, of course, the blue line represents what it actually is. Real economic growth has stagnated, and as we

go through the postwar times and the

3.9 percent increase, if the economy

had grown at the present postwar

growth rate, the real GDP would be,

and the difference here, of course, the

deficit is $1.6 trillion.

Per capita GDP would be approximately $6,600 larger. A family of four,

therefore, would have an annual income of and an additional $26,000. Pretty neat, it would have been.

Why can we not achieve the level of

growth of the postwar years? Because

the Government is taking too many resources away from the private sector

to satisfy its ever-expanding appetite

for more Government and the need for

more tax dollars to support it. This is

why balancing the budget is so important. It provides for the kind of economic growth that we need, and we

must contain Government spending to

get it.

Government spending is clearly a

negative for economic growth. Economists now understand that, as the Government grows too large, it destroys

the necessary incentives for a healthy

economy. From Moscow, Russia, to

Moscow, ID, and from Paris, France, to

Paris, TX, people understand that the

size of Government today is the Government which is the biggest impediment to economic prosperity.

The party of the status quo on the

other side of the aisle who are content

to take shots at our budget without

producing a real one of their own are

resisting the people’s desire for smaller

Government and a stronger economy.

They are even resorting to the highly

unusual arguments like that of Laura

Tyson, President Clinton’s head economic adviser, who has said any effort

to reduce Government spending means

a dollar in reduction in demand in the

economy, so it increases the

contractionary risk on the economy.

That statement is incredible, and it is

so incredible that she must have

meant, I think, something else. Clearly, all economists understand that the

Government does not create wealth out

of thin air. Rather they tax citizens for

the resources using Government programs. If the Government does not
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5127

spend tax dollars, citizens will use

them for other, more productive purposes. If the Government, on the other

hand, takes our dollars, it will take

them away from citizens and their desire to do more productive things with

them.

Rest assured that citizens will use

their dollars much more prudently

than Government bureaucrats will use

their tax dollars for them. Controlling

Government spending, then, will be an

ambitious gain for the economy. Private entrepreneurs will have more incentives to take risks, to create jobs

and prosperity, but not the Government, and we will all benefit from the

fruits of the labor of the private sector.

Historically, we can see the effects

on lower Government spending. As the

Government got larger, the economy’s

real rate of growth slowed. The process

we are initiating today is a historic

process to restore America to a highwage, high-growth economy. We are

truly at a crossroads.

What about those who say the Government has certain functions that private markets cannot undertake? Well,

first, we have been deluded too often to

accept the arguments that the Government must do this or that task. Private markets are much more efficient

than Government processes.

And, second, these people are thinking only in the short run. If we take

the long-run perspective, we can see

that by maximizing economic growth,

we will maximize Government revenues, and actually we have a chart here

that shows what happens when taxes

are kept down. We actually get more

revenue and more Government revenue

from growth than under the current

flawed system.

What about those who say that Government has functions to undertake?

Well, we agree that it does. But to balance the budget, we will have other

benefits as the economy responds to

our efforts. Increased economic growth

will make it easier for us to reform the

tax system, and we are hearing more

and more from citizens who are angry

with the current tax system. They find

it capricious and difficult to understand.

Economic growth will allow a more

reasoned approach to taxation.

The economy loses many of its best

and brightest careers that simply interpret the Tax Code. All the efforts of

accountants and lawyers to understand

the tax system are lost to the economy. They do not bring more revenue

to the Treasury. They do not generate

goods and services to make Americans

wealthier or richer or better off. Rather, correctly understood, the time and

expense to prepare tax forms is another

form of taxation that reduces economic

wealth. Reducing the burdens of the

tax system will make Americans

wealthier because it will free up these

revenues as well.

The new ethic must take hold with

regard to taxation. A long time, too

long, we have focused on the debate,

with the debate, on the impact of taxation on the distribution at static

losses, a term we hear inside the beltway a great deal. We have ignored the

dynamic harm done to every American

worker by excessively taxing capital.

Taxation reform must recognize that

the prime determinant of wage growth

is capital investment. We cannot help

Americans to economic prosperity

without reforming the tax system.

Also, we cannot allow this opportunity to pass, and the key to future

tax reform is reducing the size of Government today. That is what our budget does.

The American voter wants a healthy

economy. The American voter wants

lower taxes. The American voter wants

a smaller Government. We must restrain spending to reduce the deficit.

We are not reducing spending because

we are masochists. Rather, we are reducing spending to enlarge opportunities for all Americans to produce economic growth. Reducing Government,

reducing Government spending is the

most positive thing we can do for the

American people, for older Americans,

for future generations, and for today’s

children. It is a win-win strategy.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance

of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 10 minutes.

(Mr. STARK asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, this is

the hour allotted to the Joint Economic Committee. I thought it was

train schedules for the Metro here. But

I am going to explain that, as we

learned in agricultural economics, that

chicken droppings and chicken salad

come from the same place, but there is,

indeed, a world of difference between

them.

The budget resolution, as propounded

by my Republican friends, really has

nothing to do with economics. It has to

do with a little accounting sleight-ofhand, perhaps some legislative legerdemain, but certainly not economics.

It does represent massive redistribution from the elderly to the rich. Programs that benefit average Americans

are cut, reduced, squeezed, whatever

you want to call it, to provide huge tax

breaks for the wealthiest people among

us. Cuts to finance those breaks are

made across the board, children’s programs, Medicaid earned income tax

credit, a whole host of credits, to given

tax cuts to the rich.

Today, however, I would like to focus

on the proposed cuts in just one area.

Guess what, Medicare. The resolution

would require us to cut $283 billion out

of the Medicare Program. That is a big

chunk of cut.

Now, the Republicans would like to

pretend, and this is interesting, this is

what economists do all the time, they

pretend something is what it ain’t. The

Republicans would like to pretend that

these are not really cuts, just reductions in the rate of growth.

b 1545

Now, that argument is, in economic

language, specious, misleading, and

hypocritical. For the Social Security

recipients, these proposals increase

out-of-pocket costs while reducing

availability and quality of medical

services.

Now, the Republicans would make it

sound as if Medicare costs rise over

time because the program is growing,

as if Congress is adding entitlements

and new services, or paying higher reimbursement rates, or covering new

categories of people. But none of those

things are true. The truth is the Republican cuts would come out of the

amount needed to keep benefits and

rates at current levels. That is all.

In 2002 alone, payments for each senior will increase by over $1,000. That is

economics that the seniors in my district understand. The increases in the

Medicare premiums and deductibles

seniors would pay are not even the

whole story. These cuts that the Republicans are talking about would reduce seniors’ access to health care and

require new copayments for services

such as lab tests, home health care,

and skilled nursing facilities.

Seniors in California in my area

would have to pay almost $1,500 more

on the average for health care by the

end of the 7th year. That is economics,

ladies and gentlemen, that they can

understand. Yet my Republican colleagues complain that the Government

programs do not work.

The distinguished vice chairman of

the Joint Economic Committee, the

ranking Republican member, just said

this is about independence, responsibility, and hard work. Hogs on ice are

independent. There are a lot of responsible people out there, and certainly we

all know about hard work after Speaker GINGRICH’s 100 days.

But, these proposals do not illustrate

any of that. They illustrate how you

can destroy Government, if that is

really what you want to do, and I submit that is what the Republicans are

about. And these proposals illustrate

how.

They take an effective program and

cripple it. Last year much smaller

Medicare cuts were proposed. The Republicans complained that any Medicare cuts, and that is the word you all

used, you Republicans, you, would destroy the qualified and ability of care

for seniors under the program. Given

their objections to last year’s proposed

cuts, how can they possibly come back

and justify larger cuts this year?

They have tried to hide their intentions about Medicare by claiming they

are just trying to save the trust fund.

Well, now, here is an economic term.

The seniors will recognize that claim

as baloney. That is Economics 102. The

proposed Medicare cuts are much larger than are needed.

The only Republican proposal relating to Medicare so far that has passed

this House actually makes the trust

fund worse by repealing factions on
H 5128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

high income elderly that were dedicated to the trust fund. That hardly

seems like a good way to save the trust

fund.

Last year, my colleagues on the

Democratic side of the aisle proposed

Medicare reforms that would have

saved $168 billion over 7 years in the

Medicare trust fund, and the Republicans, to the man and woman, voted

against it. They argued that they

wanted to support an amendment to

strip the savings on the theory that

they would ruin Medicare with the

cuts. Now, if $168 billion was going to

ruin it last year, $238 billion is going to

knock the socks off it this year.

You have been treating, you Republicans, you, the specific details of that

Medicare plan like it was the Stealth

bomber plans, top secret. DORNAN could

not have kept them more secret. They

know that savings, you Republicans

know, of the size that you are proposing, cannot be achieved without absolutely devastating the Medicare Program and placing new burdens on Social Security recipients.

No wonder you are nervous about revealing what you intend to do. But let

me tell you, my friends on the other

side of the aisle, here is a hint of what

they have up their sleeves. Medical insurance, part B, that covers doctors

payments, which is by the way financially solvent and does not need any

cuts to maintain its solvency, the Republicans are planning to double the

deductible that beneficiaries pay before

Medicare reimburses them for their

doctors bills. After doubling it, that is

not enough, they are going to index it

so that their payments do not keep up,

but their co-pays keep up with inflation, and they go up every year, just to

remind these seniors how tough they

are when they raise the cost of Medicare every year for the next 7 years and

on into the future. They plan to increase the premiums that Medicare enrollees must pay. And if that is not

enough, they make the patients pay a

bigger share of laboratory tests, home

health care services, skilled nursing facilities, all those things that the seniors are going to need.

Here is the bottom line. Medicare patients will pay more upfront for their

coverage, and if they get sick they are

going to pay even more than that. No

wonder you are not anxious to tell us

what is hidden in that budget. These

Medicare cuts will hurt. They will hurt

beneficiaries, they will hurt the entire

health care system, and ultimately

hurt the economy. You knew I would

get to it.

Our economy and society as a whole

will be devastated. Hard-working

Americans who paid Medicare taxes for

years will find themselves without

medical insurance they had been

counting on. Confidence in that portion

of Social Security will be undermined,

and rightly so.

If you arbitrarily change a contract,

renege on a deal, pull back on a promise to seniors that was made back in

1965, that we promised these workers,

they will know you are reneging, they

will know you are chintzy, they will

know what your contract is. The

health care system will suffer, especially in rural areas and inner cities.

Hospitals will go bankrupt, rural

health clinics and community health

care centers will be forced to close, and

medical care will be rationed and quality will decline. The overall economy

will be harmed as those proposals slash

Medicare and do nothing about rising

health care costs, as the President has

asked us to do.

We cannot continue to spend an ever

increasing share of our national income, and that is an economic term, on

health care. But cutting health insurance for seniors and the poor without

reforming the system is unfair and unwise. And making these cuts in order

to finance tax breaks for the wealthy

just compounds the folly and exacerbates the existing divisions.

One more thing, just a word of advice. You are going to fix this by

changing the CPI, aren’t you? You are

counting on that adjusting. Well, we

have got a suggestion. If you really

want to be tricky, and I see the good

doctor sitting there, all we have to do

is raise normal from 98.6 to 103 and we

will save billions in Medicare. How

would you like that? That makes about

as much sense as the rest of this budget.

So I urge you to defeat the budget,

save the seniors from the destruction

of Medicare, and get on about the business of seeing this country build and

grow as it has over the past several

years.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

31⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from

Egan, IL, population 42 [Mr.

MANZULLO].

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, this

Republican budget is the first step toward balancing the budget and putting

our Nation back on the path towards

fiscal responsibility. We will reduce or

eliminate programs that may sound

nice on paper, but in reality throw

away billions of hard-earned taxpayers’

dollars every year. And we may eliminate some worthy programs for which

there is simply no money, but without

which this Nation can function.

We are approaching a national debt

of $5 trillion, and each year we go into

debt $200 billion more. This means $200

billion a year is added to the national

debt. Today the tax rate for local,

State, and Federal taxes is 50 percent.

That means that a family with both

husband and wife working, one spouse

is working solely for taxes.

According to the Clinton administration’s Office of Management and Budget, if we do not make dramatic changes

in this country’s fiscal policy, every

child born after 1993 will pay between

84 and 94 percent of his or her income

for local, State, and Federal taxes.

That means out of an annual income of

$30,000, a child will be left with only

$1,800 to $2,100 after taxes each year on

which to live. This is hardly the legacy

we want to leave our children.

The findings of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlements and Tax Reform show that absent policy changes,

entitlement spending and interest on

the national debt alone will consume

all Federal revenues by the year 2012.

That means no money for defense, no

money for education, no money for

roads and bridges, no money for law enforcement.

The Republicans propose a common

sense solution to the deficit problem.

Slow the growth of spending to about

2.2 percent a year so that revenues

catch up with spending levels, which

should occur by 2002. By reducing the

deficit, the Nation will benefit in reduced interest rates, more employment, and a stronger economic climate.

The Medicare trustees, including

those appointed by President Clinton,

say that the Medicare Trust Fund will

be out of money in 7 years. This means

if something is not done to preserve

Medicare by the year 2002, there will be

no money to pay for seniors’ medical

expenses. To preserve and protect Medicare, the Republican budget puts it on

a road towards fiscal responsibility and

puts us on a glide path towards a balanced budget.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues

to vote for the Republican budget.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Indiana

[Mr. VISCLOSKY].

(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding time

to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support

of the Democratic coalition substitute

budget resolution, and in opposition to

the Republican proposal.

I believe that the time has come to

balance the budget. This is what my

constituents want because they know

that the economic futures of their children and grandchildren depend on it.

They want us to balance the budget in

a way that is both fair and effective,

and this is what the Democratic substitute would do.

The Democratic substitute is fair because it asks everyone, regardless of

age or circumstance in life, to share

the sacrifice for the benefit of the common good. Unlike the Republican plan,

it does not transfer funding for social

programs, that benefit the old and

poor, to subsidize tax cuts for the rich.

Further, the Democratic coalition

substitute will work. I am an original

cosponsor of this measure because it

takes a rational and responsible approach to balancing the budget. Not

only does it restore sane spending priorities by adding back funding for education, health, and economic development programs, it also achieves a

budget surplus in 2002 that is $500 million higher than that proposed in Mr.

KASICH’S plan. Less pain with more
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5129

gain—Why? Because this alternative

resolution reaffirms the logic of

achieving a balanced budget one step

at a time. This means holding off on

enacting expensive tax cuts, which require slashing vital programs, until we

are well on our way to ensuring a

healthy national economy that can be

enjoyed by generations to come.

I have serious concerns about the approach taken by the Republican budget

resolution. For example, the proposed

two-step reconciliation process would

delay the consideration of painful

spending cuts, until after politically

popular tax cuts have been given away.

If the Republican majority is truly serious about including tax cuts in their

proposal, they should make sure they

have the money to pay for these cuts

up front, not after the fact. It seems

the new Republican majority has forgotten the old Republican rallying

cry—‘‘Cut Spending First.’’ Balancing

the budget is like curing a cold, the

longer you put off swallowing bad-tasting medicine, the longer it takes to return to good health.

In addition, the Republican budget

backloads deficit reduction until after

the year 2000, when the spending cuts

kick in and interest rates decline. In

fact, nearly two-thirds of the deficit reduction in the Republican plan occurs

in the final 3 years. This is an approach

that was tested in the early 1980’s

under President Reagan and failed.

When it came time to make the difficult cuts, they did not materialize.

Remember, the 1980’s was the decade

when the debt tripled under Republican

control of the White House. Therefore,

as far as the effectiveness of the approach to deficit reduction is concerned, I would say, ‘‘Been there, done

that, let’s not do it again.’’

Finally, I am pleased that the coalition substitute includes enforcement

language. In January, I supported a

constitutional amendment to balance

the budget for the first time because I

finally lost faith that the President

and the Congress have the resolve to

balance the budget without a constitutional mandate. While this initiative

failed, I still believe that we need to

hold our feet to the fire and enforce our

budgetary decisions.

Earlier this year, I introduced the

Balanced Budget Enforcement Act of

1995, H.R. 1516, along with our colleagues, Representatives STENHOLM,

DOOLEY, BARRETT, MINGE, and

POSHARD. This legislation, which I cosponsored in the 102d and 103d Congresses when introduced by our former

colleagues, Leon Panetta and Tim

Penny, respectively, would enact

tough, new measures to reform the

budget process and eliminate the Federal budget deficit by the year 2002. It

would do so by setting spending caps

and using across-the-board cuts if the

targets, set and evaluated by a nonpartisan Board of Estimates, aren’t

met. Yesterday, I asked the Rules Committee to allow me to offer sense-ofCongress language endorsing the approach embodied in H.R. 1516 as an

amendment to the budget resolution.

Unfortunately, this request was denied.

In any event, I believe that this legislation needs to become central to debate

on budget process reform later this

year.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe

that balancing the budget is our responsibility as Members of Congress. I

have always supported a balanced

budget, and the responsibility to

achieve this is not one that I take

lightly. Over the years, I have frequently taken the political road less

traveled in the name of deficit reduction. When I am in northwest Indiana,

I tell my constituents that I am opposed to cutting their taxes because it

would undermine serious efforts to reduce the deficit. In March, I was one of

only six Democrats to support the rescissions bill, H.R. 1158, because I believe we need to start making tough

spending decisions now.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. PETERSON].

(Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked

and was given permission to revise and

extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr.

Chairman, I thank the gentleman for

yielding.

Mr. Chairman, as a fiscal conservative who believes that it is critical

that we put our fiscal house in order, I

cannot tell you how much fun it is to

participate in this debate today on how

we should be balancing the budget instead of debating whether or not we

should be balancing the budget.

I want to congratulate the other side

and the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman KASICH, for helping to make this

debate possible and for bringing a

budget to the House floor which tackles many of the tough choices that we

have to face. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from new York [Mr.

SOLOMON] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. NEUMANN] for the proposal

to balance the budget in 5 years.

Unfortunately, I cannot support the

committee resolution as it is before us

today. This resolution allows us to

postpone and possibly even avoid the

tough choices that we must make.

b 1600

It calls for a very unusual process

that allows us to make the politically

popular and easy choices before we

even consider the real spending cuts

that are necessary to balance the budget. Even if we do not duck these tough

choices, as this resolution allows us to

do, the overwhelming majority of the

spending cuts called for in this resolution will occur in the last 2 years.

I hope that the committee is right in

its assumptions, but I am afraid that

the savings that are supposed to occur

in the last 2 years will not materialize

and we will be left with a deficit that

continues to drag down our economy.

Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, the

House will have an opportunity to support a sensible and fiscally responsible

alternative to the committee resolution when the coalition budget is offered as a substitute tomorrow. The coalition put together this alternative

because the coalition members have

long been committed to the goal of balancing the budget, but we believe that

it must be done in a way that makes

sense and will work.

The budget that we produced is a realistic proposal that does make sense.

It achieves a balanced budget by the

year 2002. It borrows $160 billion less

than the committee resolution without

making unreasonable cuts in vital programs. Unlike the committee resolution which back loads the deficit reduction in the last 2 years, the coalition budget cuts spending first and provides for a reasonable, level glide towards a balanced budget in the year

2002.

Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues have

any reservations about the budget resolution before us today, I urge them to

review the coalition budget carefully. I

am confident that if they have done

that, they will agree with me that the

coalition budget is the most sensible

alternative before the House and deserve the support of all Members.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. SANDERS].

(Mr. SANDERS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in very strong opposition to the proposal presented by the Republican leadership. At a time when this country

has a very large deficit and a $4.7 trillion national debt, it is vulgar. It is

crass to be giving huge tax breaks to

the wealthiest people in this country

and to the largest corporations.

It is unacceptable that half the tax

breaks in this proposal go to people

making $100,000 a year or more and

that the wealthiest 1 percent will receive more in tax breaks than the bottom 60 percent. It is pathetic that at a

time when the richest 1 percent of the

population own more wealth than the

bottom 90 percent and when the upper

4 percent of earners make more money

than do the bottom 50 percent of earners, that taxpayers making over

$200,000 a year receive a tax break of

$11,000 while those making less than

$30,000 receive a tax cut of $124. And the

rich get richer, and everyone else gets

poorer.

Mr. Chairman, it is especially outrageous to be talking about tax increases for the rich when we all know

that it was the huge tax breaks for the

richest 1 percent in the 1980’s that was

a major cause of the explosion of the

deficit during that period. As a result

of tax breaks given to the wealthiest 1

percent, the Treasury Department lost

over $1.5 trillion between 1981 and 1992,

1.5 trillion in tax breaks to the richest

1 percent during the 1980’s. And guess

what in the 1990’s? They are coming
H 5130 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

back for more tax breaks for the very

same people. Shame.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this budget proposal presented by the

Republican leadership.

At a time when this country has a very large

deficit and a $4.7 trillion national debt, it is vulgar and it is crass to be giving huge tax

breaks to the wealthiest people in this country

and to the largest corporations.

It is unacceptable that half the tax breaks in

this proposal go to people making $100,000 a

year or more, and that the wealthiest 1 percent will receive more in tax breaks than the

bottom 60 percent. It is pathetic that at a time

when the richest 1 percent own more wealth

than do the bottom 90 percent, and when the

upper 4 percent of earners make more money

than do the bottom 51 percent—that taxpayers

making over $200,000 a year receive a tax

break of more than $11,000, while those making less than $30,000 would receive a tax cut

of $124. And the rich get richer and everyone

else gets poorer.

Mr. Chairman, it is especially outrageous to

be talking about any tax increase for the rich

when we all know that it was huge tax breaks

for the richest 1 percent in the 1980’s that was

a major cause of the explosion of the deficit

during that period. As a result of tax breaks

given to the wealthiest 1 percent, the Treasury

Department lost over $1.5 trillion between

1981 and 1992—which is approximately half

of the national debt that was accumulated during that period. Given the fact that the tax

breaks provided to the wealthiest 1 percent is

largely responsible for the deficit, why in God’s

name would we give them more tax breaks

now.

Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget cuts

taxes for the rich and the largest corporations,

spends $92 billion more on the military over 7

years, and then makes devastating cuts for

the middle class, for working people, for the

elderly, for students, and for the poor.

Senior Citizens: At a time when many of our

seniors are finding it extremely difficult to pay

for their health care needs the Republican

House budget calls for, over a 7-year period,

a $282 billion cut in Medicare and a $184 billion cut in Medicaid. The American Association

of Retired Person [AARP] estimates that this

proposal means that the average Medicare

beneficiary would pay over $3,500 more outof-pocket over the next 7 years. Further, Social Security will be cut by $24 billion from

1999 to 2002 due to a six-tenths of 1 percent

reduction in the COLA formulation. Also, the

LIHEAP fuel assistance program will be eliminated, and there will be a major cut-back in

senior citizen housing. Such excellent senior

programs as the Foster Grandparents Program, and RSVP will also be eliminated.

Education: While college costs are soaring,

and many middle class families are experiencing declining incomes, the budget reduces student loans by $33 billion. According to the administration, the Republican plan to eliminate

Government-paid interest on student loans

while the student is in school would cost 4 million undergraduates more than $3,000 each

during the course of a 4-year college career.

Further, the Republican budget would eliminate or drastically reduce funding for such important educational programs including Goals

2000, the TRIO Program, title I, School-ToWork, student incentive grants, Head Start

and Safe and Drug-Free Schools—among others. There is little question that not only will

these cuts be harmful to education, but they

will result in higher state and local taxes.

Veterans: The bill passed by the House

Budget Committee would, over a 7-year period, reduce veterans programs by $8.3 billion.

The Senate Budget Committee proposal would

reduce veterans benefits by $15.1 billion.

Among other cuts would be an increase in the

prescription drug copayment from $2 to $8.

The House bill would also reduce the COLA

on veterans compensation. It would also eliminate the Veterans Employment Program under

the Job Partnership Training Act, the Disabled

Veterans Outreach program, the Local Veterans Employment Representative Program, and

the homeless veterans reintegration project.

Workers: At a time when millions of American workers have lost their jobs because

many American companies are downsizing, or

moving to Mexico, this budget not only cuts

back significantly on job training programs, but

it eliminates unemployment insurance extended benefits. That means that unemployed

workers would not get assistance after 13

weeks.

The poor: While poverty is increasing and

the United States continues to have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, the Republican proposal cuts

back on food stamps, child nutrition programs,

childcare, affordable housing, WIC, and assistance to the homeless.

Culture: At a time when television is filled

with more and more violence and junk, this

budget eliminates funding for the Corporation

for Public Broadcasting. It also eliminates

funding for the National Endowment for the

Arts which has been so effective in providing

seed money for many excellent projects.

Should the United States move toward a

balanced budget and address its $4.7 trillion

national debt? Yes. Should we, at the same

time, be giving huge tax breaks to the top 4

percent of earners who make more money

than do the bottom 50 percent? No. Should

we balance the budget on the backs of the

middle-class and working people who are already hurting, and who are experiencing a decline in their standard of living? Absolutely not.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman

from Minnesota [Mr. PETERSON] explain to me the difference between the

budget program that you are suggesting and the one that the Republicans

are proposing?

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr.

Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman

from Minnesota.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Yes, I

can. What we do is we basically start

with the Domenici budget but what we

do is we eliminate the tax cut. We take

that money and reallocate it to Medicare. We add $109 billion back to Medicare. We add $54 billion back to the

Medicaid from the Kasich budget. We

add back $5.6 billion in agriculture

cuts. We restore the student loan cuts.

We add $35 billion into the education

area and, I believe, $11 billion into the

area of health research.

Mr. STARK. You take that tax cut

for the very rich and invest it in the

bedrock of the American economy, in

students and farmers and in the growing economy of our country.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. That

is exactly right.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, that

sounds very good to me.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr.

Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think that is the right

way to go.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

31⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from

Pontiac, IL [Mr. EWING], a member of

the Committee on the Budget.

(Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, there is something in

this budget for everyone to dislike.

That is probably what makes it an excellent budget. For instance, I come

from rural America, from agricultural

land. For instance, the budget will cut

$9 billion over 5 years from agricultural commodity programs alone. This

comes on top of major reductions in agricultural expenditures over the last

several years.

These cuts will be painful. They will

be painful for producers, for American

farmers, for agribusiness people, for

those who share an interest and an investment in the great industrial agricultural-industrial business of this

country, as we struggle to compete

with heavily subsidized European agriculture.

But once again, those of us from farm

country are willing to step up to the

block and help reduce the deficit. The

difference is this time the cuts that

have been made will not go to additional Government spending, as they

were in past administrations. They will

go to deficit reduction. If every other

program in the Federal budget had

been cut, as agriculture has over the

last few years by the Democratic controlled Congress, we would not be here

today debating how to balance the

budget. But that is history.

I am glad that this budget finally

forces all segments of this Government

to meet their responsibility in balancing the budget. For the first time

we are going to start controlling Government expenditures and guarantee

that the deficit will be zero by the year

2002.

This is real fiscal responsibility, the

kind of Government management that

the American people called for in the

last election, not what the last speakers have been talking about, social

spending increases. It is about time we

tackled the issue. For the first time

the budget reverses the tax and spend

policy of the other side of the aisle.

There is no telling how fast our economy can grow when we turn it loose

and quit strangling it.

What are some of the things that will

come out of a balanced budget? Well,

let us first of all talk about tax relief.

Tax relief is not just for the wealthy. I

am certainly not wealthy. I do not expect one dime of tax relief, but there
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5131

will be a lot of tax relief for American

families. That is better than the Government taking the money from them

and spending it for them. And you are

opposed to giving the families of America tax relief. I really cannot believe

that.

Chairman Greenspan has said, what

would come out of a balanced budget?

Probably a 2-percent reduction in the

interest rate. Well, I tell you, if you

know anything about business or the

economy, you know that is going to

create jobs.

I would rather give American agriculture a 2-percent cut in interest rates

than a bigger subsidy, and job creation.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. OWENS].

(Mr. OWENS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the caring majority budget of the congressional black caucus and the House progressive caucus is concerned about the

jobs necessary to keep our economy a

robust economy. Our priorities are

clear: education, job training and job

creation. And in the budget that we

have prepared, which is a balanced

budget, we provide for jobs, education

and job training.

The budget boldly sets forth investments in the activities which will keep

our nation prosperous at home and

competitive in the global arena. And

we do this by providing, first of all, a

tax cut for hard-working Americans.

Our tax cut does go to all families. It

does not favor the rich and the privileged. We invest more than $27 billion

also over a 7-year period in education

and job training by increasing function

500 by 25 percent. We protect major job

creating functions. Other functions

such as transportation, public works,

commerce and health care are protected despite the pressure to make

huge cuts.

We ensure that current services are

continued for both Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid and Medicare are fully

maintained. We supported the President’s position that Medicare and Medicaid should not be touched until we

have a comprehensive health reform

program.

We oppose all of the attempts to

erode Social Security, including the

extensions which will continue the

COLA and have no cuts in the COLA.

We advocate a more sane defense budget, a defense budget which offers a

peace dividend to the taxpayers. These

taxpayers have diligently supported

the burden of massive modern military

costs for years and years. Now we have

no more Evil Empire. The Soviet Union

is gone. Why do we have to continue to

shoulder a massive military burden?

So our biggest cut is in the area of

defense. Our biggest cut is where the

money is. We maintain that although

defense industries do create jobs, study

after study has shown that you can create two jobs for every defense job that

is created. With the dollars you spend,

you can create two nondefense jobs.

So if you wanted to create jobs, you

can create many more by spending

them in other places, including, by the

way, health care. Health care provides

an enormous amount of jobs although

the business of health care is not to

provide jobs; it is to take care of people, but health care is a labor intensive

industry and it does provide jobs.

In order for us to accomplish all of

this and still have a balanced budget

and have a balanced budget with minimum pain on families and individuals,

we have focused on the closing of corporate tax loopholes. We have attempted to end the lopsided tax burden

which has been forced upon wage earners via the personal income tax. Corporations used to shoulder as much as

39 percent of the responsibility for Federal revenue. Now the corporations

only shoulder a mere 11.2 percent of the

burden, and we are saying that we

would like in this budget we propose to

increase it to a modest 15.9 percent of

the total tax burden.

By the way, individuals shoulder 44

percent of the total tax burden. We

would like to change that and in the

process of changing that, you will generate. That is the policy key to a balanced budget. If you must have a balanced budget, and we do not think you

need to balance the budget by the year

2002, but if you wanted to move toward

balanced budgets, then the way to do it

is to correct the imbalance.

I have a chart here which shows that

in 1943, 39.8 percent of the revenue burden was carried by corporate income

taxes. In 1982, that dropped all the way

down to 8 percent, from 39.8 percent all

the way down to 8 percent in 1982.

b 1615

During the Reagan years, from 1982

all the way to the end of his Presidency, it hovered around 8 and 9 percent of the total tax burden. It did not

begin to back up until later on.

If Members want to balance the budget, let us let the American people in on

the great secret. They as individuals,

the American people as individuals and

as families, are bearing a greater and

greater percentage of the tax burden,

while corporations have been allowed

to get off with more and more. Therefore, we are closing tax loopholes. Who

is there who would not want to stop

multinational corporations from taking advantage of our tax system? We

want to end the multinational corporation swindle, and we want to close

other loopholes. We can balance the

budget without cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and without inflicting undue

pain on numerous Americans.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

31⁄2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. THORNBERRY].

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman,

there are, of course, many important

issues we could debate with regard to

this budget, including whether we will

continue to saddle our children with

debt, and whether an increase in the

amount of money in a program, both

totally and per beneficiary, is still

going to be called a cut in Washington,

DC.

Another important issue is the size of

government, and how much government, both in taxing and spending,

takes out of the economy. This is not

just abstract political theory, but it is

very practical about what really works

to improve the lives of regular folks. It

affects every person in this country.

We can see now the administration

sees an economic slowdown coming and

is ready to point the finger of blame at

somebody else. As Stephen Moore

pointed out in his book ‘‘government:

America’s Number One Growth Industry,’’ the problem is very clear. He

said:

The reason that America finds itself on an

economic downward spiral is that today,

Washington, DC is taxing, spending, borrowing, mandating, decreeing, and regulating

America to death. The private sector—businesses, entrepreneurs, investors, workers,

and families—is slowly suffocating under the

weight of a relentlessly expanding government.

Mr. Chairman, the resolution reported out by the Committee on the

Budget and the Neumann budget are

the first things in a very long time in

this House that begin to deal with each

of those things that Moore identifies.

It deals with the taxing, spending, borrowing, mandating, decreeing, the regulating that is consuming so much of

our national wealth.

If we look at the numbers, government at all levels consumes more than

ever before. One study found about 42

percent of our national income is spent

by government these days. Other facts

about government are equally astonishing. Government at all levels spends

about $24,000 for every household in

America. With the $2.5 trillion that

local, State, and Federal governments

spend this year, you could buy all the

farmland in the United States, plus all

the assets of the Fortune 100 companies. There are more people working

for the Government than are working

for all the manufacturing industries

combined.

The danger, I think, Mr. Chairman, is

that we are on the verge of becoming

what Margaret Thatcher called a

nanny State, where the government

takes too much from us to do too much

for us. Even President Kennedy in 1962,

in his address before the Economics

Club of New York, said ‘‘The growth of

the American economy in the 20th century demonstrates for all to see the

power of freedom and the efficiency of

free institutions.’’ Yet those are the

very things that have been under assault year after year as a result of the

policies of this Government.

I think that for the first time in a

long time, we are beginning to take

power and responsibility away from

Government, and give more power and

more responsibility back to individuals. That is what is absolutely essential, in my view. We must also reduce
H 5132 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

the size of Government. The President

is fond of pointing out how he is making drastic reductions in Federal employment, but if we look at the numbers and take out one department, the

Department of Defense, we will find

out that even President Clinton’s target is some 40 percent more than the

Federal work force at the time of

President Kennedy.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is absolutely necessary that we stop adding

debt to our children. It is also necessary that while we are straightening

out the national budget, we straighten

out the family budget as well.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. KENNELLY].

Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, the

Republican budget says two things to

the American public: Don’t get sick

and don’t get old.

The Republican budget would cut

Medicare by $280 billion over 7 years.

To those who say this does not represent a real cut, I suggest they argue

those semantics with senior citizens

who will have to pay $1,000 more in

extra Medicare premiums, deductibles,

and copayments under the budget. I advise them to make that argument when

seniors can not find a doctor to treat

them because Medicare pays providers

less and less. I will ask them to explain

to my constituents why a Medicare cut

three times bigger than any reduction

ever enacted in the history of program

does not represent real pain for senior

citizens.

Let us not hide the facts. The Medicare cuts in the budget could decimate

the only universal, portable health coverage we have in this country. When

you combine these cuts with steep reductions in Medicaid’s coverage for

nursing homes, the budget offers seniors a bitter pill to swallow.

Some have said that these cuts are

needed to save Medicare. America

knows better. The same budget that

cuts Medicare by $280 would also enact

$345 billion in tax breaks for the

wealthy. This is not a fair trade for our

Nation’s seniors.

Mr. Chairman, I have taken the

tough votes to keep Medicare solvent

and strong. In 1993, I voted to extend

the solvency of Medicare by 3 years,

and last year I voted in committee to

extend the trust funds an additional 8

years. Both times not even one of my

friends from the other side of the aisle

joined with me in protecting Medicare.

I remain committed to ensuring the

solvency of Medicare, but let’s do this

the right way. Senior citizens should

not be forced to accept Medicare cuts

to enact tax breaks for the wealthy.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from South

Carolina [Mr. SANFORD].

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I was

going to discuss the short-term outlook for the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, time will not permit much detail, but I would also like to address

Laura D’Andrea Tyson’s recent statement that budget cuts pose significant

downside risks to our economy.

I think this shows an antiquated notion that the more Government spends,

the better off our economy. This does

not seem consistent with what we have

seen over the last 30 years. It also does

not recognize what Government fundamentally does: Government redistributes wealth, it does not create it.

There are three real threats in the

near term to our economy. First would

be the possibility that Congress does

not act seriously on the budget deficit

that is facing us; second, that Japan

resolves the run-up of its currency to

our detriment; and third, that a trade

war ensues between America and

Japan. Let us explore all three for just

a few moments.

First, our Nation’s budget deficit is

the biggest threat to our economy. I

think that for several reasons. First, if

we were to look on relative terms, the

ratio of public debt to gross domestic

product that our Nation is facing right

now is the highest that our Nation has

ever faced. Second, a child born in

America today will end up paying

$187,000 in interest costs over the

course of their lifetime, simply as their

share of past Federal spending.

Third, it is simple math. The standard of living is directly driven by productivity, which is driven by investment, which is driven by savings. The

larger the Government share of the

economy, the smaller the personal savings will be, and there will be less

money for investment.

The second near-term threat would

be the international value of our currency. I think there are two grave dangers on this front. One is that almost

anything that Japan does in the near

term to correct its over-valued currency will hurt our economy.

At 75 yen to the dollar, Japan’s gross

domestic product [GDP] equals America’s GDP. That clearly does not make

sense. It is unsustainable, and will

change. The only question is when.

Second, the risk of losing reserve

currency status. If the Asian central

banks were to use gold as a reserve

asset instead of the dollar, or simply to

decrease their dollar holdings, I think

it would have very damaging consequences for the American economy.

Finally, I think the third risk facing

us is the possibility of a trade war with

Japan. I think we ultimately would be

the ones most affected by this, because

any escalation of global tariffs would

especially hurt the largest trader in

the world, which is the United States.

Specifically, I do not think that

Japan is the problem. The problem facing our economy is a tax system that

rewards consumption over savings and

investment.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield

11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from

Minnesota [Mr. MINGE].

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I think

all of us in this Chamber and across the

country agree that the American deficit has reached critical and, of course,

historic proportions, and that the No. 1

task before this body is to determine

the course of action that is necessary

to bring us out of the deficit and address the debt that still lingers, and to

do so forthrightly.

