[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4911-H4914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           THE FEDERAL BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, special orders are kind of interesting. What 
are they about? I am sure the public looks and they see that there is 
an empty hall.
  The benefit of special orders, that is what we are in right now, is 
it gives Members on both sides of the aisle, the aisle being the 
central aisle down the middle, it gives Members, Republican and 
Democrat, on both sides of the aisle a chance to lay out a little more 
in detail, to expound more fully on what they think is important, just 
as Mr. Pallone before me laid out some of his concerns about some of 
the budget proposals that have come forward.
  Often on the floor of the House, where we are limited by how long we 
can speak, whether it is 3 minutes or 5 minutes, where there is the 
hurly-burly of debate, it is difficult to get out in a reasoned way 
what it is that you really want to say. That is why many on both sides 
of the aisle take this opportunity.
  I take this opportunity because I want to speak about the budget. I 
want to speak about what I think ought to be in the budget. I want to 
respectfully disagree with the budget that has been presented by the 
Republican side, but also lay out an alternative, to lay out my budget, 
and I want to say this is my budget, not endorsed necessarily by 
anyone.
  I think some important points need to be made. In developing a 
budget, and particularly a balanced budget, and everyone agrees on the 
need for balance in the budget. We balance a budget in our families, in 
our homes, in our businesses, in State and local governments.
  But in balancing a budget, what is the goal? The goal I think for the 
country is not simply to be able to point with pride and say we have 
got a balanced budget. It is to be able to say we have a balanced 
budget in the context of a healthy economy because we take the steps 
necessary for a healthy economy.
  Yes, we believe that most of the time that means there is a balanced 
budget. But there are times in the Federal Government, not true 
necessarily in other budgets, but there are times in the Federal 
Government where it is necessary to run an imbalance, in times of
 recession when people are being laid off.

  As businesses balance their budgets by laying off, that is the time 
when the Federal Government must come in and pick up the slack. 
Otherwise, the recession only worsens.
  A balanced budget is important, yes; healthy economy, though, is the 
goal. Let's talk about it in terms of healthy economy.
  My concern is that if we adhere to a 7-year proposal, that is, ``Thou 
shalt 
[[Page H4912]] balance the budget in 7 years regardless of the 
consequences,'' then I am concerned about what that means for the 
economy, because it may be more of a blow than the economy can handle.
  I would have to have a movie made this summer about the proceedings 
that went on here titled ``Honey, I Shrank the Budget and I Blew Up the 
Economy,'' because that is not what this is about. This is about 
building a healthy economy.
  First of all I want to respond very quickly to the Medicare 
arguments, pro and con, and then move into other aspects of the budget.
  I note with interest the statements made about how there are no cuts 
in Medicare, and I think that argument has gone back and forth a lot. 
Let the record show that it was last year that this administration, the 
Clinton administration, brought forward a plan for reforming Medicare 
in the context of overall health care reform, and that was almost 
universally disowned by those on the other side. Now they say, ``Well, 
we've got this great plan and we want you to be involved.''
  We are saying it has to be done in the context of overall health care 
reform. It also has to be done in the context of something else. If you 
are asking seniors to pay more out of pocket for restructuring the 
health care plan, then I think it is not too much to ask that that 
actually go toward Medicare, that that actually go toward deficit 
reduction, but that it not go for a tax break for the very wealthiest 
in our country.
  It is ironic that the amount that would come out of Medicare, roughly 
$300 billion over 7 years, is almost the amount that was voted by this 
House or voted by the Members of the majority party for a tax break, 51 
percent of those benefits going to those earning over $100,000 a year.
  Incidentally, in West Virginia where the bulk of
   the income level is $20,000 and below, that segment of the 
population would get only 4 percent of that tax cut benefits, while 
those over $100,000 got 51 percent. That is a clear disparity.

  It is interesting because in my town meetings, 18 of them which I 
held across the State during the last couple of months, in my town 
meetings even upper income people were saying ``We don't need a tax 
cut, particularly one that gives us a tax break. What we are interested 
in is more deficit reduction and more balancing the budget.''

