[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H200-H207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            LEGISLATIVE ISSUES UNDER DEBATE ON CAPITOL HILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I will be joined by several of my colleagues 
to discuss some of the legislative issues that are being debated on 
Capitol Hill at this time.
  I would like to start off by noting this Los Angeles Times story this 
morning, the devastation that is shown here from the flooding in 
California. I can certainly identify with this. Mine was one of the 
districts in the Midwest which was flooded in 1993. I worked the 
sandbag lines, and did my best as a Congressman to try to help many of 
the families, farmers, and businesses get back on their feet.
  It was a devastating loss. I can certainly understand what many 
families and people in California are facing today.
  Let me say that it has been my honor to serve in this Chamber for 12 
years. I have at various times been asked by people from across the 
country to come to their assistance in the midst of a disaster. I have 
tried to do that. In fact, I have done that every time, whether it was 
the Loma Prieta earthquake near San Francisco or the Northridge 
earthquake near Los Angeles, or these floods.
  I am sure they will all result in requests for assistance by the 
Federal Government. I will be there, because I think that is one of my 
responsibilities, not just to represent the 20th District of Illinois, 
but to serve our Nation. When some people in our Nation are in need, it 
is important that this Federal Government, this National Government, 
rally to their assistance.
  Having said that, though, I would like to put into context some of 
the debate which is going on today on Capitol Hill as part of the 
Contract with America, and to give the perspective of the Contract with 
America on which it means to the flood victims of California and 
victims of future disasters.
  First, if you search the Constitution of the United States, you will 
find no reference to a Federal obligation to pay for natural disaster 
assistance. It is an obligation assumed by the Federal Government, and 
an expensive one. In the 1950's, the Federal Government paid about 5 
percent of the cost of natural disaster problems and damages across 
America. Today the Federal Government pays over 95 percent of the cost. 
We are on the hook.
  In the Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles we have already spent 
more than $5 billion. The Federal Government came to the assistance of 
the State of California, a deficit-ridden Federal Government rallied to 
the assistance of the State of California, because the people needed 
help. More money will be needed because of that earthquake. More money 
will be needed because of these floods.
  Let us talk about two issues we are debating in Congress right now. 
One is unfunded mandates. Let me give you an example of an unfunded 
mandate from the Federal Government. The Federal Energy Management 
Agency [FEMA] which has the responsibility to come in and pay for 
disasters, establishes guidelines for communities that they should 
follow to try to reduce flood damage.
  For example, they suggest that people should not build in a flood 
plain if they want to qualify for Federal flood insurance. Is that a 
Federal mandate? Yes. Does the Federal Government pay for it? No. If 
the communities follow the mandate, what happens? It lessens the damage 
that might occur because of flooding or other natural disasters.
                              {time}  1310

  Why is that Federal mandate important? Because ultimately Federal 
taxpayers will be left holding the bag when the flood hits the 
community. And if the community has not lived up to the Federal-
mandated guidelines, that cost to Federal taxpayers is higher.
  Many people will get up and condemn Federal mandates but they do not 
look at this perspective, that many of these mandates are necessary to 
make sure that we lessen the ultimate liability of Federal taxpayers.
  The Governor of the State of California, Mr. Wilson, as I understand 
it, gave his State of the State message yesterday and in the course of 
that State of the State message, he said, and I quote, that he as the 
Governor of 
[[Page H201]] the State was proceeding with his lawsuit to sue the 
Federal Government because we were not paying for things that we were 
mandating. In the words of the Governor, he said, ``We are going to sue 
their butts off.'' In a day or two we will be hearing from this same 
Governor who is going to ``sue our butts off'' because all the things 
the Federal Government is not paying for that he is going to need 
Federal disaster assistance because of his flood in California.
  I would suggest that Governor Wilson should pause and reflect that 
the same Federal Government which he is complaining about, he is now 
going to turn to, despite our deficit, for assistance badly needed by 
the people of California. Does the word ``ingrate'' come to mind?
  I would submit that the Governor should reflect as every Governor 
should on the fact that the Federal Government comes to their 
assistance time and time again in disasters and tries to make up for 
the losses which States and local governments could never absorb.
  We may have debated a few days on next week on eliminating Federal 
mandates. Will we eliminate the requirement that States like California 
and my home State of Illinois in the future do things to mitigate 
disaster damage so that Federal taxpayers will not be holding a bag 
that is much larger?
  Then the next week we will debate the balanced budget amendment. The 
balanced budget amendment says ultimately we are going to reduce the 
amount of money available for the Federal Government to come to the 
assistance of any State that suffers a disaster.
  One of the things we as Democrats are insisting on is if the 
Republicans under their contract want to move a balanced budget 
amendment, they should in fact tell us where these cuts are going to 
take place to balance the budget. I do not think that is unreasonable.
  Former President Ronald Reagan in dealing with the Soviet Union in 
terms of disarmament said ``trust but verify.'' I think the same thing 
is true when the American people look at the Federal Government.
  If the Republican leadership in the House can be trusted to bring us 
a balanced budget amendment, we should ask them to verify the actual 
cuts that will be necessary to reach that balance.
  The new majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Armey], said on a television show over the weekend that he did not want 
to do that because he was afraid that the knees of Congressmen would 
buckle when they saw the kind of cuts necessary to reach a balanced 
budget. I would suggest to my friend from Texas that if our knees would 
buckle, so would the knees of our constituents. They need to be told 
what is involved in this decision, that it is going to be tough, that 
it may mean for Governor Wilson after he has ``sued our butts off'' 
that when he comes to the Federal Government with his hand out for 
billions of dollars for disaster aid, we are going to say, 
``Unfortunately, Mr. Governor, we don't have that money anymore. We now 
have a balanced budget amendment which lessens discretionary funds 
available to come to your assistance.''
