Date: 1982-05-21
Speaker: MII LER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman. as you know. our amendments were published in the RECORD on Monday. and since that time we have started to have time to go through the various amendments. I am somewhat shoked to learn that the Latta proposal. the principal information that is coming outand if this information is in fact wrong. I hope it will be corrected during the debatebut the Indications are that the Latta proposal contains some $92 billion in nondefense cuts over the next 3 years. In the area of medicare. and area that is absolutely vital to our senior citizens. it appears that there is $23 billion cut in medicare. and this is a 50percent deeper cut than that propoed by President Reagan in his budget proposal. which was rejected by both the House arnd the Senate. This means that 29 million elderly people would be forced to pay more for health care under this pr posal than they are currently. It also appears that there will be some $22 billion in cuts in low income housing programs. It also appears that the poorest of the poor. on food.stamp programs. will also receive cuts along with the elderly. the blind. and the disabled. because of some $8 billion cut in the food stamp program. Women. infants. and children. a program that is designed to aid pregnant women who are poor. who have been medically certified to be at nutritional risk. is cut in a sufficient amount to require some 400.000 women to leave this program. This is a program that has reduced infant mortality by a third. I think the supporters of the Latti proposal ought to think about the ramifications of that. This is a program which has returned to us three Federal dollars in saved hospital costs for every $1 we have invested in providing for a healthy baby and a healthy child. Now that the Latta proposal has cut $92 billion out of social programs. that is not enough. They raise taxes by $95 billion. Now. you would think that that would get you toward a balanced budget. but it does. not. because in 1985 we find out. after cuttinE the *poorest of the poor in this country. after attacking the elderly through medicare. after attacking the blind and disabled. the healthy. and those on food stamps. after attacking the poor on low income housing. and after attacking poor pregnant women in this country. that they are still $57 billion in deficit. So you are not going to see a diminishing of interest rates. you are not going to see an economy that picks up and bounces along. In fact. the Latta proposal even attacks housing. It tries to reverse the billion dollar program that was voted on the floor of this Houre to try to encourage the housing industry so people in this country can afford housing. So I think all Members of the Congress. especially perhaps the Republican Members of the Congress. will be most interested in reading very carefully the Latta proposal because I think they will want to understand that if this proposal will do the same thing for the Republican party in its standing in the polls that GrammLatta did for the standing of the Republican party in the public opinion polls. it is very interesting. and maybe now we understand better why the President of the pnited States has public relations people trying to convey the impression that he is a fair person. that he is the image of fairness. He wants to appear to be fair. and yet he supports this kind of effort that is a direct attack on the poorest of the poor. Let me say to my colleagues that there is another way. There is another way to achieve the economic goals that we aspire to. There is a way to achieve lower interest rates. there is a way to achieve economic recovery. but you need not decimate poor people in this country. anc interestingly enough. without drelmating poor people in this country. you can arrive at a balanced budget by 1985. because in fact if this Congress will simply have the will of its convictions. the courage of its convictions. to go on a payasyougo basis. then in fact we can achieve a budget surplus by 1985. The other proposals want to raise defense spending by $23 billion. as does my proposal. except that I am willing to pay for it and the other proposals are not. As a result of that. Mr. Chairman. the Members will see by this chart that every other proposal continues in the red all the way through 1985. The Republicans remain in the red by $57 billion. the House Budget Committee remains in the red by $42 billion. and the Senate remains in the red by $64 billion. After the Republicans have slashed poor people and medicare and everybody else. they still cannot balance the budget. and yet they are going to raise our taxes. So I think the Members of the House and the people in this country ought to consider whether in fact they want a change of direction. What the Rules Committee has done by making my substitute amendment in order is to allow this country for the first time to tear up the national credit card. It is allowing this country for the first time to go on a payassyougo basis. It is allowing this Congress for the first time to stop spending money today and sending the bill to the taxpayers tomorrow. It is doing that not because I say so. Tiose are the CBO figures. This is the onl.* budget that emerged from CBO with no changes. because there are no gimmicks. there are no smoking mirrors. There is in fact a sound fundamental principle that if we are going to spend money. we are going to pay for it. We just heard the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security say that under each and every one of theseother proposals we really do not fund social security. and that come August of next year. a year from now. what we are going to find out is that we are going to be somewhere between $8 billion and $10 billion short. If you vote for the payasyougo substitute. the first one on the agenda for Monday morning. in fact social security will be fully funded. In fact. it is the only provision that does that because each and every other provision uses the deficit to make up the difference. and it is that practice that has kept interest rates at an alltimte high. it is that practice that has kept nemploythent at an alltime high. and it is thiat practice that is causing more tbankruptoies than we have seen in recent times. So there is a fact another way. and I would hope that the Members will pick and choose. If they do not want to provide COLA for social security. they do not have to vote for it. If they do and they vote for amendment No. 1. they will be directing the Committee on Ways and Means to raise sufficient revenue to cover the cost of that COLA. If they do not want to provide for a 5percent real increase in military spending. they do not have to. but if they do. they will be directing the Committee on Ways and Means to pay for that increase. If they want to treat other COLAs alike. the railroad retirement or the veterans benefits. they will then also be required to provide the revenues or the savings or the .offseting savings to pay for these programs. Sothat is the choice. There is a choice which says that if we have the courage of our convictions. whether you agree the Government should spend money for purposes that I support or whether you agree the Government ought to spend money for other purposes. the time has come to start raising those revenues and to place this Congress on a payasyougo basis. And then what we find is that by 1985 the Governu qent can in fact run a surplus without decimating education programs. without decimating the Defense Establishment. without decimating NASA. or without decimating nutrition programs. but by prudently making a determiratlon whether this new expenditure s worth the pain of raising taxes. I suspect that making that political decision will greatly reduce the appetite of this body to spend money for programs that do not meet the national interest test. So it is clearly a departure from the manner in which the budget process has been run in the 8 years that I have been here. but I think also clearly it is a fundamental provision that must be built into the budget provision if we are in fact going to establieh any credibility with the American public. because let us not forget what happened last year. We had the largest social cuts in history and the largest tax cuts in history. and the result was the largest deficit in history. the highest unemployment. and the most prolonged high interest rates and business failures. I do not think the Members want to go home and try to explain that. Mr. Chairman. I offer them an alternative. and I hope we will have their support.