[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5614-H5620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE BUDGET PROCESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we have just returned from recess, but prior 
to that we completed a part of a very long process. Most people do not 
realize it was merely the beginning. The budget and the appropriations 
process begins with the passage of the budget. The House of 
Representatives and the Senate have passed the budget, and they will 
soon reach agreement on that budget.
  Most people do not realize the President has no veto power over the 
budget. That budget does forward without the President having a chance 
to veto it. He must react to the individual appropriations bills now 
that will be generated under the guidance of that budget.
  In other words, the budget sets the overall ceiling for each one of 
the areas, and the Committee on Appropriations now can go forward to 
make expenditures, increasing some programs, decreasing some, 
eliminating some, putting in new programs. That is all up to the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that we can expect, 
with this well-coordinated majority in power presently, that most of 
the recommendations made by the Committee on the Budget will probably 
be included in the appropriations process. The Committee on 
Appropriations will follow through on most of the recommendations. 
Therefore, we have a good idea of what the pattern is going to be in 
terms of the kind of expenditures that are going to be made by this 
Congress, or the kind of appropriations that are going to be proposed 
by this Congress.
  Each one of the appropriations bills, however, can be vetoed by the 
President. The public should realize that, that the appropriations 
bills have to go to the President. Once the Senate and the House have 
acted and both have agreed in a conference on a bill, it goes to the 
President, and the President can veto it. The public should understand 
that, that the budget process has just begun.
  The Committee on the Budget sets the ceiling. The Committee on 
Appropriations follows through. The President can veto what each 
Committee on Appropriations sends to him. If the President vetoes an 
appropriations bill, it will then come back to the House and Senate, 
and the possibility of an override, Mr. Speaker, I would say is very 
slim.
  I think there are enough people in the House to support the 
President, to prevent the overriding of a veto of the President. At 
this moment I am pretty sure there are. Of course, we lose some every 
day, but even with a few more causalities and a few more Benedict 
Arnolds deserting the Democratic Party and going over to the Republican 
Party, we still will have enough to prevent the override of a veto of 
an outrageous appropriations bill.
  Most of these appropriation bills will be outrageous, because we know 
they will follow the pattern of the budget. We will have outrageous 
bills which propose to eliminate the Department of Education. No other 
industrialized nation in the civilized world thinks it can function 
without a department of education. At a time lime this, when we are at 
a great disadvantage competitively if we do not have the most skilled 
population, the best educated population we can get, we are proposing 
to eliminate the Department of Education.
  There are numerous other outrageous items in the budget proposals 
that will be followed through in the appropriations bills, and the 
President will have to veto them.
  Once the House and Senate fail to override a veto, then what happens? 
I think we are on a course where, by the time we reach September 30, 
end of this budget year--September 30 ends this budget year--it becomes 
necessary to have continuing resolutions. If the Government is to 
continue functioning, we have to have passed continuing resolutions in 
order to keep the Government going forward at the same rate of 
expenditure that it had before. That is the critical point.
  If there is deadlock or gridlock, deadlock, however we want to put 
it, between the President and the Republican-controlled Congress, then 
where do we go from there? Will the Government have to shut down, as it 
did for a couple of days under President Bush, because the Republican-
controlled House refuses to pass a continuing resolution, or the 
Republican-controlled House and Senate together refuse to pass a 
continuing resolution? We will have a gridlock. We will have a set of 
negotiations which will go forward between the President and the 
Republican-controlled Congress.
  I say all this because I think it is very important for the American 
people to understand that the budget process has just begun. It has 
begun, and [[Page H5615]] prospects for a gridlock, prospects for a 
long-term set of negotiations, are obviously there.
  I think as we go forward in this process, I would urge that everybody 
not just read the mainstream papers, not just depend on the network 
televisions. The usual means of communications have chosen to ignore 
some of the alternatives and options and possibilities that there are 
in terms of this budget and appropriations process.
