[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.
____________________