  This is part of the real debate that has to take place. We have got 
to move beyond the bumper strip slogans of ``End Federal Mandates, Give 
Us a Balanced Budget Amendment,'' and talk about the real world that 
will result. What cuts will there be in disaster assistance, money for 
education, Social Security, Medicare, things which families hold near 
and dear in this country?
  I concede we have to move toward a balanced budget amendment. From my 
personal point of view, it is not our highest priority. The highest 
priority in this Nation is sound economic growth. Moving toward a 
balanced budget amendment is part of it, but only part of it. Equally 
if not more important is economic growth and economic development, 
creating more jobs, more opportunities and more capital formation. 
Insidiously a balanced budget amendment could work
 against that.

  In times of recession when Federal revenues are down and people need 
help with unemployment insurance, for example, and things to get by 
that their families can live on, we may not have the money to pay for 
it, and that I think would frankly deepen the recession, would not 
bring us out, would not get families back on their feet.
  What we are talking about in a balanced budget amendment debate is 
more veracity, more truth, more frankness. If our knees are going to 
buckle here on the floor, I say to the majority leader the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Armey] and others, ``So be it. That's the job we 
accepted. We're supposed to face the tough decisions.''
  I think it is critically important that the Republicans in their rush 
to move these things through in the next 80 or 90 days take the time to 
do it right. Use common sense. The American people demand that of us. 
Be honest with the American people. ``Don't be afraid that their knees 
are going to buckle,'' I say to the Republican party. Tell them 
honestly what it means to California and Illinois and all across the 
country.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlemen yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I want to say that over the last couple of years, time and again we 
heard Members of the other party, the Republican Party, take the well 
and talk about the arrogant Congress.
  I find it rather interesting now that as the Republicans get ready to 
present to the Congress a balanced budget amendment, a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget, that they seek to deny our 
constituents the kind of information so they can make an informed 
decision about whether or not they want us to vote for or against the 
balanced budget amendment.
  I find it rather interesting as you quoted the majority leader, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] saying that if the public knew the 
cuts that would be necessary, that their knees would buckle, or our 
knees would buckle.
  I really find it interesting when it comes from individuals that 
profess a great belief in democracy, that herald governments that turn 
toward democracy, we have spent billions of dollars to spread democracy 
throughout the world at a time when the Speaker of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr Gingrich] says that he is going to put every 
bill on the Internet so that the American people will have greater 
access, be able to make decisions, but what he is not going to put on 
the Internet are the ramifications of the bill.
  He is going to tell people that we are going to balance the budget by 
the year 2002 but, like President Nixon who had a secret plan to end 
the war, only after people vote or after that becomes a law, he will 
then display what is necessary to meet the balanced budget. That is 
arrogance. That is the height of arrogance. Because the balanced budget 
amendment, unlike a lot of other legislation that we deal with on the 
floor of the Congress that the various sessions does not affect one 
particular part of American society or some narrow special interest 
group, it affects every citizen in this country, because of the 
ramifications.
  We have seen proposals where different people from the right or from 
the left have suggested what would or would not take place under a 
balanced budget. Every segment of our society is impacted, from our 
national security to the security of our retirement systems, to the 
education of our children, to our ability to meet the natural disasters 
that beset my State at this very moment. Everybody has a stake in this 
debate. But it is the intention of the leadership of this House to 
preclude everybody from participating in this debate.
  What should be done is they should spread upon the ledger those cuts 
that are necessary to meet the target of a balanced budget in the year 
2002, and they should be required to do that now so that there is 
truth-in-budgeting, so there is full disclosure, so that the public 
interest is protected, and the people who live in the greatest 
democracy on the face of the Earth will have an opportunity to exercise 
those rights under that democracy, and that is to pick up the phone, or 
the pen or pencil, and call their Member of Congress and say, ``I like 
this, I don't like this, change this, change that.'' That is about the 
empowerment of people. 
[[Page H202]] That is supposedly what putting the legislation on the 
Internet is about.
  If you put nothing more on the Internet than a piece of legislation 
that says the budget shall be balanced by the year 2002, you have told 
the people nothing. You have told them nothing. You have not told them 
whether or not you are going to gradually make those exchanges over 
that 7-year period of time or whether you are going to run to the 
political necessity of doing it in the last 2 of 3 years, where the 
impact is much greater and people are not able to prepare for it.
  If we give this country notice and if we give them a plan, clearly a 
balanced budget is within our grasp.
                              {time}  1320

  But if we do not do that, then in fact we cannot expect to reach that 
star target. So what we are talking about here is very fundamental 
notions, fundamental notions about the arrogance of the leadership of 
this Congress as to whether or not they will fully inform people about 
the hypocrisy of the leadership of this Congress that says whether or 
not they want to, they want to truly let people know what is going on 
inside the halls of Congress or whether they want to hide it from them, 
and right now what they are engaged in is one of the great coverups.
  They will not tell us what they are going to do because apparently 
they do not have the courage of their convictions. They have the 
courage of their bumper stickers, they have the courage of their 
campaign slogans. They simply do not have the courage of their 
convictions to look the American people in the eye and say these are 
the ramifications, this is what is required to engage in a balanced 
budget by this time.
  I also think that they give the American people far too little credit 
for their willingness to participate, because we know there is an 
overwhelming desire among the American people to see us get our 
financial house in order. But we ought to invite them in as partners, 
we ought to recognize their dignity and intelligence and make them, if 
you will, partners in this process.