                              {time}  1230

  We are into a budget and appropriations process which is driven by 
the Republican-controlled House. They have dictated that no budget 
could be brought to this floor and considered unless it showed a 
balanced budget by the year 2002. In other words, any group or any 
Congressperson who wanted to at least have the opportunity to bring his 
idea, his proposal to the floor, had to come within the constraints 
that were set by the ruling Republicans here on the House floor.
  You had to show a balanced budget by the year 2002, which meant that 
an artificial crisis was created. You have an artificial situation 
where you must make drastic cuts in order to be able to present a 
balanced budget by the year 2002.
  I am happy to say that the Congressional Black Caucus accepted that 
challenge, and you would not know it by reading the regular papers or 
checking network news or even CNN. Nobody bothered to pick up on the 
fact that there was a Congressional Black Caucus budget on the floor of 
the House of Representatives and it was balanced. It was balanced by 
the year 2002, and it had some money left over in the year 2002.
  What were the basic principles of this balanced budget? We balanced 
the budget and we did not cut Medicare by one cent; not one cent was 
cut from Medicare. We balanced the budget and we did not cut Medicaid 
by one cent; not one cent was cut from Medicaid.
  We balanced the budget and we increased the education budget by 25 
percent. Not only did we not engage in any foolhardy, stupid, and 
ridiculous proposals that the Department of Education should be totally 
eliminated, we proposed to increase the Department of Education budget 
by 25 percent. Specific programs under the Department of Education are 
vital to the health and welfare of America. The Department of 
Education, we feel, should be given priority in this budget.
  We have given priority to the Department of Defense and the defense 
function for the last 30 years. It has always been defense, defense and 
to some degree we will have to admit that we did that successfully so.
  We outspent the Soviet Union. Probably we spent more money for 
defense, in fact I would wager we spent far more than we needed to. We 
enriched a lot of people with products, by paying for products that we 
did not really need. We paid much too much for a lot of products, 
defense weapon systems, et cetera.
  Nevertheless, it succeeded. We outspent the Soviet Union. They had 
their military-industrial complex spending money on weapons, ignoring 
the needs of the people. We had our military-industrial complex. Since 
we happened to be the richest Nation in the world, we could outspend 
them and they caved in first, so we won that cold war.
  Nevertheless, we continued to spend money on defense. So in the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget, there are two basic principles.
  One is to cut the expenditures for defense, and if you do it over a 
10-year period instead of a 7-year period, you can certainly do it and 
satisfy every hawkish person in the country, because over a 10-year 
period you can make cuts that definitely no one could argue threaten 
the security of the Nation. You can make those cuts. We make the cuts 
over a 7-year period, and that helps to balance the budget.
  We do one other thing that also is a basic principle of the budget 
that should not be ignored. We invite everybody to take a look at the 
other principle that the Congressional Black Caucus pursued. That 
principle was to close the corporate loopholes and get rid of corporate 
welfare.
  See, we operate primarily in this country on two sets of taxes. 
Revenue to run the Government, taxes that you pay, comes from two basic 
sources.
  One is from family income taxes, income taxes levied on families and 
individuals. That is one source of revenue that keeps our Government 
going. The other source of revenue that keeps our Government going are 
the taxes we levy on corporations, corporations or businesses.
  In the history of our country, the pattern has been at the beginning 
that the burden of taxes was equally divided between the taxes that 
were levied on individuals and the taxes that were levied on 
corporations. Something went radically wrong in 1943, and in 1943 the 
corporations began to pay less of the tax burden than families.
  Since 1943, there has been a drastic drop in the amount of money paid 
by corporations, a drastic drop from 39.8 percent in 1943 to as low as 
8 percent in 1982; as low as 8 percent, from 39.8 percent to 8 percent. 
Now the corporations are paying only 11.2 percent of the total tax 
burden.
  Understand what I am saying. We have drastically reduced the 
corporation taxes, the income taxes paid by corporations. You might 
well understand that if you reduce the taxes paid by corporations, 
somebody has to take up the slack, so what has happened? The taxes on 
individuals and families have dramatically gone up.