                              {time}  1445

  So that is one of the main sticking points on Medicare, do not go 
cutting Medicare to give a tax break for the upper income.
  But let us talk now about the budget and the economy.
  The goal as I say is for a balanced budget, but in the context of a 
healthy economy. What is it that makes a healthy economy? Growth makes 
a healthy economy, and if you have two businesses side by side and both 
of them have a debt problem, they have too much debt, and the United 
States has too much debt, and they take steps to cut that, where is it, 
Mr. Speaker, you would want to invest, in the company that cuts 
everything across the board regardless of how much business it creates, 
or would you want to invest in the company that is going to make 
sensible cuts, but at the same time is going to beef up those 
provisions by bringing growth to that business and help it to grow out 
of some of its problems?
  I think we ought to put the debt of the United States in context. We 
have a debt problem, and I think it is looming as a serious problem; it 
is not a crisis. And let us look at some statistics.
  First of all, the debt, that total amount that the United States has 
rung up, has increased dramatically in the past 12 years. It has gone 
from roughly $1 trillion, took about 200 years to get to about this 
level, $1 trillion, and in the last 12 to 15 years it has now grown to 
$4.5 trillion. And I know I am not in scale with my high air chart, Mr. 
Speaker, but the debt is somewhere around $4.5 trillion. That is a lot 
of money obviously. But let us put it in the context of history.
  Following World War II this country's debt was about 125 percent of 
its gross domestic product. In other words, everything this country did 
in a year's time in business and sales and what not, the debt was about 
125 percent. We worked that debt down steadily over the next four 
decades to roughly 35 percent of our gross domestic product for 1 
year's economy.
  It has now gone up, yes, it is true, to around 65 to 70 percent, but 
this is, incidentally, about the same level that almost every other 
major industrialized nation is carrying of debt in relation to its 
gross domestic product. So we have a problem and the trend line is up 
and leveling off. But we do not have a crisis. But we need to reverse 
that trend.
  Why do we need to reverse that trend? The debt takes time to pay off. 
But more importantly, it is the interest on the debt that we pay every 
year that is growing. That is what is important.
  Roughly the interest on the debt is somewhere around $300 billion, 
this year roughly 15 percent of our total Federal budget. That is $300 
billion that is not going for education, it is not going for defense, 
it is not going for anything except to repay past consumption. So that 
needs to come down. But let us bring it down in a reasonable way.
  The deficit is the yearly amount that this Government spends over 
what it takes in; if you take in this much and you spend that much. Let 
us look at the deficit in relation to our economy. Three or four years 
ago this country's deficit was about 6 percent of its gross domestic 
product. Because of the steps taken in the 1993 budget plan, hotly 
disputed, I might add, because of that it came from 6 percent and it is 
on a trend line to be cut in half, and it is on course right now to be 
around 2.5 to 3 percent of our gross domestic product. So, over a 5-
year time the deficit in relation to our overall economy has been cut 
in half. That is not good enough. It has to keep going down, but we 
have to acknowledge the progress that has been made and it has been 
made in a solid and stable way and incidently the economy, despite the 
predictions of those who opposed that program only 2 years ago, passed 
by one or two votes as I recall here in the House, the economy instead 
of going in the tank as was proposed has only grown instead.
  Now, what does that mean for future deficit reduction? My feeling is 
we need to continue that glide path but that we need to make sure that 
several things are built in. First, that it is a gentle glide path and 
not an abrupt one. Second, that is builds in growth. The reality is if 
you are talking about paying off a debt of $4.5 trillion, if you are 
talking about eliminating a deficit of $170 billion this year, or $200 
billion on average, then you are talking about the need to be able to 
grow and the economy must grow, and you must make sure the steps you 
take bring growth and not retrenchment.
  So that deficit is what needs to be focused on, so I would urge that 
instead of a 7-year time plan with some pretty draconian cuts that it 
be spread out to 10 years to 12 years. Why 10 to 12? Rule of thumb. It 
took you 10, 12 years to get into this predicament. I think it is going 
to take logically 10 to 12 to get out.
  But I noticed most private sector bankruptcy proceedings or chapter 
11 proceedings, if you put forward a reasonable repayment plan for the 
creditors over a number of years, then everyone breathes a lot easier, 
the creditors loosen up, you are beginning to pay off your debt in a 
logical way and everybody is happy and that business still continues to 
go on.
  So, I am not wedded to a 7-year plan. I am not wedded for another 
reason. Here we get a bit, Mr. Speaker, here I have been known to be 
able to cause whole crowds' eyes to glaze over when I start explaining 
capital budgeting, but let me try. All of us believe that the family 
budget and a Federal budget should be treated the same, that you should 
balance. There is a difference. And the family budget and the Federal 
budget are much the same in that they both must set priorities. 
Families sit around the table every month and decide how much for 
utilities, how much for food, how much for school, how much for health 
care, and so on.
  Families know something. Families know they also
   have to borrow to grow. That is why my wife and I have a mortgage on 
our house. We cannot afford to pay for a house in 1 year. We have to 
mortgage over 20 to 30 years. That is why we buy a car on a payment 
plan. We cannot afford to pay for a car in 1 year. We pay for it over 
several years. 
[[Page H4913]] That is why I worked my way through college and had to 
borrow to get through college, and that is why my children will 
probably see the same, but we look at the borrowing for the house, the 
car, and the education as a necessary expense that has long-term 
benefits and over time helps us grow. It appreciates in value and adds 
to our value.
  So, families know that, and they do that.
  The Federal Government does not account for those long-term 
investments that way. When you build a mile of road, you build a 
Federal building, you buy aircraft carriers, those things that have 
long-term value, the Federal Government shows them being paid for in 
that 1 year. It does not spread the cost out over the lifetime of the 
asset. It pays for it in that 1 year, so that in turn balloons up what 
most businesses and families know would be a much lesser expense 
because they would spread the cost out over the lifetime of that asset. 
There is no capital budgeting. That is what it is called. There is no 
capital budgeting in the Federal budget.
  There is in every State and city government, and business and family 
budget. The State of West Virginia, for instance, has a balanced 
budget, but the State of West Virginia, as almost every State with 
possibly the exception of one State, the State of West Virginia and 48 
other States at least all borrow money for their highways and in some 
cases for water, sewer, and other long-term investments. The Federal 
Government is not able to show it that way. So I would put this country 
on a capital budget for those long-term items.
  But the family also does something else. The family budget shows that 
debt service. The Federal Government borrows, but it does not know 
whether it is borrowing a dollar for gasoline for a Federal vehicle or 
a dollar for a mile of road. That needs to change.
  So, growth must be, must clearly be built into this.
  I would urge several things in preparing a budget. First of all, I 
would urge that there be a longer phase-in period. Second, I would 
suggest there be capital budgeting, that the Federal Government be able 
to invest and encourage investment just like every business, every 
State, every city, every family does, and to have for those items that 
are long-term you can borrow for those and show it as such for those 
items that are day-to-day consumption, your payroll, materials, those 
kinds of things you pay for them, and you balance your budget for 
those.
  Third is, I urge growth policies. My concern about the budget that 
will be on the floor next week is it discourages growth;, it does not 
encourage it. If you believe balancing the budget in and of itself will 
bring you growth, then fine, and you are happy as a hog in slop, but 
the fact of the matter is the statistics are pretty clear, it does not. 
If you look at studies you find interestingly enough at times when we 
have the closest to balanced budgets our economy sometimes is in the 
worst shape, and vice versa. Many are wringing their hands about the 
deficit today, but they are not pointing out that the stock market is 
at an all-time high, that employment has been running along at a fairly 
consistent pace, and the Federal Reserve has clamped down seven times 
already on the economy in the past year trying to restrain inflation 
because they will felt the economy was growing too fast. So I think 
there is a real need to recognize growth policies.
  I would urge under that heading there are several programs not to be 
cut that are proposed to be cut. Student loans. The present proposal is 
to cut the student loan program $33 billion over 7 years. I do not know 
about others in the Chamber. I think I do, but I know that many of us 
got our education through student loan programs. And indeed, the best 
investment that the Federal Government can make is to make sure that 
someone gets a higher education. If someone graduates from college, the 
Department of Labor estimates their income today by graduating from 
college is 60 percent higher over their lifetime than simply graduating 
from high school. That incidentally has changed in the last 10 years 
from being just 30 percent higher to doubling, so the power of a 
college education or higher education is there.
  Incidentally, speaking from the most businesslike Federal Government 
standpoint, that is good news for the Federal Government, because that 
means they pay more taxes. It is good news for the economy because
 they are more active in the economy, generating more revenue and so 
on.