One of the tragedies we have faced in

this country is that we have even

masked the true size of the debt and

deficit. We have used the Social Security cash flow surplus for that purpose.

We need to have a budget that actually

discloses the true size of the deficit,

which would currently be approximately another $70 billion. Then we

need to decide what course of action

will indeed bring us out of this tragic

situation.

I think that it may be idealistic,

Pollyannaistic, to think we can get together and do this on a bipartisan

basis, but we ought to. The American

people are not looking for partisan answers. The American people are not

asking what is the Democrat plan,

what is the Republican plan, what is

the President’s plan. They are asking

‘‘What is a plan that will work for us?

What is a plan that will allow us to

continue to grow our economy, to invest in our children, to invest in education, and eliminate this millstone

around the necks of our economy and

those of us as individuals?’’

I submit that a plan of this type has

been submitted by the Democratic coalition.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from California [Mr. STARK], is recognized for 21⁄2 minutes.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr.

Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman

from Mississippi, and perhaps I could

engage my distinguished ranking senior vice chairman in this colloquy for

the minute or two remaining on our

side.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr.

Chairman, let me begin by saying that

I am very much in agreement with the

fact that we have to balance the budget

and balance it soon. I really resent,

however, speaker after speaker coming

to the podium telling people what a

terrible Nation we have. This Nation

saved the world from Hitler. This Nations saved the world from the imperial

Japanese. This Nation saved the world

from communism. This Nation saved

the world, and all of it has a cost.

The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

SAXTON], in his statements, said we

would be much better off if we privatize everything. I am not in total

disagreement that we ought to privatize some things. However, is it not

realistic that the biggest expense to

this Nation is the combined MedicareMedicaid? The next biggest expense is

national defense. The third largest expense is interest on the national debt.

I would ask the gentleman from New

Jersey, which of those things would he

privatize, because we have just gobbled

up almost 70 percent of the budget.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5133

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman

from New Jersey to respond.

Mr. SAXTON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, it was the gentleman’s assumption, or maybe he heard me say we

would privatize everything. I do not recall saying that. I do not think I did.

Obviously, I would not privatize national defense, nor does our budget pretend to do so. We do not privatize Medicare or Medicaid. As a matter of fact,

it continues to grow under our program, as a very important part of our

budget and our program. In fact, it

grows from an average benefit of $4,600

per recipient to $6,300 per recipient.

b 1630

Mr. STARK. The gentleman is close

to being correct as he usually is.

Mr. SAXTON. We really do not propose to do the things that the gentleman has suggested.

Mr. STARK. Reclaiming my time,

the gentleman is close to being accurate as he usually is on economic matters, but when it comes to discussing

the privatization of Medicare, he is

wrong.

The secret document wants to offer

vouchers which will make it difficult

for your parents and mine and the average elderly to purchase health care.

it is a step toward privatization, perhaps dressed in some kind of economic

clothes that neither of us understand if

that is the case.

I want to thank the gentleman from

Mississippi for bringing out that privatization is not the end all and be all

to economic growth.

I would like to ask the distinguished

gentleman from New York if the budget that is generally described as the

Black Caucus budget is not a product

of the same group that year after year

has brought us a budget that has tried

to be sensible about defense, has held

back tax cuts to the very rich while

concerning itself with children, with

education, with investment and research for health care, with the things

that have made this country great, indeed, the things that create wealth in

this country only through Government.

If you could tell me where Lockheed

or Martin Marietta gets any money to

create wealth except through Uncle

Sam, I think I miss my guess.

I ask the gentleman from New York

[Mr. OWENS], is your budget balanced

in the long run and if so how long?

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, if the

gentleman will yield, our budget is balanced——

The CHAIRMAN. All time for the

gentleman from California [Mr. STARK]

has expired. The gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. SAXTON] has 2 minutes left.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

the final 2 minutes of our time to the

gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GANSKE],

the doctor, who would like to discuss

the subject that the gentleman from

Mississippi [Mr. TAYLOR] brought up,

Medicare and the Republican proposal

to make it grow.

(Mr. GANSKE asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, there will

be much talk about the Republican

budget cutting Medicare and how Republicans do not care about Medicare

recipients.

Well, I am a Republican and a physician and I care deeply about providing

quality care for the elderly and about

balancing the budget.

The Medicare trust fund will be

broke in the year 2002. Here is the

trustees’ report. Let me read from page

13. ‘‘The Medicare program is clearly

unsustainable in its present form.’’

Page 14. The trustees say, ‘‘We

strongly recommend that the crisis

presented by the financial condition of

the Medicare Trust Funds be urgently

addressed.’’

What is the option the Democrats are

proposing? Should we let the system go

bankrupt in 2002? If we do that, we will

have to increase the Medicare tax from

2.9 to 9 percent. If we don’t control

over 10 percent annual increases in

Medicare growth, it does not take a

neurosurgeon to figure out that in 30

years we will be spending the entire

Federal budget on health care.

As a member of the Subcommittee on

Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce, I look forward to

working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues. It will take some

short-term solutions and some longterm fundamental changes, but we

need to look at this. But the facts of

this report and the compounding of interest on our national debt mean that

if we diet now, we will be healthier tomorrow. If we continue the status quo,

we will have a heart attack tomorrow.

Let me quote President Clinton.

President Clinton has said:

Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up

at three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of

inflation. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid

cut. So, you know, only in Washington do

people believe that no one can get by on

twice the rate of inflation. So when you hear

all this business about cuts, let me caution

you that that is not what is going on. We are

going to have increases in Medicare and

Medicaid.

Mr. Chairman, I care about my Medicare patients, and I want to make sure

they have Medicare.

The CHAIRMAN. All time yielded to

the Joint Economic Committee has expired.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] has 120 minutes of debate time remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. SABO] has 119 minutes 40

seconds remaining.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Ohio [Mr. KASICH].

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we want to kind of

give Members a little background on

how we put this together. As I pointed

out earlier in the debate, we are going

to go from $9.4 trillion spent over the

last 7 years to $11.9 trillion. As you can

tell, that is an increase in spending

over the last 7 years, and if, in fact, we

had stayed a course to the $13 trillion,

folks, we would be very, very pessimistic about the long-term economic

health of this country.

One of the things that we tried to do

is to slow the growth of entitlement

programs. Many people watching on

TV, and trying to figure out what is

this all about, keep hearing about cuts

in all these entitlements.

What you have to understand is in

Washington if something does not go

up as fast as somebody thinks it ought

to go up, it is a cut.

I want to tell you an interesting, illustrative story about an interview I

had with a reporter. The reporter said,

‘‘Well, Mr. KASICH, how do you define a

cut and how do you define an increase?’’

I said, ‘‘Well, let me put it to you in

these terms, and you ought to take

some notes on this. If, in fact, I get

more money this year than I got last

year, that is an increase, and if I get

less money this year than I got last

year, we are going to call that a cut,

and if I get the same amount of money

this year as I got last year, let’s call

that a freeze.’’

Now, I said, that is the way it works

back in Westerville. A cut means less,

an increase means more, and a freeze is

a freeze.

In entitlement spending, we are

going to go from $4.5 to $6.4 trillion.

Folks, you can see the blocks. It is an

increase.

Medicare is going to go from about

$890 billion to $1.6 trillion. That is an

increase.

What we have attempted to do in this

budget is to slow the increase in many

of these entitlement programs. In

other words, when you take all the entitlement programs of the Federal Government over the next 7 years, we will

have to design entitlement programs

that will serve the public by spending

almost $6.5 trillion.

When I go home and ask people, ‘‘Do

you think we can design the entitlement programs to spend $6.5 trillion?’’

they say, ‘‘Well, yeah, but why are you

spending $6.5 trillion? Why are you

spending so much?’’

Down here in Washington if you say

you are spending $6.5 trillion, they say

you are cutting somebody.

People tell me on buses, on airplanes,

in the gymnasium, ‘‘JOHN, why can’t

we get the language right? Why can’t

we describe this appropriately?’’

Mr. Chairman, what we are doing in

these entitlement programs, except for

agriculture, is that we are going to

spend more, far more than what we

spent over the last 7 years, but we have

to do it because we have people in need

and we are trying to redesign the programs.

In the case of Medicare, which we

will discuss later, we are saving it. If

we grow Medicare at the rate that it is

currently going, it goes bankrupt. Medicare will go bankrupt. So what we are
H 5134 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

attempting to do is to study the experience in the private sector. Many companies were going bankrupt. They

could not control their health care

costs.

What we have done is, we have said

that we are going to slow the growth in

Medicare because if we do not, it will

go bankrupt in 7 years. In fact, we will

be able to go, under our plan, from

$4,800 per recipient to $6,400 per percipient over the next 7 years. They call

this a cut. $4,800 to $6,400, they say you

are cutting spending.

The big chart shows that we are

going to go from $924 billion to almost

$1.6 trillion. They want to grow it to

$1.8 trillion, which will bankrupt the

system, and by us going from $924 billion to $1.5 trillion, they call that a

cut.

If you are out in America and you are

scratching your head about these numbers, you have a right to, because we

are not cutting entitlements. We are

growing entitlements at a somewhat

slower rate.

In the area of discretionary spending,

those are the nonentitlement programs. By the way, if we can control

those entitlements, we will not be robbing from children’s futures in this

country.

Let me tell you about some of our

programs here on the discretionary

side: One hundred and sixty-three separate job training programs; 23 separate

programs to prevent child abuse; 8 separate programs dealing with child care;

7 separate child nutrition programs; 42

separate programs to give health professionals education; 300 separate economic development agencies; 71 departments and agencies duplicating the

function of Commerce. That is why we

eliminate the Commerce Department.

Nine agencies promoting trade.

All this excess, all this duplication

and bureaucracy and excess, and guess

what? You have to pay for it. It is not

right that you are paying for those programs.

What we do is, we consolidate, we

eliminate, we send some back to the

States, we privatize others. What we do

is, we slow the total growth in spending in this country to an increase of

about $2 trillion.

Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the

matter is that by consolidating all

those programs, by slowing the growth

of entitlement programs, it is a modest

program, ladies and gentlemen, we will

save America. Just that simple.

If we do not do it, if we continue to

grow at the current rate and let all the

bureaucracy continue and let the entitlements shoot out through the roof,

we are taking from the children, denying them a future.

I think we can live with this. You

want to know something? So do the

American people. That is why Members

of Congress are getting such support

for the plan that we present, and at

this point we are going to give a little

more detail to lay this out for you.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. WAXMAN].

(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to address the

House on the impact of this budget in

the health area, particularly when it

comes to Medicaid and Medicare.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to

the previous speaker and others who

these Medicare recipients are. They are

not rich people. Over three-fourths of

them have incomes less than $25,000.

They are people who are dependent on

their Social Security checks. Thirty

percent of older Americans rely on Social Security for some 80 percent of

their incomes. A majority of older

Americans rely on Social Security for

at least half of their income.

If this Republican budget is adopted,

the typical Medicare beneficiary is

going to see almost 50 percent of their

Social Security cost-of-living increases

eaten up by increased Medicare cost

sharing and premiums by the year 2002.

Two million Americans who are on the

Medicare Program would lose their

whole cost of living increase under Social Security simply to pay their additional Medicare costs as a result of this

budget.

Are my Republican colleagues going

to say to their constituents, that is not

really a cut in their Social Security

check? Are they going to argue then

that even though the cost of living has

gone up and their Social Security

check has not, that they are not worse

off?

There is something else about the

Medicare beneficiaries that our Republican colleagues seem to forget. They

are people who need a lot of health

care. That is particularly true the

older they get. When they get old and

when they get sick, insurance companies do not seem to want them.

The fastest growing group of Medicare beneficiaries are people over 85

years of age, the disabled, and people

with end stage renal disease. No wonder Medicare expenditures are growing.

It costs money to be sick.

They also seem to forget that people

on Medicare pay a lot for their health

care right now. The average elderly

household pays 12 percent of its income

for health care right now, and that is

over 3 times as much as younger families pay. They pay Medicare premiums

and deductibles, Medigap premiums.

They pay for prescription drugs which

are not covered under Medicare, and

they spend about $2,750 out of pocket

right now. Yet this budget will require

them to pay more.

b 1645

A Medicare beneficiary will have to

pay nearly $1,000 dollars more out of

pocket for their Medicare services in

2002 and over the life of this budget.

Medicare beneficiaries are going to

help balance the budget by coughing up

some $3,500 in extra dollars to pay for

their Medicare services.

This budget is very bad news for

these people. I urge its rejection.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. LYNN RIVERS], a distinguished member of our

committee.

Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, throughout the course of the discussion today

we have seen many attempts to explain

away the concerns that are being

raised about the cuts in Medicare and

programs for children and students. We

have seen a variety of facts and figures

produced to explain why these issues

really should not count. And we have

been accused of using demagogery to

make our point.

We have also heard over and over

again about only in Washington can

this happen or that happen and what

the American people will support.

I decided that it was important not

to speak as someone from Washington,

but to let the American people speak

themselves. This is a portion of the

mail I have received on one of the cuts

currently in the proposal which would

eliminate home heating subsidies for

older people and low-income people.

This is what some folks in my district

had to say about that.

One woman said,

I feel sorry for all older people. Its too bad

that we have to live so long.

Another person writes that they will

not be able to pay for their necessities.

For God’s sake, please don’t stop this. I am

disabled senior citizen of 73. I only make $462

in Social Security and $16 a month in SSI.

Seems like people on Capitol Hill really

don’t care about us poor people. They are

trying to put us into homelessness or make

us commit suicide.

A woman writes,

The money I receive for my home heating

credit helps me buy my pills for my heart

and then I won’t skip them. I can take my

pills every day.

Another person writes,

I have to cut back even further on my $546

monthly income. I’m 91 and use more heat

than others. I just had a severe heart attack.

Another woman writes,

People like myself, senior citizens, will

suffer greatly. The winters in Michigan are

very hard on disabled, old and the sick.

She is 97.

One senior writes,

Being seniors you have to stay warm with

less heat. As you get older, it gets colder.

Another person writes,

We will have another drop in our living

standard and the bottom is coming up fast.

Please do not eliminate these services.

Another person writes,

I will be facing another severe hardship on

top of the present one. Can you imagine my

wife and I getting $695 a month and paying

$335 to our HAP alone. Buying our medicine

and as little food as possible to survive and

we cannot afford any luxuries whatsoever

and are unable to pay our utility and other

necessary bills. We did work hard all our

lives and helped pay into the system. So

please help us help ourselves. Just help us to

survive the rest of our lives.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5135

Last, someone writes,

We come very short on our money during

the winter. Our only source of income is my

husband’s Social Security disability. I think

the Republicans have gone too far to help

the rich.

Mr. Chairman, I would have to agree.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4

minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER].

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding time

to me, and I thank the gentleman from

Minnesota who has provided such leadership on our side on this.

This is about promises made and

promises broken, and I think that we

really have to look at the very core of

what we are talking about. It must be

confusing to people, because people are

trying to make out like we are not for

balancing the budget. Yes, we are. We

worried about the deficit. We started

this whole deficit reduction last year

all by ourselves.

But the question is how do you balance the budget, and who do you cut in

getting to balance that budget.

I want to ask you to show me one

American family where they come to

the table to put together their budget

and they decide that they are going to

cut the kids and they are going to cut

the elderly and they are going to cut

the infirm so they can give more

money from the family budget to those

who are doing really well already. As I

said, that is socialism for the rich.

That is the dysfunctional family. That

is not American values, and yet, that is

what we are doing in this budget that

is in front of us.

I brought Stephanie Clark along. She

is from Denver. Stephanie Clark is very

excited. Because of student loans she is

finally graduating this year from CU

Denver and she had hoped to be able to

go on to Americorps. Guess what?

Americorps is going away, and student

loans are going to be severely impacted.

This is our future. These are the people who want to learn how to fish; they

do not want to be given a fish, but they

need help to get there.

As we look at this budget and we see

that we cannot get a commitment on

cutting back a lot of the benefits that

business had, even the $25 billion that

they have in the budget to take it out

of the tax pennies for the rich, guess

what, the committee is saying they

will not do it.

As we look at all of the other things

that are in there that are not being

touched, because there are big, powerful people protecting those pet rocks,

the people we are going after are the

Stephanie Clarks of Denver, we are

going after the elderly on Medicare

who thought they had a Contract With

America already. And we are going

after the most vulnerable.

I keep coming back to the same old

thing. You do not attack your most

vulnerable. Either we are a community

or a bunch of isolated individuals,

which I hope we are not, or we are a

community of a country that reaches

out and tries to help each other

through some sort of shared ethic.

That is what it is about.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Of course I yield

to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for her statement which talks

about Medicare. But there is Medicare

and Medicaid and our poorest of the

poor are on the Medicaid Program. In

fact most of the people on Medicaid are

children, but most of the money goes

to the elderly in nursing homes. That

program is going to be devastated, it is

going to be devastated, it is going to be

blockgranted and cut in the amount

that will go to the States.

But I just recall hearing from Edna

Ferris, who talked to us at a conference on Monday. She talked about

how they struggled with her husband

who had Alzheimer’s, she tried to keep

him home as long as she could. When

she could not manage it anymore, she

looked to the Medicaid Program to

help pay for the nursing home costs,

which can be $35,000 a year, and more,

and she did not have that money. So

she went on Medicaid and the Medicaid

Program kept her from being impoverished, allowed her to keep some of

their money so she could live at home.

If she had no Medicaid to protect her,

all of her resources would have gone to

that nursing-home care, and maybe her

husband would not have been able to

get in the nursing home because they

are not going to take somebody for

free.

So these programs help the most vulnerable in our population, and we

should not forget that.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman is

absolutely correct. I just did a talk

radio show where I talked to a woman

who had adopted three medically dependent children and desperately needed Medicaid to help her, and I pointed

out that was cheaper than institutionalization.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4

minutes to the gentleman from New

York [Mr. LAZIO], a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to

the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding.

We have been looking at pictures

here, and I just want to show this picture here. This is Ari Cowan. His father

is one of our budget staff people. Ari is

a 3-year-old. This to me is what this is

all about. This is the young generation

we are talking about saving America

for and being sure that they have a balanced budget.

And just before we resumed this part

of the debate I was back in the back

talking to the pages, and I think of the

young people like Abby Moon from

Ohio and Vanessa Ruggles, Nick Ryan,

Tammy Brewer, Nancy Brim from my

own hometown, this is the young generation that we are talking about. This

is what we are talking about saving

America for. Let us not forget that.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to

the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding.

The distinguished gentleman from

California talked about Medicare. We

want to save Medicare. We do not want

it to go bankrupt. It starts to go bankrupt next year, and in 7 years it is

bankrupt, and the Congressional Budget Office said in the next 3 years after

we spend more on Medicare than they

do, because their fund runs out, Medicare Part A. This is the Democratic

plan to solve and resolve the Medicare

trust fund problem. It is a blank sheet.

That is their plan.

And the gentlewoman from Colorado

talks about she wants to balance the

budget. She voted against the balanced

budget amendment. My only question

is if she wants to balance the budget,

when, and how.

Mr. LAZIO of New York. The gentleman is correct, that my colleagues

on the other side, whom I respect and

in many cases admire, have had plenty

of opportunities to move toward a balanced budget. They had an opportunity

to vote for a balanced budget amendment and voted against it because they

said there were not enough specifics.

Then they were given the specifics and

they said these were the wrong specifics. Then I began to be lectured as a

dad who has two small children, two

preschool children, Molly and Kelsey. I

do not have a picture of my children

here. Maybe I should have brought one,

but you know this blank easel next to

me should be for all of the children we

are trying to save here today.

These are two of the most important

days that I think I will have in my

service in Congress, and I believe deeply in what I am doing here. I believe

deeply because I want to be able to go

back and tuck my kids in bed at night

and say to them they are going to have

a better future, we are not going to

pass the buck, we are not going to

punt, we are not going to get involved

in political demagoguery. We are going

to do the right thing. Republicans

know it and Democrats know it. The

debt is out of control. It erodes the

ability for the next generation to have

hope. It erodes their ability to have a

sense of opportunity. We are doing

something about it right now.

I really invite my colleagues on the

other side who are bent on name-calling and lecturing about compassion to

reevaluate their sense of compassion.

What compassion is there when we are

spending today billions of dollars that

the next generation has got to pay

back. What compassion is it when we

cannot provide an opportunity for the

next generation, when they cannot go
H 5136 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

to school and they cannot find a job

after they go to school because they

are so burdened with debt that there

are no jobs left.

So, I really beseech my colleagues on

the other side, who I respect, do not

lecture us about compassion, because I

think it is misplaced.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud member of the House Budget Committee, but more

importantly, I rise as the proud father of two

young daughters, Molly and Kelsey. More than

anything else in the world, I want to ensure

that my two daughters have the opportunities

that past generations of Americans have enjoyed and that they are not burdened by the

shortsightedness of this body.

For reasons that my children, who are 2 and

3 years old, are still too young to realize, our

actions today will have a profound effect on

their future. America has always been known

as the land of hope and opportunity. This is

what I ask for my children and therefore ask

my colleagues to think toward the future when

they casts their votes on the budgets before

the House.

As members of this body we have a moral

imperative to pass this resolution and balance

the budget. Without it our children will face uncertain futures in which they will face unimaginable obstacles. The late Senator J. William

Fullbright once said, ‘‘A nation’s budget is full

of moral implications; it tells what a society

cares about and what it does not care about;

it tells what its values are.’’ With this vote, we

send a strong moral message that the status

quo is unacceptable, a $4.8 trillion debt is unacceptable, annual deficits close to $200 billion are unacceptable, and it is unacceptable

for Congress to continue running from these

problems without consideration for America’s

future. This budget represents hope, opportunity, and a positive vision for the future.

The budget we reported from the Budget

Committee last week represents an historic

change in the direction our country is headed.

It moves us from the path of increasing debt

and inefficient, big centralized government toward a government that is smaller, more decentralized and efficient and a country that will

be more productive, with a higher rate of net

savings and a higher standard of living. It is a

budget that outlines a positive future for our

country, a future filled with hope and opportunity. We cannot continue on our current

spending binge.

The public debt now totals almost $4.8 trillion—about $19,000 for every man, woman

and child in the United States. A large part of

our taxes go to the interest payments on this

debt, $235 billion—$643 million per day—this

year alone. Interest payments on the Federal

debt are behind only Social Security and National Defense as the third largest single expenditure in this budget. By 1997, Americans

could be paying more for the debt than for defense.

Without the spending changes in this budget, the national debt is projected to reach almost $7.5 trillion by the year 2005, with interest payments of $412 billion. Unless we control spending now, servicing the national debt

will crowd out all other priorities in the Federal

budget.

Last fall the American people made a

choice and gave Republicans a majority in

Congress. They did so because they did not

want the status quo, they wanted responsible,

positive change. Most of all, they wanted Congress to quit ducking the tough issues and to

take action. This budget fulfills our promise to

provide that positive, responsible change.

Unfortunately, when the President submitted

his budget this year, he punted, ducking all

the tough choices.

My friends on the other side of the aisle

who opposed the constitutional amendment to

balance the budget said they agreed with the

goal, but they did not want to change the Constitution to force balanced budget. Faced with

a budget that will be balanced, these same

Democrats say they do not like it. It is now

clear that Democrats who opposed the balanced budget amendment really opposed balanced budgets period.

Out budget tackles the tough issues head

on. Our budget problems will not go away. In

fact, each year we avoid making tough

choices, they get even more difficult.

While the committee’s budget is tough, it

also is fair. Overall, Federal spending will continue to increase, but the rate of growth will

slow to allow revenues to catch up. Every part

of the country is affected. No group or program is unaffected. It affects our urban areas,

as well as our rural areas.

The critics will say the public will not accept

it. Those critics are wrong. The American people are prepared for change as long as they

know it was fairly and thoughtfully arrived at

by their elected representatives. They are willing to put up with these changes because they

know in the long run the changes are necessary to ensure the American dream—that

each generation will do better than their parents, that America will remain the land of hope

and opportunity.

This budget plan will make this country

stronger for our generation, and for generations to come. A balanced budget will produce

lower interest rates, higher productivity, improved purchasing power, reduced inflation,

and accelerated long-term growth. With this

proposal, we are setting the stage for a higher

standard of living for all of our children and

our children’s children.

Total government taxes per household,

measured in 1990 dollars, were $18,500 in

1994, nearly three times their level in 1950.

Federal taxes as a share of median income

have risen from 5 percent in 1950 to 15 percent in 1970 to 24.5 percent in 1995. If taxes

today were at the same level as they were in

1970, the average family would keep $4,000 a

year more of their take-home pay.

Americans are paying for the debt in other

ways. Government borrowing competes with

the private sector in the credit markets, forcing

interest rates higher. Interest rates would be 2

percentage points lower if the budget were

balanced. That means a 30-year mortgage on

a $150,000 home costs $74,000 more today

over the life of the loan than it would if the

budget were balanced. Auto and consumer

loans also would be more affordable.

Balancing the budget and the accompanying

2 percent interest rate reduction would create

4.25 million more jobs over the next 10 years,

and increase per capita income by 16.1 percent. The Congressional Budget Office says a

balanced budget would redirect resources

from consumption to investment, increasing

the Nation’s capital stock and national wealth.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan

testified to the Budget Committee in March

that the economic benefits of a balanced

budget would be startling. ‘‘I think that productivity would accelerate,’’ Greenspan said, ‘‘the

inflation rate would be subdued . . . the general state of financial markets would be far

more solid, and the underlying outlook would

be generally improved for long-term economic

growth. Real incomes . . . would significantly

improve, long-term interest rates would fall

significantly, and they [most Americans] would

look forward to their children doing better than

they.’’

The committee’s budget is a gateway to a

future filled with hope and opportunity. It presents a new vision of government. It begins to

move authority out of Washington and will

help empower every individual American. It

gives the relief for America’s families. It protects Social Security. It saves Medicare from

bankruptcy, spends 80 billion more—almost 4

percent more while increasing per beneficiary

Medicare spending from the current $4,700 to

$6,400 per year.

By adopting the committee’s budget today,

we will have kept our word to the American

people and met the challenge they placed before us. When I put my daughters to bed tomorrow night I will know that we have done

the morally right thing and helped pave the

way for prosperity for them and for all future

generations.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York

[Mrs. LOWEY].

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given

permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just

hung up the phone on Minnie Wilensky

from Queens County. She cannot even

watch this debate because she cannot

afford cable. You can talk about big

numbers and little numbers and how

we have to raise it and cut it. All she

knows is that her copayments are

going to go up and her premiums are

going to go up and she will not get a

cost-of-living increase in Social Security. And Minnie Wilensky, who is

making constant choices about whether she buys the chicken or whether she

cannot buy the chicken, because she

lives on $11,000 a year, I just want to

tell you the story because it is not a

number in your statistics. Minnie lives

in Queens County and she knows it is

going to cost her more and she is going

to pay more for the choice of doctor

and more premiums and more

deductibles, and that is what she

knows.

Day after day we have heard how the

Republicans have kept their promises

to the American people. One after another the Republicans told us that

promises made are promises kept. Well,

Mr. Chairman, today we learn that Republican promises made are Republican

promises broken, a promise broken to a

person like Minnie Wilensky from

Queens County. Now, Speaker GINGRICH

and the Republican majority promised

that they would not cut her Social Security benefits, but they are going to

cut her COLA. They promised not to

cut her Medicare, but they are going to

raise her fees that she is going to have

to pay. What is the truth? What does
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5137

the new budget say? The Republican

budget does cut $24 billion from Social

Security. Seniors who have worked

hard their whole lives will lose hundreds of dollars in Social Security benefits. Social Security is a contract. The

Republican majority has been saying

that for years. They said they would

not touch it. Well, they have, they

have broken that contract into pieces.

They are proposing the largest Medicare cut in history, close to $300 billion.

The bill will cost individual seniors

over $1,000 more a year for Medicare

benefits by the year 2002. How will this

affect real people like Minnie

Wilensky? She has a heart condition.

She has glaucoma. She and so many

other seniors in my district cannot afford what they are already paying in

prescription copayments and

deductibles. How are they possibly

going to afford these increases?

As I mentioned, she lives on $11,600 a

year. She was telling me, ‘‘I am grateful for what I have got, but I have to

make choices. If I have to buy more

medicine, I cannot buy the chicken. If

I have to buy more in a grocery store,

I have to constantly make those

choices.’’

b 1700

How can she possibly afford these increases? And she is also worried about

her generation; she is worried about

her grandchildren, not only her own

generation. She worries that her grandchildren will not be able to afford to go

to college. She told me that with the

average increase of $5,000 which is proposed in this budget, they are not

going to be able to go to college.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget

breaks faith with the millions of American seniors, like Minnie Wilensky,

who depend on Medicare and Social Security. This is how the Republicans

kept their promise, cutting Medicare,

cutting Social Security, cutting education.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.

PARKER].

(Mr. PARKER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. PARKER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I just

wanted to say to the gentlewoman

from New York, where did Minnie get

this information about there is not

going to be as much Medicare, their

money is going to be cut, she is going

to have to pay more? Where on Earth?

Did you tell her this personally?

The other thing I would like to say,

since you did not yield me any time, I

will not yield you any now, but the

other thing I wanted to say is simply

this: You are complaining about a cut

in Social Security that does not exist,

and yet in 1993, you voted for the Clinton tax bill that actually did, in fact,

cut Social Security by $26 billion. You

cannot have it the both ways.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, it will

come as no surprise to anybody in this

body that I rise to express my unbending and total support for the Kasich

budget resolution reported by the

House Committee on the Budget.

There is not a person in this body

who does not have at the very core of

their being the best interests of this

Nation at heart. There is not a Member

of this body on either side of the aisle

who does not want this Nation to grow

and to prosper and to achieve what it

has always achieved, and that is being

a world leader and standing for what is

right.

The real question that we have is not

whether we want what is best for this

country, but how we can best achieve

those goals. For a long time we have

spent our time talking about programs

and how much each of us cares about

people. Politically, we all attack each

other blindly.

For instance, in the past, it was not

true when some Republicans attacked

Democrats saying they were not patriotic for their stand on one issue or the

other. It is equally untrue when Democrats point to Republicans and say

they do not care. They do care. I think

we all care.

But how do we get to that point

where fiscal responsibility brings this

Nation back into the mainstream? It

would have been unheard of even a year

ago for anyone to say that we would be

moving toward a balanced budget by

the year 2002.

I am in my fourth term and I had

thought it would never happen. I had

reached the point of believing it just

could not happen. I think the key has

been to have a date certain because it

forces the issue. We are now in a situation where we must move to a date certain—2002—and the debate has shifted

from not whether the budget should be

in balance but how and what priorities

should be established to get the budget

in balance. That is a major shift in the

thought processes that occur on Capitol Hill.

I want to express my appreciation to

JOHN KASICH, chairman of the House

Budget Committee, and all of the Republican members who invited me to

work with them in developing this

budget. There was a tremendous

amount of give-and-take. And I believe

we have developed a product that

makes sense and puts us on that road.

Granted, we have the Senate which has

a different version. We have different

versions here in the House. But I firmly believe that the path we are taking

as members of the Budget Committee

in passing out this piece of legislation

is the correct path.

Now there are those that say, ‘‘Well,

the cuts are so horrendous—draconian

in nature.’’ Please understand that the

amount of money the Federal Government spends will continue to rise. Each

year it will continue to increase. The

Federal Government will spend more

money next year than it will this year.

It will spend more in 2002 than it has

ever spent before. What we are trying

to do is slow down the rate of growth.

I know that a lot of discussion has

taken place on programs such as Medicare. But the system is going broke.

Something must be done to change the

direction of Medicare or it will not be

there. And it is important for the

American people to understand that

everyone must participate.

One of the major arguments that I

had on the committee with other members, those on the Republican side, is

that they wanted to exempt Social Security. I have a problem with that. I

believe that senior citizens care about

this country as much as we do, and I

believe that they be given the opportunity to participate—that everyone

should be treated the same. But, the

Republicans won that argument. Social

Security is untouched in this budget.

I am not suggesting elimination or

the cutting of Social Security. What I

want them to do is to participate in an

equal way in which everyone is treated

the same. That is fairness. I believe

that instead of us trying to scare people and put them in a position of being

afraid that the money they have come

to depend on will be cut out, that they

need to look at this process from the

standpoint of purchasing power and the

economic stability of our Nation.

When Alan Greenspan came to our

committee, he made the statement

that not since World War I has our

economy ever experienced the pluses of

a balanced budget, that we have never

experienced what the positive aspects

can be for this Nation if we are at a

balanced budget. We need to look to

the future. We need to look and see exactly what the pluses are going to be

for everybody. And it is just like my

friend PETE GEREN has said, it is like

finding the cure for cancer—but nobody

wants to talk about the cure. All they

want to do is talk about the chemotherapy you have to go through in

order to get to wholeness.

Well, there is pain in this budget. No

one with any common sense in this

country has ever felt or ever said that

we can resolve our financial situation

and get back into a surplus without

pain. We did not get into it overnight,

and we are not going to get out of it

overnight. And we all have to accept

some responsibility for that. This is

the first step on that road.

Many people have said they have a

problem as far as the tax decrease. But

2 years ago, we had a tax increase that

I voted against. I did not feel that we

should go in that direction. I felt that

we should cut spending first. I believe

that we need to roll it back. The bill 2

years ago was a tax increase of $246 billion over 5 years. The tax cut that we

have in this package is $281 billion over

7 years. I believe this tax cut will relieve some of the pain during readjustment. But more than that I believe
H 5138 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

that this budget puts in place a system

where we are on the glide slope to a

balanced budget, and that we can make

a difference.

In the words of the ultimate Republican Abraham Lincoln, ‘‘There are few

things wholly evil or wholly good. Almost everything, especially of Government policy, is an inseparable

compound of the two, so that our best

judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.’’

Alan Greenspan said that all the talk

about the next generation not having a

better standard of living than the previous generation will be gone if we are

on a line to a balanced budget. If successful, we will unleash the power of

our economy, the most powerful now,

the most powerful that has ever been

in the history of the world. An economy that can do phenomenal astounding things. We have to release the restrictions placed on us by the deficit

and the debt. If you look at fairness,

everyone participates. It is a fair budget. It is a hard budget. But it has to be

hard in order to make it work.

For a long time, there have been

many of us who have been pushing for

us to get out fiscal house in order. The

amazing thing about it is that if we

had done this 10 years ago, it would

have been so much easier. We could

have made the necessary changes—we

did not do it. Many people blame Ronald Reagan and the early 1980’s. That

is, to some degree, true. There were

problems back then—things were not

handled right by either the Republicans or Democrats. But I think we

need to go back further than that, back

to the mid 1960’s when we put entitlement programs on automatic pilot and

Congress abdicated its responsibility.

Compound interest is a fascinating

thing when we put all these entitlement programs on automatic pilot, we

abdicated our responsibility. What happened was we just sat back and our

debt reached a trillion dollars by the

time we reached the 1980’s. And when

you start dealing with figures like

that, you see growth that is devastating. Now we are approaching $5 trillion

in debt.

We cannot sustain the debt that we

have and the growth in deficit that we

have. It cannot be sustained. And from

a generational standpoint, when you

look at our kids and our grandchildren,

in order to maintain the programs that

are in place, if the status quo exists,

they are going to be paying from 75 to

84 percent of their salaries to the Federal Government just to maintain the

programs that are there.

It has not worked. The status quo is

destroying us. And just like when

many Republicans believed we must

throw more and more money at Defense, that wasn’t the answer. We wasted a lot of money. The same is true of

throwing more and more money at social programs, where a lot of them

don’t do any good. It is not working.

We must change.

All of us care. All of us want to do

what’s right. All of us love this Nation.

But I believe the real choice is whether

we really want a balanced budget. Do

we really want it? Are we willing to

pay the price to get to that point? You

will vote for any bill that you want.

But, in the final analysis, the bill that

has been reported out of the Budget

Committee, is going to be the bill that

is going to make it or not.

I believe it is going to make it this

week. And if you really believe in a

balanced budget, if you really believe

that we must change the course of this

Nation, if you really believe that we

need fiscal responsibility to come back

in and be an integral part of our decisionmaking, if you really believe we

need to take the first step to let the

American people know we are serious

about this problem, then you must

vote for this.

I know all the political arguments. I

know a lot of people are going to be

calling. I know that a lot of people are

going to be upset. In fact, I think everyone is going to be upset before it is

all over with. But it is about time. It is

about time that everyone in this country got upset. It is about time that

they realize we need to do something.

It is about time they decided that they

need to participate. The time has

come. And I am very happy to be able

to vote for this budget.

I am glad that I have been permitted

to be here on this historic week, to participate in this process where we can

actually make a difference—a true difference for this country where I can

look at my children and say I had a

part in changing the direction of this

country. And I did not worry about the

political ramifications and I did not

worry about my political future—I did

what I felt was necessary.

That is what I want each of you to

do. I want you to search your heart and

do what you feel is right. If you disagree, then disagree; you have every

right to disagree. But if you are like

me and you feel that the time is come

to change the course of this Nation, I

ask you to join me and proudly vote for

this budget.

Earlier I quoted President Lincoln,

let me close with these words from

John F. Kennedy:

. . . Democracy means much more than

popular government and majority rule, much

more than a system of political techniques

to flatter or deceive powerful blocs of voters.

. . . The true democracy, living and growing

and inspiring, puts its faith in the people—

faith that the people will not simply elect

men who will represent their views ably and

faithfully, but also elect men who will exercise their conscientious judgment—faith

that the people will not condemn those

whose devotion to principle leads them to

unpopular courses, but will reward courage,

respect honor and ultimately recognize

right.

I ask each of you to please join with

me. Let us pass the committee budget—it is the right thing to do.

b 1715

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20

seconds to the gentlewoman from New

York [Mrs. LOWEY].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just

think it is important for me to respond

to the gentleman from Ohio who asked

me how Minnie Wilensky from Queens

County knew about the increase in the

deductible, the increase and the

copayment, and I think it is very important that we be honest in this debate. I say to the gentleman, page 5,

page 18 of your budget, Mr. KASICH,

talks about——

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.