  For the Republicans to suggest that we are going to take it on a whim 
and a promise is the height of arrogance, and I want to thank the 
gentleman for raising this point at this time. I hope that they will 
yield to the will of the American people and not to the politics of the 
majority in this Congress.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I am delighted to join my colleagues here this 
afternoon. This I think is one of the most important debates that we 
are going to have in the next several days and in the next several 
weeks.
  I would like to add to what my colleagues have said in this respect, 
that we all do want to have a balanced budget. Members of Congress want 
to do that, the public wants to do that, we want to erase the debt that 
threatens our children's future. That is what we are about.
  To add to what the majority leader said over the weekend on the 
television shows, Mr. Armey said not only would Congress' knees buckle, 
but that he feared that if you spelled it out for the American public 
they could not deal with the pain.
  Now is that not a terrible indictment of the American public? As far 
as I know we are still a representative democracy. We did not come back 
here to impose a secret exclusive policy on the public and the people 
that we represent but, in fact, rather to open up an exclusive debate 
on where this Nation should go. That is what this is about. Quite 
frankly, that is what Republicans campaigned on with the bumper 
stickers you were talking about. In fact, we need to have open 
government.
  But I tell you, we do have some general idea of the Republican plan 
and what it would require. According to the Congressional Budget Office 
it would require $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, revenue increases, 
or spending cuts, or a combination of the two to balance the budget by 
the year 2002.
  Since Republicans have indicated that the revenue increases will not 
be used to balance the budget, a constitutional amendment would then 
require $1.2
 trillion in spending cuts alone to balance the budget. This estimate 
does not even take into account the $193 billion in tax cuts over the 
next 5 years that are contained in the Republican contract, nor does it 
talk about what the increase in defense spending on star wars would 
mean in terms of the cuts.

  Let me just give a couple of examples which I think are very 
critical, and this not by Democratic standards but by a Republican 
Senate and Republican House staff which says that this would require a 
24-percent increase across the board. That is what their notions are in 
terms of a cut.
  If you talk about Medicare, let us take a look at that. In the last 
week the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, suggested transforming the 
Medicare system into another system. Is this in the balanced budget, 
which is the truth that we need to know and that the public needs to 
know. Is that in there? What does it mean to seniors in this Nation if 
we are going to talk about a 24-percent increase in their premiums for 
Medicare beneficiaries? What services are no longer going to be covered 
by Medicare? Could it be worse?
  Also, according to a Republican Senate Budget Committee staff 
analysis, you would have to cut almost $1 trillion over the next 7 
years to pay for the Republican contract.
  Further examples of what this 24-percent across-the-board cut means 
is that one out of every four college students now receiving Pell 
grants would be forced out of school. These young people and their 
families have a right to know what is in that balanced budget 
amendment.
  Twenty-four percent across the board would mean one of every four 
high school graduates currently in apprenticeship programs would be 
denied the job training that would allow them to get ahead and to earn 
a living. They have a right to know what is in this balanced budget 
amendment.
  Would 24 percent across the board mean that one of every four 
children enrolled in the Head Start Program would lose also the help 
that they need to start each day and enter school ready to learn?
  Essentially what we are saying, the long and the short of it is you 
cannot talk about and run for office on open government and then decide 
to shut it down when you are in charge. We are just asking the 
Republicans to come clean. We all know that balancing the budget is 
going to require sacrifice. The public knows that, Members of this body 
know that, and if they do not they should know that because it is going 
to be difficult. We have to make the tough choices. That is all we are 
asking here.
  I joined my colleagues last year in supporting the Democratic 
balanced budget amendment that sought to achieve a balanced budget 
while trying to keep Social Security intact. Does the Republicans' 
balanced budget put Social Security on that chopping block? In fact it 
does.
  Today in the Judiciary Committee, Republican members of the committee 
voted not to exclude and exempt Social Security from the balanced 
budget cuts. What does that mean? Seniors in this Nation have a right 
to know what this is about.
  The fact is that the Republicans fear opening the debate on their 
ideas to the American public. They are afraid of letting people 
participate in this decisionmaking process that is critical to our 
Nation's future.
  I am delighted to join my colleagues this afternoon in this 
discussion because as I said at the outset, nothing can be more 
important than this debate. Members of Congress have to know what is in
 that balanced budget amendment, the American public has got to know 
what is in that balanced budget amendment.

  Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, I want to 
thank the gentlewoman for her remarks and point out she makes a very 
important point. There is more than one way to a balanced budget, and 
there are those who believe that the way to a balanced budget is simply 
to cut until you have arrived at that point by doing away with many, 
many programs of the Federal Government. There are others who believe 
you should tax and you should cut. Others believe, as the Chairman of 
the Federal Reserve Board told the Senate yesterday, that if you simply 
adjust the inflation factor by a point or 
[[Page H203]] a point and a quarter, you could arrive and would not 
have to make those cuts.
  There are all of these options available, but I think the gentlewoman 
makes an interesting point. Some of the options have different 
ramifications for different people. If, as the Republican plan 
anticipates there is a tax cut, both capital gains and some kind of 
middle-income tax cut, it may very well be that when middle-income 
Americans look at that option they may say forget the tax cut, make the 
down payment on the deficit. Keep the interest rate on my adjustable 
home loan down, keep the interest rate on my child's student loan down, 
and make sure that I can pay off my credit card debt, because if you 
are going to give me back a $1.25 a day, then why not just make sure 
that the interest rates are lower because I will lose more than that in 
1 month if the Federal Reserve raises the interest rates and my home 
mortgage goes up.