  The person who goes to college today may be the employer, the 
business creator, the business grower of tomorrow.
  Please leave student loans alone.
  I would leave intact other growth programs. The Economic Development 
Administration, almost every industrial park probably in our country, 
certainly in my State, has EDA money in it. That is what provides the 
linchpin that brings together the deal, the private sector, it provides 
the water, the sewer, sometimes the shell building, technical 
feasibility studies. We just broke ground on a major development in the 
eastern panhandle of West Virginia. It is estimated that the EDA grant 
which I believe was $2 million will generate 357 jobs. I costed that 
out. In addition to the other Federal grants involved it was around 
$7,883 per job created. The estimated income those workers will be 
making, that will be repaid to the Federal Government in 4 years. Real 
estate developers will tell you if they can get their money back in 4 
years, that is a heck of a great investment, and now those people will 
be generating money for the economy and also paying taxes for 40 years 
after that.
  So whether it is the Economic Development Administration, the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, so many of the other important growth-
producing infrastructure creating entities, I would urge that those be 
retained.
  We just had a debate on the floor today about, and unfortunately it 
passed, cutting $700 million from the State revolving fund. What does 
that mean, Mr. Speaker? That is the money that goes to build water and 
sewer projects for all of our communities; $100 billion need out there. 
This Government comes up with at best $2 billion a year, and that just 
got cut. It does not make any sense to me, because water and sewer is 
how we grow.
  The third area is transportation, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that the 
money not be cut for the highway trust fund and the aviation trust 
fund. We need to be growing roads and improving our roads and our 
infrastructure and our mass transit, not retrenching. There is a reason 
Mr. Speaker, people talk about the economic miracle of Japan; there are 
a lot of reasons. One of them is this: Japan has half the economy of 
the United States or roughly 60 percent of the economy, half the 
population, and yet spends more in real dollars than the United States 
does in its infrastructure, and so clearly we can learn from that.
  I would support targeted tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, tax cuts that 
actually go to create growth, not tax cuts handed out just to hand out 
tax cuts, because it is a great bumper sticker, but tax cuts that go to 
create growth, limited and targeted capital gains cuts, targeted 
investment tax credits that actually provide incentives for small 
businesses to buy the equipment that helps them to expand their 
capacity and productivity.
  Targeted tax cuts that encourage the development of municipal and 
private water and sewer systems and those other areas that help us 
grow. Many of those incidentally were removed in the 1986 tax act. I 
think it is time to revisit that. So there is much that can be done for 
growth, Mr. Speaker.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, as I am getting close to the end, let me say 
that it is a laudable effort that all make to cut the Federal deficit. 
That has to be done. As I mentioned, I do not make light of the 
deficit, because what the deficit represents is the interest that is 
being paid on the national debt.
                              {time}  1500