LOWEY] has expired.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. WATERS].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the

senior citizens in my district are in

fundamental opposition to the Republican budget, and I rise to support

them.

All is not well in America today. The

wages of working people are stagnant.

Corporations downsize or flee our

shores altogether in search of cheap

labor. Fewer workers have pensions to

look forward to in old age and employers seek to squeeze employee health

benefits.

Tragically, this budget does not address those fundamental problems. Instead, it would cut taxes for the rich,

and—amazingly—it would pay for those

tax cuts by cutting Medicare.

This Republican budget is an assault

on the Medicare Program. We have a

compact with our senior citizens. Between Social Security and Medicare,

this country has reduced elderly poverty, tended to the sick, and assisted in

long-term care for our mothers, our fathers, and our grandparents. With this

budget, Mr. Chairman, all this could

come to an end.

To our shock, this Republican budget

would destroy years of trust between

the Federal Government and seniors.

The $283 billion in Medicare cuts would

have several different consequences.

Many costs that are currently paid by

the Medicare Program would probably

be shifted to Medicare beneficiaries in

the form of higher premiums, deductions, and coinsurance payments, such

as the proposed 20 percent home health

coinsurance.

Let me share the story of my friend

and constituent, Mrs. Pat Eastman.

Mrs. Eastman is a World War II veteran. She is 82 years old and lives

alone. Mrs. Eastman has numerous

medical problems. While she is a veteran, she does not qualify for medical

service through the VA because she is

not 50 percent service-connected disabled. Mrs. Eastman has to pay someone to transport her back and forth to

the VA for outpatient care. She has to

pay a copayment for her medications.

Recently, Mrs. Eastman was hospitalized for severe infections from Ecoli

bacteria.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5139

Since her discharge from the hospital, Mrs. Eastman has had to rely on

the services of a visiting home nurse

who comes to her home three times a

week. Without these home health services, paid for by Medicare, Mrs. Eastman would have had to remain in the

hospital or be transferred to a skilled

nursing facility.

Mrs. Eastman has a long history of

service to the Los Angeles community

as well. She was a vote registrar. She

sat on street corners and helped register people to vote. She continues to

be a member of our California senior

legislature. Pat Eastman has devoted

her life to making her community and

her country better.

It is estimated that approximately 3.8 million

Medicare beneficiaries will use home health

services, in 1996. Under current law, these

services are covered by Medicare. If Republicans have their way, Mrs. Eastman and the

other Medicare beneficiaries will have to pay

an additional $900 out-of-pocket for home

health services; this amount will rise to $1,200

in 2002. This 20-percent coinsurance will not

save money or reduce Medicare costs. It will

simply drive many Medicare beneficiaries into

nursing homes because they will not be able

to afford the home health services that would

enable them to remain at home.

At age 82, after all the hoopla surrounding

the 50th anniversary of V–E Day, this heroic

World War II veteran should not be abandoned.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TRAFICANT].

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman,

these budgets are going to cut seniors,

workers, farmers, pensions, economic

development, community development,

roads, bridges, highways, wastewater

treatment plants, sewer projects, all in

America. These budgets will still provide billions and billions of dollars for

the defense of Japan, Germany, Europe, even money for Russia. There is

not one penny, one penny in cuts, for

either Israel or Egypt, not one penny.

We have a budget in America, my colleagues, that will not touch Israel, will

not touch Egypt, takes care of Japan

and Germany, but no one in America is

free from the ax.

I will have no part of it. I am going

to vote ‘‘no’’ on every one of these

budgets because to me they are not an

American budget, and, by God, where is

the Democrat Party?

Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, ‘‘I don’t blame the Republicans. I commend you for some discipline. But what you’re disciplining is

the American people. We shouldn’t be

closing bases in America. Close the

bases overseas. We got troops falling

out of chairs over there without arm

rests. Bring them home. Let them cash

their check in America.’’

I am not voting for any of this. None

of this is worth my vote, and I think

the Democrat Party better start working out a budget before we are a minority party for a damn long time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. BENTSEN].

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me

start out by saying that my perspective on this is a little bit different than

a lot of the other Members here.

Earlier today, when I was back in my

office working on this, I had a chance

to watch some of the debate, and I

heard some of the Members on the

other side of the aisle come back and

say, ‘‘Well, you voted to raise taxes

that amount in your district time and

time again.’’ As one of the new Members here, obviously I was not here during the last bill, but let me go back to

1981, when I was a college student and

we started down this road by spending

too much money, not cutting spending,

and cutting taxes primarily for the

wealthy, and not being willing to pay

for it. Yes, we ran up a $4 trillion debt,

and that is not fair to the American

people, but this budget is not fair either. We should balance the budget but

not do it this way.

This is not fair. Just like 1981, Mr.

Chairman, we are going to cut taxes for

the wealthy, but now we are going to

pay for it by cutting Medicare and

Medicaid, and in particular cutting

Medicare which people have paid for.

We are going to change the rules on

them. Many seniors are going to see

themselves paying higher deductibles,

higher premiums, higher co-payments.

Over 21⁄2 million Texans will pay more

than $4,000 over the next few years for

the same benefit. If that is not a cut, it

certainly is a bad deal.

Seniors will definitely lose their

choice under the Republican plan, the

choice to choose their doctor. I do not

think that is what they want. The Republican budget will also cut the Medicaid program by 184 billion over 7

years. This is a 30-percent cut that will

not just hurt the poor, but it will hurt

the children.

We heard a lot of talk about the children. My friend, the gentleman from

New York [Mr. LAZIO], talked about his

two children. I, too, have two young

children who are preschoolers. Last

Christmas my youngest daughter got

sick. I rushed her to Texas Children’s

Hospital at 11 o’clock at night to see a

doctor in an emergency room which is

full of children from all walks of life in

the Houston area. Texas Children’s

Hospital, which is the premier children’s institution in the Southwest,

funds 48 percent of their budget for

Medicaid funds to pay for disproportionate care for neonatal costs, and

this budget would cut it and would cut

it across the board.

So we talk about the children and

what we are doing to protect them, but

we are going to cut the children under

this budget, and we are going to cut it

and use the money to pay for tax cuts

for the wealthiest, and that is simply

imprudent, and it is wrong.

This budget will not just cut seniors,

but it will also cut the research that

we do at our hospitals. How can we

have a better health care system if we

are willing to stop the research we do?

How can we say we are going to provide

better health care for Americans when

we do not want to provide the dollars

so we have residents so we can create

more doctors? We have talked about

the need for more primary care doctors, but we are not going to get them

under this budget because we are going

to cut the funding for it. That makes

no sense whatsoever.

Let us balance the budget, yes. But

let us do it fairly. This budget is not

fair. It does not address the problems

fairly. There is a tax cut for the

wealthy which we cannot afford, and it

makes the middle class pay for it.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD].

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to denounce the Republican

plan to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy

by destroying Medicaid: our country’s

ultimate health care safety net.

To fund their $340 billion tax cut for

the wealthiest Americans, Republicans

intend to slash the Medicaid benefits of

32 million Americans, 65 percent of

whom are children and the elderly.

Tragically, their proposals ignore the

human costs.

Republicans say they are increasing

the Medicaid budget by 4 percent. What

they do not say is that this meager increase is insufficient to offset the rapid

growth of the elderly, the young, and

the alarming rise of health care costs.

Under their proposal, the youngest

Americans will suffer grievously.

During 1988 to 1991, poor children receiving medicaid coverage increased

from 54.3 to 63.6 percent. This trend is

projected to continue upward into the

21st century.

At present, Medicaid offsets the loss

of private health coverage during economic downturns, giving millions of

children coverage when parents are

laid off.

The Republicans budget proposal,

however, makes no allowances for coverage during economic decline. Therefore, when parents lose their jobs children will suffer without health coverage.

Without sufficient Medicaid funding,

more than 3.7 million senior citizens

currently receiving health services

from Medicaid will also suffer.

In my district families like Forest

and Ruth Haver are concerned about

their health care future.

The Havers, in their eighties, living

on a fixed income, are worried that the

cuts will make them unable to afford

the health problems which have left

Ruth homebound.

Steve, their only child and a local

fire captain, is willing to do all he can

financially.

He also worries whether that will be

enough if his parents’ benefits are cut.

The Medicaid safety net is vital to

the health of older women, for it is

women who bear the brunt of Republican cuts. Consider that: Women are 75
H 5140 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

percent of all nursing home residents

aged 65 and older and are more likely

than men to have chronic disabling

conditions; and, that women 75 or older

have an average annual income of only

$9,170—one-third the annual cost of

most nursing homes.

To cap Medicaid spending at 4 percent, Republicans will leave millions of

children, low-income elderly, and particularly women, without critical

health services.

We must not sacrifice our Nation’s

children, seniors, and families to benefit the wealthy. I urge the defeat of the

Republican budget resolution.

b 1730

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair’s math

was in error. At the present time the

gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. SABO]

has 95 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] has 93.5

minutes remaining.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. MEEK], a

member of the Committee on the Budget.

(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

her remarks.)

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am new to the Committee on

the Budget. I commend the integrity

and demonstrated brilliance of our

chairman, Mr. KASICH. I commend the

coolness and calmness under duress of

my ranking member, Mr. SABO. I do

not care, I am calling this entire thing

the Kasich manifesto. He is behind all

of this. He is a brilliant man, but he

has not been to some of the places I

have been, Mr. Chairman. He has not

had those experiences.

I have heard today about misplaced

compassion. There is no such thing as

misplaced compassion. He met a couple

in the hall that thanked him for trying

to balance the budget. But he has not

heard from the old lady in North

Miami who said to me not ‘‘Thank you,

CARRIE MEEK,’’ but ‘‘Why? Why is it

that the budget has to be balanced on

our backs?’’ I said, ‘‘Well, I voted

against the balanced budget amendment because I felt it would be balanced on your backs.’’

Then as I talked to a young student

who came here in a wheelchair to say

to me ‘‘I need help,’’ and he asked me

also, why? I ask Mr. KASICH, why? Why

do we have to balance the budget on

the backs of these people?

I hear all the numbers. I hear all the

rebuttals. I see all the charts. But it is

one thing that they do not answer:

Why is the budget being cut the way it

is?

Yes, we will work toward a balanced

budget. But does it have to be done on

the backs of poor people for the benefit

of the rich? I want to say to each one

of you, you cannot block grant your responsibility. You can block grant a lot

of other things, but you cannot block

grant your responsibility. You cannot

block grant a method of providing

quality care for the poor and the elderly population.

You have poor folks back home. You

also have elderly people back home

who cannot pay for the care they are

going to need in the nursing homes.

These are your mothers, these are your

fathers, these are your disabled children. So you cannot balance that

through a block grant program.

I feel that this is a concern which

Congress has to keep. You cannot abdicate that responsibility. You cannot

pass it off to the States. This is your

responsibility, to take care of the people who are being taken care of

through Medicaid. There is no other

way.

I want you to say no to this budget,

because what this budget does is it forgets about certain beneficiaries, laboratory services and x ray services, immunization, prenatal and nursing home

care. You are thinking you can block

grant Medicaid. You cannot do it. You

want to save $5 billion over the next 7

years or so. Over $180 billion in cuts

have to be absorbed by the States. I

wan to say to you, Mr. Chairman, and

the admirable Mr. KASICH, it cannot be

done.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs.

MYRICK] a former mayor and a member

of the Committee on the Budget.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, we

hear a lot about what is wrong with

this budget, and I would like to talk a

little bit about what is right with this

budget.

Mr. Chairman, we feel that we have a

moral responsibility to leave this world

better than when we found it, and part

of this is taking on that responsibility

for our children’s future and looking at

what we are going to leave them. In

putting together this budget, it was

not just quickly put together. There is

much thought that has gone into this.

It has gone by line by line and program

by program, agency by agency, and

said is it necessary? Is there a better

way to do it? Is it worth spending our

children’s future?

I came here because of 6 grandchildren. In addition, I look after a 92-

year-old elderly lady who has no family

who is in a nursing home. So I am very

familiar with what people are going

through. We are handling that in our

own family right now.

But we are doing a lot of things that

are necessary in my district, and people are telling me it is necessary, we

want you to do it. And I want to talk

a little bit about some of the things

the changes that need to be done.

We are cutting foreign aid by $29 billion and eliminating a lot of wasteful

programs. We are keeping our promise

not to touch Social Security. There are

not going to be any changes in Social

Security coming up. We are block

granting job training, because there

are 163 different job training programs

right now. It is very confusing. They do

not all work. So we are finding how all

this can work together and saying let

us take the duplication out and really

make it reach the people who need the

job training.

We are eliminating some departments, Education, Commerce, and Energy, because there is a lot of wasteful

bureaucratic structure there. There are

over 71 duplicative programs in commerce throughout Government. That is

ridiculous. It is a waste of money.

We also are terminating and

privatizing 284 programs, 13 agencies,

and 69 commissions. Sure, there are

good changes, but it is a better way to

spend our tax dollars. Privatizing is

the way to go. We are privatizing General Services, Public Broadcasting,

other things that can carry their

weight only the open market, and looking for a better way to deliver the services.

We are stopping a lot of the Federal

subsidies to business and industries,

things they do not need Government

help on. They do it themselves.

So the bottom line is, we are looking

at this responsibly. We care about what

is going to happen. We care about

where our children and our grandchildren are going to end up. And we

want to make Government work better, and let the people at home make

their decisions and let them keep the

money in their own pocket. They can

spend it better than the Federal Government can.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. BEVILL].

(Mr. BEVILL asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, the

Committee on the Budget proposal to

slash Medicare will put thousands of

Alabama senior citizens in jeopardy.

Many of them already have to choose

between paying for food and paying for

medicine. This dilemma will only get

worse.

The Committee on the Budget has

proposed to carve huge holes in the

safety net which many elderly people

depend on. Those who are teetering on

the edge are more likely to fall

through the cracks under this proposal.

Ruby Swann, of Glencoe, AL, broke

her leg a year ago and had to have a

knee replacement this year. She is a

widow, 76 years old, who lives on her

Social Security. She told me people

like her are just scared to death over

this proposal, and I believe her.

Jessie Box, a 78-year-old widow from

Etowah County, depends on her Social

Security. She suffers with arthritis.

She had a similar experience. These

women are not alone, and under the

House Committee on the Budget’s proposal, the average Alabama beneficiary

will pay about $3,561 more out-of-pocket over the next 7 years. Those who use

home health care will pay an estimated

$900 more for their services in 1996.

I have voted for every deficit reduction bill in recent history here in the

House. But I will not vote for this bill,
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5141

produced by the majority party, which

will put the financial burden on those

who can least afford it, our senior citizens. It is just not right, and my colleagues know it.

Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed

to this, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this budget measure.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. I would just like to

point out to the gentleman that in Alabama, the amount of money it gets is

$3 billion under our plan. By the year

2002 it will get $4.3 billion. I point out

to the gentleman from Alabama that

the per beneficiary amount is $4,800.

Under our plan it goes to $6,361.

Mr. Chairman, only in this town do

you call an increase in spending cut.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas Mr. PETE GEREN.

(Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked

and was given permission to revise and

extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr.

Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

The low point in my service as a

Member of Congress was March 17, 1994,

when the balanced budget amendment

went down by 18 votes. A dozen Members who cosponsored the balanced

budget amendment were persuaded at

the last minute to vote against it, and

they did, and they brought it down.

It hit me that day that if a dozen

Members were willing to suffer the embarrassment of voting against a bill

that they had their name on, that they

cosponsored, that forces behind deficit

spending were so powerful that they

would always win. The future would always lose. Political reality was that

the status quo, the deficit, would always win. The arguments might

change, but the results were always the

same.

It hit me that day that what the cynics had always said was true, that everybody says they want a balanced

budget, but no one is willing to do

what it takes to get there. Everyone

wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to

die.

I concluded that we in Congress are

doing nothing more than rearranging

the deck chairs on the Titanic, and I

wondered what we were doing here.

With those facts, it was simple and

depressing arithmetic: The United

States was going to go broke. Not now,

not today, but later, and with certainty. Now little more than a year

later we are going to pass a balanced

budget. The cynics were wrong. We can

do it. We will do it. The debate is not

if, the debate is how.

My colleagues, this is a great day. I

do not care if your greatest concern is

education, transportation, defense,

childhood nutrition, health care in general, Medicare specifically, the path we

have been on is going to destroy it.

There will not be less Medicare, there

will be none. Eventually the debt on

and the interest on it will destroy everything worthwhile that Government

can do. That is simple arithmetic, and

a year ago that seemed inevitable. Tomorrow we change course.

Who wins? All Americans. It is not

the greedy versus the generous, men

versus women, rich versus poor, young

versus old, have versus have-nots. As

some of my colleagues would characterize it, everybody wins. A balanced

budget means a brighter today and it

means a brighter tomorrow.

Is the coalition plan perfect? No. Is

the Kasich plan perfect? No. There are

differences in the two, but they agree

on the most important point: They balance the budget. A year ago a balanced

budget was a pipe dream. Tomorrow,

thanks to some courageous Members,

it is a reality.

Some of my colleagues attacked

these balanced budget provisions as

mean-spirited and cruel. As compared

to what? Mr. Chairman, the present

course is cruel. The status quo is cruel.

To beggar the future, to condemn future generations to financial ruin, is

cruel, it is wrong.

Balancing the budget is tough, harder than I ever imagined it would be.

But it is not cruel, it is good, it is fair,

it is the right thing to do, and tomorrow we will do it.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from California [Mr.

FILNER].

(Mr. FILNER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

strong opposition to the Republican

budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to

the Republican budget resolution for fiscal

year 1996.

I am filled both with awe and with sadness

today. I am indeed awed by the tenacity, the

discipline, and the enthusiasm of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Their

zeal and determination in their quest for a balanced budget must be admired.

But I am also saddened. Would that they

were a bit more compassionate, less greedy,

more even-handed, less protective of special

interests in their budget.

Let us take a closer look at this budget they

are proposing.

Cuts for students from preschool through

college, cuts for veterans, cuts for seniors,

cuts for arts and culture, cuts for farmers, cuts

for the working poor, cuts for middle-income

Americans. Cuts for everyone except the

wealthy and special interests.

Take one example: It seems that veterans—

yes, our Nations’ veterans—have been singled

out for cuts beyond those proposed for other

major national programs. I fail to understand

how we can repay the very people who fought

for our country with massive cuts to the medical care and benefits they were promised. Veterans Secretary Jesse Brown estimates that

this budget will eliminate treatment for 1 million veterans a year and will require the closure of almost 40 hospitals. And, maybe saddest of all, it will cut programs to help homeless veterans get back into jobs and productive lives.

Another example: Of the programs targeted

for elimination, over half are in education—

from the smallest Cabinet Department which

receives only 2 percent of the Federal budget.

In fact, the Department of Education itself is

scheduled for elimination under this proposal.

Do we care about our children? Don’t we

know that a good education is the key to a

good life?

Several million students will lose access to

educational opportunities beyond high school

due to reductions in Federal scholarship and

grant programs. And with the elimination of

the in-school interest exemption, the debt burden for students with loans could rise 20 to 50

percent.

This resolution attempts to control Medicare

spending when it is widely acknowledged that

Medicare can only be fixed in the context of

overall health care reform. If this budget resolution becomes law, the result will be higher

premiums, higher co-pays, and higher

deductibles for senior citizens under Medicare.

Already, many seniors are choosing between

food and medicine, heat and in-home nursing

care. In addition, reducing the Federal Government’s COLA formula is a back-door way

of cutting Social Security benefits.

Lower and middle-income Americans seem

not to count in this budget. By contrast, the

wealthiest Americans and corporations not

only are spared the wrath but are rewarded

with tax cuts.

We do not have to cut programs that are

the heart of what our country stands for in

order to balance the budget. I recently introduced legislation to close a glaring loophole

for a few giant mutual life insurance companies. Do you know that these companies have

been paying no tax on earnings from business

activity since approximately 1986? My bill, cosponsored by Congresswoman HELEN

CHENOWETH, would reduce the deficit and, at

the same time, require no new funding, attack

no one’s programs, and raise no new taxes.

What it does is close a $2 billion loophole—

that is $2 billion per year. Closing this loophole would require only that these companies

pay their fair share—and, at the same time,

the Nation’s small insurance companies would

be helped by our efforts and would receive

significant tax relief.

I cannot in good conscience vote to slash

money from the earned-income tax credit

which says that if you work, you should not

have to live in poverty. I cannot in good conscience vote to slash low-income heating subsidies, Head Start, college loans, veterans’

health care—when $2 billion corporate loopholes exist.

If we pass this budget, we will be trading

one deficit for another—we will produce a deficit of compassion, a deficit of spirit. As a

country, we are losing our soul.

We will be telling our children, you don’t

matter. We will be telling our seniors, you

don’t matter. We will be telling students and

veterans, you don’t matter. We will be telling

hard-working, middle-class Americans, you

don’t matter.

I would say to my fellow colleagues that we

all do matter. I urge you to vote against this

budget resolution.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Florida

[Mr. PETERSON].

Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr.

Chairman, I was 1 of the 72 Democrats
H 5142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

who supported the balanced budget

amendment earlier this year. Then, as

now, I firmly believed that we must

put our fiscal house in order. We must

control spending. We must reduce the

deficit. If we do not, quite simply the

quality of lie of all citizens, rich, poor,

it matters not, we are all in this together, we all lose.

Let me say again, unequivocally,

that to preserve the American dream,

we must balance the budget. But, as

with all things, there is a right way

and a wrong way. Today I rise in support of the alternative budget supported by my colleague from Texas,

Mr. STENHOLM, and the gentleman from

Utah, Mr. ORTON.

b 1745

A level-headed approach to deficit reduction, it requires sacrifices from everyone. Our friends on the other side

have couched their arguments essentially without detail, looking only toward the end product, which is the balanced budget.

Well, now that we agree on the end,

let us look at the means. The Democratic alternative balances the budget

and reduces the national debt $160 billion lower than the Republican plan. In

the process of balancing the budget,

however, we restore funding to guaranteed student loans, areas of education,

health research, and economic development.

So we can all agree on the benefits on

deficit reduction for future generations. The Republican plan, however,

would take and place that same generation at risk by cutting student

loans, underfunding Head Start, abolishing the Department of Education,

and cutting funding for immunization

and child care.

Under the Democratic plan, everyone

is asked to sacrifice, but we also recognize the need to invest in America and

in our future.

The real choice tomorrow will not be

between balancing the budget or continuing deficit spending. The choice

will be how do we want to balance the

budget.

I say we have a responsibility to act

responsibly and to support the alternative budget proposed by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. STENHOLM] and

the gentleman from Utah [Mr. ORTON].

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Cleveland, OH

[Mr. HOKE], a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.

We are going to spend $11.5 to $12

trillion over the next 5 years. I have

never seen from the other side a glass

more half empty than in the characterizations that we have heard about it. It

is just, it is stunning. Let us talk about

some of the positives.

Church bells should peal from all

over this Nation tomorrow as we do

something that has not been done in 26

years. This is a cause for a celebration.

What does it mean? It means that our

streets are going to be safer. It means

that there are going to be greater opportunities for our children. It means

that there will be more jobs. We are

saving Medicare. We are preserving the

blessings of liberty to ours and to our

posterity. This is a time to celebrate.

I was asked by the chairman of this

distinguished committee to head up

the internatonal affairs function working group, and I want to report to this

House and to the American people that

we have done exactly what they wanted to do. We have done with foreign aid

exactly what the American people have

called on us to do for a long time, and

that is to make some significant, significant realignments with respect to

what we are doing.

We are talking about a reduction of

$29 billion over 7 years from programs

that are in the international functions.

It means about a 22 to 23 percent reduction in spending in that area.

Let us talk specifically about some of

the things that we are doing. We are

reducing subsidies for the Export-Import Bank and for the Trade and Development Agency, and we are privatizing

the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, that is OPIC. That is commonly known to many people as corporate subsidies or also known as corporate welfare.

We are ceasing supporting the International Development Agency, IDA. We

are reforming the Multinational Development Bank. We are eliminating the

United States Information Agency’s

cultural and educational exchanges,

and we are terminating the overseas

nonmilitary broadcasting.

We are also reforming and we are restructuring the State Department by

absorbing ACDA, the Arms Control and

Disarmament Agency and the Agency

for International Development. We are

completely revamping. In fact what we

are doing with the State Department,

we are doing exactly what the President’s advisors had said to do, and then

backed away from it the very last

minute.

We are making the changes that

America wants and we are doing it not

just for this Congress but for the future

generations, for the children.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentlewoman from

Texas [Ms. JACKSON-LEE].

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding time

to me and very ably leading the Committee on the Budget. My remarks will

warrant no applause and certainly

arouse not much interest other than

simply some boredom. Because I come

simply to tell the truth about Medicare, part A and part B.

When you get your form in the mail

and senior citizens look at it, they see

part A and part B. The hospital insurance program, part A, pays for in-patient hospital care and other related

care for those age 65 and older and for

the long-term disabled.

Hospital insurance is financed primarily by payroll taxes with the taxes

paid by current workers and their employers used mainly to benefit current

beneficiaries. Income not currently

needed to pay benefits and related expenses is held in the HI Trust Fund. So

those working today pay for those

needing today.

Why is it in trouble? Interestingly

enough, it is in trouble for a good reason. They are increasing the number of

elderly, our elderly population is growing. What do the Republicans want to

do? Cap the program at 5 percent

growth when the number of beneficiaries are growing in proportion.

What kind of a reasoned brainstorm is

that?

In 1994, 32 million seniors and 4 million disabled cost $104.5 billion, only

$95.3 billion was put in of 141 million

workers. The real issue is that what

the medical trustees have suggested is

the reason we have some sort of short

range financial inadequacy is because

seniors are growing, elderly populations are growing. Let us fix Medicare, not cut it.

My constituent, Viola Smith, 71

years old, Houston resident, arthritic

Medicare recipient has said, Please, do

all that you can to stop the harsh cuts

of the Medicare program. I will not

make it without my benefits.

Folks, this is smoke and mirrors. The

reason why we are talking about financial instability is because our senior

population is growing. If you cut $283

billion with a growing senior population, what sense does it make?

I am here simply to tell the truth.

Let us fix Medicare and let us not

break it.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL].

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, we are

confronting here an interesting exercise in which relatively few choices

exist with regard to the Members of

this body. The measure before us, the

base measure, is fiscally irresponsible

in the extreme. It places the responsibility for drawing down the deficit

squarely on the backs of the most vulnerable portions of our society: children, veterans, senior citizens.

Here are some of the cuts that are

proposed: $280 billion reduction in Medicare. This will require senior citizens

to pay an additional $1,060 in out-ofpocket expenses in the year 2002.

Earlier today a Member on the other

side of the aisle asked how anyone

could characterize Medicare cuts as

being draconian. I would simply quote

that the distinguished current chairman of the Committee on Commerce

charged that these cuts in the last session were draconian. These reductions

are, those reductions were two-thirds

below those suggested today.

The resolution targets seniors by

cutting senior citizens COLAs by $24

billion between fiscal year 1999 and the

year 2002. This will reduce the average
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5143

senior’s benefits each year by about

$240. The resolution before us also reduces Medicaid by about $184 billion.

These changes will limit access to

health care for many older Americans

and threaten their financial security.

They will also result in seniors being

ejected from nursing homes.

It is clear that the Nation has to reduce the budget deficit. It is a threat

to our long-term economic strength.

However, attacking the most vulnerable, dealing with those who have concerns and who indeed are our future is

unwise. Reducing the educational opportunities of our youngsters is perhaps one of the most foolish kinds of

raids on good investment practices and

good economic policies this country

can make.

The benefits, however, that will be

accrued from this proposal are those

few in this country who already have

plenty. Better than half the benefits in

the $350 billion tax cut package that

are before us in this legislation or will

later come will go to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year.

During today’s debate, my colleagues

on the other side of the aisle have frequently asserted that the buildup of

the national debt over the last 14 years

is the fault of the Democrats. Nothing

is further from the truth. An examination will show that my Republican colleagues and indeed Presidents Bush and

Reagan submitted and supported budgets wildly out of balance, and they

made inaccurate assumptions and included asterisks to indicate that there

might be some savings appearing at

some future time.

The Democratic Congress has cut

every one of those budgets save one. Indeed the Congress saved some $49 billion that was suggested for expenditure

by the prior administrations.

I urge my colleagues to reject this

outrage.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to

House Concurrent Resolution 67, the budget

resolution for fiscal year 1996.

This measure is fiscally irresponsible in the

extreme. It places the responsibility for drawing down the deficit squarely on the backs of

the most vulnerable in this Nation—children,

veterans and seniors.

The harsh cuts that have been proposed include:

A $280 billion reduction in Medicare. This

will require seniors to pay an additional $1,060

in out-of-pocket expenses in 2002.

Earlier today a Member on the other side of

the aisle asked ‘‘How anyone could characterize the Medicare cuts being proposed as draconian?’’ I would remind him that the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, the committee charged with making these

cuts, characterized the Medicare savings included in the 1993 budget as draconian.

These reductions were a full two-thirds below

those being considered today.

The resolution also targets seniors by cutting Social Security COLAs by $24 billion between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002.

This will decrease the average yearly benefit

by $240.

The resolution before us also reduces Medicaid by $184 billion.

These changes will limit the access to

health care for many older Americans and

threaten their financial security. They will also

result in seniors being knocked out of nursing

homes.

We clearly must work to reduce the deficit

which poses a threat to our long-term economic strength. However, as we work to prevent future generations from being saddled

with enormous debt burdens, it is imperative

that we proceed in a responsible and fair manner. The budget resolution that the majority

has introduced clearly does not meet this

standard.

As I mentioned the cuts in this resolution fall

hardest on those who most deserve our support. Yet, the benefits are localized to the

lucky few in this Nation who already have

plenty. Better than half of the benefits of the

$350 billion tax cut package that has been included go to Americans earning more than

$100,000 a year.

During today’s debate, my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle have frequently asserted that the buildup in the national debt

over the last 14 years is the fault of the Democrats. I believe an examination of recent history shows that the memories of my Republican colleagues, with respect to this matter,

are very convenient.

For 12 years, Presidents Reagan and Bush

submitted budget proposals with rosy economic scenarios, inaccurate assumptions and

asterisks instead of savings. While both called

for a balanced budget, both submitted budgets

grossly out of balance and left it to Congress

to cut their requests. Congress did so in every

year save one. In fact, the Congress appropriated almost $30 billion less than both Presidents requested.

Now we are hearing that the administration

is not committed to deficit reduction. This

strikes me as peculiar indeed in light of the

fact that our President, unlike his predecessors, had done more than just talk about

deficit reduction.

Two years ago when the President came

forward with a very successful budget plan, a

Republican alternative was nowhere to be

found. Instead we heard fearful cries that the

Clinton budget would lead to near term economic calamity.

Our distinguished speaker asserted that the

budget plan would lead to a recession and actually increase the deficit.

And, our majority leader classified it as jobkiller in the short run.

Despite the unwillingness of a single Republican to vote for the plan, it was passed and

signed into law. The successes it has contributed to speak for themselves. Better than

$700 billion in deficit reduction; the creation of

close to 7 million jobs; and a tax cut for 20

million low-income working families. Yet, only

the richest 2 percent have been asked to pay

more in taxes.

Now we are being asked to consider a

package that takes a completely different approach. An approach, which I might add mirrors the failed supply-side economic policies of

the Reagan and Bush years.

It targets those who have been hurt most by

trickle down policies—the low-income and

middle-class families of this Nation. Over the

past 15 years this group has seen their annual

incomes stagnate and in many cases decline.

The wealthy however have enjoyed unprecedented gains.

Mr. Chairman, this Voodoo Economics II

budget plan does not represent a constructive

and sound proposal for bringing the deficit

down further. I urge my colleagues to vote

against the resolution.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, only in

Washington is an increase in spending

a cut. In Michigan, to the gentleman

that just spoke, we are going to spend

44 percent more in Medicare, the per

beneficiary is going to go from $4,600 to

$6,100. The gentlewoman before talked

about it being a cut when we are increasing Medicare in Texas 53 percent.

The per beneficiary is going to go from

$5,000 to $6,600 per beneficiary.

Only in Washington is an increase in

spending a cut.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as she may consume to the

gentlewoman from Washington [Ms.

DUNN].

(Ms. DUNN of Washington asked and

was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Kasich budget.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of New Jersey

[Mrs. ROUKEMA].

(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

her remarks.)

Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I

rise in, qualified, support of House Concurrent Resolution 67, the Budget Committee’s version of a fiscal year 1996

budget resolution in this historic debate we are holding today.

For the first time in more than a

generation, the House of Representatives is debating a series of budget resolutions that all share a common trait:

the Federal Government’s budget will

be balanced by the year 2002.

The goal of a balanced budget is not

an abstract exercise that some economists or ‘‘green-eyed shade types’’

thought-up in their ivory tower.

It is an essential economic tool to

get the savings and capital investment

we desperately need for research and

development, and new plant and equipment to rebuild the American economy; keep us competitive in the global

economy and create the good jobs at

good wages we need for this generation

and those to come.

Obviously, the various budget plans

we will consider this week have different funding priorities—but that is

exactly what the democratic process is

all about, and it is a tribute to the diligence of many Members of Congress

that we have several different paths we

can choose from in order to reach the

goal of a balanced Federal budget.

Earlier this year, as I have repeatedly in the past, I voted in support of a

balanced budget amendment to the

Constitution. I did so because I believe

that our country’s long-term economic

health demands that the Federal Government’s fiscal house be put in order.
H 5144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

While the balanced budget amendment was narrowly defeated in the

Senate, the need for Congress to do the

right thing, and enact legislation that

brings the budget into balance, remains as strong today as it was then.

President Clinton’s own budget plan,

which was released only 4 months ago,

projects $200 billion annual budget deficits as far into the future as the eye

can see.

This, despite his own successful efforts in 1993 to enact a $500 billion deficit reduction package on top of the $500

billion deficit reduction package that

President Bush negotiated in 1990.

An objective analysis of this situation can lead to only one conclusion:

our current budget is fundamentally

and completely out-of-whack.

Our interest payments on the public

debt, currently exceed $200 billion a

year, and are projected to increase to a

mind-boggling $310 billion within the

next 4 years.

If nothing is done, our country is

headed for a fiscal disaster.

At the same time, in order to avoid

this calamity, balancing the budget

will require everyone in the United

States to share some of the sacrifice

associated with reducing the Federal

Government’s projected increases in

spending by roughly $1 trillion over the

next 7 years.

While I recognize that the opponents

of House Concurrent Resolution 67 can

point to this detail or that detail as

unacceptable, but the fact remains

that the Budget Committee’s plan does

not give anyone a ‘‘free ride’’ as we

struggle toward a balanced budget.

The defense budget will have to take

its fair share of the necessary spending

reductions. No department can be exempt.

The domestic discretionary budget,

which provides funds for most Federal

education, housing, environmental, and

health programs, will have to make

due with $190 billion less over the next

7 years than originally anticipated.

The non-health care entitlement programs, such as Federal employees’ pensions, crop subsidies, and welfare programs to name just a few, are facing

$220 billion less in funding than originally assumed.

And Medicare and Medicaid, the Federal health care programs for the elderly and low-income respectively, will be

asked to make due with $470 billion in

less spending than current budget

trends allow for.

Without question, this area of savings raises the most concern, and I

must state my healthy skepticism

about how much can, or should, be accomplished in the near-term.

Some of the recommendations that

have been discussed in recent weeks

will be subject to intense analysis by

this Member of Congress as the House

Ways and Means Committee wrestles

with the reconciliation instructions it

will receive from this document.

But, absent some significant reform

what will happen to the Medicare and

Medicaid Programs?

Well, for the second year in a row,

the trustees for the Medicare Program

have concluded that the program will

go bankrupt in 7 years if nothing is

changed.

Clearly, strong action and bold leadership is needed to ensure that our elderly will be able to receive necessary

medical treatment through the Medicare Program, and that Medicare will

be there for many hard-working families who will become eligible for Medicare in the next 10 or 20 years.

I, for one, support the establishment

of a bi-partisan blue ribbon medicare

commission—modeled after the very

successful Greenspan Commission on

Social Security in the mid-1980s—to

make recommendations for preserving

and protecting this vital program,

which the Congress should enact confident that there is not any hidden political agenda to the recommendations.

All too often, members have implied

that there can be short-term ‘‘quick

fixes’’ to the program’s current structure. There are no easy, quick fixes

here.

In talking about preserving and protecting Medicare’s long-term solvency,

let us do it right with the least amount

of partisan wrangling as possible.

While the Budget Committee’s plan

does call for some dramatic changes to

these programs, we must keep in mind

that the alternative is completely unacceptable: a bankrupted Medicare

Program that does not help the elderly

and is not there for anyone else either.

With respect to the ongoing efforts to provide middle class families with some tax relief,

I supported H.R. 1215 earlier this year because it contained many elements, such as

expanded individual retirement accounts, capital gains tax relief, expanded capital investment deductions for small businesses, of a

‘‘Save and Invest in America Agenda’’, which

I have long advocated.

Indeed, I was one of a small group of Republicans that petitioned our leadership to

defer any tax reductions until we had certified

that the budget was, in fact, going to be balanced. Unfortunately, these preconditions are

not included in the Budget Committee’s plan.

It is for this reason that I strongly prefer the

budget plan drafted by the Budget Committee

chairman in the other body, Senator PETE DOMENICI.

However, we must be mindful that the

House Budget Committee’s changes in the

Tax Code do result in lower Federal revenues

in the short-term, which in turn requires that

the Congress cut spending further in order to

offset these losses.

Currently, the Budget Committee plan provides for $350 in additional spending cuts over

7 years to compensate for the tax relief package.