  From 1943, when individuals and families paid only 27 percent of the 
total tax burden--understand individuals and families were paying 27 
percent, corporations were paying 39.8 percent, almost 40 percent--
individuals and families not are paying, in 1995, 43.7 percent of the 
tax burden. We went from 27.1 percent to 43.7 percent. Almost 44 
percent of the tax burden is now being paid by individuals and 
families.
  If you raise the corporate taxes by closing the corporate loopholes, 
take away the corporate welfare, we are subsidizing corporations by 
letting them enjoy the benefits of our great Nation without them paying 
their fair share. We are taking more money from families and less money 
from businesses.
  There are some who say, well, businesses create jobs and we need to 
let them pay less taxes so they can create more jobs. That might have 
been true 50 years ago when you had businesses that created jobs. But 
you will find that the same businesses that are making the greatest 
amount of money now, the most prosperous businesses, are creating the 
least amount of jobs.
  We have a boom going now on Wall Street. There is a boom going. 
People are getting rich faster than ever before. Those who have money 
are making more than ever before, yet they are cutting the amount of 
jobs that their industries utilize. You have downsizing, streamlining, 
all kinds of terms being applied to it, but in the end it means cutting 
jobs of workers.
  You also have tremendous investments. These groups make a lot of 
money and they can go anywhere in the world and make tremendous 
investments overseas in search of the cheapest labor markets possible.
  Jobs are being taken away from workers here at home because they have 
automation. These same corporations can make money when they invest, 
they automate, computerize. They do not need as many people as before, 
so an investment in a business, investment in an industry does not 
automatically yield a certain number of jobs. The job economy is over 
here, and the economy that is making money, the profit economy, the 
Wall Street economy, is in another place.
  The correlation, the relationship between booming industries in 
America and increases in employment, increases in wages, there is no 
correlation anymore. There is no relationship anymore. It is a matter 
of the sector which has the capital gets more, the sector which is 
dependent upon wages gets less, and the taxes being paid by these two 
are totally out of sync with their prosperity.
  Individuals are making less money, families are making less money, 
and yet families and individuals are paying more taxes than they were 
50 years ago. The burden of the taxes, the tax burden, is greater now 
on individuals and families, and the burden on corporations is lower 
than it has ever been. It is lower now than ever before, but they are 
the ones making the greatest amounts of money.
  Here is the basic situation we are confronted with. As we go forward 
in [[Page H5616]] this appropriations and budget-making process, are we 
going to look at the obvious?
  I am reading from a chart that was taken from a document, the 
President's budget has it, I think, the Congressional Budget Office has 
it. Everybody in Washington knows what these figures show. Nobody 
disputes the accuracy of this chart, which shows the dramatic rise of 
family income taxes while corporation income taxes were rapidly 
dropping. Nobody disputes the accuracy of this.
  Everybody in Washington talks about corporate welfare and corporate 
loopholes, corporate tax loopholes. This is on everybody's mouth, but 
when it comes time on the floor to take action, nobody wants to talk 
about it.
  Certainly the Committee on Ways and Means does not want to talk about 
it. The Committee on Ways and Means has been under the domination of 
corporations for the last 50 years at least. Certainly in 1943 when you 
saw a dramatic change, when you saw corporations move from paying 
almost 40 percent of the tax burden to 1982 when they paid 8 percent, 
then you know something dramatic happened.
  The Committee on Ways and Means was taken over by the corporations, 
and they have been greedier and greedier as time has gone on. They were 
so greedy until they went down to just paying 8 percent of the total 
burden in 1982.
  This is what we are up against as we go into a budget gridlock, a 
budget deadlock. The President is our only hope against these draconian 
cuts. If you want to save Medicare, then it is the President who will 
have to stand fast against the Republican-controlled Congress, House 
and Senate. They are going to cut Medicare. They have made it quite 
clear. They are going to cut Medicare.
  Whatever language you may hear to the contrary, it is a cut. Medicare 
is going to be cut. They say they are going to save it from bankruptcy. 
We can unite together and find a way to save Medicare and any other 
institution of government from bankruptcy without making draconian 
cuts.