  We ought to let the American people decide which course they want to 
take. A lot of people have come up to me, as hungry as they are for tax 
relief, and say geez, if you could really make an additional dent in 
the deficit beyond what you did over the $500 billion or $600 billion 
that have already been made, I am for that, and I will forgo the tax 
cut because I want to make sure that the interest rates are low, that 
we can continue to create jobs, that my business can continue to 
thrive. That is what we are asking for.
  We are saying to the Republicans, let the American public participate 
and choose how they would like to meet this obligation to get rid of 
this horrendous deficit.

                              {time}  1330

  But that is unfortunately what they are not going to allow, and I 
think the gentlewoman makes incredibly important points that every 
segment of our society has got to be able to examine this and say, 
``How does this affect me?''
  What we know is when we play fair with the American people and you 
give them the knowledge, these are people who are willing to sacrifice 
as long as they know that everyone else is. As we have seen in the 
natural disasters that are besetting my State, neighbors are helping 
neighbors, communities. We saw it all up and down the Mississippi River 
2 years ago.
  This is a great country. Why do we not treat them like great people 
and invite them into the debate and have the Speaker of the House put 
the options on Internet and let the people choose and inform 
themselves? And then we will have to make the tough decisions that will 
flow from that kind of participation in this democratic system.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I am also delighted to enter into this debate.
  It is said the measure of good government is not where we stand and 
what it does when times are good, the true measure of good government 
is where we stand and what it does when times are tough. That was the 
philosphy of Dr. Martin Luther King. I think it is appropriate at this 
time in history that we recall his wisdom, appropriate this weekend.
  Soon Congress will consider a proposed amendment to the Constitution 
that would mandate a balanced budget. This is not a minor matter. This 
is a very populist concept and really needs to be debated by those of 
us in Congress and also by those in America. The vote we take on this 
proposal will echo in our lives for years and years to come. That is 
especially true if the provision requiring a three-fifths vote to raise 
revenue remains on final passage.
  I support the goals of a balanced budget. As a local government 
official, chair of the board of commissioners of my county in the State 
of North Carolina, I had to live under a balanced-budget amendment, not 
only amendment, but a mandate. We did that, and I felt that is, indeed, 
the way government should function. That is, indeed, the way this body 
should function.
  I also realize that we must accept the reality that in the near term 
we face and must accept to make some sacrifice. That sacrifice must be 
borne by all Americans. Our senior citizens, veterans, States, local 
communities, and our children will be required to, indeed, receive less 
from their Government. However, the people really need to know what, 
indeed, the sacrifices are they will be called to make. There will be 
cuts in the budget, less spending, and continued emphasis on reducing 
the deficit.
  The issue is not will we cut. The issue is what will we cut. The 
issue is not should there be cuts. The issue is where will those cuts 
be. The issue is where will the cuts be the fiscal responsibility will 
compel us to cut. The question is not will we not cut. The question is 
where and how much and what will be the pain and how we will inform the 
American people.
  The American people have a right to know, and I concur with my 
colleague who said the American people, if they are properly informed, 
usually are prepared to make that sacrifice.
  A balanced-budget mandate will mean painful cuts in programs that 
many of our citizens and our communities have come to expect and have 
come to rely upon. It is because of a resounding impact of this 
proposal that we must demand, and the American people have a right to 
know, which programs the majority intends to keep and which programs 
they intend to eliminate or to reduce.
  At the end of each day, those of us in government must be honest and 
answer the question by our policy who have we helped and who have we 
hurt.
  The budget of the United States makes a statement about who we are 
and where we stand. It signals to our citizens and to the world the 
priorities that we are governing our lives by. We must be a nation 
determined to promote peace. Or will we be a nation designed to 
encourage war? Will we spend our money urging our young people to 
stretch for the stars, or will we spend our money on dubious weaponry? 
What will we say to our veterans who at great sacrifice have defended 
this country war after war, in fact they have risked their lives, will 
we say to them our balanced budget requires us to eliminate their 
pension and health care which we promised?
  These demand answers now, not after April, not after all our citizens 
have paid their taxes. We need those answers now.
  Who will be helped by this balanced-budget amendment, and who will be 
hurt?
  If the majority has their way, we will have a flat tax, we are told. 
Under the proposal, every citizen will be taxed at the same rate, 17 
percent. If the truth is known, the majority is not allowing you to 
understand at all the average American now pays less than that. They 
pay around 15 percent. So they are not telling the whole. Actually they 
are not telling you that the unearned-income money from dividends, 
interest, will not be taxed under that proposal. Those with stock and 
money in the bank will not have to pay that tax at all and, in fact, 
the rich will be excused from that.
  But those who have families and students in college and student loans 
and medical bills and debts to pay on their house, they, indeed, will 
have to pay those taxes.
  Will we breach our contract and our covenant with
   the elderly and say to our senior citizens at the sunset of their 
lives that, ``We will not provide that which we promised; we will be 
cutting Social Security and Medicare''? It may be we will have to 
reduce these resources, but we need to be honest with our senior 
citizens.

  Will we say to the small farmers who literally work their fingers to 
the bone for feeding this country and all the world, that we are no 
longer going to support you at any risk?
  Will we say to rural areas, ``There is no longer rural credit or 
rural housing''? None of this will be available if we say to our young 
that the balanced budget requires us to cut indiscriminately.
  Will we say to our children, ``We are no longer able to immunize you 
from disease or feed the hungry or shelter you from the cold because we 
are giving money to those who are more wealthy''?