Perhaps when the conference committee

meets to reconcile the House and Senate

budget resolutions, they can reach a compromise that provides needed ‘‘Save and Invest in America’’ tax changes without requiring

almost $400 billion in additional spending cuts

to compensate for them.

Nevertheless, I will vote in support of House

passage for this measure because it is important to keep this process moving forward, notwithstanding these concerns.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, approving the

Budget Committee’s proposal represents the

first step in our annual budget process. The

13 regular appropriations bills, combined with

an omnibus budget reconciliation package, will

be where the nitty-gritty details of this budget

plan are hashed-out.

That process will not be without difficulty,

but as we prepare to enact legislation that balances the Federal budget we should not kid

ourselves into thinking that it will be easy to

do. At the same time, we should acknowledge

the terrible cost to our Nation if we do nothing.

Balancing the Federal budget is essential to

protect our Nation’s long-term financial health,

and to ensure that the country our children

and grandchildren inherit is as great as the

one our parents gave us.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from California [Mr.

GALLEGLY].

(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I

stand in strong support of this budget.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. MENENDEZ].

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

b 1800

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding time

to me.

Mr. Chairman, why are the Republicans proposing a cut of $282 billion to

Medicare?

They tell us it is to save Medicare

from bankruptcy. But nobody has

asked why the plan to save Medicare is

in the budget. Could we not save Medicare with another bill?

In fact, they tried it yesterday. Their

solution was to vote on a bill that

would ask the Medicare trustees to

come up with a plan to save Medicare

from bankruptcy. But if they are asking the trustees to come up with a

plan, what is it that we are voting on

today? Do they have a plan, or do they

not?

It turns out that one of the trustees

has already given an estimate of how

much spending would have to be reduced in order to save Medicare from

bankruptcy. Asked during testimony

before the Senate Budget Committee

how much it would take to make the

fund solvent by 2002, public trustee

Stanford G. Ross answered that it

would take about $130 billion in cuts.

So again, why are the Republicans

proposing a cut of $282 billion to Medicare?

What are their plans for the other

$150 billion?

The answer is, they are giving it

away through tax cuts to the wealthy.

Once again, they are cutting an extra

$150 billion from Medicare to pay for

tax cuts for the wealthy. This while

some Republicans are busy telling seniors that Medicare isn’t sacred, and

that they should tighten their belts.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5145

Mr. Chairman, my mother knows just

what it means to have to tighten her

belt. She has worked all her life, for

years and years in a factory in New

Jersey. Today, Medicare pays for her

health care. What do such huge numbers in the Republican budget mean to

her? Lower coverage, higher

copayments, and higher out-of-pocket

expenses overall. On average, over

$1,000 a year more from her pocket.

My mother is lucky. If increased

health care costs make it impossible to

make ends meet, she has a family she

can turn to for help.

But what happens to those seniors

who do not? Do they just tighten their

belts a little more?

Who are tightening their belts with

this plan, Mr. Chairman? How does a

capital gains tax cut tighten anyone’s

belt? The top 12 percent of earners in

this country are going to share in over

75 percent of the benefits from that tax

cut, thanks to the extra $150 billion

seniors are forking over. That is what

this budget is all about; seniors tightening their belts, while Wall Street

wonders take their swollen checks to

the bank.

Mr. Chairman, let me say to my Republican colleagues, they cannot tell

my mother or any other senior citizen

in New Jersey or in the Nation that

this is not going to cost them one single dime more from their pocket. It is

going to cost them very significantly,

no matter what they read.

As it relates to the other thing they

keep referring to, the 1993 deficit reduction vote, let me say that in my

district, that meant over 50,000 families

in my district got a tax cut, so they

should keep reading their figures, but

be honest to the seniors in this country. It is going to cost them more, and

they are cutting in a manner that is

disproportionate and unfair to people

who have worked a lifetime. Vote

against this budget.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Texas

[Mr. SMITH], a distinguished member of

the Committee on the Budget and

chairman of one of our task forces.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding time

to me.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is relevant

to note that my colleague who just

spoke voted for the Clinton tax hike of

1993, and it cost his district $431 million. I think it is also regrettable he

voted against the balanced budget

amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on the Committee on

the Budget’s way to balancing the

budget in 7 years, and increasing the

amount that Medicare beneficiaries are

going to receive by 33 percent, we have

also made Congress and Government

tighten its belt first. For example, we

have eliminated 3 unnecessary Cabinet

departments, we have stopped 284 big

Government programs, we have eliminated 69 wasteful commissions, and

eliminated 13 agencies, as well. We

have also eliminated the favorable pension treatment Members of Congress

and congressional staff used to receive.

We make permanent the one-third cut

in congressional committee staff. We

kept our promise. We made permanent

a 15-percent cut in White House staff.

We helped the President keep his promise.

Mr. Chairman, we also discarded

needless bureaucracy. For example, we

ended 69 unnecessary big Government

commissions, including the Fasteners

Advisory Commission, the Dance Advisory Panel, and we also reduced all

Government agency overhead and indirect cost.

Mr. Chairman, the House has a historic opportunity we have not had in a

quarter century. For the first time in

25 years, we can give our children a

better future, restore the American

dream, and end the slide in living

standards. Finally, after too many

unkept promises, too many tax increases, too many false starts, and too

little will to do the right thing, Congress will keep its word. This week we

have a real life proposal that restrains

the growth in Government’s budget to

increase the size of the family’s budget.

Since 1969, the last time our Federal

budget was balanced, this Government

has run up a $4.7 trillion debt. Our annual deficits of $176 billion plus raise

interest rates by an average of 2 percent. That means our deficit costs the

typical homeowner tens of thousands

of dollars. It also slows growth, closes

small businesses, and destroys jobs.

In 1950 the Government took $1 out of

every $20 earned by the American family. Today it takes $1 out of every $4

our family has earned. The combination of local, State, and Federal taxes

now consumes 40 percent of the typical

family’s income, an all-time record

high. That is wrong. Remember, it is

not the Government’s money to take,

it is the family’s money to keep.

A lot of scare tactics and demagoguery are being used today. Some on

the other side of the aisle have tried to

frighten seniors, students, and others.

These naysayers turn American

against American, grandparent against

grandchild, employer against employee, and retiree against worker, but

the American people know better. The

people who do the work, pay the taxes,

raise the children, and care for the

grandchildren will not be divided, one

against another. It is not the worker

versus the boss, or the young against

the old, it is the working and earning

class against the taxing and spending

class.

This past November the working and

earning class spoke loudly and clearly.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.

OLVER], a member of the committee.

(Mr. OLVER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans are cutting Medicare for 35 million American

elder citizens and giving tax breaks to

the wealthiest Americans and the most

privileged Americans. This budget resolution includes, on the one hand, $280

billion in cuts in Medicare for elders,

and on the other hand, $340 billion in

tax cuts, mostly going to the richest

Americans.

The cold numbers are almost too

large to understand, but I met with

Ruth Jackson on Monday. She lives in

Holyoke, MA. She is 77 years old. She

has diabetes. Her eyesight is too poor

to be able to give her own insulin

shots.

She has arthritis. she moves around

poorly, with a walker. She lives in the

smallest public housing unit available,

and this grandmother is the rock on

which two of her grandchildren, a

grandson in fifth grade and a granddaughter in fifth grade, depend in their

broken family. One of them actually

lives with her every day. She lives on

Social Security and has nothing else.

She has a visiting nurse who comes in

and provides her 7 days a week for 15

minutes or half an hour an insulin

shot. She has 2 to 4 hours a day of personal care.

Mr. Chairman, this Republican resolution increases her Medicare costs by

about $4,000, and cuts her home health

care. She cannot live independently.

She cannot be the stable base for her

grandchildren if she is forced into a

nursing home. There are millions of

Americans 72, 77, 85, mostly surviving

women who are like Ruth Jackson, one

way or the other. They lose their personal care, housing, home heating,

drugs under this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, the Republicans promised to give big tax cuts for the

wealthiest Americans and the most

privileged Americans, so they are keeping a promise that every American

working person knows, that the rich

are going to get richer under this deal.

In fact, we all, deep in our hearts, understand that these Republican policies

do in fact make the rich richer.

However, are we Americans willing

to take hundreds of billions of dollars

from our elders on Medicare, our most

vulnerable and poorest elder citizens,

our unemployed and our very poorest,

whose only medical care comes from

Medicaid, so that those richest Americans can have a tax cut, and therefore

be a great deal richer? I hope not. I

hope we will vote against this resolution, and vote for the coalition resolution in its place.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. KOLBE. I yield 30 seconds to the

gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.

SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would

like to point out to the gentleman that

we are spending more money on Medicare. In Massachusetts, we will be

spending 40 percent more in the next 7

years on Medicare. The amount per

beneficiary is going to go up from

$5,900 to $7,814. Only in Washington,

only in Washington, when you spend
H 5146 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

more money, do people call it a cut. We

are going to improve this system.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes so I can ask the gentleman from Connecticut a question.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Minnesota [Mr. SABO] is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am just

curious. Clearly these Medicare cuts,

whatever they are, in the gentleman’s

resolution are going to pay for a substantial tax cut, but I am just curious,

he has not given me my Minnesota

number. Give me my Minnesota number. Then I would like to hear the Connecticut number.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman

from Connecticut.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, let me

just ask the gentleman, does he not understand when you are spending more

money, you are spending more money?

Mr. SABO. I fully understand what

the gentleman is saying.

Mr. SHAYS. I just need to know that

that is the case.

Mr. SABO. I would just simply say to

the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, I am

amazed to hear how simple and easy it

is going to be to modify the Medicare

Program.

I am just curious, what is the number

for Minnesota?

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will

continue to yield, in Minnesota the

gentleman has an amount of money for

Medicare now of $2 billion 429.

Mr. SABO. What is the per recipient

number?

Mr. SHAYS. It will go up $3 billion

400. It will go up 40 percent.

Mr. SABO. Just so the gentleman

knows my question, what is the per recipient number in Minnesota?

Mr. SHAYS. The per recipient number in Minnesota, given that they are

getting 40 percent more in the next 7

years, it is presently $3,840. It goes up

to $5,000 per beneficiary.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would

ask the gentleman, what is the number

in Connecticut?

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will

yield further, in Connecticut we are

given from the Federal Government in

Medicare $2.5 billion, and it goes up to

$3.6 billion. That is a 40 percent increase. We are equal. Per beneficiary it

is $5,135, and that will go up to $6,782

per beneficiary, per beneficiary.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am just

curious how the gentleman from Connecticut is going to deal with this significant difference in cost between the

State of Minnesota and the State of

Connecticut. We provide good quality

health care, substantially less, and

what I hear is the recipients, the reimbursement in Connecticut is substantially higher than it is in Minnesota.

Mr. SHAYS. I want to make sure I

understand the gentleman. The gentleman says in Minnesota he provides

good health care. I think we do in Connecticut, as well. In both instances, we

are getting 40 percent more in the next

7 years.

Mr. SABO. The gentleman from Connecticut is receiving, as I heard, over

$1,000 more per recipient.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. REGULA], chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations.

(Mr. REGULA asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let me

preface my remarks by saying that I

applaud the hard work that has gone

into producing this budget resolution,

a resolution that puts us on a path to

a balanced budget. I want to particularly recognize my colleague from

Ohio, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. KASICH, for his unwavering

dedication to the balanced budget objective. He has never lost sight of the

finish line and while I may not personally agree with all of the assumptions

in this resolution I plan to support this

budget because I too believe the goal of

a balanced budget must be paramount.

I would like to discuss one of the aspects of the proposed budget resolution

that concerns me and that is the assumption that the functions of the Department of Energy should be phased

out. Many of these functions are important to the future of this Nation. It

is our responsibility to do these in the

most cost-effective way possible.

The argument for phasing out the

Department is based on the assumption

that it was solely created to deal with

an energy crisis the country experienced in the 1970’s. The crisis no longer

exists and therefore the rationale for

the functions of the Department no

longer exists.

It is unwise, for us as a nation, to be

so complacent as to assume that another energy crisis is not only not a

probability, but not even a possibility.

Just 4 short years ago—in the action

Desert Storm—we put over 400,000

American men and women into harms

way to protect the availability of energy resources that we are once again

taking for granted.

Much of the work the Department or

its successor organizations is doing, in

partnership with American industries,

is the very reason we can hope to avoid

a future energy crisis and, I would

argue, that the money spent on those

research, development, and demonstration projects is far more cost effective

than putting American lives at risk to

protect Persian Gulf oilfields.

A recent op-ed piece written by

former President Reagan’s Energy Secretary, Don Hodel, ‘‘Forebodings of Another Oil Shortage,’’ put it starkly:

America is sleepwalking into a disaster.

Within the next two years, we will experience another oil shock.

According to the former secretary

the threat of this crisis once again

comes from the unstable Persian Gulf

which currently supplies 44 percent of

United States oil imports. The recent

DOE annual energy outlook projects

this figure rising to more than 65 percent by the year 2010. Saudi Arabia

alone supplied almost 19 percent of the

United States import market last year

and provided over 25 percent as recently as 1992. The stability in that region is once again in question.

In February of this year the President concurred with the Department of

Commerce’s finding that the Nation’s

growing reliance on imports of crude

oil and refined petroleum products

threaten the Nation’s security. In 1993

U.S. oil imports surpassed the 1977—a

time of crisis—record level by 1.8 percent. The warning signs are clear and

yet today we are sending signals that

either we do not believe a crisis is a

possibility or that energy is not a critical commodity.

My second point relates to the actual

programs and mission of the Department or its successors and their impact

on our international posture in terms

of maintaining and improving our global competitiveness and our goal of continuing to grow the economy. To be

truly strong, the American economy

must be efficient, clean and fueled by

stable and affordable supplies of energy. Assuring this supply and improving efficiencies and environmental performance of our energy resources is one

of the important missions of our energy policy. Many of the energy programs are cost shared partnerships

with U.S. industries that hold the key

to achieving these goals.

Just last week I received a letter

from one of the participants in just

such a partnership. The company, a

small one located in Cleveland, OH is

attempting to develop and commercialize a process for the recovery of usable materials from salt cake, a waste

produced by the aluminum industry.

Commercialization of this technology

would not only reduce the operating

costs in the aluminum industry

through reduced energy expenditures,

but it would also eliminate the 550,000

tons of salt cake that are presently

being landfilled in the U.S. each year.

This small company is cost sharing in

excess of 70 percent of the total project

cost with the Department. As the

President of this company concluded in

his letter to me, this research is ‘‘critical to the development of new technologies by American companies such

as ours.’’

Despite the fact that each of us is

heavily reliant on energy in our daily

lives, it is one of those luxuries that is

easy to ignore as long as it is plentiful

and reasonably priced. In the not too

distant past, energy was an afterthought in economic planning. Today,

energy is a principal factor in any business strategy and American businesses

today are cognizant of the importance

of energy in their bottom line and are

constantly working to reduce energy

costs to maintain or improve their

competitiveness.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5147

Transportation is one good example.

It is a key industry and a key component in our overall energy equation accounting for 27 percent of our total energy consumption and 66 percent of the

total petroleum use. Moreover, 97 percent of the transportation sector’s energy demands are satisfied by petroleum. Clearly to reduce our dependence

on oil imports it is imperative that we

change the transportation sector’s energy demand patterns. The programs

funded in my subcommittee’s jurisdiction, in partnership with DOE are addressing that issue. These programs are

projected to reduce oil imports by 2.3

million barrels a day by the year 2000

cresting a savings for drivers and a

trade deficit reduction of $47 million

per year.

Energy use is an environmental issue

as well. The production and use of energy cause more environmental damage than any other human activity in

the world today. Without significant

changes in energy sources and consumption patterns, the problem will

worsen. Without cleaner energy

sources and technologies, worsening

environmental problems can be expected to lead to regulatory actions

that can severely hamper economic

growth.

I have repeatedly said during my subcommittee’s hearings that what the

November election was about was not

abolishing government, but making it

work more efficiently and more effectively. I am persuaded that many Departments and Agencies a healthy dose

of streamlining and downsizing and I

am equally persuaded that they are

getting the message. For example the

Secretary or DOE recently announced

a proposed $14 billion contribution to

deficit reduction over the next 5 years.

I applaud these initiatives and I am

committed to working with the Agencies such as DOE or its successors to

make those promised savings a reality.

I believe there are core, fundamental

missions in the field of Energy. With

respect to the programs I am most familiar with those missions involve promoting, in partnership with U.S. industries, fundamental science and technology advances which will help keep

us competitive in a global economy

and which provide the long-term basis

for economic growth, job creation and

improved quality of life; and enhancing

our energy security by helping safeguard against energy supply disruptions and their associated threats to

the United States.

These missions can be accomplished

in streamlined Departments, and Agencies but may be lost in a costly realignment that could be necessitated by

their complete dismantlement. Energy

is the lifeblood of a strong expanding

economy that is essential if we are to

be successful in balancing the budget.

Public-private partnerships can do

much to reduce the cost of government

while maintaining our technological

leadership and making our programs

very cost effective.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. BROWNBACK],

a very hardworking member of the

committee.

(Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I

would just like to make a couple of

quick comments and then talk briefly

about the agency elimination that we

have been talking about in the overall

budget package.

Mr. Chairman, I hear a lot of comments about, well, we are cutting taxes

and that is wrong, we should not be

cutting taxes, that the American people need to pay all this money into the

Government.

I make the simple point, and I ask

the American people that are watching

and listening, do you know how long

today you work to pay the taxes at all

levels, Federal, State, local, all levels

combined?

The answer is, you work until May 5.

You just passed Tax Freedom Day that

you work. I think if you get back a little bit of that, that is your money, and

you are working hard enough and long

enough for the Government.

The other thing I hear a lot is people

saying, well, we are not spending

enough on Government programs. Indeed, many of these programs are very

good programs, very worthwhile programs. But I simply point out that

around the turn of the century, the

Federal Government as a percentage of

this economy was roughly 3 percent of

this economy. That is what it was. It

was 3 percent. Now it is 23 percent of

this overall economy.

Overall I would like to point out, we

are eliminating in our budget package

three Cabinet level agencies, or propose, Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Education. We are following

a process and a procedure here.

This is not just a thing of, OK, we are

going to go in and eliminate them completely and they are out of there, they

are gone. We are thinking this through

and asking the questions of how can we

do this better? How can the American

people get these services? We are going

through a process of asking, can we localize these services, send it back to

the State and local units of government?

Do we privatize? Are these services

that can be done better in the private

sector? Can we be more efficient by

doing it there? Can we consolidate,

within other Federal agencies and programs, services that are currently done

somewhere else? We have 17 agencies

doing trade promotion. Do we need

that many of them? Can we consolidate?

What can we eliminate? What services and programs have done their job

and it is time to move on, particularly

at a time that we state clearly and unequivocally to the American people, we

are broke.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. JOHNSTON].

Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr.

Chairman, I would like to talk about

Medicaid. I have a homemade chart up

here dealing with where we are today,

with where we will be in 7 years under

the Republican program. I have entitled it ‘‘Unfunded Mandates.’’

The bottom line here is where the

Republicans go today at $120 billion up

to $150 billion. The next line, though, is

growth plus inflation. We go up here,

so we start out at 4 percent behind.

Let me draw another line here. This

line here is Texas, New York, Florida,

Arizona, and the growth States. The

average growth State is between 10 and

13 percent. When you have block grants

to these States to take care of Medicaid patients, this is a gross unfunded

mandate. You are sticking the States

worse than anything we have ever

done.

Most people think Medicaid is for the

indigent. Over half of the payments for

Medicaid go to senior citizens for nursing homes, and when you are in these

States in the South, this is an exploding figure.

The gentleman from Connecticut

[Mr. SHAYS] can get up and give us any

number he wants to, but that number

will not anywhere match the figure

that these growth States are going to

have to pay from today until 2002. I

think it is grossly unfair. I think it is

a demagogical denial here of what you

are doing to these States that have exploding populations, and they are going

to go bankrupt before you ever talk

about the Federal Government.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Florida

[Mr. MILLER], a distinguished member

of the Committee on the Budget and

the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have heard nothing but distortions and scare tactics coming from

the Democrats about Medicare, but I

am not surprised. The sad fact is they

have no ideas of their own and no plan

to restore Medicare to solvency. They

have nothing left to do but misrepresent Republican plans to save Medicare

from bankruptcy. That is bad news for

America’s seniors.

According to today’s Washington

Post, the Clinton White House and the

congressional Democrats have made a

conscious political decision to defend

the status quo, to delay change and

distort the facts. Like Nero was watching Rome, the Democrats are fiddling,

polling, and politicking while the Medicare trust fund burns. That is just sad

and it is dead flat wrong.

Here is the bottom line. The Republican budget resolution restores Medicare, saving the trust fund from bankruptcy. In 2002, Medicare spending will

be $1,600 higher for each beneficiary

under the Republican plan. Under the

Democratic budget, in 2002 the Medicare fund goes bankrupt, zero, it is

broke.
H 5148 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

Don’t be confused by the Democrats’

distortions. Restoring Medicare has

nothing to do with the tax provisions

in the contract. Yes, we return a small

portion of each working American’s

hard-earned tax dollars to the family

budget, but with or without the tax

cuts, Medicare will go bankrupt if we

follow the Democrats’ status quo plan.

That is not DAN MILLER speaking or

NEWT GINGRICH speaking, this is the

public trustees of the Medicare Program, including members of the President’s own Cabinet.

Here is what the trustees say: ‘‘The

Medicare Program is clearly

unsustainable in its present form. It is

now clear that Medicare reform needs

to be addressed urgently.’’

One more time: There are two

choices. Under the Republican budget

resolution, in 2002 the Medicare spending will be $1,600 higher for each beneficiary, restoring the Medicare trust

fund to solvency. Under the Clinton

Democrat budget, in 2002 the Medicare

trust fund goes bankrupt.

Let’s save Medicare. Support the Republican budget resolution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 3 minutes to the distinguished

gentleman from North Dakota [Mr.

POMEROY].

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, why

are the Republicans proposing to slash

Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax

cuts benefiting America’s most privileged?

Throughout the afternoon, we have

seen abject efforts of denial of the cuts

by the gentleman from Connecticut

[Mr. SHAYS], the task force Chair,

jumping up and citing increased funding and saying only in Washington

could this be determined a cut. I have

never heard a more blatant distortion

on the floor of this House.

The fact of the matter is that the

funding does not keep up with the increasing costs in health care. Let me

cite a figure that might be of interest

to the gentleman from Connecticut

himself, because under the cuts proposed, in Connecticut each senior citizen will pay more out of pocket, $3,885

cumulatively through 2002, under the

plan advanced. That to the seniors of

Connecticut I would suggest is a real,

real cut, one that hits right in the

pocketbook. The Medicaid figures are

even worse.

In the Republican cuts for Medicaid

in the out years, they allow a 4 percent

adjustment in Medicaid funding. There

will be a 3-percent growth in enrollment in Medicaid, which means they

allow the cost of medicine to go up 1

percent per year.

What do we know about Medicaid and

medical inflation? It is rising at an

amount dramatically higher than that,

and it is going to rip benefits away

from the children and the disabled and

the elderly that depend on Medicaid

funding.

This chart reveals what a vicious hit

it will be to kids. An additional 6.7 million kids will lose their coverage under

the Medicaid proposals advanced in the

Republican budget. That to the gentleman I would suggest is a very real,

a very meaningful cut to children.

For senior citizens it is equally devastating. Seniors receiving long-term

care in nursing homes across this country will find the costs of their care rising much faster than the Medicaid payments to fund them. In fact, if you

look over 5 years, an additional 1.7 million senior citizens requiring long-term

care assistance will be deprived of Medicaid coverage under their plan. Those

are real cuts.

You may in budget chicanery try to

gloss over what you are doing to people, but let me tell you, you are taking

coverage away from children and you

are taking coverage away from senior

citizens in nursing homes, and you are

doing it primarily to pay for tax cuts

for the rich.

Mr. Chairman, at this point in time I

yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, if he would like to ask me any

questions about North Dakota. Does

the gentleman from Connecticut care

to respond?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I will be

happy to use some of the gentleman’s

time to correct some of his comments.

Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman

does not have a question about North

Dakota, I will reclaim my time.

The gentleman’s own seniors in Connecticut will lose $3,800 under their

proposal, a fact he ought to be aware

of.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. SMITH].

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this budget is not just about the

Federal Government’s fiscal strategy,

the way we keep our books. It is about

America’s future. It is about creating

job growth and opportunities for our

kids and our grandkids, about making

our communities a better place to live

and work and raise our families. Certainly it is about our future prosperity

and our future safety.

Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago in 1993,

this House, this Chamber, passed a

large tax increase, approximately $248

billion over the 5 years of the budget.

The decision from our conference was,

should we give some of that tax increase back, and should we do it in a

way that is going to stimulate job

growth? We did that. One of the elements was my neutral cost recovery

bill, that allows businesses to deduct

the cost of the tools and equipment

they buy as a business expense.

Let me tell Members what economists say is going to result from that

kind of Tax Code change. They say the

GDP of this country will increase almost $3 trillion, it will increase 3 million jobs with an average salary increase of $3,540.

Mr. Chairman, as we look at how we

are cutting this budget, everybody is

going to realize some pain. I hear so

much talk about criticizing the cuts. It

is so much easier to tear down a house

than it is to build a house. We are trying to build that house in a budget that

is going to help future generations. I

would hope all Members would contribute in a positive way to how they think

we can improve this budget, not simply

criticize every element of every cut,

Mr. Chairman, as we look at transportation, as we look at the infrastructure

we have built over the years.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman

from California [Ms. WOOLSEY].

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given

permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I visited school lunch

programs in my district, and learned

something which the authors of this

budget obviously have not thought

about. Because child after child said to

me, ‘‘Congresswoman WOOLSEY, I can’t

concentrate when I’m hungry.’’ ‘‘I

can’t learn when I’m hungry.’’

Obviously, first-and-second graders

know better than the authors of this

budget that, if you enter the classroom

hungry, you will not be ready to learn.

During one of my visits, a teacher in

Marin County—one of the most affluent counties in America—told me that,

recently, she had a class lesson asking

her 1st grade students what their top

three wishes were, and why, the top

wish of two-thirds of her students was

for more food for their family, because

they were hungry.

Well, get ready to have trouble concentrating and learning, and get ready

to be hungry, because this budget cuts

$19 billion form nutrition programs in

order to pay for a tax break for

wealthy special interests.

Members on the other side argue that

taking $19 billion away form child nutrition programs is not a big deal, in

fact, they claim they are not even cutting child nutrition programs, but simply reducing the rate of increase. We

hear Republicans say over and over

again that ‘‘only in Washington do people call a reduction in the rate of increase a cut.’’

Well, the children in Marin County,

who wish for food for their families,

would see it differently. They would

say that only in Washington do people

call ‘‘taking school lunches away from

children a ‘‘reduction in the rate of increase.’’

I urge my colleagues to vote against

this budget resolution.

b 1830

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from

Michigan [Mr. HOEKSTRA].

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the distinguished chairman for

yielding me this time.

I have been sitting here now for a

couple of hours and I was waiting and

wondering when the school lunch debate was going to come up. And you

are absolutely right that only in Washington would we describe a 41⁄2-percent

increase each year for the next 5 years
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5149

as a cut. It is unbelievable. We are increasing funding for the school lunch

programs and we are calling it a cut.

But I think it is important as we

take a look at what we are actually

doing here. We are doing something

that is important for the future of our

children. This House has used this card

for the last 25 years to build up a $4.7

trillion deficit for each of our kids.

That is totally inappropriate. We need

to get spending under control, and we

are doing it. We put together a plan to

get a balanced budget within 7 years. It

is the right thing to do; it is the thing

that we have to do for our kids.

What we are tying to do in this plan

is we want to get the Federal Government away from so many things that

happen in the private sector. It is not

important to have a Federal bureaucrat between a child and their school

lunch. It is not important to have a

Federal bureaucrat between a landlord

and their tenant. It is not important to

have a Federal bureaucrat between a

customer and a vendor. That is not the

right place for the Federal Government

to be. Those things happen very effectively and efficiently in the private

sector. We reach out and we help those

that need help. but we do not need to

have Federal bureaucrats in all of

these places, it is not the right way to

go, it is not the right direction.

What we are doing in many of these

areas is we are fixing programs that

are broke. Job training, we are going

at an area where, yes, we have to educate and train people.

This Congress has put together 153

different training programs, 153 different Federal bureaucracies of Federal

bureaucrats between an individual who

needs skills and an education process.

It is absolutely ludicrous to have 153

programs. We are going to put that

into four block grants. It is going to be

efficient and much more effective than

the system that we have today.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. BROWN].

(Mr. BROWN of California asked and

was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, the proponents of this

budget plan argue fervently that its

end result—a balanced budget by the

year 2002—will produce economic prosperity and better living standards for

all Americans. It will not. What the

plan will do is simply substitute for the

budget deficit an investment deficit

that will guarantee the long-term

decay of our economy and our society.

I am most familiar with the impact

of the Republican budget plan on the

civilian research programs under the

Science Committee’s jurisdiction. The

Republican plan would force those R&D

programs to decline by almost $25 billion over the next 5 years. To put that

number into perspective, public investment in civilian R&D programs in our

committee’s jurisdiction would fall 25

percent in absolute terms, or 35 percent

in real dollars, in just a few years.

I have included along with my statement a budget table showing the effect

of this budget plan on committee R&D

programs.

The Budget Committee report accompanying this bill makes it very

clear how these cuts should be absorbed. They would have us eliminate

most civilian applied research and

technology development and demonstration work at every Federal department and agency. Many worthwhile science programs would suffer

huge cuts or be terminated and, inevitably, Federal research labs would also

have to close.

The Republicans reason that massive

public disinvestment in R&D is good

for the country because the private

sector will pick up the slack and make

these investments on its own, provided

they get the deregulation and the tax

breaks the Republicans have promised.

This reasoning is naive and foolish. Deregulation and tax relief have not succeeded in raising private R&D investment in the past, and there is no evidence that it will work in the future.

In fact, even with an R&D tax credit

in place, the private sector has been reducing its long-term R&D investment

over the last 10 years in response to

global competition. A recent survey of

corporate R&D investment conducted

by the Industrial Research Institute

shows that U.S. corporations have reduced their long-term R&D from 20 percent to 8 percent of their R&D spending

in the last 10 years. The remaining 92

percent of their R&D spending goes to

short-term applied research with immediate commercial application.

The private sector is reducing their

long-term R&D investment. If the Government also withdraws support for

long-term R&D, as this budget implies,

the consequences will be devastating

and irreversible. The R&D infrastructure of the United States will be devastated. The result will be fewer scientists and engineers, less innovation

and declining competitiveness in world

markets. I, for one, do not believe the

American people want to throw away

their future simply for shortsighted political considerations.

Mr. Chairman, time and again today,

my colleagues have warned us that we

must not pass on a legacy of debt to

our children and grandchildren. I

agree, but we are also obliged to undertake those essential investments in

new knowledge and better educated

human resources that will guarantee

them a bright future. This budget fails

to do that and breaks faith with future

generations.

The chart referred to follows:

KASICH-WALKER BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS—CIVILIAN R&D PROGRAMS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE

[Budget authority (BA) in millions of dollars]

Budget Function Subcmte Agency Budget Assumptions FY96–00 Change

in BA 1

250 .................................................................. Space ........................................... NASA ............................... Cut Human Space Flight .................................................................................................................................... ¥3,064

Cut Science, Aeronautics, & Technology ........................................................................................................... ¥4,790

Increase Mission Support ................................................................................................................................... 117

Increase Inspector General ................................................................................................................................. 2

250 .................................................................. Basic Research ............................ NSF ................................. Eliminate social R&D ......................................................................................................................................... ¥583

Cut academic infrastructure investment ........................................................................................................... ¥750

Cut major research equipment investment ....................................................................................................... ¥479

Cut S&E; Headquarters relocation ..................................................................................................................... ¥75

Cut education and human resources ................................................................................................................ ¥30

250 .................................................................. Energy & Envir ............................ DOE ................................ Prioritize General Science Activities .................................................................................................................. ¥270

270 .................................................................. Energy & Envir ............................ DOE ................................ Reduce Energy Supply R&D ............................................................................................................................... ¥4,743

Reduce Fossil Energy R&D ................................................................................................................................. ¥1,595

Reduce Energy Conservation Research .............................................................................................................. ¥1,960

Eliminate clean coal technology program ......................................................................................................... ¥864

300 .................................................................. Energy & Envir ............................ NOAA .............................. Reduce Ops, Res, & Facilities ........................................................................................................................... ¥1,369

300 .................................................................. Energy & Envir ............................ EPA ................................. Terminate environmental technology program .................................................................................................. ¥325

Reduce Office of R&D budget ............................................................................................................................ ¥100

370 .................................................................. Technology ................................... DOC ................................ NIST—Increase intramural R&D ........................................................................................................................ 149

NIST—Eliminate extramural R&D (ATP, MEP) ................................................................................................... ¥2,625

NIST—Increase construction funding ................................................................................................................ 32

Eliminate Technology Administration ................................................................................................................. ¥47

400 .................................................................. Technology ................................... DOT ................................. Eliminate Intelligent Vehicle R&D program ....................................................................................................... na

Eliminate High Speed Rail R&D program ......................................................................................................... ¥100

400 .................................................................. Space ........................................... DOT ................................. Rescind funds for NASA Wind Tunnel ............................................................................................................... ¥400

800 .................................................................. Basic Research ............................ OTA ................................. Eliminate OTA ..................................................................................................................................................... ¥104

Total, Science Committee ................. ...................................................... ........................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥23,973

1 FY1996 through FY2000 cumulative change in new BA relative to FY1995 budget freeze.

Source: House Budget Committee. Democratic staff of the House Science Committee.
H 5150 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE—SUBCOMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS

[Dollars in millions]

Subcommittee Actual FY 95 Pres. FY 96 Walker FY 96 Walker FY 97 Walker FY 98 Walker FY 99 Walker FY 00

Space ......................................................................................................................................................... $14,470 $14,267 $13,395 $13,130 $12,543 $12,043 $11,578

Basic Research ......................................................................................................................................... $3,325 $3,414 1 $180 $3,199 $3,232 $3,270 $3,331

Technology ................................................................................................................................................. $1,421 $1,717 2 $645 $350 $360 $371 $382

Energy/Envir. ............................................................................................................................................. $8,018 $8,579 $6,200 $5,841 $5,645 $5,464 $5,312

Totals ........................................................................................................................................... $27,233 $27,977 $23,620 $22,520 $21,780 $21,148 $20,603

Walker vs. FY95 (percent) ........................................................................................................................ ........................... ........................... ¥13.3 ¥17.3 ¥20.0 ¥22.3 ¥24.3

Walker vs. Clinton FY96 (percent) ............................................................................................................ ........................... ........................... ¥15.6 ¥19.5 ¥22.2 ¥24.4 ¥26.4

Walker vs. Baseline 3 (percent) ................................................................................................................. ........................... ........................... ¥15.8 ¥22.1 ¥26.8 ¥31.0 ¥34.7

1 Includes $26 million in authorized FEMA earthquake programs.

2 Includes $302 million in authorized FAA R&D.

3 Baseline assumes 3 percent annual inflation from 1995–2000.

Source: Chairman, House Committee on Science.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30

seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. MEEK].

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this budget recommends that we

eliminate the Department of Commerce. It just does not make sense in

that we need to develop jobs in this

country. If we are ever going to get to

the point where we can develop jobs,

we need the Department of Commerce.

During the last 2 years the Department

helped Americans secure $24.6 billion of

foreign contracts, and for every dollar

spent on the entire budgets of the Department it has returned $6 to the

American economy. That is developing

jobs, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the reason why we are

calling for the elimination of the Commerce Department is its functions are

performed in 71 other entities of the

Government, and we think it makes

more sense to consolidate that, save

the bureaucracy, and give taxpayers

some of their money back.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to

the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

WALKER], the distinguished chairman

of the Committee on Science.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding me the

time.

I was interested in the discussion we

just had on the cuts in the science

budgets, and I think it is very important to understand what has happened

over the last few years in the name of

science. Much of what we have had in

the science research budgets of this

country have been in a State where

many of them have been nothing but

corporate welfare, and what we have

done is done things in the name of

R&D, in the name of science, and then

found out that where they were going

to was to the richest corporations in

the country.

What we have attempted to do is

prioritize science in this budget. We

have attempted to protect the basic

fundamental research of this country,

and we have done so in the budget. In

fact, basic research actually has a

nominal increase over the 7-year period

from $7.092 billion this year to $7.101

billion in 1996. This includes places like

the National Science Foundation and a

lot of programs in NASA and the Department of Energy.

But where we have the direct industrial and commercial subsidies, we

eliminate those. What we are saying is

let us have real research and development in this country; let us not subsidize our biggest corporations and call

it R&D. And the fact is if you take a

look at the chart, the corporate welfare sections of the budget are where

we take the biggest hit.

Out of the total budget over the next

several years, we are going to spend

over $111 billion in the science areas.

Out of $111 billion we ought to be able

to get some quality science. The problem is we have not been getting quality

science in too many instances. What

we have been getting is big companies

coming in and ripping off taxpayers’

money in the name of things they

wanted to do anyway. We cut that out.

We just say no more. We are going to

eliminate corporate welfare and concentrate on those things that the Federal Government can do best for the

economy, the basic science and fundamental research.

So if you take a look at that, what

you find is over the next several years

we will go from $26 billion we are

spending each year on some of these

programs down nominally to about

$23.7 billion. Two-thirds of the cuts,

that is about 9.1 percent, about twothirds of that entire cut comes out of

corporate welfare cuts.

If the country wants to have real

science I think that is exactly right,

but the country does not want to do research and development and then find

out that they did not get real research

and development, and this is the example of exactly where we think we

should go. We have prioritized science

toward basic fundamental science.

Sure, we are going to have some applied science; we are going to do some

developmental work and demonstration work. There is actually a line on

which we can do the kind of research

that this country needs. But we ought

not be funding things that companies

otherwise would do on their own.