  There was a plan that was put forward last year by the President that 
was ridiculed. The President had a health care plan, and there were 
many other plans. I was a part of the single-payer coalition, caucus, 
here. We put forth a plan.
  There were many plans to make health care more efficient, spend less 
money on health care in the
 context of a plan which guaranteed that there would be better health 
care for all Americans, and at the same time bring down the cost. We 
could have brought down the cost of health care over a period of time, 
utilizing reforms that did not cause a great deal of suffering.

  People will suffer greatly. There is no way you can cut Medicare 
drastically and expect people not to suffer. Something has to give. The 
doctors may not give on their salaries, their fees, the hospitals may 
not give on theirs, so the patients will suffer. In some way or another 
the squeeze will come on the patients. The patients will suffer.
  They are going to cut Medicaid, also. Medicaid will be subjected to 
even greater cuts than Medicare. Medicare is supposed to have the 
middle-class, elderly constituency. Everybody is rallying to the 
defense of Medicare. Nobody wants to talk about Medicaid because that 
is for poor people. They really do not have much political clout, so 
very few people want to defend them.
  In truth, however, Medicaid and Medicare are very much inextricably 
interwoven. You cannot cut Medicaid without hurting the middle class. 
You cannot cut Medicaid without hurting the elderly.
  Most people who are elderly, who get sick for long periods of time 
and have to go to nursing homes, end up spending all of their available 
income and having to move from Medicare to Medicaid. Large amounts of 
people who are in the middle class when they get ill, after a long-term 
illness they end up being eligible for Medicaid. As a matter of fact, 
at least 40 percent of the funds spent for Medicaid are not spent on 
poor children or poor women or poor people in big cities. They are 
spent on nursing home recipients, many of whom were not poor before 
they went into the nursing home.
  Medicaid cuts will greatly hurt everybody, not just the poor. I am 
interested in maintaining Medicaid at the present level, because I do 
not think the poor should be hurt. Unfortunately, most people do not 
want to go to bat for and defend the poor. The poor are Americans. They 
contribute to the greatness of this country as well as everybody else. 
We should not engage in the kind of elite selection that the majority 
party in the House is engaging in. I call them the oppressive elite 
minority.
  You have the oppressive elite minority wanting to create a 
government, wanting to create public policies which only serve a small 
group of people. They want to make the budget and the appropriations 
process safe for a handful of people who do not want the nuisance of 
paying a few more taxes, or do not want the nuisance of paying the 
taxes they pay now. They want a tax cut.
  Here is the way the battle shapes up. I do not want to confuse 
anybody. What I am saying, to recapitulate and sum up, the basic 
principles of the Congressional Black Caucus budget, which have been 
ignored by the media, ignored by the Members of Congress, ignored by 
the leadership, should be examined by the American people. The public 
should take a look at these basic principles.
  Principle No. 1 is we can cut defense over a 10-year period. 
Principle No. 2 is we can close the corporate loopholes, end corporate 
welfare, and you will thus generate revenue which will help to balance 
the budget. In the Congressional Black Caucus budget, we raise the 
revenue from its present level of 11.2 percent to about 16 percent. The 
percentage of the overall tax burden is raised from 11.2 percent to 
about 16 percent, a little less than 16 percent. The percentage of the 
overall tax burden being paid by families and individuals is presently 
43 percent.
  If the corporations are raised from 11 percent of the total tax 
burden to about 16 percent of the total tax burden, they are still far 
below the tax burden percentage that is being paid by families and 
individuals.
  Let us balance the budget, ladies and gentlemen. As I said before, 
you can do it in 7 years, you can do it in 10 years. It will be easier 
for everybody if we do it in 10 years, but let us balance the budget by 
raising the percentage paid by the corporations, raise their percentage 
of the tax burden.
  Some people are talking about a flat tax. Some people are now talking 
in the high places in the House of Representatives about a consumption 
tax, similar I guess to the European value-added tax. In the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget, we make a recommendation that I 
think should be followed and I hope the President will listen. Let us 
create a tax commission. We have a base closings commission that was 
necessary in order to take base closings out of politics and put them 
into a process whereby experts would look at them more objectively and 
come back with
 decisions, make recommendations to the Congress and the Congress would 
act. The Congress will have the last word either way. But I think the 
American people deserve to have an objective analysis and examination 
and review of the tax situation in America.