  The American people have a right to know the implication of this 
budget. Times were tough in our country in the 1930's. Our economy had 
virtually collapsed under the weight of a Great Depression.
  [[Page H204]] How we responded then, and how we will respond now 
tells us something about our country. Then under the careful and 
compassionate hand of President Roosevelt, we did not eliminate 
programs. We refocused. We reenergized government to respond to that 
crisis. We did not just cut programs. We found ways to respond to the 
appropriate need then.
  That appropriate use of government eventually ushered in an 
unprecedented growth in our country. The economy was booming, and 
little did we know that we were moving toward his goal that we would 
have a car in every garage and families, indeed, would have homes and 
that they would provide for the children. Good times resulted from that 
in America.
  Today we are facing a staggering balance-of-trade deficit with many 
of our foreign trading partners. Very often the car Americans can 
afford in their garage is from Japan, and that is not as it should be. 
The jobs that followed in 1950 have taken flight to cheaper labor 
markets. Indeed, crime is on the rise.
  There are problems we have now. Teenage pregnancy is at an 
unacceptable level.
  I say these are tough times. What will we do? How will we respond to 
this?
  The question is how will we respond to these tough issues as we 
balance the budget? That is the issue the American people should know. 
Where will they fall in our response to them as a governing official?
  We do not need a government for the sake of government. Certainly we 
need to reduce government where it needs to be reduced. But we do need 
a government that is appropriate, careful in its spending, fair in its 
revenue raising, and should dictate how we govern in a fair manner.
  We must not waste. Our citizens need not want. But we must be 
truthful with our citizens and tell them what sacrifices they are going 
to bear.
  We did not get elected to come here to create a robot-like system 
where entitlements are slashed indiscriminately. Some may need to be 
reduced. Why not tell the American people what we are about as we are 
to make these hard decisions?
  In fact, the balanced-budget amendment may be the easy vote, because 
we do not have to stand up to people and to tell them this, indeed, is 
how I will propose to reduce this budget.
  The majority proposed an answer to these difficult things by saying 
the balanced-budget amendment, with a two-thirds vote requirement, is 
the only way. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, the American people have a 
right to know the sacrifices we are asking them to make and we are 
called to make.
  I think the more responsible position is letting the people know.
                              {time}  1340

  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, particularly 
for her reference to a man who might have been our greatest Democratic 
President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It brings to mind one of his most 
memorable phrases, which was when he spoke to the American people in 
the depths of the Depression and said, ``We have nothing to fear but 
fear itself.'' I think the Republicans' slogan today is, ``We have 
nothing to fear but the facts.''
  They are afraid to share the facts with the American people. As the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] said last Sunday, they are afraid 
their knees would buckle when they faced the facts.
  President Roosevelt had confidence in the American people. I think 
the Republican leadership of the House should have confidence in the 
American people too. Let them know what is in store, let them know the 
truth of what is involved in a balanced budget amendment. If it means 5 
or 10 years from now the Social Security system or the Medicare system 
will be changed, should not families be alerted to that fact now so 
that they could make some sort of plans now for their future? To spring 
this on the family 5 or 10 years down the line when they are in 
retirement is beyond the time when they can do something about it. But 
to talk about it today is the honest way to approach it. I hope that 
the Republican leadership, Mr. Armey, Mr. Gingrich, and others will 
have the same kind of faith in the American people that President 
Roosevelt did. Let them face the crisis together, let us come together 
and resolve this.
  What is at issue here with these various items in the Republican 
contract is something as basic as the economic relationship between the 
50 States and the Federal Government. When it comes to the question of 
unfunded mandates, what we hear from Mr. Gingrich and the Republican 
side is that the Federal Government should stop telling the States what 
to do unless you are going to pay for it. Let the States decide is the 
call coming from the Republican side of the aisle. But I wonder, if you 
apply that to real-life situations, whether most Americans would agree.
  I have a district that is on the Mississippi River. The quality of 
the water in that river is very important to the people who live along 
that river. But we cannot control the quality of that water in the 
State of Illinois. Now, we have to have a standard, a national standard 
that we can trust, starting from the headwaters of the Mississippi in 
Minnesota, working its way down. We need a Federal standard, if you 
will, a Federal mandate, to suggest that the water quality is something 
that we as Americans can trust.
  Let me give you another example: A few years ago the State of 
Wisconsin has a drinking age of 18, and the State of Illinois had a 
drinking age of 21. So on the northern Illinois border, teenagers would 
get in their cars on Saturday night, drive over to Wisconsin, get 
drunk, and drive back, drive home, wrecking their cars, killing 
themselves and a lot of innocent people. It got so bad that they called 
the stretch of highway ``Blood Alley'' because of all the lives that 
had been lost due to the teenagers drinking in Wisconsin and coming 
back to Illinois.
  Do you know what happened? The Federal Government, the committee I 
serve on, passed a Federal mandate and said we are going to have a 
uniform drinking age of 21 in the United States or, ``Your State is 
going to lose Federal highway funds.'' Was it a mandate? Yes. Did it 
cost the State of Wisconsin? Yes, it did cost them to enforce it.
  What was the result? Kids lives were saved, lives of innocent were 
saved. Blood Alley is just a bitter memory now, it is gone.
