[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 51 (Tuesday, May 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
        CONFERENCE REPORT ON FISCAL YEAR 1995 BUDGET RESOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, the House is scheduled to 
consider the conference report on the budget resolution for fiscal year 
1995 shortly. I want to take this opportunity to talk in general terms 
about the direction this document sets for this country over the next 
few years.
  It seems to me that that is what budgets are for, for setting a 
general course and a general direction for what we will do with this 
government. We can get caught up in specifics, the fine print of the 
document. Of course, that is entirely appropriate and necessary at some 
point. But we should not lose sight of the bigger picture. We should 
not lose sight of the fact that budgets set the direction for this 
Congress, for this Government, and for this country.
  When you look at the bigger picture, it becomes apparent that we have 
an honest disagreement in this country about the role of the Federal 
Government and the direction we should go. That principle should be a 
part of the great debates for the election in 1994. We ought to be 
deciding in general terms where you go, what do we want, do we want 
more Government or less? If you want more, it costs more. You cannot 
keep putting it on a credit card.
  Do you want higher taxes or less? Do you want the Government to take 
for them the 40 percent it already takes, or do you want families to be 
able to decide how they spend their money and businesses to create jobs 
by capital accumulation? Do you want more spending from the Federal 
Government or less?
  No one can tell me that in a budget of $1.5 trillion there are not 
some places to find cuts. We hear that. Where do you cut? Cannot cut. 
Of course, you can cut. Of course, you can solve problems in different 
ways.
  The supporters of the Clinton budget believe in big Government 
solutions to every problem. They want higher taxes and bigger 
Government and more Federal spending.
  The alternative is the one that is supported by the vast majority of 
Wyoming people that I talk to every week. They tell me they are taxed 
enough. And they are. They tell me the Federal Government is too big, 
and it is. They tell me we finally have got to do some cutting in the 
Federal spending, and we must.
  The American people know the challenges that face us and they expect, 
above all else, an honest discussion of the these issues.
  Unfortunately, we do not get that with the President's budget. We do 
not find welfare reform addressed in the budget, even though it is a 
stated priority.
  You do not find health care reform costs in this budget, even though 
the President's plan calls for large tax increases and huge growth in 
Federal spending and bureaucracy.
  Finally, you do not find spending cuts in the budget. They are not 
called spending cuts. They are funding transfers.
  In the old west, they defined a politician as someone who can borrow 
$20, pay you back $10 and declare you are even because you both lost 
$10.
  This budget does nothing but reinforce that idea and the suspicion 
folks have about the Federal Government. That is why I believe it is 
important to make some fundamental changes in process.
  We need to pass reforms like a line-item veto, a line-item veto. 
Nobody would vote for a museum for Lawrence Welk except it is in the 
highway bill and you cannot get to it. Only the President can do that 
in a line-item veto.
  A balanced budget amendment. You talk about how you are going to do 
it. You do not do it until you say, this is the limit for spending and 
you massage it to fit.
  A to Z spending is going to be up in the next week. We can do that. 
The bill of the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] that requires votes to 
cut Federal spending and reduces the cap so that the money is not 
simply transferred and spent somewhere else. These are the kinds of 
changes that will restore confidence as we move toward the passage of 
the fiscal year 1995 budget.
  It is important to remember that this document represents an agenda 
that in the past 15 months has included the largest tax increase in 
history, opposition to strong spending cut measures, such as the Penny-
Kasich, and the A to Z spending cuts and opposition from the 
administration on every one of those cut packages.
  Something tells me that this is not the change folks had in mind, Mr. 
Speaker. Thankfully, there is an alternative.

                          ____________________