  The revenue-generating situation, what is it? Why do corporations pay 
so much less now than they did in 1943? Why did we drop from 39.8 
percent for corporations in 1943 to 11.2 percent now? Why?
  And if we want to balance the budget, how do we raise it back up? If 
we are going to have a flat tax, are you talking about a flat tax just 
for families and individuals, or are you talking about a flat tax which 
also includes corporations? That may not be a bad idea. A flat tax, 
everybody pays the same percentage, including the corporation. But 
already those who are talking about a flat tax are beginning to find 
some tricks which will let corporations off the hook. If you have a 
flat tax that is unconditional, a flat tax with no exemptions, a flat 
tax that is going to go forward and not to corporations the same that 
they do to individuals, then you have a fair flat tax. But in no way do 
the proponents of a flat tax intend to have a flat tax across the 
board. They have no intention of taxing corporations at the same level 
that they tax families. Here is the issue.
   [[Page H5617]] Every American has got to ask the question, how do we 
end the long monstrous swindle of the American taxpayers. We have a 
monstrous swindle that has gone on and on and on. If people are angry, 
they have a good reason to be angry. Taxpayers should be angry about 
bearing a grater portion of the burden year after year while the 
corporations in America have borne less and less of a burden year after 
year.
  It is time to get angry. Those who are angry, it is time to find out 
why you are angry. It is time to find out how to be angry in a more 
intelligent way. We are angry at the Government generally. We are angry 
at the parties, both parties, we are angry generally. Let us be more 
specific in our anger. Be angry at the people who reduced the 
corporation portion of the tax burden from 39.8 percent to 8 percent, 
and now to 11 percent. Be angry and ask the question, how are you going 
to rectify this?
  As we go toward a balanced budget, what are we going to do to close 
the corporate tax loopholes and to end the corporate welfare here in 
Washington?
  Let us start a movement to balance the tax burden. Let us balance the 
tax burden and then we can balance the budget. Balance the tax burden, 
balance the budget at the same time.
  The way you balance a budget in America is balance the tax burden, 
have corporations pay a higher percentage of the tax burden. At the 
same time, you can afford to drop the percentage of taxes paid by 
families and individuals.
  We can have a tax cut. I am in favor of a tax cut. In the 
Congressional Black Caucus Budget, there was a tax cut. But the tax cut 
begins with individuals who are making the least amount of money. It is 
a tax cut for everybody, but it benefits the people who are making the 
least amount of money, the wage earners, as well as the rich. We should 
have a tax cut.
  American taxpayers have borne an enormous tax burden in order to 
fight the cold war. It is time for them to have some relief. It is time 
for the American taxpayers to have a real peace dividend. A real peace 
dividend would give back some of the money and reduce the percentage 
that families and individuals are paying in order to win the cold war. 
We have to do it, we say, to win the cold war. It is won. It is over. 
Let us now reduce the tax burden on individuals. At the same time, if 
you raise the taxes on corporations, you can balance the budget. You do 
not have to create any more of a deficit.
  Over a 10-year period, with a minimum of pain and suffering and 
dislocation, we can balance the budget. We can cut the waste in 
defense, and we can close the corporate tax loopholes and end corporate 
welfare. It is a simple formula.
  If you are confused by the complications of arguing and debating the 
budget, reduce it to three simple principles: Let us balance the budget 
by balancing the tax burden. In order to balance the tax burden, you 
have to close the corporate loopholes, raise the amount of taxes paid 
by corporations, then you can lower the taxes paid by families and 
individuals, and at the same time there will be no deficit. Do it in a 
10-year span of time. If you do it in a 10-year span of time, instead 
of 7 years, you will not create so much pain and suffering. You will 
create very little dislocation in our economy.