And so this budget I think is a lean

budget, but it is one that makes sense

for science. It prioritizes science toward those kinds of things that science

ought to be doing.

The Government is best at doing

basic research, and that is where this

budget puts its emphasis.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to my

good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VENTO].

(Mr. VENTO asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

opposition to the Republican budget

resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to

the Republican budget proposal we have before us today. This is a measure which seeks

to pay for the Republicans’ tax cuts for

wealthy individuals on the backs of those in

need, children and the elderly, at the expense

of sound education, health and welfare benefits. We need to be concerned about the deficits, both the fiscal and human deficits, not

just the bottom line.

I am deeply concerned about our budget

deficit and throughout my career, I have supported numerous efforts aimed at streamlining

the Federal Government, reducing spending,

eliminating waste and responsibly increasing

revenues in an equitable way. Over the past

2 years, we have made steady progress in

cutting the deficit with nearly $600 billion in

deficit reduction over a 5-year schedule beginning in 1993. We passed the deficit reduction

bill last year without a single Republican vote.

While I support reducing the deficit through

cuts in some programs, the Republican budget

proposal centers on cutting off programs

which invest in the American people, while

providing tax benefits to corporations and

wealthy individuals. In 7 years, in the framework of this bill, or House Concurrent Resolution the deficit is due, $300 billion. That is the

GOP way to solve the deficit. First things first,

tax breaks for the wealthy Americans, political

promises made and kept 75 percent of the

benefit to corporations and investors in the

final GOP tax policy. One of the most important investments our country can make is in

education. But other policies receive short

shrift. Every dollar for education is an investment in our people in the future of this country

and our national economy. The Republican

approach for the education of the people of

our Nation is mind-boggling. Their blueprint for

the future not only abolishes the Department

of Education, which would leave the U.S. as

one of the few industrialized countries in the

world without a national department or ministry

of education, but proposes to make atrocious

cuts which counter any pretense of deliberate

consideration of public policy. This budget proposal calls for the elimination of about 130

Education department programs, including

Goals: 2000 school reform programs, Chapter

1 Compensatory Education Concentration

grants—which provide funding for areas with

high levels of low-achieving children—and bilingual and immigrant education programs.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5151

The proposal will eliminate funds used to

make schools across the country safer and

drug free and will dramatically increase costs

for working families by charging all students

interest on their loans while they are in school.

These actions are not just thoughtless, they

are policies ignorant of the problems and

needs of American people today and tomorrow. At a time when jobs demand more preparation, cutting education funding is indeed a

losing proposition. We need to support education as a budget priority and this bill before

the House has it backward. We need smart

people and smart hardware to face the future

needs of our Nation. That won’t happen with

a negative and indifferent national policy.

This proposed budget pulls the rug out from

under state and local governments, shifting responsibility away from the Federal Government for welfare and child nutrition and by advocating deep cuts in community development, notably the Community Development

Block Grant. The Republican answer is that

cost burdens should be shifted to State and

local governments and the non-profit sector,

which are already operating on overload

today. In other words, a trickle-down tax increase pushed upon the States.

A provision of the budget resolution which

deeply concerns me is the proposal to zero

out the funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, otherwise known as

LIHEAP. As a Member from Minnesota, a

State that works and strives to meet people’s

needs with a warm heart. Minnesota is one of

the coldest States in the Nation, I am alarmed

by the potential impact of this ill-advised action. In 1994, approximately 6.1 million households received aid to help cover heating costs

nationwide. Nearly half of these households

contain elderly or handicapped persons—often

on fixed incomes—and about 80 percent earn

less than $10,000 a year. Where are these

people to turn when they no longer can afford

to heat their homes? This pattern is repeated

because of the tenuous situation that many

poor face today.

The Republicans are cutting funds for programs which provide basic housing for Americans in dire need of assistance. They will reduce housing assistance for the elderly, for

persons with disabilities, and for other low and

moderate income families, they would eliminate funding for most preservation activities,

and reduce funding for the operations and

modernization of public housing. All of these

proposals mean it will be more difficult for

people to find decent safe affordable housing,

in this time when affordable housing is dwindling, and the demand is growing. These proposals serve notice that the unique programs

that are designed to take the necessary step

for our most vulnerable citizens and to help

working people help themselves, today are

serving as targets for political potshots.

On the environmental front, in addition to

cutting funds for sewage treatment, safe drinking water facilities, soil and water conservation

programs and hazardous waste cleanup, the

Republican budget blueprint advocates allowing oil and gas exploration and drilling on the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a way to increase revenues. The Arctic Refuge coastal

plain is a priceless and irreplaceable treasure.

The fate of the coastal plain and its value to

present and future generations as an undisturbed, fully-functioning ecosystem have been

the subject of a complex and highly contested

debate for more than a decade. The resolution

of this debate must not be obscurely foreordained through a backdoor effort in the Federal budget process. It deserves full consideration in the glaring light of public scrutiny.

One of the biggest ironies in the budget resolution is the treatment of Medicare. In the absence of any real health care reforms, Republicans suggest simply slashing Medicare by

$288 billion over the next 7 years. This is a 27

percent cut. This will mean fewer benefits,

higher out-of-pocket costs for seniors, and

less choice of doctors. For my home State,

Minnesota, it has been projected that the Republican budget proposal will cost each senior

an additional $3,557 over the 7-year period

from 1996 to 2002. Nearly 83 percent of Medicare benefits go to seniors with incomes of

$25,000 or less, and the proposed reductions

would have a devastating effect on these people. Likewise, Medicaid funding, the only major

Federal source of funding for long-term care,

is cut 30 percent by the year 2002. Together

Medicare and Medicaid cuts account for nearly

a third of all savings in the bill. The GOP puts

this in place without a clue of how this cut will

be attained. Health care/Medicare doesn’t

exist in a vacuum. The GOP was quick to

demagog health care reform in 1993–1994.

Now they seek no reform, only a Medicare cut

that will result in a second-rate health care

program for older Americans.

In the last Congress, the Republicans refused to support meaningful comprehensive

health care reform, saying there was no crisis

in health care so why make changes? Today

they have conveniently discovered the Medicare Trustees Annual Report and tell us there

is a crisis. Actually the 1995 suggests an improvement over 1994. The GOP Congress is

going to solve this health care crisis by cutting

benefits to seniors and reimbursements to

health care providers while providing a generous tax cut to wealthy Americans and a funding increase for defense. This is not the approach that will protect Medicare and the elderly and help rationalize and regularize the

health care system.

The Medicare cuts are supposed to save

the program from a projected revenue shortfall

in 2002. However, the cut they want to take

from Medicare to offset the loss of revenue resulting from the Republicans’ tax cuts for

wealthier Americans, is $353 billion over the

next 7 years. Despite the political rhetoric, the

main beneficiaries of these tax changes are

the wealthiest members of our society and

corporate America, with the wealthiest 1.1 million Americans receiving a $20,000 tax break.

Further, the budget proposal includes a tax increase which could total as much as $42 billion, including $17 billion in personal tax increases which result from the 0.6 percent adjustment in the Consumer Price Index. The indexing of income tax rates and brackets are

reduced to middle income Americans, not

mind you in the tax package but hidden in this

budget package, and Social Security benefits

are cut with the same COLA sleight of hand.

In fact $24 billion in just 3 years is picked from

the pockets of Social Security recipients.

Even as student loans, housing, and Medicare are being cut, the Republican budget

would increase budget authority for defense to

$288 billion and defense outlays to over $280

billion by 2002—billions more than President

Clinton has requested. These large spending

increases for the Pentagon are questionable

not only because we no longer face the threat

of the cold war, but also because the Pentagon has admitted its finances are in complete

disarray. In fact, the annual financial statements of 28 of the Pentagon’s 36 departments

are so riddled with flaws and inaccuracies that

the GAO has declared them completely worthless. The Pentagon’s own Deputy Inspector

General recently stated that the Department of

Defense pays private contractors $500 million

dollars it does not owe them every year, and

DOD cannot account for $15 billion it has

spent over the past decade. Republicans apparently have no qualms about pouring billions

more taxpayer dollars into a black hole at the

Pentagon, even as they cut funds for cost-effective social programs which result in economic benefits in the future. I fail to understand why in this time of fiscal stringency that

the Pentagon receives $60–$70 billion more.

Mr. Chairman, forging our economic priorities into the next century has been a focal

point of the ongoing debate. I have grave concerns about the direction that this budget is

taking. We ought to be offering hope by acknowledging the reality that the Federal Government must remain a partner for supporting

the basic needs of our citizens, not abandonment. However, what I am seeing is an erosion in support for working families and an

eradication of support for those who cannot

make ends meet in order to give folks making

$200,000 or more a tax break. Republican priorities do not signify political courage, as they

would have us believe, but political pandering.

Republican priorities are focused on change at

the bottom line, producing enough money for

the Republican tax breaks for well off Americans, not empowering families. I urge my colleagues to oppose this distorted GOP resolution. And when the political reality meets the

public outrage the tax breaks will stand and

the tax cuts and programs and actions will falter; the secret plan to cut Medicare, a better

kept secret than the Dead Sea scrolls, will

evaporate in the public outrage at denying

much-needed justified programs and responsibilities.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. MOLLOHAN].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the distinguished gentleman

from Minnesota for yielding time to

me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the fiscal year 1996 Republican

budget resolution. Before we vote

today, I believe it is vitally important

for the American people to understand

just what this budget resolution really

does, whose interests it really serves,

and whose it abandons, whose taxes are

cut on the one hand, and whose benefits are cut and eliminated on the

other.

Simply stated, this resolution proposes a major reallocation of resources

among the people of America. If you

are a middle- or lower-income American, can lose big under this resolution.

If you are a high-income American,

you win big under this resolution.

First, the resolution would slash

spending for discretionary programs by

$635 billion over the next 7 years, cut

Medicare by $288 billion, and reduce
H 5152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

Medicaid by $187 billion. That takes

money out of the pockets of average

Americans.

And second, as if to add insult to injury, money taken out of the pockets

of middle- and lower-income Americans

is immediately used to pay for a tax

cut for the wealthiest Americans.

b 1845

Mr. Chairman, when put in this perspective, it should become clear that

the proposal we are voting on today

would literally take from the poor to

give to the rich.

Let us talk about the spending cuts

contained in the plan. The question is

how seriously should they be taken?

How seriously should we take those

spending cuts? And the answer is very

serious. Many vital programs will be

eliminated if this budget resolution,

the one we are voting on here today or

tomorrow, is enacted, and many others

will be cut as much as 40 and 50 percent.

Imagine the average American family for a moment, if you will, husband

and wife, both working struggling to

make ends meet, two or three children.

How will they be affected by the cuts

proposed in this resolution? Well, if the

children in this family are receiving

nutritional subsidies at school, they

will see large cuts due to this resolution. For college-age children in the

family, this resolution proposes to increase costs for a 4-year college loan by

$5,000. If the father or mother relies on

mass transit to get to and from work,

this resolution will, at the least, cause

the fare to go up, and in rural areas

across America, certainly in my State

and, I imagine, many others, may even

eliminate mass transit service. If either parent should be laid off or lose

his or her job, this resolution greatly

reduces the resources available for additional job training, and if there is an

elderly grandparent, this resolution

will make cuts, real cuts, to programs

which fund long-term care.

Believe me, Mr. Chairman, I could go

on and on. And so while the Republican

proposal may not impose a tax increase

on middle-class America, it certainly

eliminates many of the resources the

average American family currently relies on and has available to it.

And where do those resources go? To

pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest

Americans, Americans who do not need

to take out loans to go to college, who

do not depend on mass transit to go to

work, who do not have children who

rely on school lunches for their daily

nutritional needs.

If fact, the tax cut which is proposed

under this resolution will cost the

American people close to $400 billion

over 7 years, $700 billion over 10 years,

and 51 percent of that tax cut goes to

Americans making over $100,000 a year.

Mr. Chairman, where do those resources

go? To pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest

Americans. Americans who don’t need to take

out loans to go to college, who don’t depend

on mass transit to go to work, who don’t have

children who rely on school lunches for their

daily nutritional needs.

In fact, the tax cut which is provided for

under this resolution will cost the American

people close to $400 billion over the next 7

years—$700 billion over the next 10 years.

Fifty-one percent of the tax cuts in this Republican proposal will benefit those Americans

making over $100,000 a year—with more than

20 percent going to the top 1 percent of families making over $350,000 a year.

Well, this completes the picture—a major

shift in resources from the middle and lower

income folks to wealthy America.

So each and every American must decide if

this resolution—this Republican agenda—is in

his/her own best interest. Someone will benefit

from this proposal—it is just important to know

who that someone is.

I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on this

resolution.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from Colorado [Mr. ALLARD].

(Mr. ALLARD asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, as a member

of the Budget Committee I can say we worked

tirelessly to produce a budget that is fair and

equitable.

The result is a balanced budget in 2002—

just as we promised.

To those who oppose this plan I say, what

is your alternative?

Contrary to what many opponents would like

to have you believe, the Republican budget is

a very Senior friendly budget.

First, as we promised, Social Security is off

the table. No cuts at all to Social Security.

This is the only area of the budget we exempt from cuts.

And with Medicare, we simply 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 lets look at the rest of the budget. 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.

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.

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 is 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 debate 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

lives of our children and grandchildren. I urge

my colleagues to join me in supporting the first

balanced budget in 33 years.

Mr. Chairman, recently, I received a letter

from a young father in Denver. He wrote on

behalf of his 1-week-old daughter and asked

that I address my response to her. His letter

spoke of the massive debt she is inheriting.

He spoke of how our generation is spending

now, and hoping that later she, and the rest of

our children and grandchildren will pay the

bills.

DEAR MR. ALLARD: Last week my daughter

was born to my wife and I. As I understand

it, she is now responsible for at least a $20,000

share of our national debt. As the recent

commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary

of D-Day demonstrates, our nation has long

been mindful and thankful of the sacrifices

born by past generations. Sacrifices which

preserved and made possible the liberties and

benefits of today. My daughter, in contrast,

faces the opposite.

Instead she must sacrifice in the future, to

pay for the liberties and benefits of the past

generation. I ask you this question because

she will look to me for the answer: Which

benefits enjoyed by past generations should

she keep in mind as she toils to pay their

costs? What entitlements, what projects enjoyed by your generation will make her sacrifice noble and worth it all? What should I

tell her? What would you tell her?

In 2002, this child will be 7 years old. I hope

by then we can guarantee her a balanced

budget and secure future. Tomorrow this

House will decide the answer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this

historic budget document.

Throughout the process I had the privilege

of heading up the Natural Resources—

Science Task Force. I was joined in this effort

by SAM BROWNBACK, and BOB WALKER.

This task force included Agriculture, Interior,

Energy, and science programs. Obviously,

many of the issues impact the West, including

my constituents in Colorado.

This is a good budget for the West. Sure,

we make a contribution to the reductions, but

that is fair. I meet with constituents almost

every weekend. They want a balanced budget

and they are willing to do their part.

This is a balanced budget. Urban and rural

areas are both called on to contribute.

The payoff will be substantial.

This budget produces a balanced budget in

2002—just as we promised.

This will be the first balanced budget in 33

years. That’s right, 1969 was the last year the

Federal Government balanced its books.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5153

Let me go over the highlights of our working

group’s proposals:

AGRICULTURE

We phase down farm subsidies, this is already a declining baseline.

To offset we reduce regulation, this will be

done in the Farm bill and elsewhere, we are

also reducing the tax burden on farmers with

the capital gains tax cut and estate tax relief.

I think it is very important to note that farmers will benefit greatly from a decline in interest rates that will result from this balanced

budget.

It is estimated that a 1.5-percent reduction

in interest rates means that farmers will save

over $10 billion in interest payments on their

debt over the next 5 years. This more than offsets any reduction in subsidies.

ENERGY

Both the Energy Department and the Commerce Department are eliminated.

The power marketing Administrations are

privatized, but they are sold only to the preference power customers, giving more power

to our constituents and protecting against any

rate increase.

The naval petroleum reserves at Elk Hills

are also sold, this is the 10th largest oil field

in the country and there is no reason for the

Federal Government to own it.

Reseach functions are privatized, and all

nuclear cleanup activities will continue at current levels.

INTERIOR

There will be a moratorium on new Federal

land purchases. We own enough land already.

In many States out West, more than one-third

of the land is owned by the Federal Government.

This map shows why we don’t need to have

the Federal Government buying more land.

As you can see, vast portions of the West

are already owned by the Federal Government. All of the area colored in is owned by

the Government.

These are a few examples of the highlights

of our budget.

Make no mistake, we call on every aspect

of the Federal budget to contribute to the savings in this budget. The only exception is Social Security, which we do not touch at all.

I ask my colleagues to support this historic

budget.

MAY 9, 1995.

Memo

To: Arnie Christenson

Re: the balanced budget amendment and interest savings to farmers.

Attached is a very rough estimate of the

impact of 1.5 percent reduction in interest

rates on farmers costs.

In 1993, Farmers had $141.9 Billion in Outstanding Debt.

If we assume interest rates of 8 and 7 percent for long term and short term respectively then:

Net Savings from a 1.5 percent reduction:

$2.13 billion or a 5 year very conservative estimate of savings of $10.65.

It is interesting to note the Agriculture

Committee is debating over whether to save

$12 billion or $9 billion or $5 billion.

If we don’t balance the Federal budget

then:

Interest rates won’t go down by 1.5 percent

and farmers will spend an additional $10.65 in

interest cost over 5 years.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.

INGLIS], a member of the Committee on

the Budget.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr.

Chairman, I find it very interesting the

gentleman from West Virginia just

talked about how it is going to cost the

American people to give a tax cut. I

really do not understand that statement. I wonder if he would like to describe it for us.

It is going to cost the American people to give them a tax cut? He says it

is going to cost some hundreds of billions of dollars, but actually it is the

other way around.

When the gentleman from West Virginia voted for the Clinton tax increase

in 1993, he increased taxes in the State

of West Virginia by $356 million, $356

million in increased taxes the people of

West Virginia will pay as a result of

the gentleman’s vote in favor of the

Clinton tax increase. That costs the

American people money. That is a tax

increase.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman,

would the gentleman yield?

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I

yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does the gentleman

agree or disagree that over 51 percent

of the tax cut in the Republican proposal will benefit those Americans

making over $100,000 a year?

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. No. I

do not agree.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You do not agree

that 51 percent of the tax cuts in the

budget proposal benefit those persons

making over $100,000 a year?

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. No;

no, I do not.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You disagree with

that? Do you agree that more than 20

percent is going to the top 1 percent of

American families?

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, let me answer the

gentleman. I really cannot figure out

how you refer to our tax cut as a cost

to the American people. We are allowing the American people to keep their

money.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, regular

order.

The CHAIRMAN. Regular order has

been demanded.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from South Carolina.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. It is a

very important point. It is a very important difference between the philosophies that are represented here. The

gentleman from West Virginia just described a tax cut as costing the American people money. This is a unique

concept. In other words, he assumes

that 100 percent of the American paycheck belongs to him, and the people

who used to run this place, they assumed that he owns the paychecks of

the people in the fourth District. I assume quite the opposite.

I would point out to you that in quite

contradistinction to your approach, we

believe the American people own their

paychecks. And we should own only

such sums as we need to run the government.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 15 seconds to just point out the

chart in the front shows that those

people below $75,000 get 74 percent of

the family tax credit. The figures,

frankly, speak for themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as

she may consume to the gentlewoman

from Connecticut [Mrs. JOHNSON].

(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked

and was given permission to revise and

extend her remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.

Chairman, I submit my remarks at this

point. I rise in strong support of reaching a balanced budget by the year 2002,

under the solid work of the Committee

on the Budget and the leadership of the

gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH].

Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate

the Budget Committee for its fine work

in putting together a budget resolution

that for the first time in many years

puts us on a path toward balancing the

budget. I am pleased to support this

resolution, because I believe it is imperative that Congress regain control

over our spending practices and leave

our children an economically strong

America.

The process that we undertake today

will not be easy. Indeed, the cuts that

are going to be necessary to bring our

budget into balance will be painful in

some instances. And while I do not

agree with every line item in the Budget Committee’s resolution, and will

fight hard in the weeks ahead to shape

appropriations bills that meet our targets, I support it as a fair and honest

document from which the House can

start its deliberations on spending.

In 1993, gross interest payments

equalled $293 billion, greater than the

total outlays of the Federal Government in 1974. If we continue current

policies into the next century, we will

be forced to enact fully $500 billion in

deficit reduction each year just to restrain the deficit to 3 percent of gross

domestic product.

For too long, this Congress has chosen to

continue the status quo, pushing this Nation

further and further into debt and forcing the results of overspending today on the generations of tomorrow. The budget was last balanced in 1969, an entire generation ago. As

representatives of the American people, we

have no choice but to start on the course of

fiscal responsibility. And that is what this

budget resolution before us today sets out to

do.

There are two areas on which I would like

to focus my remarks today: Medicare and the

Commerce Department.

I cannot stress how important it is to reform

our Medicare system. This budget resolution

addresses head-on the impending Medicare

crisis facing senior constituents. We must take

steps now to shore up Medicare financing and

benefits to keep our Medicare promise to today’s beneficiaries—seniors—who will need

these health benefits 10 years from now.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle tell

you that we are ‘‘cutting Medicare, slashing

the benefits.’’ This is simply not true. We will
H 5154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

increase Medicare spending over the next 7

years by 45 percent. We will spend $1,500

more on each beneficiary 7 years from now.

How can anyone call this a cut?

But keeping Medicare merely solvent is not

all we must do. We will make Medicare work

smarter, and serve seniors better, just as employers have been successful in bringing down

costs and increasing quality and consumer

satisfaction.

And we will let seniors choose how to use

their Medicare dollars to join plans that cover

prevention, that cover prescription drugs or

home care, that provide benefits and individual

senior desires.

This budget proposal for Medicare represents a tremendous challenge, but, it gives

us a great opportunity as well.

Second, while I support the budget resolution’s cuts in spending growth, I oppose eliminating support for U.S. exports, and the thousands of American jobs they create every

year. Proposals in this budget to eliminate and

cut trade and export enhancement programs,

while well-intended, are shortsighted and ignore our dependence on U.S. exports as the

fastest growing component of GDP, growing

21⁄2 times faster than the overall economy.

The continued globalization of business, and

the global shift toward market-oriented economies will create substantial new opportunities

for U.S. goods and services abroad. To access these markets, it is imperative that the

United States maintain or create a Cabinetlevel agency dedicated to coordinating these

vital export and import finance and promotion

programs. Eliminating the functions of the

Commerce Department will certainly not enhance job growth in this fast-growing area of

our economy, though many of the savings proposed in Commerce are thoughtful and meritorious.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of

House Congressional Resolution 67 and urge

my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BUNNING],

a member of both the Committee on

the Budget and the Committee on

Ways and Means.

(Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked

and was given consideration to revise

and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding me

this time.

I rise in strong support of the Republican budget resolution and urge my

colleagues to support it as well.

We promised that we would produce a

proposal that would lead to a balanced

budget by the year 2002, and we did it.

We promised the American people that

we would produce a budget that provided them with much-needed tax relief, and we did it. And, finally, we

promised that we would produce a

budget that protects Social Security

trust fund moneys and protects Social

Security benefits, and we did it.

And as chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, I am proud to say

we are not going to touch those funds.

Our budget fully preserves and protects

Social Security.

Our budget assumes absolutely no

changes, no changes of any kind in the

Social Security program, no COLA

cuts, no benefit cuts, no tax increases.

Unfortunately, there are those who

prefer the status quo and who are willing to resort to all sorts of fearmongering and false statements designed to frighten our senior citizens.

They used these tactics to help kill, at

least temporarily, the balanced budget

amendment in the Senate. They suggest that a balanced budget amendment would result in cuts in the Social

Security benefits.

Our budget resolution today proves

them exactly wrong. We can, and we

will, balance the budget without damaging Social Security.

In fact, the majority proposal today

would actually strengthen Social Security. As it stands now, the greatest single threat to the long-term solvency of

the Social Security system is the continued runaway Federal spending. A

balanced budget is the greatest guarantee possible that the promise of Social

Security will be kept.

A balanced budget is the best longterm protection that we can offer for

the Social Security trust funds, and

our budget will put us on a realistic

path to a balanced budget.

If you want to vote to preserve and

strengthen Social Security, you can

vote for the majority budget and feel

very comfortable that you are doing

the right thing. So do the right thing

and support the majority’s budget proposal.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as the may consume to the

gentleman from Ohio [Mr. STOKES].

(Mr. STOKES asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

opposition to the Republican resolution.

Mr. Chairman, the $1.4 trillion budget plan,

which the Republicans claim will reduce the

deficit, represents a major assault on American families. Under their plan, our colleagues

on the other side of the aisle have demonstrated a callous disregard for the most vulnerable in our society. The Republicans have

launched an attack on those in the dawn of

life—our children; those in the twilight of life—

the elderly; and those who are in the shadow

of life—the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

The Republican budget threatens the quality

of life for the vast majority of Americans. My

congressional district and similar communities

across the Nation cannot absorb budget cuts

that take meals from our children; and health

care and heating assistance from our elderly.

We cannot enact a budget that forces hardworking families to choose between paying a

mortgage or purchasing health care coverage

for their children.

Mr. Chairman, Americans are tuned in to

this important budget debate. I have received

letters from directors of hospitals, community

health care centers, and others. They offer

concrete evidence regarding the enormous toll

the Republican budget would take on our

communities.

Just recently, I heard from two organizations

in my congressional district regarding the

budget cuts. These institutions are highly respected and noted for their service to the

community. Mr. Richard B. Hogg who serves

as senior vice president for financial management at Mount Sinai Hospital, shared with me

his concern that the hospital’s ability to continue to provide essential services will be severely threatened. Mr. Hogg states in his letter, ‘‘* * * to drastically cut the social and

health care needs to those most in need is unconscionable.’’

The director of nursing at Health Hill Hospital, Loretta C. Pierce, expressed her concern

regarding cuts to the Medicaid Program, and,

in particular, the damage it poses to children’s

health. She writes, ‘‘Medicaid is more than a

health care program for poor people * * * it is

insurance for children with very special health

care needs * * * even if their families have

low or moderate incomes.’’

I want to commend Mount Sinai and Health

Hill Hospitals for taking a leadership role in

addressing these important issues. As a

strong health advocate, I share their concern

that the Republican budget cuts pose a threat

to the health of our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 67, the

budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. The Republicans’ budget plan as proposed is outrageous and extremely harmful to America’s

families and working citizens.

If enacted, the $1.4 trillion budget will drastically slash everything from child nutrition

services to assisted housing, to health care, to

education. No one is safe. Everyone will suffer

under this budget proposal.

Those most in need would be hardest hit,

including nearly cuts to assisted housing for

homeless, poor, disabled, and elderly Americans. In addition to abolishing the Department

of Education, the Republican budget would

also eliminate funding for TRIO and Howard

University, one of the Nation’s leading institutions of higher education. Funding would be

severely slashed for financial aid, programs for

the disadvantaged, and other elementary and

secondary education initiatives.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation’s most vulnerable

citizens must not be forced to carry the weight

of the Republicans’ $360 billion tax cut for the

wealthy on their backs. There is no compassion in this budget measure, and in fact, the

drastic cuts in quality of life programs defy

common sense.

The bill would cut Medicare by $288 billion

and Medicaid by $187 billion. The cuts in

these two health care programs alone would

account for about one-third of the total reduction in spending. If the Medicare cuts become

law, seniors would see 40 to 50 percent of

their cost-of-living adjustment consumed by increases in their health care costs.

Mr. Chairman, I know the people of my district cannot carry this burden. The Republican

budget would weaken the foundation of our

economy and place our children’s future at

risk. House Concurrent Resolution 67 is blatantly irresponsible. On behalf of our Nation’s

children, working families, and the elderly, this

bill must be defeated. I ask my colleagues to

join me in voting against House Concurrent

Resolution 67.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4

minutes to the gentleman from Texas

[Mr. STENHOLM].

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5155

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I am

happy to rise today in a moment that

I did not think would ever come, that

we would be debating not whether to

balance the budget, but how to do it. I

commend the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from

Ohio [Mr. KASICH], my ex-chairman,

the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.

SABO], and others who have demonstrated quite an amount of sincerity

in their different approaches.

My chief regret today is that, I say

to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH], I have not been able to stand

shoulder to shoulder with you in the

argument today as we have in the past.

But we have some sincere differences

with the budget that you present

today.

I sincerely believe that the cuts that

you have proposed, cuts in the rate of

increase that you have proposed in the

Medicare and Medicaid area, are too severe for my rural district. I believe

that sincerely. I believe that you believe that is not. But I think it is a big

problem.

But that is not what I choose to talk

about today. What I choose to talk

about today is the misrepresentation

that is occurring at home in my district, that is occurring by the so-called

Americans for a Balanced Budget, who

are circulating radio advertisements

and other statements in which they say

Congressmen who claim to support a

balanced budget amendment and vote

against the Kasich plan will lose all

claim to the title of being pro-balanced

budget, and also saying in this news release that the Democrats in Congress

have not even offered a budget of their

own.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is

not a true statement. The Congressional Black Caucus has offered a budget, and the coalition has offered a

budget that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. GEPHARDT] will be proposing

tomorrow.

Misrepresentation is occurring on all

sides, and that should not be happening.

I wonder why our coalition budget is

not credible when we cut spending $18.2

billion more in the first 2 years, in

which you have to vote those cuts before you run for reelection. Why are we

not credible?

I wish that you in your budget had

done more up front than what you have

done. We do. We propose the spending

cuts now, not later.

It was interesting, when we debated

in the Committee on the Budget, we

were saying early on 7-year budget,

you said you could not do it. You had

to do it in a 5-year budget. Now we are

saying we are going to do it in a 7-year

budget, but you take $18 billion more

spending in the first 2 years when we

can not assume it.

I really worry about this one: Having

been here in 1981, when we voted tax

cuts, promising spending cuts that we

never got to, here we go again. We are

doing two reconciliations. We are going

to reconcile the tax cuts. We are going

to have the first reconciliation with

the tax cuts and the so-called easier

spending cuts, which there is no such

thing. We are going to do that one

first. Then we are going to postpone

the tough spending cuts for September.

We have been down that road before.

And the budget that we propose that

will be voted on tomorrow, I submit to

you, is more credible in another way,

because we will have at the end of our

7 years in the coalition budget $160 billion less debt for those children and

grandchildren that we have been talking about. Why does that make us less

credible than you?

Let us conduct the debate in such a

manner in which we recognize there is

a difference of priorities. We will argue

ours tomorrow. We think we have a

better set, and we believe the American

people also agree that we should cut

spending first and then cut taxes after

we have shown that we have got 218

votes, 51 votes, in the House and Senate, to do that which we say we are

going to do.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. WOLF], a

member of the Committee on Appropriations.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

strong support of the budget. I think it

is fair.

Let me take my hat off and pay special commendation to the gentleman

from Ohio [Mr. KASICH], to his staff,

and to the members of the Committee

on the Budget.

In the Book of Esther in the Old Testament, they said Esther was sent just

for a time just like this. Perhaps JOHN

and the others on the Committee on

the Budget have been sent for a time

like this.

I have given the speech over and over

in the last several years about my five

children and how important it was to

balance the budget. I have heard Members on both sides give the same

speech.

I believe that the Kasich budget is

fair. Clearly, we have to remember the

poor, and I believe that we will remember the poor. But, clearly, this is the

time, and if we do not do it now, will it

be any easier, as the gentleman from

Texas [Mr. STENHOLM] talked, next

year or the year after? Clearly, it will

not be.

We can argue about where we cut

within the parameters of the budget,

but, frankly, we cannot argue should

we balance the budget, because we

clearly should.

b 1900

In closing, one of the leading newspapers in my district the 10th District

of Virginia, the Winchester Star, recently editorialized on the balanced

budget effort with these words:

And so at this time, perhaps it is best for

us to draw upon the wisdom of pamphleteer

Thomas Paine, who penned these immortal

words in the darkest hours of the Revolution: ‘‘These are the times that try men’s

souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine

patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the

service of his country; but he that stands it

now, deserves the love and thanks of man

and woman.’’

For the GOP, which has presented the first

balanced budget plan in a quarter-century,

this is definitely no time for ‘‘summer soldiers.’’ For a monumental battle, with significant ramifications for the future, will

soon be enjoined.

I strongly urge Members on both

sides to put aside our differences and,

whatever we do, to make sure when we

leave tomorrow night we have passed

the balanced budget, not only for our

generation but, more important, for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal

year 1996 budget resolution. I first want to

congratulate Budget Committee Chairman

JOHN KASICH for his yeoman work to bring the

House to this point in its history today. This is

truly a historic day. The people’s house is

poised to secure the financial future of this

Nation and I want to be on record in support

of leading this Nation to a balanced budget by

the year 2002.

I recognize that there are differences of

opinion on the direction we should take and

the budget numbers we should use in reaching the goal of a balanced budget. But there

should be no difference of opinion on the need

for this Nation’s financial house to be solvent;

on the need to secure a prosperous future for

our children, their children, and generations of

Americans to come.

I believe this blueprint for a balanced federal

budget by the year 2002 will help secure that

future and in so doing protect elderly citizens,

protect middle class Americans, and protect

future generations.

There are many politically expedient statements being made today on what this budget

does and does not do and about whom this

budget hurts and helps. We have heard the

statements that this budget callously targets

the vulnerable and less fortunate in our society, that this budget cuts programs that benefit

the poor and elderly to pay for tax cuts for the

rich. My colleagues, that broken record some

in this House keep spinning is becoming tired

and worn rhetoric. I certainly would not be

supporting any effort to balance the budget on

the backs of the most needy of our citizens.

Indeed, none of us would.

The American people are tired of the carping and sniping and rhetoric. They want action. They want this House to work together in

a bipartisan way to reduce the Federal deficit,

stop the hemorrhaging national debt, and balance this Nation’s budget.

One of the leading newspapers in the 10th

District of Virginia, The Winchester Star, recently editorialized on the balanced budget effort with these words:

And so at this time, perhaps it is best for

us to draw upon the wisdom of pamphleteer

Thomas Paine, who penned these immortal

words in the darkest hours of the Revolution: ‘‘These are the times that try men’s

souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine

patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the

service of his country; but he that stands it

now, deserves the love and thanks of man

and woman.’’

For the GOP, which has presented the first

balanced budget plan in a quarter-century,
H 5156 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

this is definitely no time for ‘summer soldiers.’ For a monumental battle, with significant ramifications for the future, will

soon be enjoined.

Mr. Chairman, I call on all our colleagues to

not shrink from their responsibilities to the citizens of this Nation, to not be summer soldiers.

I ask every member of this House to join in

this historic opportunity to put this Nation on

the right fiscal track and secure the financial

future of America.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. LARGENT], a very distinguished freshman member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to, first of all, commend the

chairman of the Committee on the

Budget. Some folks may not know that

he has a reputation of throwing nickels

around like manhole covers, and to the

American taxpayers I say, ‘‘You should

be pleased that a gentleman with such

a reputation is the guardian of the Federal purse strings.’’

I also want to remind Members in

this body and American taxpayers once

again that over 300 Members in this

Chamber voted for a balanced budget.

66 Senators voted for a balanced budget. 81 percent of all Americans believe

that the Federal Government should

balance their books.

Mr. Chairman, I think the attitude

and the mood of the American citizens

was best reflected by a farmer in

central Oklahoma that I had a chance

to visit with in January. When I asked

him the question, ‘‘Should the Federal

Government have to balance its

books,’’ he very pointedly and very

briefly replied.

He said, ‘‘Well, I have to, and so

should the Federal Government,’’ and I

could not agree any more.

I say to the gentleman from Ohio,

‘‘Chairman KASICH, I would say to you

that the greatest compliment that is

paid to this budget document that you

have laid down before us to bring us to

a zero by the year 2002, an historic document, that the greatest compliment

that has been paid to it has been the

breath of rhetorical blabber about this

particular budget because everybody is

going to feel the pain. There is something there for everybody, and I think

in that respect that it earns a great

deal of credibility that we all have to

earn.’’

As my dad told me, that it was belttightening time, believe me it is time

to tighten the belt on the bloated belly

of the Federal Government.

Finally, I just would like to quote a

few statistics, and I am ever mindful of

the fact that it was in Washington, DC,

that the saying originated that figures

lie and liars figure, and so I am careful

when I throw around figures myself.

But I would remind all of my colleagues that the tax cuts that are

found within the Contract With America, that 70 percent of the taxpayers

that will benefit from the capital gains

tax cut are citizens who earned $50,000

or less, 70 percent of the people who

benefit from capital gains earn less

than $50,000, and families with children

that earn $25,000 or less will totally

wipe out any tax bill to the Federal

Government.

Also, I would remind my colleagues

that the chart that was up here earlier,

that 74 percent of the beneficiaries of

the family tax cut earn less, less than

$75,000, and let me say to my colleagues, ‘‘You don’t need a CPA to figure it out.’’

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 21⁄2

minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. SLAUGHTER], an active member of our Committee on the Budget.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman,

this is Ruth Lowenguth. She lives in

my district, is a constituent of mine.

She is 83 years old.

Now, I know she does not like it, but

we are hearty people in Rochester, and

she is also testament to our extraordinary health care system there. But

Ruth, like 80 percent of the Medicare

home care health users, will be living

on a fixed income of less than $15,000 a

year. Three-quarters of the people in

that category are over age 75, and twothirds of them are elderly women.

Now, Mrs. Lowenguth has a small

pension and a modest Social Security

check, and she pays all health costs

that are not covered by Medicare. That

is only about half of the health care expenses. If she had to pay 20 percent

more to get home health care, it would

be an additional $1,200 a year for her.

She cannot spend that money then on

housing, or food, or prescription drugs,

or other necessities. It is $1,200 that she

and millions of other women on fixed

incomes just cannot afford.