  Time and again we find these Federal standards lead to a higher 
quality of life.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would like to make a comment about an article today 
that has to do with the balanced budget amendment, from the Wall Street 
Journal, by their economist Robert Eisner. He points out, with regard 
to a balanced budget amendment, households could not begin to balance 
their budgets the way the Government would be required to under the 
Republican plan. The point being, I guess, that if we are to look at 
investments either by the Federal Government or by families, families 
borrow to buy a car, to buy a home, get their kids to school; 
businesses borrow. If you had to take all of that, if you had to pay 
for everything out of current income, you would find yourselves unable 
to do the things that families normally do every day.
  Now, just to go back to what my colleague from California was talking 
about, there are a variety of ways to deal with this issue. You can, as 
was
 suggested in this article, and as some of our colleagues suggested, 
that you separate out a capital budget from an operating budget, which 
is the way, in fact, most States today balance their budgets. They do 
that because they have a capital expenditure, it is paid for over the 
life of the asset, and you deal with your current expenditures out of 
current cash. Families do that every single day. By narrowing the 
playing field, if you will, what the Republicans are doing is not 
allowing for various ideas and various opportunities to come up so that 
we can debate each of these and figure out the best way in which you 
can balance that budget, thereby allowing both the Federal Government 
and families and businesses to continue to invest in their future, and 
not cut them off or shut them down in their ability to move forward.
  [[Page H205]] So that we are in this most important debate, finding 
ourselves in a position where the public has called out and cried out--
and I believe this is true in this election--for open government, 
participatory government, for not allowing for gridlock, for moving 
forward. And we see that all of that is being throttled by the 
Republican leadership, and all in the name of saying that the public is 
afraid and would be fearful of the pain that is involved if we have to 
balance the budget. It does not make any sense.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time, I think what the gentlewoman said so 
forcefully and eloquently is that basically we need to trust the 
American people, give them the information.
  The Republican leadership appears to be very reluctant to do that. 
You know, we have been through this, some of us in this Chamber, back 
in the Reagan and Bush era, when we were told to just have confidence 
and faith in the so-called Laffer curve. That was appropriately named, 
the Laffer curve, and some of the different approaches, that it was all 
going to work out, we could increase spending, cut taxes, and when it 
was all over the economy was going to blossom and flourish. It didn't 
happen. What did flourish was our national debt during the Reagan-Bush 
era because we were buying into the economic theories of extreme 
thinkers. The Republicans have a tendency to gravitate toward extreme 
thinkers. I think we are hearing from those folks again.
  I think most of us would agree we should reduce Federal mandates 
where they just involve bureaucracy and paperwork and do not serve a 
national purpose. But do not go too far. If the Republicans want to go 
so far as to jeopardize environmental quality, jeopardize health 
standards, they have gone too far. They should stay away from that 
extreme thinking.
  We should move toward a balanced budget amendment, but from my point 
of view, more important than that is economic growth in this country. I 
would like to make sure we are creating new good-paying jobs. That 
should be our highest priority, not some bookkeeping standards that 
really do not pay any attention to the real world. That is the kind of 
extreme thinking Americans are not going to buy into. They want this 
Government, this Congress, to be sensitive to the real problems, to the 
real families, to the need for jobs, to the need for business to the 
need to expand.
  Merely paying homage to some bumper sticker with some extreme 
viewpoint is not serving the national purpose.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. I think that is an 
important point. The point is now the Republican Members of this 
Congress are forewarned. We took that route once, we took an economic 
plan on the back of a cocktail napkin, called the Laffer curve, and 
reduced those cuts in taxes to the wealthiest people in this country, 
and dramatically slashed some of the spending on the domestic side but 
not on the military side. Once again, that is an echo we are hearing in 
this Congress. And the result was a trillion dollars' worth of debt. 
The result was interest payments of $300 billion, $400 billion a year, 
that will be paid for by every American family, paid for by all of our 
children.
  Many of us voted against that plan. But the way it was presented to 
this Congress was that you had to vote that day, there could not be any 
hearings, you had to vote for the substitute, take it or leave it. 
There was no time to tell the American people what was done. There was 
no time to debate it on this floor. The Congress took it, 
unfortunately, and a trillion dollars later in red ink, hundreds of 
billions of dollars in interest payments that could have gone covering 
back to the people or could have been used for productivity in this 
country or for social progress was denied because of that kind of snap 
decision, the same kind of snap decisions we have seen around here that 
have been recanted within 1 hour, 2 hours, 12 hours, on the theory that 
everything has to be done immediately.
  Now they are saying that they have got to rush this, they cannot let 
the people take a look at it because it will break their political 
momentum. What is more important: the economic momentum of this Nation, 
or the political momentum of the Speaker of the House? I think it is 
the economic momentum of this Nation.
  We see time and again economists, chairmen of the Federal Reserve, 
saying, ``Be careful what you do here because if you do it wrong and 
don't think it through, interest rates are going to go up.'' Everybody 
believes if interest rates continue to go up one more time or two more 
times, that the economic recovery is then choked off.
                              {time}  1350

  And then we can look forward to the auto worker being laid off, the 
aircraft manufacturer being laid off, the rail people being laid off, 
and once again there goes the Federal deficit, but that is not what 
these people are saying. They do not want to listen to this. They do 
not want to have these points of view aired in public.
  This is supposed to be the most open time, the most open Congress. 
But yet we find out there is no time for debate, there is no time for 
the public's view. I say, you can't have it both ways. You cannot be 
the most open Congress. You cannot pass sunshine laws and then tell the 
American people to keep out.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe them more. We owe them more dignity and more 
respect for their intelligence.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, would my colleague yield for just one 
second?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to say I mean through all the discourse and 
commentary on this issue quite frankly, as a woman in West Haven, CT, 
said to me at office hours one morning, one Saturday morning, she said, 
``I wish for one minute that the people in Washington would put their 
feet in our shoes and understand what our lives are all about,'' and 
that is what this is about. It is what people want to know, is their 
standard of living going to be raised? Are they going to be able to get 
their kids to school? Are they going to be able to live in some kind of 
sense of security? Are they going to be able to pass on that American 
dream to their kids the way my colleagues' fathers, and my mother and 
father, did for me?
