May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4789

THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DEFAZIO] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we finally got an outline of the proposed

Republican budget. It is in violation of

the Budget Act, a bit late, but better

late than never.

I have got to say there is one thing I

find I have in common, which is I share

their objective to get deficit spending

under control and to bring the Federal

Government’s budget into balance by

the year 2002. But past that point, I

find we have tremendous differences,

and they revolve around the basic approach taken by the Republican Party

on this matter.

b 2200

That is, Mr. Speaker, their first assumption is that we will not reduce

military spending. That is the largest

discretionary item from the Federal

budget. The Pentagon will take no reductions. The Pentagon, which will

have a budget in fact increased above

the President’s requests in this budget,

a budget which is equivalent to the last

budget of the great cold war with the

Soviet Union, we will still fund 100,000

troops in Europe waiting for the invasion of the Soviet Union into West Germany, unified Germany anyhow, somewhere into that region.

We will still spend $60 billion a year

in defense of Japan against the Soviet

Union. We will still produce stealth

bombers with no objective, at the cost

of $1 billion each. We will produce a

myriad of other weapons systems that

we no longer need that would not have

worked in any case against our principal adversary of 10 years ago. However, we cannot ask for a penny of cuts

at the Pentagon. We know they are

spending every dollar wisely. That is

off the table.

Then we come to the revenue side. On

the revenue side, actually what we are

going to do is reduce revenues in order

to reach a balanced budget. That does

not make sense to most Americans,

Mr. Speaker. Most Americans who are

having a little trouble making their

car payment, house payment, utility

payment, and buying clothes for their

kids would not think they could reduce

their income and get their home budget in balance.

No, indeed, through the miracles in

budgeting here in the U.S. Congress,

that is exactly what we are going to

do. According to the Republican budget

proposal, we will reduce income by $340

billion, not decrease the military by a

penny, and we will get to a balanced

budget. One might ask ‘‘How are we to

do that, given that the largest single

discretionary expenditure will not be

reduced, the military; given the fact

that we will reduce our incomes by $350

billion?’’ We are going to do it by gutting virtually everything else in the

Federal budget that is important to average and working American families.

Mr. Speaker, we will eliminate the

Women, Infants, and Children Program. We will cut back on the School

Lunch Program. We will reduce student loans, dramatically. After all, who

needs a student loan program? Certainly not the wealthy, who are going

to get very generous tax cuts under

this proposal. In fact, they will have so

much discretionary income they will

be buying another BMW. They are not

worried about sending their kids to college.

Middle-income families, average

folks, those struggling to find a way

for their kids to go to college, sorry,

the Federal Government has to balance

its budget, and it has to give tax cuts

to the wealthy, and it has to give tax

cuts to the largest corporations, repeal

the alternative minimum tax, and it

cannot find a penny of reductions in

the military budget.

This is all laid out here in a rather

brutal reality by the Republican majority in this House. I do not believe

that these are the priorities of the

American people. They are certainly

not my priorities. We have just received these documents, so, as I stand

here, I am paging through to look for

some of the more interesting portions.

We can find places to cut back in natural resources and environmental protection. We can find places to cut back

in energy development, particularly in

renewable energy resources and cleanup of hazardous waste sites. We cannot

find much to cut in agriculture, $13 billion a year in subsidies. Sam Donaldson getting $75,000 a year to not raise

sheep on the ranch that he does not

live on, we cannot cut that. We could

not cut Sam Donaldson. He might give

some negative press to the majority

party. Business as usual. When the

Democrats were in charge, we could

not cut Sam Donaldson. Now the Republicans are in charge, they cannot

cut the Sam Donaldsons in the world.