Why are they faced with this threat?

Because Republicans want to cut Medicare to give a tax break to the very

wealthy.

Another thing that is very concerning to me, Mr. Chairman, is the

amount of money that I think we may

be losing from women’s health care, an

initiative that is long overdue, and it is

only 4 years old. We have been able to

provide quite a bit of money that was

never there before. Actually, it looks

like quite a bit compared to zero for

breast cancer research, and we have

systematically tried to put more and

more in. We cannot turn back on that

commitment now because breast cancer kills one American woman every 12

minutes; more than 40,000 of them will

die this year.

Mr. Chairman, all women are at risk

of getting breast cancer. More than 70

percent have no known risk factor, and

the incidence has doubled in the last 30

years, so much more research is needed. But it is not likely to happen. A 5-

percent cut in funding for the National

Institutes of Health would mean that

research on breast cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, and a host of other

diseases will be competing for scarce

dollars, and we could lose ground on

very important progress.

For the first time, mortality rates

are declining among breast cancer. If

this program stalls from lack of funding, what will my Republican colleagues say to the women who will be

diagnosed during the 1990’s?

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to think of the mothers,

women, sisters, all their relatives back

in their district, and think about this

and vote ‘‘no.’’

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30

seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I point

out to the gracious gentlewoman from

New York [Ms. SLAUGHTER] that Medicare spending in the great State of New

York is now $14 billion. It is going to

rise to $19 billion in the next 7 years, a

36-percent increase. The per-beneficiary cost is going to go from $5,312 to

over $7,000 per beneficiary.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 30 seconds before yielding to the

gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman just

talked about the cuts in research in

breast cancer and other kinds of NIH

research. I think it is important to

note that NIH has more than doubled

in the last 10 years. The cut we are

talking about is less than—only 5 percent, and it is impossible that every

one of the programs she listed could be

in jeopardy when we are talking about

a 5-percent cut.

Mr. Chairman, we are making sure

that the kind of research that we have

been doing will be ongoing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to

the distinguished freshman gentleman

from New Hampshire [Mr. BASS].

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

strong support of the Kasich budget.

Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting

here for the last 41⁄2 hours listening to

this debate, and I took up my pen and

pencil and calculated that we have run

up an additional debt of $168.89 million

since this debate began. That is debt

that will be paid by every existing taxpayer and every taxpayer who will

come ahead of us. This is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, on November 8, the

American people said that they had

had enough of a Congress that holds its

head high in arrogance and tells the

people of America what they need and

what they want and steals money out

of their pockets and the pockets of

their children to pay for programs, and

then today we sit here talking about

not whether we have a balanced budget, but how to balance the budget, and

we hear the old guard, the keepers of

the bureaucracy, the protectors of the

old order, talk about the programs that

they want to preserve, the programs

that they want to protect, the programs that they know have not

worked, the programs that have built

bureaucracies in this country year

after year after year.

I am a new Member of Congress, and

I have stood by for the last 4 or 5 years

and watched these chronic deficits rise

year after year. What business do we

think we have as Congressmen running

these deficits for no reason? There is
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5157

no war. There is no economic emergency. Even in the 1970’s we were given

excuses by the President and the majority at that time. It is time, and the

American people have told us, to balance this budget and do it now, and

that is what the Kasich budget does.

My colleagues, let history judge this

Congress and its achievements, not on

the hard choices that we all have to

make, but by what our actions do for

our children and our children’s children.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Simple fact:

Over 76 percent of the dollar benefit

of the capital gains tax change in the

Republican proposal goes to people

with incomes over $100,000 a year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to

the gentleman from Texas [Mr.

DOGGETT].

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, why

have the Republicans cut Medicare as

they are doing here in this budget? Of

course, it is to finance a tax break for

the privileged few.

Now, June Cox is a woman in any district. I met with her and about 200

older Austin citizens last Saturday.

They are concerned about seeing the

budget balanced as much as anybody in

this room, but they do not think we

have to balance it with a sick tax on

our seniors, and there is something else

that I had hoped I would not have to

show in the course of this debate. It is

another picture, and I would like my

colleagues to focus on it. This is it.

I say to my colleagues, If you’ll look

real closely at it, you will see through

this time of the debate every single

thing that our Republican colleagues

have told us about, specifically what it

is they’re going to do in imposing new

out-of-pocket costs on America’s seniors. That is to say, if you look closely,

you won’t see the doubling of the deductible. That bothers Jean Cox, and, if

you look closely, you won’t see the new

out-of-pocket expenses when Jean

Cox’s doctor tells her she has to go to

the lab, and, if you look closely, you

won’t see the new out-of-pocket expenses that Jean Cox will have if she

needs specialized nursing care. No, you

won’t even see the increase in the deductible, because only in Washington

would someone have the audacity to

come and tell the senior citizens of

America that they’re doing more, that

they’re spending trillions and millions

and billions of dollars more to help

them out. But they stop to think about

it from the perspective of the senior

citizen. Jean Cox doesn’t have a lot of

understanding about trillions and billions of dollars, but, you know, to her

and those 200 people I talked to in Austin, $20 extra a month is a lot of

money. Doubling the deductible is a lot

of money, and that is why, when they

go through their reams have charts and

when they take all the luminaries and

all the number-crunchers of the Republican Party and they put them altogether, they haven’t come out with a

chart that shows anything other than

this.

Mr. Chairman, I challenge them. I

say, come forward with your plan.

Where is the plan. Where is the information for the American people as to

what you’re going to do to their out-ofpocket expenses in Texas, or Connecticut, or anyplace else, because we

haven’t heard one word. Ms. Cox and

others who are watching, we haven’t

heard one word about what’s going to

happen to the out-of-pocket expenses of

these seniors, and it’s about time we

hear something about it.

My colleagues, the basic difference,

as we approach this debate, is that we

Democrats believe that Medicare is reliant on a trust fund, not a slush fund,

to pay for tax breaks for the rich.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would

admonish Members to address their remarks to the Chair rather than to the

TV audience or anyone else, as is required by the rules.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the distinguished gentleman

from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in the Committee on the Budget

when the gentleman from Texas spoke

about a secret plan, and I began to look

at this blank sheet, and I thought,

well, this blank sheet is the President’s

balanced budget plan, and I thought,

no, no, that is not what it is. It is his

plan to save Medicare. It is blank. It

goes bankrupt in 7 years. And we are

going to save it, even if the gentleman

from Texas does not want us to.

b 1915

Now, the challenge that we have is

that the gentleman makes up numbers.

He says we are going to do all these

things. What he does not realize is no,

what we are going to do is allow beneficiaries choice, which they do not have

now. We are going to allow the private

sector to give them rebates, which they

do not have now. Some beneficiaries

will actually get money from Medicare

because the private sector will be able

to offer it to them.

We think it is incredible that we

have allowed Medicare and Medicaid to

rise at 10 percent when the private sector is rising at 4 percent. We would like

to get Medicare and Medicaid into the

21st century and be able to provide

choice. In Texas, Medicare is going to

go up 50 percent. Only in Washington is

an increase in spending called a cut.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the distinguished gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALKER], vice

chairman of the committee.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, we

have heard a lot of talk out here about

tax cuts for the rich. Let us get the

facts on the table. The fact is that 70

percent of all the taxpayers who are

going to benefit from the capital gains

tax cuts will have incomes of less than

$50,000. Families with children earning

less than $25,000 a year will have their

entire Federal income tax liability

eliminated by the $500 per child tax

credit. Families of incomes of $30,000

will have 48 percent, or nearly half, of

their Federal income tax liability

ended. Seventy-four percent of the

beneficiaries of the $500 per child tax

credit will be families with incomes

below $75,000.

There is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats

believe that if you make $25,000 a year,

you are rich, and you ought to have

your taxes increased. If you make

$30,000 a year, you are rich, and you

ought to have your taxes increased.

That is what Democrats believe. When

they talk about the rich here on the

floor, they are talking about people

making $25,000 and $30,000 a year, who

they believe ought to be tax poor. We

think they ought to have their taxes

eliminated.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

distinguished gentleman from Guam

[Mr. UNDERWOOD].

(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I

rise in strong opposition to the budget

resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H. Con.

Res. 67, the budget resolution, not because

deep budget cuts have to be made, but because these budget cuts are being used to finance tax cuts for the wealthy on the backs of

school children and the elderly.

Of all things to use to balance the budget,

gutting educational programs and elderly

health care should be the last thing this Nation

should do.

The reversal of the national effort to improve

our schools through Goals 2000, Improving

America’s Schools, School-to-Work, and other

Department of Education programs in this

budget would have serious consequences in

school districts all across America. And I know

that it would adversely affect efforts on Guam

to raise the standards of our own schools.

What happened to all those politicians who

used to complain that Johnny can’t read?

Under this budget, poor Johnny still can’t read,

Johnny can’t get a decent school lunch, Johnny will not be prepared to get a job, and Johnny’s mom won’t be able to pay her medical

bills.

And if your name is Juan, the cuts are particularly egregious. The elimination of all bilingual education programs is especially meanspirited. I, for one, do not believe this to be a

budget cut, it is social engineering at its

worst—and this, from conservatives who

would decry any social engineering at all. It is

trying to legislate that all schoolchildren who

need help in language skills would be denied

help because they are different, and their families are different. It is legislating that all kids

should have been born speaking English, and

its just too bad if they were unfortunate

enough to have been born into a family that

has preserved its own cultural heritage.

I also oppose the efforts to cut Medicare

benefits for the elderly in order to balance a

budget based on tax cuts for the wealthy. All

the denial cannot erase the basic fact that this

is exactly what this budget does.

Mr. Chairman, we all realize that tough decisions must be made. We just do not agree
H 5158 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

that the toughest part of balancing the budget

would fall to the most vulnerable Americans,

the schoolchildren and the elderly of this country. The lawyers and the wealthy are over represented in this Congress, but who will stand

up for the children and the elderly?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon [Mr. WYDEN].

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

opposition to the budget that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,

the Republican side, are offering.

Now, a few minutes ago, the gentleman from Oklahoma said that it is

time for America to tighten its belt.

Now, surely there are many Americans

who can tighten their belt, but I am

here to talk for a moment about my

constituent, Mrs. Arlene Farwell, who

if she is asked to tighten here belt any

more is going to find it pretty tough to

breathe.

She is a senior, she is retired, she is

disabled. Because of a bureaucratic

snafu, she is paying more than $80 a

month for her Medicare part B. And if

the deductibles and the copayments

and the premiums go up any more, she

simply is going to have nowhere to

turn. She put it really very well for me

today when she said, ‘‘There is just too

much month left at the end of the

money.’’

So I say to my colleagues, Medicare

badly needs reform, and all Members

understand that. But there is a right

way to do it and a wrong way to do it.

And I would submit that cutting Medicare spending, as the Republican budget does, by 15 percent, without saying

how you are going to do it and still

protecting Mrs. Farwell, is the wrong

way to go.

Now, many of my colleagues on the

Republican side have some interesting

theories about managed care. The

irony is over a 20 year period, we have

made many of those theories work. In

Portland, OR, we have the highest percentage of managed care now in the

country among seniors in our area. It

is close to 50 percent. But you cannot

turn the system around on a dime.

What is going to happen to the seniors of our country, and I have seen

this again and again since my days as

co-director of the Gray Panthers, when

you theorize about Medicare, as the

Republicans do, what happens in reality is the seniors get more

copayments, more deductibles, more

premiums, while everybody waits to

see if the great theories are ever going

to pan out.

So I offer to my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle that if rescuing

part A of the Medicare trust fund is

really what you seek to do, let us

honor the Speaker’s pledge to deal with

this outside the budget. If that is the

principal concern of my colleagues on

this side of the aisle, let us work together on a bipartisan basis to deal

with this, as Speaker GINGRICH suggested, outside the budget.

I think there are many Members on

both sides of the aisle who would like

to take that route rather than the

route my colleagues on the Republican

side propose, which is to reduce Medicare spending 15 percent, try to turn

this system around on a dime, and still

protect seniors.

I would also offer to my colleagues,

and we heard some testimony on this

yesterday in the Subcommittee on

Oversight and Investigation, that if

you try to turn the system around on a

dime and make the savings you are

talking about overnight, what is going

to happen is you are going to create

juicy new opportunities for fraud and

abuse.

If you do not believe that is going to

happen, go talk to the people of south

Florida, because when they tried to go

to managed care overnight, when they

tried some of the ideas that the Republicans are talking about advocating

now, what happened was the sleazy ripoff artists, who are already exploiting

the program, and we certainly agree on

that, saw a great new opportunity, and

instead of producing savings, we saw

more waste, fraud and abuse. If you

look at south Florida, you will see how

it happened.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to

something the gentleman from Oregon

said. The fact of the matter is that we

tried to do exactly what the gentleman

was talking about. We tried it on the

floor yesterday, to get some recommendations to this body as to how

we should solve the problem, and by a

vote that unfortunately was a majority, but it was not enough to get the

two-thirds on the suspension, this body

rejected the idea we should ask the

trustees who have the fiduciary responsibility for the trust fund to give us

some recommendations about how we

save it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to

the gentleman from California [Mr.

RADANOVICH], a distinguished freshman

member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, in

the election in 1994 the American public sent a strong message to Congress,

and that was they wanted a smaller,

less intrusive Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, the 1996 budget resolution is a manifestation of that mandate. The Federal Government has gotten too large, and we have made it

smaller and less intrusive by transferring power from Washington to the

State and local level. We have also

privatized many functions of Federal

Government that frankly should never

have been started here in the first

place.

I believe the American people are

willing and able to rise to this new

level of expectation. The American

public is not stupid. I think it is arrogant to assume that the people of this

country are not capable of taking responsibility for themselves, for their

families, and for their communities.

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. MCCARTHY].

(Ms. MCCARTHY asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

her remarks.)

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, why

are Republicans cutting Medicare to

pay for tax breaks for the privileged

few? That’s the question my constituents like Joan and Dale Hunt are asking. Republicans started by taking

school lunches from children, and now

they are going after our senior’s Medicare. I am committed to balancing our

budget by downsizing government, and

by streamlining and eliminating Federal programs which have outlived

their usefulness. I have not committed

to balancing the budget by slashing

funding in Medicare by $283 billion and

Medicaid by $184 billion. We have a

moral obligation with our seniors. Seniors who have worked hard all their

lives, and through their sacrifice and

toil, have made this the greatest Nation in the world now are finding out

to their amazement that Republican

promises to protect their entitlement

were empty promises—and simply a

ploy to provide a $353 billion dollar

giveaway to the wealthy.

For our seniors, medical care out-ofpocket expenditures have ballooned to

21 percent of their disposable income.

These two constituents, Joan and Dale

Hunt of Raytown, have visited with me

and have expressed their concerns with

the Republican’s proposed cuts in Medicare. The Hunts, in their early 70’s, remain active in their church and continue to volunteer to make our community better. Dale was a meat-cutter

at our local Kroger grocery store for 45

years, and Joan worked at numerous

jobs to raise their son and to make

ends meet. Last year they had $4,300 in

out-of-pocket medical expenses. These

two seniors, who have worked hard all

their lives and played by the rules are

realizing that their very subsistence is

at stake. They have a very limited discretionary income and have been unable to buy needed medical supplies.

The Hunts live on a fixed income and

have put off buying hearing aids and

glasses for Dale and needed dental

work for Joan. They have instead fixed

their furnace. Now with the Republican

budget proposals the Hunts will pay

$3,500 more for out-of-pocket expenses

over the next 7 years. $3,500 dollars

may not seem like very much. For the

Hunts, glasses, hearing aids and dental

work will again have to be put off,

their budget will be faced with additional cuts; will they be able to fix

their furnace the next time it breaks,

and will they be able to buy the necessary medicines, or the necessary food

to keep them healthy?

I am committed to making the difficult choices necessary to balance the

Federal budget, but I will not be party

to a balanced budget formula which

gives tax breaks to those most advantaged, while slashing the programs of

our parents—the seniors. Take your
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5159

tax breaks off the table and we will

work together to leave a legacy to our

children we can be proud of, and not a

legacy which impoverishes the elderly.

I will not forget the Hunts whose love

has endured. Joan has given up the notion of replacing her lost wedding band,

and the Hunts have given up traveling

to be with their son and grandchildren—they are luxuries they can no

longer afford. We must not give up on

the Hunts, and 36 million seniors like

the Hunts who live on a day by day

basis to meet their basic needs of food,

medicine, and shelter. Is this the

American Dream promised by the Republicans? If hope is a number in the

GOP budget math, I must declare that

in my district, reality springs eternal—

we can’t make it on hope alone. Keep

your promise and give up your tax

breaks for the wealthy.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman. I, with all sincerity,

thank the gentlewoman from Missouri.

It is important we keep our promises. I

am looking at quote after quote where

she says we need to balance the Federal budget, and that is what we are

doing. This is our opportunity.

In Missouri, we give $3.7 billion to

Missouri in Medicare funding. It is

going to go up to $5.2 billion. It is an

increase of 39 percent. The per beneficiary of individuals in Missouri get

$4,493. That is going to go up to nearly

$6,000, an increase per beneficiary. Cutting school lunch, it is going to go up

4.5 percent. It is an increase.

Only in Washington will the gentlewoman say that an increase in spending in Medicare, an increase in spending in school lunch, is a cut. Only in

Washington.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. TIAHRT].

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I did not

realize this was poster day on the Potomac or I would have had these blown

up. These are the most important constituents that one could have. These

are my three children. This is Jessica

and John and Luke, and it is their future that we are talking about today

and the nurture of millions of other

children and grandchildren in this

country.

My daughter is 14. If we cannot balance the budget by 2002 and it takes us

as long to get out of this debt as it did

to get in it, she is going to be 53 years

old. We have literally passed on the

problems of this generation to the

next.

Are we committed to balancing the

budget? We are on this side of the aisle.

We have a plan to eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet-level

position. This is a historical event because we have never eliminated a Cabinet-level department in the history of

this country.

b 1930

But it is time to trade in this 1970’s

tax guzzler. And how did Secretary

O’Leary and President Clinton respond? They said they are going to cut

14.1 billion over the next 5 years, but

yet next year’s budget has an increase

of $337 million.

Even Vice President GORE, in his

reinventing government group, has

said that the largest part of the Department of Energy, the environmental

management group, is missing 20 percent of their milestones. They are 40

percent inefficient. And he said that it

is going to cost taxpayers $70 billion

over the next 30 years if we do not do

something about it.

Mr. Chairman, this must stop. We

need to balance the budget. We need to

honor our children’s future. We need to

turn the lights out at the Department

of Energy.

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 31⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BALDACCI].

Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I

yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. MCCARTHY].

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to point out that in the figures on Missouri which were discussed

just briefly, the loss to Missouri in revenue would be $5.2 billion. That averages out to $3,004 per senior on their

Medicaid cuts, Medicare cuts.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman

for yielding to me. I thought this document from the Committee on the Budget would be helpful in clarifying the

loss to my State and the loss to individual seniors.

Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, there

are approximately 199,000 Medicare recipients in the State of Maine; 21,000 of

those recipients in Maine are at or

below the poverty level. The question

is not to balance the budget. The question is to balance the budget and offer

$300 billion in tax breaks.

When you stop and think of the lady

in Old Town, ME, that confronted me

and said she could not afford her prescription drugs and she was forced to

cut the tablets in half because she

could not afford it, asking her to double the out-of-pocket expenses to have

a $300 billion tax cut; talking to the elderly couple in Lewiston, ME, who are

getting divorced because they cannot

afford their prescription drugs, so they

qualify for the Medicaid Program,

which is being cut; telling that to these

people beyond the charts that are being

offered, those are the real people who

these figures are impacting.

And then talking to the elderly in

my State who are in nursing homes

who because of new cost-effective regulations are being analyzed and at the

age of 92 being told to leave nursing

homes and to go into group homes,

that is really what is going on out

there.

I think when people get to be the age

of 65, that we want to be very careful

with how we handle their health care.

Those are the people that have the

Contract With America. Sixty years

ago when Franklin Delano Roosevelt

established those contracts of Social

Security and then Medicare and Medicaid later on, those are the compacts

that have given our seniors a lift up

out of poverty so that they can live

their life in dignity. Those are the people who really society will be judged

by.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 30 seconds.

I would just like to point out to the

gentleman from Maine that, when we

talk about these cuts on senior citizens, he is right, of course, because the

Republican budget proposal with all

the tax cuts that we have provided will

provide $154 million to the senior citizens only of the State of Maine in tax

reductions. That is savings by changing the earnings test for senior citizens

and of course the reduction in the income tax on Social Security benefits.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to

the gentleman from Washington [Mr.

METCALF].

Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, we do

have to balance the budget, and this

plan that we have is a start toward balancing the budget by the year 2000 or

2002. Today, $1,000 per person, men,

women, and children, $1,000 per person

per year is spent in paying the interest

on the debt. Imagine what your family

would do with $1,000 per person.

In 1997, the interest on the debt will

pass, it will pass defense. It will then

be the largest single expenditure in the

Federal budget. Paying perpetual interest on a permanent debt is an absolutely ridiculous way to use tax

money.

I think that the way we should look

at each expenditure is in this light: Is

this expenditure important enough to

borrow the money, because we do not

have money anymore, we have debt; is

it important enough to borrow the

money and then force our children and

grandchildren to reduce their standard

of living enough to pay the interest on

the debt for the rest of their natural

lives? If it is that important, if each

spending item is that important, then

we should do it. And if it is not that

important, we should have the courage

and the ability to just say this is something we will not afford until after the

budget is balanced.

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 31⁄2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs.

CLAYTON].

(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given

permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I

yield to the gentleman from Maine

[Mr. BALDACCI].

Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, as far

as the tax cuts that are being provided,

I was told by the majority staff on the

Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight that, if the unfunded mandate legislation was in fact effective,

the tax cut would be the first issue

that would go through that because in
H 5160 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

my State it is going to cost $370 million over that 10-year period in loss of

revenues to my State, if the unfunded

mandate legislation was in effect at

the time that these tax cuts are being

talked about.

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I also

want to add that the billions that the

majority wish to spend on the wealthy

through a tax break is more than

enough to spend for the Medicare Program. So indeed, if we had a problem, a

part of that problem is being exacerbated by the additional cost that we

have are having for the expense.

I want to bring to your attention

people who do not understand big dollars tax breaks. This is a lady by the

name of Carlene Neese. She is in North

Carolina. She is the wife of an Alzheimer’s patient who knows what it

means to have assistance in her care.

In fact, what she has is the home

health program which comes once a

week and additional help with that

particular patient. As her husband gets

to the end of his dreaded disease, she

knows that that pain will be greater

because she will have to bear that. She

herself has no income. And without increased income, she would be paying

more for her health care.

However, I want you to know, Mrs.

Neese is not alone. She is typical of

many people in my State. She is alone

in the suffering that she must share. In

fact, I had a mother of a 75-year-old

Alzheimer’s patient to wrote to say,

You should just imagine what it is to

spoon feed my mother and have her to

take at least 2 minutes to chew that

food to understand what that pain

means and to know what it means, that

stress on my family, that many of my

family needs are going unmet.

I had a 75-year-old widow of an Army

person who has served this Nation well,

75 years old. She said, I thank God that

I have the ability to work. In the job

she is working in now, she has worked

there for the last 15 years. Really what

she says, I hope that when I retire I

will have enough resources to take care

of myself without being a burden to my

family.

I tell you, the majority plan does not

allow for her to have that assurance. In

fact, she is working extra time.

In fact, the question has to be raised,

why is the majority giving such a big

tax break while making the poor suffer? If you are to give such a big tax

break, why do you not make it even?

We want a balanced budget, but we

need to balance our priorities. There

are thousands and thousands of people

who will pay extra because of this plan.

In my rural county, there are 13 hospitals that if this plan goes up, they

will be paying big bucks.

Mr. Chairman, this is the wrong way

to go. Balancing the budget is one

thing, but balancing our priorities is

right.

Mr. Chairman, the billions the majority wants

to spend on a tax cut for the wealthy could

fully pay for the reductions they want to make

in the Medicare Program.

Why is the majority willing to sacrifice senior

citizens to satisfy affluent citizens?

More importantly, what will this policy of

helping the rich and hurting the less well off

really mean for America?

The answer is—we don’t know, and they

don’t know. We don’t know and they don’t

know because the majority is yet to tell us—

in detail—how the $283 billion reduction in

Medicare spending, over the next 7 years, will

occur.

But, we can make some reasonable assumptions based upon prior action.

We know that the reductions the majority

proposes in Medicare and Medicaid are bigger

than reductions in these programs at any

other time in history.

We know that every hospital in the United

States that serve Medicare patients—including

the 13 hospitals that serve 28 rural counties in

my congressional district—will lose money; big

time; up to $1,300 for every Medicare patient

served, over 5 years.

We know that, under the plan of the majority

budget, senior citizens will pay $1,060 more

for their health care costs by the year 2002.

Most can barely afford health care now.

Many will have to choose between heat and

health, a warm coat or a trip to the doctor—

and some may even have to choose between

eating and health.

More than 8 out of every 10 seniors who receive Medicare benefits have incomes of

$25,000 or less.

Mr. Chairman, we know that Carlene Neese,

a 77-year-old woman from North Carolina, is

the primary caregiver for her husband, who

has suffered from Alzheimer’s disease since

1986. He also has a Foley catheter.

We know that the home care the Neese

family gets once a week to change the catheter, and the aide who comes out three times

a week, is threatened by the majority’s budget

plan.

As Mr. Neese enters the end stages of his

dreaded illness, the strain on Mrs. Neese will

be obvious and perhaps overwhelming.

Mrs. Neese’s dilemma is repeated again

and again, throughout my congressional district.

There is a 75-year-old mother, also suffering

from Alzheimer’s disease.

Her daughter writes to me in her effort to

secure some help with the care of her mother,

‘‘Imagine me giving Mom a spoonful of food

and having her take 15 minutes to swallow.’’

The daughter goes on, ‘‘Other family commitments are putting a great strain on my

household. Hurried meals, neglected laundry

and [ignored] housekeeping,’’ are typical in

this family.

And then there is Beulah McDonald of

Kinston, NC.

She is 72 years old. Her husband served

this Nation in the military for two decades.

Ms. McDonald told me, ‘‘I have to work.’’

She gets a little Social Security and a small

stipend from her husband’s military retirement.

Now that she is over 65, with the limited

amount she now gets from Medicare, and the

deduction from the private insurance she must

pay for—this 72-year-old woman, who has

worked in her present job for 15 years—told

me, ‘‘When I retire, I don’t know how I will

make it.’’

Beulah McDonald, who has done everything

right in her life said finally, ‘‘Thank God, I am

healthy enough to work.’’

With this budget plan, the majority is sacrificing senior citizens to satisfy affluent citizens.

They go too far.

The billions they want to spend on the

wealthy could more than pay for the cuts they

want to make in Medicare.

Mr. Chairman, let’s balance the budget, but,

let’s balance our priorities first.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FOX], a

freshman Member.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to note for the RECORD

that for the citizens of North Carolina

who are senior citizens, $805 million of

tax reductions will take place as a result of what this Congress has already

instituted.

I think we should note now for those

who are listening from their offices or

here on the floor that we already have

in the 104th Congress made great

strides for our senior citizens. First, we

have lowered the senior citizens tax

burdens by repealing over a 5-year period the Clinton tax increase on Social

Security retirees.

Second, we have eliminated the penalties for working seniors. We have

raised the $11,280 Social Security earnings limit to $30,000 over 5 years. Beyond that, we have also ensured access

to long-term health care insurance by

easing the financial drain on seniors

and their families by making private

long-term care insurance more readily

available and allowing accelerated

death benefits to be paid tax free. In

addition, we have caring for parents at

home by providing $500 tax credit to

families who care for a dependent elderly at home.

Social Security we know in this Congress is off the table. We have said that

and that is the case. Medicare will go

bankrupt by 2002, if we do nothing.

Therefore, we feel that Medicare must

be preserved, protected, and improved.

What you will hear from the other

side of the aisle is some false charges.

False charge No. 1, you are cutting

Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the

rich. Wrong. The facts are clear. The

Medicare trust fund is going bankrupt.

You can pull out all the tax cuts from

the Republican budget and Medicare

still goes bankrupt in 2002. The Medicare trust fund is financed by payroll

taxes and the Clinton administration

itself has said that the trust funds will

go bankrupt. The Republican budget

will save Medicare from bankruptcy.

False charge No. 2, your plan for

Medicare for the seniors will pay much,

much more for fewer and fewer services

under our plan. Wrong. A 40-percent increase in Medicare spending is not a

slash. The Republican plan allows for a

$1,600 per recipient increase in spending.

Therefore, I say vote for the budget.

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 21⁄2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. LINCOLN].

(Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given

permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5161

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I yield

to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. CLAYTON].

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to make a correction and insert, according to the figures that we

have on the budget side of the minority, the average senior citizen’s income

and cost of care over a 7-year period

would be $3,000 and my State would

have to pay an additional $6 billion

over that same period of time. So your

figures are certainly in contrast to

mine, I want to add for the RECORD, so

we have a balance of what the truth is

here.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise

today to express my strong support for

the Stenholm-Orton substitute to the

budget resolution for fiscal year 1996

and I applaud our colleagues for their

hard work. I am a strong supporter of

a balanced budget and I applaud the

progress that we make today toward

eliminating the deficit. However, we

must ensure fairness and equity in

achieving a balanced budget. The

American public is ready to tighten its

belt as long as we all shoulder part of

the load fairly. The coalition alternative budget is based on equity.

Our budget substitute would ease the

burden on rural Americans. Our proposal restores $114 billion in Medicare

spending, as well as $50 billion in Medicaid spending. Farmers would receive

$12.9 billion more over the next 7 years

under the Stenholm-Orton budget. We

maintain our commitment to our country’s future by restoring $35 billion in

funding to education and training programs, and $18.7 billion in guaranteed

student loans. We ease the burden on

rural economic development. We also

include the alternative welfare reform

plan offered earlier this year by myself

and others. And, most importantly, we

would still achieve a balanced budget

in 7 years with lower interest payments than under the leadership proposal.

b 1945

The Republican leadership’s bill reserves the greatest amount of spending

cuts for the last two years, that is

what we leave for our children and our

children’s children, while the Stenholm-Orton substitute spreads out

those cuts more evenly over the entire

7 years. This means lower national

debt, and therefore less burden, on the

future of America.

We also avoid the risk that future

congresses might not be willing to

make the tough cuts. I am a strong

supporter of tax relief, but in order to

achieve it, the committee bill has come

down too hard on agriculture, education, job training, and Medicare,

among other things. We first need to

ensure the future of our children, and

then give tax relief to ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues

to support the Stenholm-Orton substitute, because it provides the most

fair and equitable solution to achieve a

balanced budget.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 1 minute, just to respond to the

comments that were just made.

First, Mr. Chairman, we are hearing

from one side that we do not have any

plan at all. A blank piece of paper was

held up. We do not have any plan, we

cannot see what the Republicans are

talking about on Medicare. Now we

hear the specific figures of what the

Medicare cuts are going to mean in

terms of additional costs.

Which way is it? Do we know the specific dollars or do we not? Which way is

it? I would point out the gentlewoman

from Arkansas has been talking about

the alternative budget proposal that

they are going to have, but it does not

include any of the tax relief for senior

citizens; and for the State of Arkansas,

our tax cuts would mean $257 million

less taxes for senior citizens in the

State of Arkansas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to

the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

WELDON].

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked

and was given permission to revise and

extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr.

Chairman, we have heard some case

studies of families. I have one family

we have not heard about yet that I

would like to discuss. I would like to

talk about Rosie Watson of Lake Providence, LA.

Rosie is a 45-year-old mother, common-law mother of seven kids. She has

been able to get her doctor to declare

that she is too stressed out to work, so

she receives $343 a month in income

from the taxpayers. Her husband, who

weighs over 300 pounds, has been able

to get his doctor to declare that he is

unable to work, so he gets $343 a

month.

They have seven kids. Rosie spent 17

years in getting all of her kids qualified as not working up to their age

level in school. Guess what? The taxpayers are footing a check each month

for all seven kids in an amount over

$400.

Mr. Chairman, this one family gets

$46,716 a year under their system, a system they do not want to change, that

we are going to reform. Why have we

not heard about that family, or the

tens of thousands of families all across

America who are abusing the taxpayers

in this country?

Rosie was interviewed by the Baltimore Sun, who did this expose ́. The reporter said ‘‘What do you do with the

money?’’ She said, ‘‘I can tell you, each

month I take $120 and give it to four of

my kids,’’ and her quote is ‘‘Being the

age they is, and being out with their

little girlfriends, they need that money

to spend on them.’’

I do not have constituents in my district who can give their teenage kids

$30 a month, let alone from the taxpayers. The Members want to keep the

system intact? Our budget changes

Supplemental Security Income and

stop this abuse. Where are the examples on the other side, of the families

who are ripping off the taxpayers?

Where are the examples of what they

have done to try to change the system

for the past 40 years?

I can tell the Members, as the youngest of nine kids with an 84-year-old

mother on Social Security and Medicare, I do not want to hurt her one bit.

As a 7-year public school teacher who

spent more time overseeing school

lunches than anybody on the other

side, I do not want the School Lunch

Program cut, but stop the rhetoric

when we are trying to solve the problem and be fair with the way we deal

with people.

Once again, I ask my colleagues on

the other side, where are the tens of

thousands of stories about the Rosie

Watsons ripping off $47,000 a year in

taxpayers’ money, who the Baltimore

Sun has said will never get off the system? That is what we are trying to

change, and we are going to do it, with

or without your cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the

RECORD the article from the Tampa

Tribune to which I referred earlier:

[From the Tampa Tribune, Feb. 13, 1995]

HERE’S A GRAND LITTLE STORY TO STIR YOUR

BLOOD ON A MONDAY MORNING

How does an unemployed family in Lake

Providence, LA, qualify for $46,716 a year in

tax-free cash from the federal government?

The Baltimore Sun, in a special report, details one woman’s crusade to win disability

benefits and gives a rare insight into a welfare system infuriatingly out of control.

Rosie Watson, the Sun reports, gets $343.50

a month in disability payments because a

judge found her too stressed-out to work.

Her common-law husband, at 386 pounds, was

ruled too fat to work, so he gets $343.50 a

month too.

Their seven children ages 13 to 22, have all

failed to demonstrate ‘‘age-appropriate behavior,’’ so each of them qualifies for payments of $458 a month. What the welfare

world calls ‘‘crazy checks.’’

The Sun’s description of Watson’s persistent efforts over many years to convince social workers and judges that various members of her family are incapable of supporting themselves reveals serious flaws in the

welfare system, flaws that account for the

nation’s increasingly hostile opinion of it.

‘‘I got nothing to hide,’’ the woman told

the Sun, and allowed reporters to visit her in

her modest home, even opened her Social Security records to them. The inescapable conclusion is that the problems lie with the system, not with people like Watson who, like

good attorneys, endeavor to make their best

case.

Watson’s quest began in 1975 when she

tried and failed to convince Social Security

officials she couldn’t work.

In 1978 she told officials that her second

child, at age 4, was a threat to other children

and should receive financial aid. They didn’t

buy it, but she kept up, applying again and

again until, in 1984, Social Security officials

agreed that he had behavior problems. A few

years later she received a $10,000 check after

it was decided he should have been declared

disabled four years earlier.

In all, the family has received $37,000 in

retroactive payments, part of $1.4 billion in

retroactive checks mailed after the Supreme

Court in 1990 gave children increased rights

to disability payments.

After 15 years of relentless applications,

Rosie Watson has had all her children put on
H 5162 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

disability payments. The youngest child,

now 13, attends elementary school, where the

principal complains that the quest for ‘‘crazy

checks’’ is undermining academic standards.

The children don’t want to fail but perform

poorly to please their parents, he says.

Not true, says Watson.

‘‘I ain’t never told any of them to act crazy

and get some money,’’ she said. ‘‘Social Security will send you to their own doctor.

They’re not fooled because those doctors

read your mind. They know what you can do

and not do.’’

The Sun discovered that one doctor found

a Watson boy had ‘‘strong anti-social features in his personality and is volatile and

explosive.’’ And, ‘‘he said he does not want

work.’’

Apparently, unless government rules are

changed, he will never have to get a job.

Here is the Sun’s description of what

Mother Watson does with the 3,893 worth of

monthly checks:

‘‘As soon as she extracts the nine checks

from the [post office] box, she cashes them.

She gives the full amount to Sam, 21, and

Cary, 22, the father of two children who have

moved out of the house since being awarded

benefits. The remainder is used for the other

children and household expenses.

‘‘Most of the money goes for the children

to ‘see that they have what’s needed,’ the

woman says. ‘‘With what’s left, I pay bills

and buy food.’’

‘‘One need is $120 allowances for George,

David, 17, Willie, 18, and Danny, 19.

‘‘Being the age they is and being out there

with their little girlfriends, they need the

money,’’ she says.

The checks are sent because of a disability

but there is no requirement that the money

be spent to try to overcome that disability,

the Sun reports. The family’s medical needs

are taken care of through Medicaid, the

value of which the newspaper did not attempt to calculate.

The reporters had a little trouble determining exactly what Rosie Watson’s disability is.

In 1974 she said she couldn’t work because

of high blood pressure, heart trouble and bad

nerves, and was rejected. In 1975 she reported

it was anemia, dizziness, nerves and bad kidneys, and was rejected. In 1976 she blamed

low blood pressure and heart problems, was

rejected and gave up for a while.

In 1964 she applied again complaining of

stomach problems, epilepsy and sinus trouble. In 1985 the list included ‘‘female problems,’’ and an examining doctor concluded:

‘‘This is a 34-year-old black female who had

seven children under 12 years of age, and alcoholic husband and no money, who complains of insomnia, crying spells, depression.’’

She appealed that rejection to a judge who

determined her unable to cope with the

‘‘stresses of any type of competitive employment,’’ and the checks began to flow. Two

years later, a judge ruled her husband disabled because he was obese.