  The whole point of this and part of that is that we do get our fiscal 
house in order. There is no question about that. But let us come clean 
with the American public and in fact tell them whether this balanced 
budget amendment is going to deny their kid, one out of four, a Pell 
grant to get them to school. Is it going to put their mother or elderly 
mother and father in jeopardy with regard to Social Security and with 
Medicare? Is it going to jeopardize their ability to get education and 
training so that they can get that first job? That second job? That 
fifth job? And earn a living wage? And is it going to do something to 
allow them to work and go to work in this country? Is it going to raise 
that standard of living?
  Let us have that open debate in this body. The American people 
deserve no less around this issue of the balanced budget.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro].
  As my colleagues know, one of the interesting things over the last 12 
or 13 years is how popular this balanced budget amendment has become 
and how necessary in many respects, and yet each of us who serves in 
this Chamber knows that we have it within our own power to deal with 
this budget on a regular basis and try to reduce spending.
  Last year I came to the floor with a reduction in an appropriation 
bill of 10 percent from the previous year, $1.3 billion in cuts, and I 
am sorry to report to my colleagues that many of the people who have 
this extreme passion for a balanced budget amendment were nowhere to be 
found when I needed their votes to pass my appropriation. They call for 
major surgery on the deficit, and they faint at the sight of blood when 
they see appropriation cuts, and that happened time and time again.
  So I think now what we are saying now to the
   people who are proposing this bumper sticker balanced budget 
amendment is, ``Get real. Tell us what we can live with, what you're 
prepared to live with. Put it on paper. Tell us what you are prepared 
to vote for. 
[[Page H206]] Take it home and explain to your voters, as all of us are 
required to.'' And I do not think that is unreasonable.
  As my colleagues know, ultimately the fate of this balanced budget 
amendment is not in this Chamber. We will pass it, I suppose, and the 
Senate might. Then it goes off to the State legislatures, and it takes 
38 of them to approve it for it to become the law. Some 7,424 State 
legislators will actually decide whether or not there will be a 
balanced budget amendment in the Constitution.
  Recently a Wall Street Journal article went around and asked some of 
those State legislators, some of whom had supported this in the past, 
what they thought of it now that it was on the horizon. A gentleman 
from Delaware, State Senator Robert Connor, a Republican, said, ``For 
us it could be devastating. In the end we could be left with severe 
budget cuts and an increase in taxes in Delaware.''
  In Alabama a Democratic representative, Michael Bach, said it was a 
farce. The way the amendment looks now it simply shifts the burden to 
us. That is not what the people of Alabama need.
  So, finally some folks are starting to realize what it is all about.
  Going back to my earlier point, I hope the Governor of California 
will at least pause and think when he calls up his congressional 
delegation here in Washington and says, ``We need help in California,'' 
that he is the same Governor who just at Tuesday's press conference in 
Sacramento said of the Federal Government, quote, we are going to sue 
their butts off, close quote, because they are imposing burdens on us 
that we should not have to pay for. Well, honestly I think we should 
come to the help of the people of California, but it would be helpful 
also if the Governor of California would sit down and at least take a 
look at his own request, that we, a deficit-ridden Federal Government, 
are coming to the rescue again, as we should, of residents of his 
State. And all of the people who are telling us, ``Pass the balanced 
budget amendment; reduce the amount of money you have,'' should stop 
and think in Sacramento, CA, in Springfield, IL, in State capitals all 
across the country, that they will have new obligations and new 
responsibilities.
  Let us get real. Let us get responsible. Let us be honest with the 
people of this country and let them know what is in store with the 
balanced budget amendment.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to say to my colleagues, that's 
absolutely correct, and that is all we are asking for, is to have that 
opportunity for the discussion and for the debate.
  And I join my colleagues today and others, and I think what I am 
prepared to do is to have this discussion and debate on a daily basis, 
if that is what is required in order to try to get the information out 
to the American people as to what, in fact, we are deliberating here 
and how it is being deliberated. We have to call on people who are in 
positions as Governors and elected officials to be responsible. It is 
not just a bumper sticker. It is not just a slogan.
  If that is what we were doing in the past, and that is what we have 
decried and said we are not going to do in the future, then let us not 
go back to business as usual. Let us not do that. The American people, 
as I said earlier, deserve better than that, and we have an opportunity 
here. That is what we were sent here to do; that is what Governors were 
elected to do as well.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut.
  In the past special orders have been political monologs from one side 
or the other, and I would hope in the future that could change, and in 
the spirit of trying to bring that change my colleague from Indiana, my 
Republican colleague, asked for an opportunity to speak earlier, and, 
realizing we only have maybe 8 or 9 minutes left, if we could enter 
into a dialog, I would be happy to at the moment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] for yielding, and I do not want to prolong the 
discussion, but what I think would be helpful for the American people 
is if maybe we could have some debates, not the English style debates 
we were talking about, where we could get two people on the gentleman's 
side and two on our side to come down and to debate at length the 
subject of the economy and how we are going to deal with it.
  One of the things that I was going to take issue with and will be 
when I have my special order here in a few short minutes was the issue 
of interest rates that the gentleman from California talked about.