He should get the $75,000 on the ranch

on which he does not live, he is going

to live there some day. This is not the

bare bones budget we need, and it does

not make cuts in the proper priorities.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

COMMENDING UNSUNG HEROES

fNORWOOD). Under a previous order of

the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. HUNTER] will be recognized for

5 minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me

just briefly answer my friends who just

spoke about the defense budget numbers. From my calculations the President’s defense budget cuts $127 billion

below the Bush baseline. In practical

terms, that means that under this

President, we have reduced the Army

from 18 divisions to 12 divisions. We

have reduced our air wing equivalents

from about 24 to 13. We have reduced

the Navy from about 540 ships to about

340, almost a 40 percent cut. We are

going down radically.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to talk about something else tonight,

because the gentleman mentioned defense, and this happens to be the anniversary, May 10, 1972, of our colleague,

the gentleman from California, DUKE

CUNNINGHAM, being shot down in the

skies over Vietnam, having shot down

five MiG aircraft, and I understand at

least three of them were in the air, and

being nominated for the Congressional

Medal of Honor for flying into a pack

of MiG aircraft that were on his

wingman’s tail, and probably would

have killed his wingman, had DUKE not

flown his aircraft into that enemy air

formation.

DUKE, we commend you.

While we are at it, I thought I might

talk about a few other unsung heroes.

Those are people who have been taking

a lot of hits lately from the President.

They are called talk show hosts. We

have a few of them in San Diego. One

of them, Roger Hedgecock, is a leader

of talk radio in KSDO in San Diego.

The President apparently does not like

him. He criticizes the President a lot.

He led a group of citizens back here a

few weeks ago, when we had the balanced budget vote in the House of Representatives, and Roger Hedgecock

staged his talk show, his talk radio

show, from the Halls of the U.S. Capitol. He brought back in excess of 100

U.S. citizens, people from all walks of

life, who walked door to door, not professional lobbyists, but people who

went door to door and talked to their

Congressmen and other Congressmen

about voting for, of all things, a balanced budget.

We have another talk show host,

Peter Weisbach, in San Diego, KOGO

radio, who thought that perhaps the

Mexican bailout, the $20 billion of taxpayers’ money that we sent to Mexico,

was not a good idea; obviously, somebody else who disagreed with the President’s policies. The President apparently does not like that.

Mike Reagan is another talk show

host who appears on KOGO, and many

times I have been on Mike’s show talking about American foreign policy. He

has educated our listeners in areas in

which most Americans do not pay a

great deal of attention. I can remember

listening to Stacy Taylor of KFMB, my

neighbor up in Alpine, CA. Stacy is a

talk show host that you might classify

as liberal or moderate, except for his

strong belief in the second amendment.

I do not know exactly how you would

classify him, but I think that the way

he conducts his show is provocative. I

think it is informative. He takes me on

a lot, takes on a lot of the political figures, takes on the President now and

then, and that is not bad.

Lastly, we have Hudson and Bauer of

KFMB in San Diego. They were invited

by President Clinton when he thought

maybe he could get talk radio on his

side to come back and have their talk

show located on the White House

grounds.
H 4790 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

I can remember walking there

through the talk radio, through all the

talk show hosts who were located on

the White House grounds, at President

Clinton’s invitation, giving their commentary on American politics, and this

President’s performance. When the

President thought that he could bring

these people to his side and swing opinion in his direction, he lobbied the talk

show hosts. He thought they were great

people. However, they listened to people, and most Americans are fairly conservative. Apparently, he has not appreciated the heat that he has taken

from these people.

In a couple of weeks, Mr. Speaker, we

are going to celebrate and commemorate the Americans who lost their lives

in battles in this country and outside

of this country, from Bunker Hill to

Belleau Wood to Inchon in Korea, to

Khe Sanh, to the Persian Gulf, and

those Americans who lost their lives

fought, of course, for that broad array

of freedoms that we generally describe

as liberty in this great land. One of

those greatest freedoms is the right to

criticize your elected officials.

Therefore, Mr. President, when you

listen to talk show hosts and you do

not like to the fact that they are criticizing you or taking you on, do not

worry. Do not complain. It is the sound

of freedom.

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from Massachusetts [Mr.

FRANK] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from Tennessee [Mr. BRYANT] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee addressed

the House. His remarks will appear

hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

REPUBLICANS WANT TO BALANCE

THE BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF

fAMERICANS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. JACKSON-LEE]

is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I

think it is important that we are facing up to a very important decision, albeit late, and that is the budget for the

people of the United States of America.

I stand here this evening because a

couple of weeks ago the State Comptroller for the State of Texas announced that through the rescission

cuts, the State of Texas and its people

will lose $1.5 billion.