  Why have the Republicans who control the House of Representatives 
insisted that there must be a 7-year balancing of the budget? We have 
gone for many, many
 years without balancing the budget, but now in 7 years, by the year 
2002, they insist we must balance the budget. Why? Because they want to 
create an atmosphere of desperation. They want to create a crisis 
atmosphere. It is an artificially created crisis. It does not exist. 
America is not in some desperate situation. We are not at war. Our 
economy is not collapsing. There is no reason to take desperate 
measures in a situation that is not desperate. But by creating an 
artificial crisis, creating a desperate situation, a situation that 
seems to be desperate, they want to maximize power. It is a grab for 
power. The problem is power.

  Most Americans would like to see a situation where we have a 
government which has two parties, three parties, whatever number of 
parties, and each party is engaged in a contest, in a contest to 
determine who can create the best government for the American people, 
how can we have the best functioning society.
  We would like to see that kind of spirit motivating both parties. 
Most Americans would like to see that. They are not interested in who 
has the power, or who has the casualties. They are not interested in 
making war. But that is the situation we find ourselves in.
  I hope that every American will understand, every citizen, every 
voter will understand that you have been plunged into a war whether you 
like it or not.
  Last week the Speaker of the House, Speaker Gingrich in a forum at 
the Library of Congress made the statement that we all knew was a 
motivating factor in what has been happening here on the floor of the 
House and in Washington in general. He came right out and said, 
politics is war without blood. Politics is war without blood.
  Speaker Gingrich said that at a forum and I do not want to misquote 
the Speaker, he is a very powerful person, he is the second most 
powerful person probably in the country, third in line for succession 
to the Presidency. I would not want to misquote Speaker Gingrich.
  I am going to read from Roll Call, I got the information from Roll 
Call, which says that Speaker Gingrich even quoted a political leader 
not previously known to be one of his influences. ``War is politics 
with blood. Politics is war without blood,'' said the Speaker.
  He cited the late Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung. Mao Tse-tung 
operated out of a totally different environment. He was in a desperate 
environment where people were starving, all kinds of dislocations in 
the economy. There was no economy in China. Chaos reigned. So Mao Tse-
tung could say that politics is war without blood.
  I think it is most unfortunate that the Speaker of this House, in 
America, would say that politics is war without blood. It sets a whole 
different tone. We would like to believe that we have a more civil 
environment to conduct our politics in. I would like to think that 
politics is not war without blood. Politics is a contest, a noble 
contest among contending parties to see who can reach the goal best, 
who can contribute most to the cause, and the cause in this case is the 
cause of an America that is here for everybody.
  We want to promote the general welfare. Politics is to promote the 
general welfare. Politics is to secure the Nation. Politics is to do it 
all by spending the least amount of money and having the most efficient 
and most effective government. We want to engage in a contest among the 
parties. We want to engage in a contest between individuals, between 
caucuses, a contest, a serious contest. But to say that politics is war 
without blood is to set a whole different tone and to lay out an agenda 
which every American has to respond to. If politics is war without 
blood, then there have to be casualties. There is more concern about 
destroying people and destroying ideas and destroying than there is 
about serving the cause. The cause of America is probably the most 
noble and majestic cause of any governmental undertaking anywhere in 
the world ever. That cause can be best served by having everybody 
assume that they are in a contest that is a contest with no real 
losers.
  When we have a better government, we are all winners, Republicans and 
Democrats. When we have a more efficient government, we are all 
winners, Republicans and Democrats. But if you are preoccupied with 
power, power is the major preoccupation, than politics becomes war 
without blood.