The newspaper concludes that the Watson

family likely will remain on welfare permanently, with the children moving directly

onto the adult rolls.

What did Congress intend when it created

such a program that rewards failure more

richly than the competitive market can reward hard work?

What it got was places like Lake Providence, where ‘‘crazy checks’’ have become

important parts of the town’s culture and

economy.

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 31⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. LEVIN].

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEVIN. I am glad to yield to the

gentlewoman from Arkansas.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, to my

friend on the other side, I think it is

important to point out, especially for

those watching, the tax break goes to

the 13 percent of the top bracket of

those in Arkansas. Most notably in my

district, with an average income of less

than $12,000, roughly, it is not quite a

lot. Basically the gentleman is taking

from those middle income and lower

incomes in the Medicare divisions,

where I have above 10 percent of the

national average in the elderly.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would

say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, he should read the bill that the

Democrats put together on welfare reform. We address the problems in SSI

directly. We believe in reform. The

issue is whether we want to be blind

about it, and strike out wildly, or

know what we are doing.

The problem with the Republican

budget is this. I think for legislators

there is a responsibility. If you propose, you should disclose, and you do

not. You have this figure for Medicare,

and do not tell the public what will be

the consequences. In that sense, it is

deceitful. Being bold and not abiding

by the facts is foolishness, and it sells

short America.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of Medicare,

if we assume beneficiaries will pay 50

percent of these cuts, we end up with a

cut or a cost for every senior of over

$2,500 in Michigan. In Connecticut, it is

$3,800. In Arizona, it is $3,300 is the average out of-pocket impact. If we say

that there is not going to be any impact on beneficiaries, read the communication of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS] which lays out

the options. It is not in the budget resolution. It talks about the impact on

Seniors, and what kind of impact there

might be in terms of deductibles, and

in terms of copay.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go beyond,

for a moment, the impact on seniors,

and talk about the impact on health

care generally, because again, you propose but you do not disclose. The letter

of the gentleman from Connecticut

[Mr. SHAYS] says one of the ways to

make up this huge, huge cut in Medicare is to cut direct and indirect medical education in disproportionate

share.

These are not only urban hospitals,

these are suburban hospitals. The proposal here is to cut, or at least this is

the suggestion, one of the 3 options, $6

billion in direct costs, $21 billion in indirect costs, and $28 billion in disproportionate share.

For the hospitals in the area I represent, the district and beyond it, for

the University of Michigan, it is a

major cut. For the Detroit Medical

Center it is a major cut. For the suburban Beaumont Hospital, it is a major

cut. This will affect health care across

the board.

Be honest, tell people that it is not

just a large number, but health care is

going to be impacted for seniors, and

also for the hospitals for whom Medicare has been a proxy in terms of residency programs and disproportionate

shares.

There has been a lot of talk about

the boldness, but boldness without honesty is recklessness. That is the trouble with this budget, it does not tell

the public what is likely to happen.

That is why I oppose the Republican

majority proposal.

Mr. Chairman, we can do better. We

must reform Medicare. We must make

some changes, but we have to, as we

leap, let America look into what will

be the meaning of it. I therefore oppose

the majority proposal.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. The mystery is over. Finally we have someone explaining how

they made up their numbers. I am

happy to know how the gentleman

made up his numbers. He basically said

if spending is going to decrease from 10

percent to an increase of 5 percent, he

said beneficiaries are going to pay half

of it, and providers are going to pay

the other half.

The gentleman makes one astonishing assumption: his astonishing assumption is that the increase in spending for Medicare patients and Medicaid

patients has to be 10 percent. Why does

the gentleman make that assumption?

Why do we make the assumption that

Medicare and Medicaid can continue to

go at 10 percent, when the private sector is going at 4 percent? We make it a

very real assumption.

We are going to give beneficiaries

new services. We are going to allow the

private sector to offer a whole host of

them. Beneficiaries are going to see

their costs not increase to 10 percent.

They will not have to pay these absurd

increases that this side of the aisle has

suggested.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. MARTINI],

a freshman Member.

Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, over

the last several days, and in anticipation of this historic vote, I have asked

myself repeatedly, after all the debate

is said and done, and I am sure those

listening to this debate will ask the

same thing, what is it that we are trying to do here in the House?

The answer, quite simply, is in voting for a balanced budget, we are bringing some discipline to a body which for

too long has ignored the fundamental

principle of fiscal responsibility. We

are trying to bring accountability to a

budget process run amok with neglect

and abuse.

After years of overspending and piling up debt on the backs of our children, the budget we will vote on tomorrow will finally put us on a track toward erasing the Federal deficit and

preserving the American dream for future generations.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5163

Mr. Chairman, recently an auto mechanic in my district came up to me

and reminded me of a television commercial of years ago, a very effective

and albeit a very applicable commercial to this situation that we are debating here today. He recalled the image

of the mechanic standing in the garage

in his greasy coveralls, holding an oil

filter, and warning all of us that we

can take some remedial measures now

at a very small cost, or pay him a

much larger sum later at a far greater

sacrifice.

Millions of Americans learned that

simple lesson and the importance of

that lesson early on when it comes to

caring for their car engines. Similarly,

the engine of government cannot long

sustain years of neglect and abuse

without, like the engine of your car,

coming to a grinding halt.

Mr. Chairman, if we do as prior congresses have done all too long and

avoid these much needed remedial

steps, we will shortly be faced with a

fiscal crisis of unsolvable proportions,

with all the grave consequences related

thereto.

Congress, I say, can no longer avoid

its responsibilities. Our Nation faces a

challenge, and this body has been elected to meet that challenge. We must, I

say, vote for a balanced budget tomorrow.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. KIM].

(Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I have been

listening to my colleagues on the other

side of the aisle talk about how this

budget proposal will hurt our children.

They want us to believe that government subsidies are the only way our

children will succeed in life.

Let me share with the Members a little bit about my story. When I came to

this country, I was dirt poor. I did not

know about the government subsidy

programs, welfare, student loans,

AFDC. Instead, I did it on my own. I

worked full-time, and I went to college,

with three children. It was not easy. It

took hard work and sacrifice, but it

can be done. I repeat, in America, it

can be done without government subsidy. You can get a decent education

without the government subsidy, I can

tell you that.

Let us be realistic. Limiting the

growth of Federal spending to 3 percent

a year is not the end of the world. We

are not eliminating all subsidy programs, for heaven’s sakes. All we are

doing is slowing down the growth of

the out of control government spending. In fact, Federal spending will still

grow by $400 billion over 7 years under

our plan anyway.

b 2020

Let us end this overblown rhetoric on

this issue. Yes, we will be asking a few

individuals to rely on themselves instead of the government, but overall,

most worthwhile Federal programs will

continue to grow under the Republican

budget plan.

And in the process, maybe we can restore the tradition of self-reliance in

this country.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. FAZIO].

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. FAZIO of California. I am delighted to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to

say to my good friend from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS], I think there is an understanding that there has to be consideration of where Medicare is going,

but what bothers me is your message

is, and I have heard the Speaker say it

to seniors, you are going to get more

by our providing less money, and it is

not true.

The document that the gentleman

from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] put together,

and you do not find in the budget resolution, provides for expanded Medicare

coinsurance. It would cost seniors $44

billion over 7 years. And the direct

medical and indirect medical education

costs, this is what it would mean, and

I will just take a second for hospitals

in Michigan in my area, for Beaumont

it would mean three-fifths would be cut

per year, for the Detroit Medical Center about the same, $17 million, and

there would be a like cut for the Ann

Arbor Medical Center.

So tell the facts, tell the truth to the

American public.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. FAZIO of California. I am more

than happy to yield to my friend, the

gentleman from Connecticut, if he

wishes to engage in debate.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, let me

just say to the gentleman from Michigan I have tremendous respect for him

and I know his question is very sincere.

It is really an issue of whether you believe Medicare and Medicaid spending

should and will continue to grow at 10

percent.

No, we do not think that we are

going to improve service by providing

less. We believe we can provide less by

improving service.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me just respond.

Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy

to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN. If I may respond, do not

just talk about 10 percent. Tell people

what it means if you go less. Acknowledge in your letter that there would be

cuts in indirect, direct medical education, a disproportionate share that

comes to $50 billion or more for hospitals in suburban and urban areas, and

tell the seniors that there may well be

an increase in their coinsurance of $44

billion over 7 years. Do not just say

you are cutting from 10 to 7. Tell people what it means to them, to them.

Mr. FAZIO of California. Billions,

and trillions, and we talk about words

that are jargon in the medical-industrial complex.

What I would really like to do is talk

about the Hopkins family in my district. Mrs. Hopkins is 69 years old. She

and her husband have been married for

40 years. He works part time at a

McDonald’s in order to make their Social Security payment go a little further. He has been doing that now for 5

years.

He worked for a small business that

does not provide him any pension. He is

now solely dependent on his work in

his later years and his Social Security.

That is all that they have to live on.

The good news is at the moment they

do not have any copayments under

Medicare, and they certainly could not

afford them. They have a rental cost in

the amount of $490 a month. They can

barely pay that as it is. If they were to

have to pay another $2,000, $1,000 for

each of them on their Medicare, it

would put them not in a precarious

economic state, it would ruin them.

These are people who have worked all

of their lives and do not deserve that

kind of treatment. Mrs. Hopkins has a

heart condition. She has asthma. She

has arthritis. She has to pay for her

own medicine. That is about $200 a

month. She and her husband can barely

afford that as it is, but they do not

have a choice. Nobody else is going to

pick up their prescription costs; they

have to have their medication.

Mrs. Hopkins was telling me the

other day she was required to go to the

hospital. She is pleased that the ambulance and the hospital were paid for,

but she said they asked me to pick up

another $130 for 20 pills, and she does

not know where she is going to come

up with that money. Does she cut the

food? She cannot cut her rent; she has

to pay her electric bill. They have not

bought clothing in a long time. That is

not a place to go for extra money.

She said yesterday to me, ‘‘Leave our

Medicare alone. We could not make it

without Medicare. My last trip to the

hospital just about broke us.’’

So Mr. Chairman, I have to ask how

can we in good conscience lower the

standard of living for people who are

already struggling at the same time

providing tax breaks which go, in my

opinion, largely to people in our society who have had the best of the last 15

years, the top 20 percent who are doing

well?

The gentleman from Oklahoma said

do not worry America, we are spreading the pain. Well, I understand that

there is a lot of pain being spread

around. What I am frustrated about is

the fact that there is not much spreading around of the gain.

This is all part of a totality here. As

the gentlewoman from North Carolina

said, if we did not have the tax cuts in

this budget resolution, we would not

need to be cutting the Hopkins’ Medicare benefits. We can reform Medicare,

we can take a comprehensive approach

and help everyone whose costs have

been going up in the health care field,
H 5164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

but we are taking I think an approach

which is unfair, which gives new meaning to the word mean-spirited. We had

a gentleman from California send us a

note on the Internet. He said the Republicans are giving new meaning to

the word mean-spirited and they are

doing it in the old-fashioned way, they

are earning it.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I hope

people will think twice before they decide to vote for this budget resolution,

because, in fact, it is the least fair I

have seen in 16 years in this Congress.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 3 minutes.

Let us spend just a second here talking about what we are trying to do

with Medicare, and as I explained earlier to the people in the Chamber, we

are going to go from $924 billion in

spending over the last 7 years to almost $1.6 trillion. Now some people in

the Congress would like us to spend

$1.8 trillion. If we do that of course the

system goes bankrupt and there will

not be benefits for anybody.

In the private sector they were growing at enormous rates and guess what

happened, guess what was happening to

American businesses? They were going

bankrupt, they were becoming less

competitive. So guess what they did.

They decided to use innovations, they

decided to use creativity. And what

were they able to achieve? They were

able to achieve an increase in medical

costs, yes, costs were still going up,

but from double digits down to single

digits, and what did they do in the

process, they kept their companies

from going bankrupt, they improved

the quality of medical care for their

employees, and they have high customer satisfaction. That is what happened.

Now where are we? We are growing at

101⁄2 percent ion Medicare. The program

is going bankrupt. So what do we

choose to do? We choose to go from $924

billion to almost $1.6 trillion in Medicare funding. And how are we going to

have a Medicare Program at $1.6 trillion over the next 7 years? Well, we are

going to study the private sector that

has guaranteed choice, high quality,

and high customer satisfaction. And

guess what, we will keep the program

from going bankrupt. And under our

plan, of course, we will go from $4,800

behind each Medicare recipient to

$6,400 behind each Medicare recipient,

and guess what? We will maintain

choice, we will have high quality, and

we will save the system from going

bankrupt.

Now those people that want to run

around and talk about bankrupting the

system, they are not just going to

bankrupt the system of Medicare, they

are going to bankrupt America.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. SHAYS. I would like to ask the

gentleman, when it goes bankrupt, how

are you able to pay the beneficiaries?

Mr. KASICH. Well, you cannot pay

the beneficiaries anything, but if you

want to scare people, you go out and

throw all of these numbers around.

I am going to tell you the facts. If we

do not get the program under control,

it goes bankrupt. Not only does that

program go bankrupt, but so does it

threaten the long-term financial stability of this Nation. We have no right,

we have no right to pile debt, red ink

on the backs of our children. That is

why we are going to do the responsible

thing.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. FAZIO].

Mr. FAZIO of California. I just wanted to ask the chairman of the committee, the Hippocratic Oath says when

you are providing health care, do no

harm first. Can the gentleman tell me

why we decided to give the 13 percent

of our elderly who are at the top of the

income strata a tax break earlier this

year, and encompass that in this budget by directly undermining the Medicare trust fund before we even began to

talk about the crisis that seems to be

suddenly consuming the majority?

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to

the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. KASICH. The gentleman was so

quick to punish people when he raised

taxes on them. What we are attempting

to do is to cancel out the huge tax increases and the big Government programs that you had.

And let me say to the gentleman we

have a number of provisions in here

that are designed to give people a better life, families a better life, Social

Security recipients more earning

power.

Mr. FAZIO of California. The gentleman has not really responded to my

point. The point is you are undermining the Medicare trust fund and you

are doing it in a way that advantages

the very wealthiest seniors and asking

all of the rest to pay another $1,000 a

year.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4

minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. OBEY].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding me this

time.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply say

there are four reasons to vote against

this bill.

The first is that it simply is not

going to balance the budget. I have

been here before. I remember in 1981

when we had a wizard by the name of

Stockman. Now we have a different

wizard, but the results are going to be

the same.

Mr. Stockman told the Congress just

follow Reagan’s lead, you can have it

all, baby, you can cut the taxes, you

can double military spending, and you

will still balance the budget in 4 years,

and you know what, they only missed

by a couple hundred billion dollars.

So then we had Gramm-Rudman No.

1, Gramm—Rudman No. 2, GrammRudman No. 3, all multiyear promises,

going to balance the budget, baby. And

guess what happened? They missed

three more times.

Now we are in here with the fifth

multiyear promise. And do not take

my word for it, read the Wall Street

Journal, that well-known left-wing

newspaper. And what do they talk

about? They talk about the fact that

this package is back-loaded, small tax

cuts to begin, huge tax cuts in the out

years. I guarantee you, you are not

going to see a balanced budget if we

swallow this prescription. You are

going to see mountains of debt.

The second reason to vote against it,

you have savage cuts to domestic programs. Do you really know what is

going to happen to the National institutes of Health and the people who rely

on it for medical research when you

cut it by 5 percent and then freeze it

for 5 years? You erode the purchasing

power of medical research by 25 percent.

What good is that going to do folks

on Medicare and Medicaid, or any other

citizen in this country who is looking

to try to escape some of the most devastating illnesses in the world?

The third reason to vote against this

is simply because you do have these

devastating cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Do you really believe the American public wants to see you make

these kind of reductions so you can

give big, fat tax cuts for people making

between $75,000 and $200,000 a year? I do

not think so.

I would simply say this to the gentleman from Ohio, yes, you have to repair the Medicare trust fund. And yes,

in the context of health care reform

you can talk about reductions that go

at waste and fraud, but I tell you, if

anybody thinks you can cut this much

out of Medicare and Medicaid without

seriously damaging seniors, you are

smoking something that ain’t legal.

You just cannot do it.

The fourth point I would simply

make is that all of these budget

changes are going to make this country worse in terms of the equitable distribution of income growth. This chart

shows that from 1950 to 1978 income

growth in this country was shared

across the income spectrum. Whether

you were in the poorest fifth or richest

fifth, you did pretty well.

b 2015

Everybody’s income went up. Here is

what has happened since then. Unless

you belong in the top 20 percent of this

society, you have barely kept up, and if

you are in the middle and below, you

have lost ground dramatically.

These budget cuts, these cuts in Medicare, these cuts in Medicaid, these tax

cuts that give two-thirds of the tax

benefits to people making more than

$70,000, and 1 percent of the benefits to

people making less than $20,000, will

make that gap worse. That is typical
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5165

Republican prescription in this country. People have come to expect the republican Party to support prescriptions

that largely benefit the wealthy.

I hope that the Democratic Party

will not follow suit, and I hope that

well-meaning people on the Republican

side will join us as well in opposing a

plan which makes this situation much

worse.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. HERGER].

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, as a

small business owner and a father of

nine children, I am concerned about

the future of this Nation. For too long,

Washington has mortgaged the dreams

of our future generations.

For example, a child born today already owes $187,000 in interest payments on the $4.8 trillion national

debt.

However, Mr. Chairman, today is the

dawn of a new day in Washington. This

is truly a historic occasion. For the

first time in 26 years, this Congress is

on the verge of enacting a plan to balance the Federal budget.

Mr. Chairman, this budget is about

beginning to pay off our debts and restoring the American dream. It is

about renewing hope for the next generation and about restoring prosperity

to our communities and the economy.

Mr. Chairman, last fall we made a

promise to the American people to

bring the budget to balance. In this

budget, we keep that promise.

Mr. Chairman, unlike my Democrat

colleagues on the other side of the

aisle, this is not an arcane meat ax

budget. Last November, the American

people asked us to streamline government and make it more efficient, and

that is exactly what we are doing.

Where we can, we send programs back

to the States and local governments.

We also attempt to eliminate redundant programs.

Under this budget, spending continues to grow, only it will grow at a slower rate. For example, over the next 7

years this budget pledges to spend an

additional $1.2 trillion.

I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘yes’’

on this budget.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. KOLBE].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding.

During the course of the debate this

evening, we have heard from several

speakers who talked about how we are

going to make it impossible for people

to go to school because we are going to

cut off the in-school interest subsidy.

That has been raised on several occasions.

Well, I think it is just worth noting

here what we are talking about in

terms of both the additional cost that

a student will incur as a result of this

interest subsidy not being given to

them during the time they are in

school versus how much that individual can expect to earn as a result of

getting a college education.

Now, the chart that you have here

shows these two figures. This is on average the amount, total amount, that a

student will pay in addition, because

we are simply saying you are not going

to pay the interest while you are in

school, we are just going to add it on

and you will pay it when you graduate

from school, and that will add a total,

over the course of paying off that loan,

on average $2,562. Some will pay more,

some will pay less, but that is the average figure that they will pay. Over the

course of a loan, it works out to somewhere around $35 to $40 a month,

maybe a Big Mac a day or something

like that, during the course of the

month, not even that much, actually,

on a Big Mac.

Here is what the student is going to

earn as a result, additional; this is the

added earnings that a college student

can expect in the course of their lifetime by having a college degree, a 4-

year, a bachelors degree, $525,000.

Do I think that it is unfair to ask the

college student that is going to earn

$525,000 to pay when they graduate that

$2,562 additional interest rather than

saying to the person who is out there,

the young mother or the single parent

who is working, scraping to keep her

kids, take care of clothes, feed her

kids, to the individual, is it fair to say

that the student should be subsidized

and that it should be paid for by the

mother who is out there working, by

the factory worker who is out there

trying to keep his family together, by

the senior citizen who is out there

scraping to pay their taxes so that this

individual who is not going to pay this

while they are in school but is going to

pay it out of their future earnings, do

we think it is unfair that they should

pay that amount against the $525,000

additional earnings that they are going

to have because they have a college degree? I do not think so. And I do not

think the American people think that.

It is curious the people over on the

other side on the one hand want to give

them a subsidy while they are in school

so they can make lots of money, and

then they want to tax them to death as

soon as they finish college so they can

be taxed to death, get them into those

higher brackets and make them pay

more.

Well, it is fair they should pay this

subsidy after they graduate, because

they are going to have higher earnings.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would only suggest to my friend,

the gentleman from Arizona, that when

that person graduates from college and

begins a teaching job, the salary is not

very high, or if they are a social worker or if they are a preacher going to a

rural community in this country, endless college graduates, they do not

have that big chart of yours when they

finish college. Eventually, we may deal

with that income differential through

progressive income tax, but when they

leave college, that person is not having

that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to

the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.

EVANS].

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, Medicare

is a lifeline for 37 million Americans,

providing them the health care they

need that enables them to live longer

without bankrupting them.

Prior to its enactment, seniors often

went without help, causing medical

complications that could have been

prevented and additional costs that

could have been avoided.

Now, the medical care 37 million

Americans depend upon is in jeopardy

due to the Republican budget plan that

cut billions in Medicare to pay for tax

cuts for millionaires. This Republican

budget would fulfill a contract with the

wealthy, but at the expense of breaking

a contract with the elderly. This Republican budget plan would end seniors’ choice in selecting their own hospitals and their own doctors.

This Republican plan would hurt

working families who will have to

cover the costs that their parents cannot for their medical bills. This Republican budget plan threatens to close

more hospitals, particularly in rural

and small towns across the country.

America is the world’s richest country. We can afford to take care of

health care for those who have made

this country great.

I urge my colleagues to vote against

the Republican budget plan.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding.

My friend from Illinois may not realize that under the Republican plan, Illinois will get $2.7 billion of additional

dollars in the next 7 years. Their per

beneficiary for Medicare is now $4,500.

It will go to $6,000 per beneficiary, per

beneficiary.

We are not cutting choice for seniors.

We are going to change the system,

allow them to keep what they have, if

they want, but we really believe they

are going to choose to be in programs

that will provide them rebates and give

them other opportunities, and in our

plan we hope that we can allow seniors

to police their bills and get 10 percent

of whatever they find is a mistake.

We are going to open the options. We

are not going to cut. Only in Washington, only in Washington is an increase

in spending a cut.

Mr. KASICK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the gentleman from Iowa

[Mr. NUSSLE].

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, well, I

thank my good friend, the chairman of

the Committee on the Budget, for

yielding.

You know, folks, we have had about 4

hours of debate now, and we need a little bit of a break. We need to take a

break from all the rhetoric and have a

little bit of fun.

The folks listening and the folks here

in the Chamber, we are going to have a

little budget quiz at about halftime. I
H 5166 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

have got some questions for you for the

1996 budget debate quiz.

Question No. 1, here we go, let us

start. You do not need a No. 2 pencil,

just follow along, listen carefully, and

then mark your answers.

The 1996 budget quiz: I will present a

5-year plan to balance the budget. Who

said that? Is it A, Representative MARK

NEUMANN, the budget we will be debating tomorrow, is it B, Senator PHIL

GRAMM, candidate for President, fine

Senator from Texas? No. It was, C,

President Bill Clinton said, ‘‘I will

present a 5-year plan to balance the

budget.’’ Anybody get that one right?

It is a trick question, a trick question.

Here is question No. 2. Mark your answers. We think the task of balancing

the budget is one that we have to actually take responsibility for ourselves

and just do it. Who said that? Was it

our fine chairman, JOHN KASICH from

Ohio? It sounds like him, does it not?

Is it B, Senator PETE DOMENICI, from

the Senate Budget Committee? Maybe.

No, wrong again. It was C, Vice President AL GORE said, ‘‘We think it is our

responsibility to balance the budget.’’

Have they taken responsibility? Does

not sound like it to me.

Go on to the third one. Question No.

3, when we have a Medicare Program

that will grow at 11 percent and a Medicaid Program that will grow at 16 percent next year, when neither the population nor the morbidity statistics affecting those population groups are

growing anywhere like that, we know

we can get savings. Who thought that

we could get savings from the Medicare

and Medicaid Programs? Was it the

AARP? Probably not. Was it the American Hospital Association? That sounds

like them. No, it was C, the First Lady,

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as she testified before the Senate Committee on

Finance. You did not get that one either? I can tell.

Well, we will go on to the final question. This is a tough one. Listen carefully to this. Today, Medicaid and Medicare are growing up at three times the

rate of inflation. We propose to let it

go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicaid or Medicare cut. So when you hear all of this

business about cuts, let me caution you

that that is not what is going on.

Well, you probably heard a little bit

about that today in the debate. So who

do you think said that? Was it JOHN

KASICH? Sounds like KASICH. Sounds a

lot like KASICH. I have heard you say

that, JOHN.

Is it B, Senator PETE DOMENICI? No,

it was again, C, our President, Bill

Clinton, who knew full well that allowing it to grow at a slower rate than

what it currently is growing now is not

a cut.

So as you listen to the rest of the debate, keep in mind our little 1996 budget debate quiz.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute simply to respond to the

latest gentleman and his quiz.

The fact is the Republican proposal

cuts Medicaid expenditures by substantially more than caseload and inflation. The cut is substantially deeper.

The same is true of Medicare. It is

down less than 4 percent, 1 year, with

over a 1 percent caseload, a much deeper cut than the President was suggesting in his answer to that question in

the little game by the gentleman from

Iowa [Mr. NUSSLE].

Mr. Chairman, I yield 21⁄2 minutes to

the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.

WYNN].

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would

like to thank the ranking Member.

As for me, the only thing I can say

about that little quiz was tricks are for

kids.

b 2030

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to

reiterate the burning question in today’s debate. Why are the Republicans

cutting Medicare to give a tax break to

the wealthy? First, my colleagues, let

us be honest. This debate is not about

whether we need a balanced budget to

protect our children’s future. The

Black Caucus can offer a balanced

budget from the progressive point of

view by closing tax loopholes. On the

conservative side, the Democratic Coalition offered frontloaded budget cuts

to also get to a balanced budget. What

they have in common, however, is that

neither of these Democratic approaches gut Medicare to give a tax

break to the wealthy.

Here are the facts. There are 37 million Medicare recipients 65 years or

older. Their average income is $20,000 a

year. The Republican plan cuts $283 billion from Medicare and will cost each

Medicare recipient an additional $1,000

by the year 2002. This means larger

copayments, higher deductibles, and

the loss of choice of doctors. Meanwhile, on their side of the ledger in the

Republican plan, 1.1 million Americans, wealthy Americans, will get over

$20,000 in tax cuts. These people make

over $200,000 a year. They will get a tax

cut totaling $3.345 billion.

When we talk about Medicare cuts,

the Republicans are quick to say,

‘‘Wait a minute. This isn’t a cut. Seniors will actually get more money in

the year 2002.’’ Yes, but the problem is

that more people will be eligible for

Medicare, and the increased costs of

services will mean that what they are

providing is not enough to solve the

problem. It is like throwing a 20-foot

rope to a man who is drowning 30 feet

from shore. It is not good enough to

say, well the rope is longer than the 15-

foot rope we threw to that other guy

who was drowning.

It is also not good enough to say,

well, somehow services will be cheaper,

and people will be able to get them and

have better choices because they never

explain any of that. They just come before us with these miraculous cures.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Republicans tell us we have to do all this because the Medicare system is going to

be insolvent. Well, last year we said,

‘‘If you want to reform Medicare, you

need a comprehensive approach.’’ They

were not interested. Today we could go

a long way toward solving the Medicare problem if we did not have to give

a tax break for the wealthy.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. SHADEGG], a

member of the committee.

(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I

think the debate today has been fascinating. It illustrates just how far out

of touch all of this has become. The

American people are screaming for

change. They are fed up with a Federal

Government that is too fat, and too

bloated, and too out of control, and

what we hear on the other side of the

aisle is a litany of defense of the status

quo: This program cannot be cut, that

program cannot be cut, no change.

They like things just as they are. Well,

that is not what the American people

asked for in the election on November

8, and that is not what we came here to

deliver.

I just listened to my distinguished

colleague from the other side who said

that the Medicare Program in our plan

cuts further than it ought to. Well, I

would like to ask the question:

‘‘Precisely what are the proposed

changes in the Medicare plan under

your balanced budget proposal?’’

‘‘Oh, you don’t have a balanced budget proposal. I see; you have the Clinton

proposal, which is grow. You have a

proposal which says, ‘Although the

Medicare system will be bankrupt in

less than 6 years, what we are going to

do about it is play Chicken Little, or

something of that sort, and bury our

head in the sand and do nothing’.’’

Mr. Chairman, the American people

deserve better than that. We have a

Federal Government which is totally

out of touch with the people it governs.

Let me cite some statistics for what

we did and why we did it. The 1963 to

1993 comparison is what I would like to

talk about. Since 1963, Mr. Chairman,

the average weekly wages of a blue collar worker in America are up 398 percent. Average wages, blue collar worker, up 398 percent. The Consumer Price

Index is up 458 percent. Let me contrast those numbers with the Federal

Government. Federal Government receipts are up 1,024 percent. Federal

Government expenditures are up 1,241

percent. The deficit, the problem that

they would just as soon ignore, the deficit since 1963 is up a staggering, and

listen to this number, 6,102 percent. I

got to ask what would the deficit have

had to increase for our friends on the

other side to say we need to make some

change? I don’t know what it is; I am

still waiting for their balanced budget

plan.

Mr. Chairman, when the average

worker’s wages are up about 400 percent, but Government is up in its receipts 1,000 percent, its expenditures

1,200 percent, and its deficit 6,000 percent, it is time to act. It is time to act
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5167

responsibly. It is time to bring the

Government’s budget into balance, and

that is what this Republican budget

does.

When I was in Prescott, AZ, at the

field hearing and in Billings, MT, the

American people said they were willing

to participate as long as it was fair.

This measure is fair. I urge its support.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

FATTAH].

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I think

the real issue here is not the concern,

as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] suggested, of fiscal bankruptcy,

but moral bankruptcy. The ranking

member comes from an area of the

country in which Hubert Humphrey

came from, and he said that the test of

a civilized society is how we treated

those who are young and those who are

old. I cannot understand all of this applause and, rah-rah. We cut education

and Medicare programs.

The gentleman from Virginia [Mr.

WOLF] quoted a little scripture. I guess

one could say, ‘‘We’ll forgive you because you know not what you do,’’ but

I think the gentleman does understand

exactly what he is doing because with

this same blade that he is cutting Medicare he is cutting taxes for the rich,

and so I think that that would probably not be appropriate.

I serve on the board of Penn State

University on the Subcommittee for

the Hershey Medical School. I spent 10

years on the board of Temple, in our

hospital in Philadelphia. Millions and

millions of dollars of unreimbursed

care, disproportionate share issues.

Mr. Chairman, I would invite Americans: ‘‘Don’t listen to the rhetoric on

the Republican side or the Democratic

side. Call your neighborhood hospital.

Call your doctor. You’ll find out. Ask

them what these cuts are really going

to mean because, when you see somebody jump up and down, make all of

these comments—KASICH, who says he

is for a 6-year, 6-term, limit, is here in

his 7 term, is telling us this is not

going to hurt. I think the truth is

clear, and people need to just reach out

and touch, call their hospital, call

their doctor, and ask them whether

this is really going because it is.’’

In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman,

the real concern for all of America has

to be whether we are going to bankrupt

ourselves as a country morally, if we

are just going to allow seniors to fall

by the wayside and not have the kind

of care they are going to need.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. KOLBE].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we are

coming toward the close of this debate

on general debate on the budget tonight, and I think it is time for us to

just bring it back and do a little bit of

focusing. We have had a lot of things

said about various things. But I think

a very clear, fundamental, philosophical difference has been demonstrated

here tonight, and what I hear over and

over again is from the Democratic side

of the aisle, that the tax dollars the

people pay belong to the Government.

They are the Government’s. They are

this Congress’ to use, to decide how

they should be dispensed, about how

they should be disbursed, about how

people should use, what services people

get.

I think Republicans have a different

philosophy. The tax dollars belong to

the people.

I am reminded again of what I said

earlier this evening, that guy down at

the UPS office, at their distribution

center, who said, ‘‘Please go back there

and tell them it’s my money they’re

spending,’’ and I think that is something we need to keep in mind.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the

taxes belong to the people and that we

should take only what is essential,

only what is essential for the services

that people must have, and we should

leave the rest with Americans. Most of

all, Mr. Chairman, we should leave

them with a balanced budget because

what we have been doing for a generation and more, for my generation and

more, is we have been borrowing from

our children and from our grandchildren. We have been borrowing from

the future to pay for the kind of spending, the spending desires, that we have,

but we are not willing to pay for today.

So, Mr. Chairman, we say, ‘‘Don’t

take the taxes of people, and don’t

spend from the next generation. Balance the budget.’’ That, my colleagues,

is what we have here tonight. At the

end of 7 years we have a budget that

will be zero in deficit, and we have not

seen that for a long time, since 1969.

That is a long time since we have had

a balanced budget, and I think it is

high time that this Congress got its act

together and balanced that budget, not

for us, but for the future generations,

for the future generations who will

have to bear this increasingly heavy

burden because we cannot control our

appetite for spending.

Yes, the principles of this budget are

relatively simple, the details are very

difficult, and I will acknowledge that,

and I will acknowledge that we will

have differences over where that ought

to be, but we ought to be willing to

agree that we should get to a balanced

budget, and what we do not have here

tonight is any proposal coming from

the Democratic leadership that gets us

to a balanced budget. We do not have

any proposal from the President of the

United States to get us to a balanced

budget. Much as that quiz said, and he

said at the beginning of his term of office that he would do, that he would

have a plan for a 5-year balanced budget; we do not see it.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WARD].

(Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

opposition to the budget resolution.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from New

York [Mr. ENGEL].

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, just before the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.

NUSSLE] spoke, and in 1991 he came

here to the floor of the House with a

bag on his head, and now he has showed

he is a very good stand-up comic, but

unfortunately the Republican plan is

not very comical. In fact it is downright tragic, and the fact of the matter

is that Medicare and Medicaid cuts

count for nearly one-third of the savings in this bill. The bottom line is not

how much money each State gets and

the fact they might be an increase or a

decrease. The bottom line is by the

year 2002, Mr. Chairman, seniors in the

United States will be getting less

health care coverage and will be paying

more in 2002. That is a fact. The fact of

the matter is that any kind of increase

does not make up for the fact that

there will be more seniors in the program and does not make up for the rate

of inflation.

So who is kidding who? A 25-percent

cut in the Medicare Program by the

year 2002 means to the seniors in America fewer benefits, much higher out-ofpocket costs for seniors and less choice

of doctors, forcing seniors into HMO’s.

Mr. Chairman, my mother who lives

in south Florida is a good case in point,

is petrified about having to be forced

into an HMO. She lives off meager Social Security. There has been no pension since my dad died, and there have

been millions and millions of senior

citizens just like her, people who spent

$300 and more a month on prescription

drugs and get no help from the Medicare Program. What are these people

supposed to do by the year 2002? Choose

between food or choose between staying alive with medication?

The fact of the matter is that we are

reducing this program, and seniors will

have worse health care in this country.

And Social Security? The Republicans are cutting Social Security by

$24 billion between 1999 and 2002 due to

the cost of living changes.

So this is not very funny. This is life

and death to most people.

b 2045

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from New

York [Mr. LAZIO].

Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I almost feel like I need to apologize to my colleagues for being so emotional when I spoke earlier in the day,

but I speak from the heart because I

think this is very much about my children and children across my community and across America. I want Members to take a look, both Republicans

and Democrats, at two of my children,

Molly and Kelsey, one 3 and one is almost 2.

I know many Members on both sides

of the aisle have children and grandchildren and may differ on the ultimate issue. But I so believe in this

budget, this mission of getting to a balanced budget, that I reluctantly invoke
H 5168 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

their name and introduce them to you.

They are probably asleep right now

while we are arguing about their future, but that is exactly what is at

stake, whether we are going to make

the tough calls to protect them and

others across America like them.

I would like to quote Alan Greenspan, who has been appointed by both

Republicans and Democrats and is respected by both sides of the aisle. The

Federal Reserve Chairman said in testimony:

I think that under a balanced budget, productivity would accelerate, the inflation

rate would be subdued, the general state of

financial markets would be far more solid,

and the underlying outlook would be generally improved for long-term economic

growth. Real incomes would significantly

improve, long-term interest rates would fall

significantly, and most Americans would

look forward to their children doing better

than they.

What better moral message do we

have for America than that we are

going to give our kids the opportunity

to do better than we are doing today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia

[Ms. NORTON].

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, there are no fun and

games in this budget for my constituents.

There is one sure way to understand

the foolish, heartless, meat-ax document that passes for a budget resolution before us today. Folks who would

begin by cutting their grandmothers’

Medicare to fund tax cuts for the rich,

would cut anyone, anytime, and anywhere.

Well, almost anyone. The Republicans have spared the rich, and they

have spared defense. But they have

sent a search and destroy mission out

to get literally everyone else—especially the elderly and the poor—but

also, most assuredly working people,

middle-income families, students, kids,

and Federal employees.

The Republican budget resolution

reads like a Who’s Who of the Most

Needy and the Most Deserving. Take

your pick. Does it make any sense in

today’s world to wipe out educational

programs and summer jobs for disadvantaged children? How should African-Americans regard zeroing out Howard University, the flagship university

of Black America? How can working

Americans accept as champions Republicans who propose to completely

eliminate additional unemployment

benefits and training assistance to

workers who lose their jobs—including

the hundreds of thousands of NAFTA

job-losers. And here’s another of the

many zeros in this budget—a zero for

operating assistance for mass transit—

hit the cities, suburbs and the environment at the same time.

Tell me what sense it makes to throw

people off of welfare and at the same

time cut $21 billion from Earned Income Tax Credit for working poor families? Who gains by freezing Head

Start, making for a 26 percent loss?