Yet, now, we have a budget proposal

that takes those dollars on the backs

of Texans and eliminates some 283 programs, as proposed by Republicans, and

agrees to give the full measure of tax

cuts already denied and rejected by the

Senate Committee and the Budget

chairman, Senator DOMENICI. This is

the tax cut that will give those individuals making $30,000 or less a mere $124

a year, and the tax cut that gives the

real working Americans, along with

those Americans making $30,000 or less,

some $760; that is, those making between $30,000 and $75,000.

In the course of this budget proposal,

which is focused particularly on the

backs of young people, on teachers, on

students, and on the elderly, we first

come full force to cut the Department

of Energy, at the same time that the

Secretary of Energy is reforming and

reinventing her own department.

Here, now, we are a country which indicates a great interest in technological discoveries, a great need for a

renewed energy policy, and many of

the environmental efforts that have

been made by the Department of Energy. Now we want to eliminate that

department, just as we are addressing

the focus of that department, which is

to develop a real domestic energy policy, one that will address the needs of

business, create jobs, and yes, open up

opportunities internationally.

That department has been targeted

for elimination, not improvement, not

downsizing, but elimination, so I guess

we will throw technology to the winds,

the environment to the winds, and certainly, we will throw the opportunities

for bringing the energy industry to the

table to discuss important issues of developing a domestic energy policy that

many could agree with, we will throw

that to the winds, too, by eliminating

the department.

The Department of Commerce, which

over the last couple of years has generated more business for Americans

than any other department, rather

than downsizing and effectively making it work for the American people,

this budget proposal targeting the

backs of Americans wants to eliminate

the Department of Commerce.

We go further. Many of us have had

the opportunity, particularly in the

city of Houston, to see the Americorps

students working, the domestic Peace

Corps. We have seen them working to

help communities, but as much as

them working to help communities, we

have seen them build opportunities for

themselves by providing for themselves

to go to college.

What are we trying to do with this

new budget proposed by the Republicans? Shut down departments that

are effective and working, rather than

creating opportunities for downsizing,

and over a measured period of time

bringing down the deficit, as all of us

could agree with, now we are attacking

Americorps and totally eliminating it,

a program that has gone into the

trenches of America and worked with

communities to improve housing, to

clean up neighborhoods, to work with

underprivileged children, to work with

seniors, to build buildings, if you will,

and to help those particular areas to

cut down on their costs. We are eliminating it.

Then we are so generous-spirited and

generous-hearted, along with the $280

billion cut from Medicare, which our

seniors have vigorously indicated

‘‘What more do you want from us,’’ we

now want to cut from the Republican

budget now being discussed, as we

speak, housing for the elderly; individuals who have worked all their lives,

but possibly worked in jobs that would

not allow them to have the kinds of

savings that you need, and they are

provided for in these group retirement

homes that are assisted by our housing

authorities throughout this country.

Yet, we wish to cut that. No alternatives could be offered, other than to

cut housing for the elderly, along with

Medicare.

The State Bar of Texas, which I have

had the great pride of serving as a

member of the legal profession on the

board of directors on that organization,

comprised of law firms and sole practitioners and attorneys who understand

what it is to serve the public, they

pleaded in my office for us to preserve

the Legal Services Corporation; not a

group that goes out and instigates litigations, as would be accused by Republicans who are apparently cutting it

out, but those who would help individuals who do not have the ability to secure their own lawyers; the Legal Services Corporation, helping mothers get

child support payments, working with

the elderly, working with those legal

immigrants who come in and need services. Yet, they are totally cutting out

Legal Services.

We do not have a budget, we have a

joke. We have something that is going

to hurt the citizens of Texas, hurt the

citizens of Houston. We need to get

down to the business of working for

America. Mr. Speaker, we need a real

budget to work for Americans.

fb 2215

THE FLAT TAX

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

NORWOOD). Under a previous order of

the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FOX] is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on an important issue.

Now that the House has completed

work on the Contract with America is

a good time to begin looking past the

first 100 days to future legislative

goals.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a flat tax

is in America’s future. It is an idea

which is catching fire across the Nation. What is it about the flat tax that

Americans find so attractive? I believe

the answer can be summarized in three

words: trust, simplicity, and fairness.