  And that debt is too high, and the interest is too high, and it robs 
us of other areas, if you are going to spend money that could be better 
spent. Not a dollar of that goes to education or goes to any other 
useful application.
  So I do not quarrel with the need to reduce the deficit. I do quarrel 
with the idea that you can willy-nilly cut your way to Nirvana, that 
you can willy-nilly cut your way to a balanced budget, and particularly 
doing it in 7 years, particularly doing it with the type of 
[[Page H4914]] arcane and antiquated and ineffective accounting system 
that the Federal Government has.
  It is like we are trying to play a game by rules that are four or 
five decades old, and we know they are not any good, and we know they 
are artificial, and we know they do not produce the most logical 
outcome, but, by golly, they are the rules, those are the rules we are 
going to play by even if it has a bad outcome.
  So, cutting your way completely to a balanced budget, particularly in 
7 years, I believe can create incredible problems for the economy. And 
so I would urge that growth be an important initiative in that.
  I don't think you reach growth by cutting the very programs that 
create growth, and so I hope that there will be time eventually to look 
at those growth areas and to be putting a growth agenda forward.
  I understand this budget is going to pass next week, I guess, on the 
floor of this House. The votes are here. It will be muscled through. It 
will pass.
  But my thought, though, is that after it passes, then we can have 
some calmer reflection in the country as well as this Congress, and 
that we can be talking about a true growth initiative that moves this 
country forward. You get balanced budgets by having a strong economy, 
and so as we work towards that balanced budget goal, I think at the 
same time we have to recognize what the ultimate goal is, and that is 
the strength of this economy.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I do want to address one concern that has 
been raised. Some have said, ``Where is your alternative, Democrats? 
Where is your alternative?'' ``We have a budget we just reported out of 
the Committee on the Budget,'' say the Republican leadership, ``and 
where is the Democratic alternative?''
  Ladies and gentleman, the Democrats have been putting their 
alternative out there on the line. I get partisan at this point, Mr. 
speaker. The Democrats have been putting their alternative out on the 
line for the past few years. We are the ones who passed without any 
help from the other party, passed a deficit reduction plan that reduced 
the deficit $500 billion over 5 years, took the deficit from being 
almost 6 percent of gross domestic product to less than 3 percent of 
gross domestic product in 5 years. We are the party that put out a 
comprehensive health care plan that last year was attacked by this side 
because it restricted choice, the freedom-to-choose provider. It had 
too much managed care. This year they come and say the greatest thing 
since sliced bread is managed care. That is how they would seek to 
reduce the deficit.
  I would say Democrats have been there. Incidentally, we are going to 
continue to be there. I am going to be putting forth my growth agenda. 
I am going to be putting forward my balanced-budget alternatives. 
Others of us are working to put these forward. My hope is eventually 
this center aisle can be replaced by people working on both sides of 
it, working together, crossing over to work for a true growth agenda 
and to work for what I know everyone in this Chamber agrees on and 
across the country, the need for policies that truly put this country 
on the road to a healthy economy, in so doing, a balanced budget as 
well.
  I also think it is important that these special orders at the end of 
the day following legislative business be taken and be recognized for 
what they are, not addresses to the Congress per se, but addresses to 
more fully expound the thoughts each Member has and to try and shape 
the policy discussion, very important policy discussion that is taking 
place here over the next couple of weeks.


                          ____________________