  When Jimmy Carter was President, interests rates went to 21.5 
percent----
  Mr. DURBIN. They were horrible.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Because the inflation rate got out of control, 
and Mr. Volcker thought he had to do that to choke off inflation, and, 
when President Reagan came in and cut the top tax rate, which is not 
talked about very much, we ended up with seeing interest rates going 
down dramatically along with inflation.
  So, when we start talking about, and the Democrat minority starts 
talking about, interest rates being out of control because of our 
policies, which we are talking about right now, I think we need to look 
at history and see that the real problem that was created as far as 
interest rates and inflation last time occurred primarily under 
Democrat administrations.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think my colleague from Maryland would like to respond.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] for yielding, and I want to respond to my friend 
from Indiana.
  Interest rates, of course, and inflation rose very rapidly in the 
1970's. as the gentleman well knows, for reasons unrelated to domestic 
policy, but very much related to the oil cartel that was created in the 
Middle East.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That was a fact.
  Mr. HOYER. And energy costs skyrocketed. We had long lines, 
shortages, and energy prices skyrocketed.
  But the gentleman also correctly observed that interest rates 
followed the inflation rate up, and the reason they do that obviously 
is because money, like any other commodity, is affected by inflation, 
and the payback, the amortization, the payback of the price of the 
money, is keyed to the differential between what our inflation rate is 
and what our cost of money is, and that is the real cost of money, the 
real.
  And, as the gentleman knows, notwithstanding the fact that the 
interest rates were nominally high in the late 1970's, in point of fact 
as the gentleman----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Nominally? Twenty-one and a half percent?
  Mr. HOYER. Nominally in terms of the difference between inflation, 
which was 17 or 18 percent, and interest rates which were 21 percent, a 
3.5-point discrepancy. In point of fact, in the 1980's real interest 
rates, which is really what the gentleman is worried about because it 
is the difference between what our money depreciates at and what we 
have to pay it back at, were higher in the 1980's than they were in the 
1970's.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Oh my. I will get into that more at length 
later, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to discuss that with the gentleman, and 
most every economist will say that is the fact, but of course the 
gentleman is correct. Most people did not think that because the 
numbers were not as large. But, in borrowing money, we really are very 
interested in what the real----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say to my colleague and the 
gentleman from Illinois, what I'd like to do, if we could, is maybe we 
could sit down at some point and decide on the two or three topics, and 
come down with two Members on each side, and have some real, in-depth 
debates that the American people, who may be tuning in, can watch and 
get both perspectives.
  Mr. DURBIN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] I think has made 
an excellent suggestion, and I also hope we can kind of create a 
different kind of environment for debate on the floor where we try to 
have more exchange of ideas. Certainly we want to express our 
viewpoint, and the gentleman does, too, but we should try to maintain 
dialog. I think it is more interesting for those who are observing the 
debate, and perhaps we can generate some new knowledge for both of us.
                              {time}  1400

  I only have a few minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Becerra] has asked me to yield to him, 
[[Page H207]] and I am happy to yield to him at this point.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for allowing 
me to have these few minutes.
  I was watching some of the discussion over the television as I was in 
the Judiciary Committee, and I thought it was important enough to come 
down here, because at this very moment our committee is debating the 
balanced budget amendment and I just wanted to add a few points.
  It seems to me that for the last month and a half we have been 
talking about how open this new Congress will be and how important it 
is to give the people of America a chance to really understand the 
workings of the House of Representatives and of the Senate. Yet it 
seems to me the first thing we are doing with this balanced budget 
amendment is closing doors to openness to the American public. We are 
not giving them any idea about how we are going to pay for anything in 
the balanced budget amendment.
  As the gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed out, we are talking about 
cutting $1,200,000,000,000 over the next 5 to 7 years, and the American 
people should know what that means. It is to me somewhat disconcerting 
to find that in the Judiciary Committee today the only way we could try 
to extract anything from the Republican majority on how they intend to 
pay for this is to propose amendments to find out if they would include 
those amendments to protect certain programs, for example, Social 
Security. We had an amendment that would say that in the process of 
trying to balance the budget we would not go after the moneys that 
hardworking Americans have put into the Social Security fund. That 
amendment failed. The Republicans said we could not do that.
  Now, their reasons are similar to that analogy that I recall from 
that zealous military man who said that in order to save the village he 
had to burn it. In essence, that is what we were told today in the 
Judiciary Committee. We cannot put an amendment in that would protect 
Social Security from the massive cuts, because if we do so, we will 
ruin Social Security. The logic evades me.
  Just minutes ago--in fact, I missed the vote because I was trying to 
get here--we had a vote to try to exclude some major cuts like 
veterans' benefits for those who have served in the wars of this 
country, defending this country, and who have now come back injured. We 
could not get the Republicans to agree to that amendment.
  So it is disconcerting to see that the only way to try to find out 
what they are not willing to protect is by proposing amendments which 
they are now rejecting.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] pointed out that right now 
in California, as they are suffering through some major devastation 
from the floods and rains, it seems almost incredulous to believe that 
we are now talking about a balanced budget amendment which would cut 
away the money for some programs like the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency which would provide those emergency dollars to California right 
now. We do not know whether that will happen or not because we cannot 
get anyone in the majority to tell us, and that is a true shame. It 
seems that what we should be talking about right now is openness. It 
reminds me of those games that the kids play. Right now we are playing 
hide and seek with the American people. Rather than playing hide and 
seek, I think it is about time, since we are playing with Americans' 
hard-earned dollars, that we play show and tell. And at this stage we 
have not seen any show and tell.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________