How many needy students will forego

college because they have to pay $5,000

in interest on their loans while still in

school?

This sampling, courtesy of the GOP,

is not a cruel joke. Nobody laughed on

Monday at my Seniors’ Legislative

Day. The figures told the story. Hurt

everybody, but hurt seniors the most.

Intentionally? Not exactly. Just go

where the money is.

There are only hard ways out of our

untenable deficit. You can’t fix Medicare and Medicaid simply by cutting

them. You can fix them only by fixing

the sick system of which they are a

part. Otherwise the system will simply

shift the costs to other Americans.

The shift that is going to hurt Americans most is the earthquake shift of

necessary costs from the Federal Government to States and localities. Much

that the budget resolution eliminates

still has to be done. The Federal Government with the broadest tax base

may still find relief. But, watch for inevitable sales and property tax increases for States and localities.

Call it what you want. A cut by any

other name is still a cut. When you

fund Medicare and school lunches at

less than the cost of inflation, that is a

cut. When you fund foster care and

housing for the elderly at less than the

rapidly growing number of eligibles,

that is a cut.

The Republicans are in a runaway

truck with a driver drunk on cuts at

the wheel. We must do something before this budget crashes, leaving

human debris in its wake.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALKER].

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, we can

be proud of this balanced budget effort.

It takes us in the right direction. Last

year the American people told us that

the government is too big and it spends

too much, and we have responded to

that in this balanced budget document.

Today, as we brought it forward, we

heard a lot about tax cuts for the rich.

The fact is that our capital gains tax

cuts will give 70 percent of the benefits

to families who make under $50,000.

The fact is our child tax credit will totally eliminate taxes for people who

make $25,000, and will cut by 48 percent

the taxes that are paid by people making $30,000. Those are the rich that we

hear about from the other side. It is

$25,000 and $30,000 a year families who

they regard as rich. Our Medicare program actually increases every year

under our plan.

But the real choice is this: If you are

a 65 year old person that is retiring

this year and you expect to live 10

more years, and you can certainly expect to do that, in the last 3 years

under their plan you will have no Medicare, because it will be bankrupt.

Under our plan it will continue to increase every year.

The great British statesman Benjamin Disraeli one time said that men

and nations move from bondage to

faith, from faith to courage, from courage to freedom, from freedom to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to dependency, and from dependency back to

bondage.

Our opponents today advocated the

status quo. Theirs is a prescription for

complacency and dependency. Our prescription begins with faith, hope if you

will, but it is plan that leads us to freedom and abundance. The question before the House tonight and the question before the House tomorrow is

whether we will have the courage to go

the route of faith, courage, freedom,

and abundance, for the sake of this

generation, and all future generations.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to my friend, the gentleman

from Virginia [Mr. PAYNE].

Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I support a balanced budget, and

I support balancing the budget by the

year 2002. The deficit has sapped this

Nation’s productive capacity, hindered

job growth, and mortgaged our future.

The Republican resolution gets us to

a balanced budget by 2002, but it takes

a sharp detour on the long and difficult

road to get there. That detour comes in

the form of a 7-year $285 billion tax

cut.

It is a tax cut that most Americans

don’t want, and that most economists

don’t think we need. It must be financed by deep spending reduction in

programs that promote growth and

serve the most vulnerable citizens

among us.

Fortunately, we will have a choice

tomorrow. A budget put forth by the

Democratic Coalition, which I support,

is direct. There are no detours and no

backloaded spending cuts. It is a budget that contains plenty of tough

choices and deep reductions in spending.

But it does not provide for any illconceived tax cuts. And because it

doesn’t, it is vastly different from the

Republican budget.

Because there are no tax cuts, the

Coalition’s budget spends $112 billion

more for Medicare than does the Republican budget; $6 billion more for

Head Start, job training, and other

education programs’ $6 billion more for

Community Development Block

Grants, the Economic Development Administration, and other programs that

promote economic growth and good

jobs in our rural communities; and $11

billion more for child health care and

immunization, rural health care, and

research funding at NIH.

The Coalition’s budget also preserves

the Guaranteed Student Loan Program

in its present form, which assures that

thousands of young Americans will realize the dream of a college education.

And because the Coalition’s budget

doesn’t take us down the road of immediate tax cuts, it not only balances the

budget, but it also projects a total national debt that is $160 billion lower
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5169

than under the Republican budget in

the year 2002.

The choice is clear. For a budget that

is balanced more fairly, with greater

investment in education and good jobs

for a better future for this country, I

urge my colleagues—Democratic and

Republicans—to vote for the Coalition

Substitute and against the Republican

budget.

The CHAIRMAN. The time remaining

is 31⁄4 minutes for the gentleman from

Minnesota [Mr. SABO], and 61⁄2 minutes

for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH]. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr.

KASICH] has the right to close the general debate.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, this is

not fun and games, this is very serious

business, and for any of us. on both

sides of the aisle, we know that and do

not need to be reminded of it. We are

talking about saving this country, and

we have different alternatives for doing

that.

Mr. Chairman, I just hope we do not

waste this opportunity. As I said in the

beginning, I have waited 20 years for

the opportunity to help this country

get its financial house in order. This is

our moment, and this is the moment

we have to seize. We need to get our financial house in order for our children

and our children’s children. We need to

slow the growth in spending.

Now, when we talk about Medicare,

because it has come up continually and

we continually hear Members talk

about cuts in Medicare, the previous

Member who spoke, the gentlewoman

from the District of Columbia, talked

about cuts in Medicare. And yet in our

plan it goes up 45 percent in the next 7

years.

The gentleman before that from New

York talked about cuts in Medicare,

and yet it goes up 35 percent. The per

beneficiary costs are going to go from

$5,312 to $7,000. We are taking into consideration the increase in beneficiaries

and we are providing more money.

In general, our plan goes from $178 to

$259 billion. I keep saying it, because

anywhere else this is an increase, but

in Washington, among some on that

side, it is a cut.

When we talk about what we are

spending in Medicare, in the last 7

years we spent $925 billion. In the next

7 years we are going to spend $1.6 trillion on Medicare. In this city an increase in spending is called a cut. Only

here.

The per beneficiary expenditure for

all beneficiaries is going to go up from

$48,000 to $63,000 per beneficiary. We are

taking into consideration beneficiaries.

Yes, it is not going to go up 10 percent,

it is going to go up 5 percent. The reason it is going to go up 5 percent is the

fund is projected to be exhausted in the

year 2001 if it goes up 10 percent. If it

goes up at 10 percent, it is exhausted,

and if it is exhausted, we run out of

money. If we run out of money, we cannot pay beneficiaries. In our plan CBO

points out in the year 2002, 2003, and

2004, we provide more money for beneficiaries in Medicare than letting the

plan go bankrupt. That is obvious, if it

goes bankrupt. We want to change

that.

The bottom line to this debate is we

believe that Medicare recipients deserve choice. We believe they deserve

the opportunity to have the same kind

of plans their children and their children’s children have. We believe if they

want to join a plan that gives them a

$1,000 rebate, who should they not be

able to join that kind of plan? If they

are given a plan that allows them to be

part of an HMO and save money, why

should they not be allowed? Under our

present system, we do not allow it. If

we think spending is going to go up at

10 percent, then you can say it is a cut.

We know it is going to go up 5.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 13⁄4

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. TUCKER].

Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, the

House Republican budget promises to

balance the Federal budget by the year

2002. They say that this is the will of

the American people. But at what cost

must we do this and on whose backs?

Mr. Chairman, I ask, is the Republican

approach consistent with the will of

the American people?

The House Republican budget promises to cut Medicare funding by $283

billion, education funding by $18.7 billion, and reduce the Social Security

COLA in 1999 by 0.6 percent, so that

they can balance the Federal budget

and provide a huge tax cut to the rich.

The Republicans’ logic, they say, is

that a huge tax break for the wealthiest Americans will be good for the

country and allow savings to invariably trickle down to the rest of the

Americans who live in the real world.

Now, where have we heard that one

before? That is what got us into this

budgetary imbalance in the first place.

Well, thank God for the common sense

of the American people. Thank God

that they are not penny-wise and

pound-foolish.

The Washington Post this week reported that 60 percent of the American

people find that the Republican budget

is objectionable, and 85 percent of

Americans find that they are opposed

to cuts in Medicare.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the

Republicans on November 8 thought

that they had a mandate, but the

American people have clarified that

mandate. Hands off Medicare, Social

Security, and education. Balance the

budget, yes; but not on the backs of the

least among us. I urge my colleagues to

respond to the will of the American

people and vote ‘‘no’’ on this budgetary

boondoggle.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota

[Mr. SABO] for the balance of his time,

11⁄2 minutes.

Mr. SABO. Let me thank the Chair

for his excellent job in presiding today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2 minutes to

the gentlewoman from California [Ms.

PELOSI].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the ranking member of the Committee

on the Budget for yielding and for his

leadership in representing the values of

our great country on the Committee on

the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, why are we cutting

Medicare benefits in order to give a tax

break to corporations and to the

wealthiest Americans? Three and a half

million senior citizens on Medicare in

California want to know. One of them

is Enola Maxwell, my constituent.

Enola Maxwell is 75 years old. She has

worked for 20 years as the executive director of the Potrero Hill Neighborhood House, serving the needs of senior

citizens, inner-city youth, and providing job training for adults.

Enola wants to know, because recently she had a heart attack, and she

said when you get older and this horrible thing happens to you, like a heart

attack, you realize what a wonderful

benefit Medicare is.

b 2100

Medicare paid for Enola’s convalescent care. Enola asks, why do the Republicans want to break their promise

to millions of seniors like her. Why indeed? They have to do that, they have

to do that in order to make the $300

billion off of seniors in order to pay for

their $300 billion tax break for the

wealthiest Americans; 37 million senior

citizens will lose $900 a year in order to

provide a $20,000 tax break for Americans in the highest bracket.

This simply is not fair. The winners

in this deal are the corporations and

the wealthiest Americans. The losers

are the senior citizens. Vote no on the

Republican budget.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] is recognized

for 31⁄2 minutes.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield

to the gentleman from Connecticut

[Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I know

the gracious gentlewoman from California talked about cutting spending in

California. I would just like to point

out to her, they get $21 billion now and

they will get $31 billion under the Republican plan in the next seven years.

That is a 46 percent increase in Medicare. The per beneficiary goes up from

$5,800 to $7,688. Only in Washington is

an increase like this called a cut.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, we come

to the end of the debate tonight. I have

to tell Members that we have been receiving phone calls from people trying

to tell us how we can argue against

those that have argued for the status

quo. We hear you, America. We know

you want us to do it.

The Committee on the Budget traveled across this great country. And do

you know what people said? ‘‘Just do
H 5170 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

it.’’ Just like that athletic commercial, just do it. And if you will do it, we

will reward you.

I know it has been said that as we

traveled around the country that people said, well, we do not need the tax

cuts; we need to balance the budget

first. A lot of people in the press say,

We gotcha, that is what they told you.

No, that is not what they told us.

What they told us was, we want to put

America first. And if we have to give

something up, including some tax relief from this big Government of ours,

we are willing to do it. But the great

news is, America, we can do both. Just

like we told you we would, we can do

both.

We can preserve, we can protect, we

can improve, we can save Medicare

from bankruptcy. We can slow the

growth of entitlement programs and

design much better programs for trillions of dollars of increase. We are

going to get rid of needless bureaucracy.

I want to tell you why I keep going

back to this lady in Chicago that I saw

one day. I bought a hot dog, and they

have got great hot dogs in Chicago. I

am watching this lady clean the tables.

And I bet she got up very, very early to

go to work to make a little extra

money for her family. And when we

take money from that lady, when we

take money from any of the working

people of this country, it better be for

the real thing. And what we are about

doing is reinventing Government,

downsizing the Federal Government,

giving control and power and influence

back to people where they live because

they feel now and they know now they

can do better than turning to the bureaucrat in Washington to solve their

problems.

So tonight we are going to go home.

We are going to think about this debate, the majority, the minority. We

have had on our side two tremendous

speakers from the Democrat party, the

gentleman from Mississippi, Mr.

PARKER, and the gentleman from

Texas, Mr. PETE GEREN. Mr. PETE

GEREN was as animated as I have ever

seen him about the joy that he is experiencing about the fact that we are

about to change history.

Tonight when we go to bed, forget

about being Republicans and Democrats, think about making history,

think about saving the future, think

about the next generation and we will

do the right thing.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to express his support for the

House Budget Committee-approved budget

proposal. Congress must act now to adopt a

plan to balance our Federal budget. If a balanced budget is not adopted, and current policy is maintained, our Nation’s children will be

left with a country that is fiscally bankrupt. A

balanced budget will ensure that the next generation will inherit a future that is full of opportunity.

This Member shares the goals of the budget

committee to eliminate the budget deficit by

the year 2002. The budget proposal offers a

road map to achieve this goal by providing illustrative savings recommendations to the Appropriations Committee and the various authorizing committees, demonstrating that the

budget can be balanced. While this Member

notes that these recommendations included in

the budget proposal are nonbinding, the overall spending allocations are in fact real funding

levels which must be adhered to by the Appropriations Committee.

This budget proposal offers a common

sense approach that allows spending to continue to grow, yet at a slower rate. In fact,

Federal spending grows about 3 percent annually under this budget proposal, rising from

$1.588 trillion in fiscal year 1996 to $1.817 trillion in fiscal year 2002.

In addition, this Member would like to commend the House Budget Committee for recommending the termination of many wasteful

Federal programs. However, this Member

would like to state his concern regarding several of the programs suggested for termination

or reduction. These suggestions should be reconsidered during the deliberations that will

take place between now and the start of the

new fiscal year. This Member’s concerns with

the recommendation of the House Budget

Committee are as follows:

Sharp reductions in agricultural commodity

support programs;

Sharp reductions in export promotion, credit

and insurance programs. During the GATT

subsidy phase-down period, this amounts to

something close to a unilateral disarmament

for our export base;

Elimination of such programs as the community development block grant, HOME, and

the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program;

The elimination of several rural health programs;

Deep reductions in vocational education

programs;

Termination of State student incentive

grants;

Sale of the Western Area Power Administration;

Elimiantion of section 2 and section 3(b) impact aid programs;

Complete phase-out of Corporation for Public Broadcasting;

Total phasing out of the entire Amtrak operating budget.

In linking these concerns I would emphasis

that alternative reductions in other programs

and agencies would be supported by this

Member to meet the budget targets. Having

listed these objectives or concerns to the illustrative or suggested House Budget Committee

recommendations, this Member is pleased to

note that the rule contains clarifying language

regarding reductions in agriculture programs.

Included is a commitment to reexamine agricultural policy in 1999 and 2000 if there are

certain negative consequences as a result of

these reductions.

Mr. Chairman, the House Budget Committee

proposal departs from the failed status quo: It

offers bold leadership for a balanced budget

by the year 2002. This proposal is an important step in the effort to secure a bright and

prosperous future for our Nation’s children.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

strong opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 67, the Republican leadership budget

resolution for fiscal year 1996.

I believe the Members of this House are

unanimous in agreeing that we must bring the

Federal deficit under control. While there are

differences over whether the budget must be

in absolute balance or whether deficits, and

surpluses, have a role in stabilizing the economy, getting the deficit down is a universal

goal. We must reduce the amount of debt we

leave to our children.

But there are legitimate questions about

how fast to go, how steep a glideslope is fair

or wise. The Rules Committee’s requirement

that all amendments produce a balanced

budget by fiscal year 2002 limits the proposals

this House may consider to those that slam

the brakes on Federal spending. The result

will be economic whiplash. The Republicans’

budget, which must cut Federal spending

deeply enough to finance tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, would aggravate the

whiplash; balancing the budget in 5 years as

in the Solomon-Neumann substitute, would

break the neck.

The most basic function of a compassionate

society—of all its institutions, from its churches

and charities to its national government—is to

protect and nurture the most vulnerable of its

people. It is unconscionable to force a balanced budget when it causes so much pain to

so many in our population.

The only alternative to the Republicans’

budget that is the slightest bit compassionate

is the budget for the caring majority, to be offered by Mr. PAYNE and Mr. OWENS, but even

that had to be developed within the artificial

restraint of balancing the budget by fiscal year

2002.

Mr. Chairman, the priorities in the Republicans’ budget are as wrong-headed as the

rest of their program this year.

We have talked about many of their misplaced priorities during House consideration of

the Contract With America, when the House

passed their bills to slash the social safety net,

especially for our children, to disarm our

crime-fighters, to turn environmental policy

over to the polluters, and to give tax cuts to

corporations and the wealthy, among other

things.

Then came the House-passed rescissions

bill, cutting funds for training and employment,

especially summer jobs for youth; for home

energy assistance for the elderly and the poor;

for disease prevention; for a whole range of

education programs; and for basic housing assistance.

The Republicans’ budget assumes all these

cuts and changes and goes after the elderly

as well. There would be cuts in Medicare

spending that will require higher deductibles

and copayments, less care, less choice of

doctors. Medicaid would be a non-entitlement

block grant, threatening both the programs

that help keep the elderly and disabled in their

own homes and the support that provides for

their long-term care without impoverishing

their entire families. And in a few years, the

Republicans assume the Consumer Price

Index will be adjusted, which will cut Social

Security COLA’s and increase indexed taxes.

There is a basic disconnect in the thinking

behind the Republicans’ budget. We must,

they say, balance the budget to ensure our

children’s future. But what sort of future will

they have if we cut spending for maternal and

child health; freeze Head Start; cut day care;

kill reforms and withdraw resources from elementary and secondary education—especially

from disadvantaged and immigrant children;

end Federal funding of libraries—the most
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5171

basic unit of do-it-yourself, by-your-bootstraps

self-improvement; make higher education

more expensive if not put it entirely out of

reach; shrink job-training programs? What kind

of a future is this for our children?

Mr. Chairman, we have had hours of debate

on this budget resolution and I think the issues

are clear. I wish the arguments from our side

would lead the Republicans to support a more

compassionate Federal budget, but I know the

votes aren’t with us. But I urge my colleagues

to think very hard about what this budget

means. I will certainly oppose it and hope

many of my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, today we are

voting on one thing, a number that represents

total outlays for fiscal year 1996. While the

budget resolution in front of us is 79 pages

long and charts a fiscal course for 7 years, the

only binding element is the 602(a) number for

next fiscal year.

The time for action on reducing our nation’s

deficit is now, and I commend our Budget

Chairman and my friend, JOHN KASICH, for his

leadership in producing a budget resolution

that sets us on a glide path to a balanced

budget by 2002. Without question, the deficit

problem has reached crisis stage, and I believe that overall, Mr. KASICH’s number is a realistic one which will impose the painful but

not unbearable fiscal restraint we need if we

are ever to regain a measure of control over

our economic destiny.

However, there is a good deal behind the

number that I do not agree with or support.

I do not agree with the tax cut passed by

the House and assumed in this budget resolution. This tax cut will make it $354 billion harder to reach our goal of balancing the budget

and simply comes at the wrong time. While I

agree with some carefully targeted tax relief

for business which will help the economy grow

and provide necessary jobs such as reductions in capital gains, enacting a sweeping

package of tax cuts such as this has the potential of overstimulating the economy and

risking even higher interest rates. The

Dominici budget resolution shows us how

much more difficult the tax cuts make balancing the budget. Senator DOMINICI’s plan,

which does not assume tax cuts, not only balances the budget in 7 years but saves $200

billion in outlays which could be put toward a

tax cut after the budget is balanced.

I believe that biomedical research must be

one of Congress’s highest priorities in allocating scarce federal funding. Federally supported biomedical research creates high-skill

jobs, helps retain our country’s worldwide

leadership in biomedical research, and supports the biotechnology industry which generates economic growth and a positive balance of trade for our country.

In this respect, it is an investment that is

quintessentially, Republican.

Research provides great hope for effectively

treating, curing and eventually preventing disease and thereby saving our country billions of

dollars in annual health care costs. The development of the polio vaccine alone, one of

thousands of discoveries supported by NIH

funding—in terms of health care savings—has

more than paid for our country’s five decades

of investment in Federal biomedical research.

For these reasons, the cuts for NIH designated in the budget package are, to me, extremely ill-advised.

Defense spending, in my opinion, is not sufficiently sharing in the burden of reducing our

Federal deficit. While I believe that providing

for our national defense and strengthening our

troop readiness is essential, increasing the

budget authority by $120 billion and the budget outlays by $75 billion cannot be justified in

these times of fiscal restraint. We need to rid

our defense budget of cold war relics which

are no longer militarily relevant, such as the

Seawolf submarine, and focus on meritorious

defense initiatives that will provide for troop

readiness and add to the quality of life for our

military.

In addition, America’s ability to influence the

world and provide necessary leadership is at

its zenith, and further cutting foreign assistance at this stage is the wrong answer. We

have already reduced foreign assistance by

one-third over the last 5 years. Further reductions in this area, which is less than 1 percent

of our total budget, will undermine our leadership for American values of democracy,

human rights and free market economies at

the exact time when their advancement is

most possible.

I think it would be particularly shortsighted

for Congress to eliminate the Board for International Broadcasting and the Voice of America. These two agencies are among the best

vehicles for enhancing our values worldwide.

Radio Free Asia, a part of the BIB, sends a

message of freedom and truth to people in repressive societies and helps these nations

transition into free market democracies.

Finally, I support the elimination of departments’ agencies, and programs that will assist

the Government in becoming more efficient,

however, I do not want to do so simply as a

symbol. There should be real savings and efficiencies generated in this process.

While my differences with the resolution details are substantial, I think that JOHN KASICH

and the Budget Committee deserve credit for

having the courage to put us on track to getting our economic house in order.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today

to express my strong opposition to the budget

resolution before the Congress today. This is

no time to be providing tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations while hurting the elderly, the children, and the working families of

America.

We have heard for so long now the rhetoric

of the Republican majority promote the false

notion that their mission to dismantle the Federal Government is based on a mandate of

the American people. My constituents, however, do not want to dismantle the Federal

Government—they want smaller government

that works better and is more efficient. The

American people want wasteful functions and

programs eliminated, they want programs that

work to be left alone, and they want fairness

and equity in the allocation of limited Federal

resources.

The former Democratic majority had been

working to meet this mandate for at least the

4 years prior to last November’s elections. It

passed historic deficit reduction legislation in

1990 and 1993 that set a course for a stable

budget and massive deficit reduction. In 1990,

the Democratic majority broke the partisan

logjam that prevented unified deficit reduction

action on the part of a Democratic Congress

and Republican President. In 1993, despite

not one Republican vote, the Democratic majority passed legislation that has brought our

deficit down to its lowest level as a percent of

the economy since 1979.

These successes, however, were understandably not enough for a public weary of

politicians and the status quo. The American

people said in last year’s elections they want

change faster than Democrats provided. It is

my belief, therefore, that the new Republican

majority had a tremendous opportunity to help

enact much important and needed change.

Mr. Chairman, it now appears that such an

opportunity is lost. It is lost because the Republican Majority not only targeted the wrong

people and programs in their budget, but because the party is mired in an ideology that

promotes getting rid of critical Federal programs and which demands tax cuts for the

wealthy. This ideology is driving the Republican budget decisions to cut Medicare and

Medicaid for the elderly, cut education for our

children, cut job training for our workers, cut

economic development for needy communities, and provide new tax loopholes to multinational corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires.

In this budget resolution, Republicans have

chosen to target middle-class America without

at least also targeting the hundreds of billions

of dollars lost to this country from corporate

welfare and tax loopholes which benefit the

wealthy. Both liberal and conservative interest

groups have recently put forth detailed and

comprehensive studies of corporate welfare

that should be eliminated. But most proposals

have been completely ignored by this budget

resolution.

Tax loopholes and corporate welfare are not

the only things left untouched. The resolution

also leaves in plae wasteful defense spending

and international programs like the National

Endowment for Democracy that have clearly

outlived their usefulness in the post-cold war

era.

The Republican majority is saying in this

budget it wants a balanced budget by the year

2002 and provide tax cuts to the wealthy, to

fulfill a campaign promise no matter what the

cost. Republicans claim that they are not cutting Medicare and Medicaid, but they are saving a total of $475 billion in the two programs

over 7 years. That amount of money can be

saved only through program cuts. It is just that

kind of doublespeak that has fostered the high

level of cynicism and distrust of our Government.

The cost of this budget resolution is certainly tremendous. Cuts in Medicare and Medicaid could increase out-of-pocket costs to the

elderly by as much as $1,000 per year. Business would be forced to cut health insurance

to workers because of higher premiums from

cost-shifting by medical care providers. More

working families will be forced to drop health

insurance altogether.

For hospitals who have a disproportionate

amount of Medicare and Medicaid patients,

many will be forced to close. In my district,

there are a number of hospitals where the percentage of patients served by Medicare and

Medicaid exceeds 60 percent. A full 61 percent of Palmerton Hospital patients, 69 percent of patients at Mercy Hospital in Nanticoke, and a staggering 84 percent of

Shamokin Area Community Hospital patients

are served by these programs. I do not think

it is realistic to believe we can impose a 25

percent cut on these hospitals and have them

still remain viable.

Many hospitals will be forced to shift costs

to persons who have insurance because of
H 5172 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

these cuts. As a result, more small businesses

will be forced to cut, or eliminate insurance altogether for employees. More and more working families will be forced to chose between

buying insurance and paying rent. I already

have more than 53,000 persons in my district

without health insurance coverage. How many

more of my constituents will lose health care

coverage because of short-sighted Federal

policies and inaction on health care reform?

Sadly, even with the largest budget cuts

coming in the Medicare Program under the

Republican plan we do not even know in what

direction they want to take the program. Under

normal budget processes, it would be the job

of the Committee on Ways and Means to decide precisely how to make the necessary

changes to the program to achieve savings.

Yet the Republican leadership is trying to pass

legislation that would require someone else to

do their dirty work. They are trying to pass the

buck to a group of unelected Medicare Trustees who never, until this Republican Congress, was thought to have the responsibility

to make decisions on preserving the solvency

of the Medicare trust fund.

In another critically important budget area,

Republicans are proposing to eliminate most

of the meager amounts this country spends directly on economic development. The budget

proposes to eliminate two agencies that play a

critical role in economic development—the

Economic Development Administration [EDA]

and the Appalachian Regional Commission

[ARC]. We spend less on these two agencies

combined than we do on one B–2 bomber.

What have these two agencies done recently for northeastern Pennsylvania? The

EDA has provided money to help build new

buildings in Nanticoke, Wilkes-Barre, and Hazleton, that serve as essential anchors for

economic development and revival in these

struggling towns. Substantial EDA assistance

is in the pipeline for expansion of an industrial

park in Luzerne County.

The EDA and the ARC help northeastern

Pennsylvania and other regions of the country

that are struggling to attract scarce private

economic development assistance. Without

this type of public assistance, smaller areas

will either have to raise money themselves,

which many cannot, or seek assistance from

States, where budgets are already stretched

thin. If we eliminate the EDA and the ARC,

along with cutting community development

block grants and local housing assistance,

small economic markets will be at an even

greater disadvantage tomorrow than they are

today.

Instead of saving economic development

funds from cuts, Republicans provide more tax

cuts and loopholes to the wealthy. Billions of

dollars in new tax writeoffs are being offered

to rich corporations. People making more than

$100,000 a year are being provided the opportunity to invest in tax-free retirement accounts

and receive massive tax reductions on capital

gains from the sale of stocks and bonds. In

all, the wealthiest Americans will receive a tax

break of $20,000 under the Republican tax

proposals, while the average tax break for

middle-income families will be only $555.

Mr. Chairman, that meager $555 will be offset by higher health insurance premiums resulting from Medicare cuts, higher nursing

home costs resulting from Medicaid cuts, and

higher property taxes resulting from cuts in

education and economic development. Middleincome families are going to be net losers

under this Republican budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is bad,

plain and simple. I would urge the Republican

majority to go back to the drawing board, forget campaign promises and tax cuts for the

wealthy, and try and work with the President

and Democratic minority to fashion a good

deficit reduction budget resolution. I am confident that working together we can accomplish much more than we can working apart.

We must forget partisan politics and get down

to the business of doing what is best for our

country.

Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in

strong opposition to the House Republican

Budget proposal that will cut Medicare by

$288 billion over 7 years while giving $353 billion in tax breaks to America’s wealthy.

The Republican proposed Medicare cuts will

cost the average senior citizen in Pennsylvania $1034 in higher out-of-pocket costs when

these cuts are fully implemented. The total

cost to Pennsylvania seniors will be $3,570

over the next seven years. Low-income seniors struggling to pay the rent and put food on

the table will be devastated by these increased costs.

Hitting seniors in Pennsylvania and across

America with these huge increases in Medicare out-of-pocket expenses is simply meanspirited. House Republicans are proposing

Medicare cuts that are three times the size of

any Medicare spending reduction ever before

approved by Congress. These unjustified Medicare cuts far exceed what is needed to ensure the solvency of the Medicare hospital

trust fund. Instead, House Republicans are

driven to slash Medicare spending so that they

can pay for $353 billion in tax cuts.

Millions of seniors will pay over $1000 in

new out-of-pocket Medicare expenses while

1.1 million of America’s wealthiest individuals

will receive a $20,000 tax break. The average

income of a senior receiving Medicare is

roughly $17,000. By contrast, upper income

Americans receiving this $20,000 tax break

have an average income of $350,000. Republicans may cry that Democrats are engaging in

class warfare by pointing out these facts but

Americans need to know the truth about the

Republican’s misplaced priorities. It is the

House Republicans in their budget plan that

have chosen to wage warfare on America’s

seniors.

Raiding Medicare to pay for the Republican’s Contract with America tax cut is an outrage. These unprecedented cuts in Medicare

will threaten the quality of health care received

by both seniors and working families as hospitals are forced to layoff health care providers

and close facilities. These Medicare cuts will

fall especially hard on the hospitals in the

Pittsburgh area since this region ranks behind

only Miami in having the largest percentage of

seniors compared to the general population.

Pittsburgh-area hospitals depended on Medicare to pay the medical bills for over 37 percent receiving in-patient care.

Mr. Chairman, America’s contract to provide

Social Security and Medicare to seniors and

future retirees is far more important than any

political contract used by Republicans during

the last election. This is not what Americans

voted for last November. Medicare was established by Democrats in the 1960’s as a trust

fund and not a slush fund. The House must

reject this mean-spirited attack on the health

benefits of America’s seniors.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the Kasich budget resolution and

would like to applaud Chairman KASICH for his

tremendous efforts and the work of his committee in developing the Republican budget

resolution for fiscal year 1996. I applaud the

chairman for his efforts in the arduous task of

balancing the Federal budget by 2002. We all

have a difficult road ahead of us in attacking

the enormous Federal deficit, and although I

have some differences in how I would achieve

this deficit reduction, I certainly agree that we

need to be fiscally responsible.

For the RECORD, I would like to submit the

attached editorial which appeared in the Tuesday, May 16 Miami Herald. I call your attention

to the lessons learned in Latin America, where

inflation tamers in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Peru continue to win election

or reelection. These leaders took steps to

avoid impending national bankruptcy. A steadily increasing Federal debt in the United

States would not only be destructive, the destruction that it would cause would be our responsibility if we do not act now. The sacrifice

that will be required now is minimal when we

compare it with what would be required later

if we do not act.

We are not talking about the actual cutbacks in the size of the public sector and the

recessionary increases in taxes that Latin

American-style shock therapies after meltdowns have entailed.

If we act now, we need only reduce the rate

of growth of the Federal Government. We are

at a fork in the road of our national destiny. If

we embark upon the road sought by those

who want to maintain the status quo, if we

adopt the position of the ostrich and continue

to hide our head in the sand, as the administration has done by not submitting a budget

that is balanced at any time in the future, we

will be doing an extraordinary disservice to our

children and to their children.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge

a ‘‘yea’’ vote on the Kasich budget resolution.

[From the Miami Hearld, May 16, 1995]

INFLATION-BUSTER WINS AGAIN

It used to be said of French voters that

they kept their hearts on the left and their

wallets on the right. The seesawing between

heart and wallet tended to have a predictable

outcome at election time: enough change to

keep the romantic passion alive, but with

the bottom line always firmly in control.

Argentine President Carlos Saul Menem’s

solid victory in Sunday’s presidential elections confirms a significant Latin American

variation on the French theme: Argentines’

fearsome memories of inflation overrode

their other concerns, including some traditional emotional hot-buttons. A late surge

by challenger Jose Octavio Bordon not only

failed to force a runoff, but actually shriveled as the election hour neared.

Throughout the hemisphere, it seems, inflation tamers keep winning elections and
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5173

re-elections. It’s a remarkable departure

from common wisdom, which until recently

maintained that the extreme fiscal severity

of anti-inflation ‘‘shock therapy’’ would induce a backlash of desperate social protest.

That assumption was wrong. Once severe

fiscal measure are implemented, Latin

Americans have endured their high, recessionary price-tag with remarkable fortitude.

Nowhere was this clearer than in Brazil’s

presidential election last year, where former

finance minister Fernando Henrique Cardoso

saw his poll ratings soar in proportion to the

success of his anti-inflation Plan Real. His

charismatic leftist rival could only watch in

impotence as a once-handsome lead slipped

away.

Inflation-taming has been so strongly endorsed by Latin American voters that it has

even conferred a thick Teflon coating on the

neo-liberals of the hard-money school. Both

Peru’s Alberto Fujimori and Mr. Menem

have emerged relatively unscathed from embarrassing political accusations, largely because of their economic successes.

But post-inflation presidents are sure to

face tougher terms. Having rewarded stability and fiscal discipline for a long, difficult

spell, Latin American voters will soon take

up once again their long-deferred hopes of

growth, better income distribution, and honest government. The inflation-fighters’ success thus far makes those hopes seem more

realistic than before. Before long, though, it

will become clear that politicians can keep

voters hearts only by thickening their wallets.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for general

debate has expired.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move

that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and

the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. FOX of

Pennsylvania), having assumed the

chair, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Chairman

of the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union, reported

that that Committee, having had under

consideration the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting forth the

congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 1996, 1997,

1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, had come

to no resolution thereon.

(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to proceed out of order for 1

minute.)

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I have asked

unanimous consent to proceed out of

order for a minute so I might inquire

about plans for tomorrow.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. KASICH].

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I would

say to the gentleman from Minnesota,

I have been here for 13 years. I have always wanted to stand here and explain

what the next day’s schedule is, but I

do not quite know what it is. We come

in at 9 a.m.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to

the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.

KOLBE].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, it is the

first time that the chairman of the

Committee on the Budget has not had

an answer.

I believe we come in at 9 a.m. We do

recess immediately after morning business there for the former Members.

And then we will resume, I presume,

around 10 a.m. And we will go immediately to the three amendments, the

Gephardt amendment is first, followed

by the Neumann-Solomon amendment,

the Black Caucus amendment. And if,

of course, the president’s budget with a

zero deficit is printed in the Congressional Record, it would be made in

order as a fourth amendment.

Mr. SABO. So the Black Caucus is

the last amendment; Solomon is second?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is

correct. And we do expect a journal

vote tomorrow.

Mr. SABO. At 9 a.m.

Mr. KOLBE. At 9 a.m., 10 a.m. The

journal vote at around 10 a.m.

Mr. SABO. As it relates to the Solomon amendment, do I get the half hour

in opposition to the Solomon amendment?

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, someone does.

Mr. SABO. Someone does.

Mr. SOLOMON. It probably will be

the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanGENERAL LEAVE

fimous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the concurrent

budget resolution for fiscal year 1996,

and to insert extraneous material

thereon.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?

REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING

There was no objection.

POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONfFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1158,

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER

ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS,

FISCAL YEAR 1995

Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee

on Rules, submitted a privileged report

(Rept. No. 104–126) on the resolution (H.

Res. 151) waiving points of order

against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1158) making

emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster assistance

and making rescissions for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1995, and for

other purposes, which was referred to

the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. F

SPECIAL ORDERS

f OX

of Pennsylvania). Under the Speaker’s

announced policy of May 12, 1995, and

under a previous order of the House,

the following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. ROSLEHTINEN] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN addressed the

House. Her remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

CRIME AND PROPOSED BUDGET

fCUTS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. STUPAK] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when

U.S. Marshal Robert Forsyth of Augusta, GA was shot and killed in January 1794 while trying to serve court papers, he became the first peace officer

in the United States to die in the line

of duty. Since then about 13,500 police

officers from all types of law enforcement fields have fallen in the line of

duty.

My district in northern Michigan has

been hard hit by the all-too-common

tragedy of police officer slaying. In the

Upper Peninsula, which has about 3

percent of Michigan’s population, 18

police officers have died since the

1920’s. In 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed that for 1 week in the month

of May Americans would commemorate

National Police Week. National Police

Week honors the service related deaths

of law enforcement officers.

As a former state trooper, as an Escanaba City police officer, this week

has special meaning for me. And as a

former police officer and now as a legislator, I am particularly concerned

about recent Republican efforts to

weaken legislation designed to reduce

crime in America.

In 1994, Congress passed the toughest

crime bill in this Nation’s history. The

President’s crime bill has several very

important elements designed to fight

crime on our streets. Most importantly, the crime bill directs that additional police officers be put on the

streets to fight crime, because there is

no better crime fighting tool than police officers proactively patrolling our

neighborhoods.

The President’s plan to put 100,000

more police on America’s streets represents the Federal Government’s largest commitment ever to local law enforcement.

The President’s COPS program is already working. Half of the Nation’s law

enforcement agencies from jurisdictions of all sizes throughout this country have already received grants to add

17,000 additional police officers. Unfortunately, the new Republican majority

wants to turn back the clock by gutting the most effective element of last

year’s crime bill, the COPS program.

Not only do they want to scrap the

President’s plan to put 100,000 more police officers on the street, but they also

intend to delete every single prevention program.

Additionally, the Republican budget

measure that we debated here today