  What is war all about? The way it has been defined by those we cannot 
ignore, we cannot ignore the fact that the Speaker has declared war. If 
the Speaker has declared war, the American people cannot sit still and 
ignore it. We did not want this to
 happen, we did not will it, we are not interested in it, but we are 
now engaged in situation where war has been declared. Politics is war 
without blood. Every American voter has to consider themselves a 
soldier. Every American voter can no longer be a spectator, a citizen 
spectator. You cannot sit by and watch when people are running the 
Government who consider politics to be war without 
blood. [[Page H5618]] 

  A lot of extreme things have been proposed. We have said extremism is 
the problem here in this Congress. It is extreme to say that you are 
going to save money by taking away lunches from poor children. At the 
same time you say you are going to increase the defense budget for star 
wars, to build glowing pebbles in the sky, you are going to increase 
the budget for that and take away lunches from poor children. That is 
extreme. That is barbaric. That kind of extreme action, extreme 
behavior can exist of course in a context of war. If you are really at 
war, then you are doing those things for reasons that have nothing to 
do with improving the Government, the efficiency and effectiveness of 
Government. There is another objective. War is about destruction, war 
is about gaining power. War is about wiping out your opposition. War 
has to have enemies. War cannot look forward to a victory that 
everybody can be proud of.
  The elite oppressive minority. There is an elite oppressive minority, 
and I have said this before, there is an elite oppressive minority in 
charge here in Congress now, and they want an America which serves only 
a small group of Americans. They are at war with a caring majority. The 
majority of Americans are people who care about other Americans. First 
of all, they are people who care about themselves and they need the 
benefits of our great democracy, they need the benefits of our great 
economy. The majority of Americans know that we are the richest Nation 
that ever existed on the face of the Earth, and that this was not 
created by a handful of people. All the scientist that have ever lived 
made a contribution to the kind of high-technology society that we know 
enjoy. The fact that Wall Street firms are making billions of dollars 
and they are doing it with a minimum amount of workers means that 
computerization, miniaturization, a whole lot of electronic devices 
that were developed during World War II have been put to use in the 
civilian sector, in the business sector.
  It was the U.S. Government, the taxpayers, who developed radar, who 
developed computers, who developed many of the kinds of advances that 
now are driving the industries that are making the greatest amount of 
money. They are the ones that we should give credit to. Our American 
taxpayers should have a percentage of the profits. It is science and 
technology that is driving our economy now. Science and technology are 
driving the profits of our corporations. Everybody participated in that 
process of creating a technologically strong America.
                              {time}  1300

  Everybody participated in the war effort, which made America safe 
from tyranny, Nazi tyranny in World War II. All of the soldiers who 
went and died on D-day, on Iwo Jima, all of those who participated in 
the effort in the defense industries, everybody who made America safe, 
created an atmosphere of order and law which would enable our 
businesses to benefit from science and technology without the 
interference of disruption and chaos. So everybody has a part, 
everybody has a role in the building of America, everybody should share 
in America. That is the caring majority, and the elite minority have 
said we do not want to share with the caring majority.
  I yield to the gentleman for a comment.
  Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentleman. I really appreciate the statements 
that the gentleman has been making this afternoon and his insistence 
absolutely that we have a balanced budget that puts people first, and 
his absolute focus in his earlier remarks that corporate welfare is 
something that we have to look at far more in a disciplined way if we 
are going to balance the budget. We as Democrats agree that the budget 
can be balanced, but we want to focus in on the corporate welfare and 
the revenue that is really not realized in this.
  I would like to give if I may a specific example of this to try to 
bring really home what this corporate welfare means to this budget and 
what we could be doing as a Congress. Did you know that the 10 largest 
mutual insurance companies in this Nation pay virtually zero taxes on a 
large segment of their income because they have found a loophole in the 
tax laws that drives their taxes to zero? About 10 years ago the 
Congress of the United States passed a law or passed a provision of the 
Tax Code that was to provide fair taxation of our giant insurance 
industry.
  Mr. OWENS. Would the gentleman please repeat that? Who is not paying 
any taxes? Who is paying zero taxes?
  Mr. FILNER. The 10 largest mutual insurance companies in this Nation 
pay virtually zero taxes under a certain provision of the Tax Code, 
section 809. They do not pay zero taxes, but they pay zero on this 
provision, which was set up to realize, and let me tell you this 
number, it was set up to realize $2 billion of revenue per year, per 
year, $2 billion. That is virtually zero out of this provision of the 
Tax Code because after it was written their accountants went to work 
and figured out if they changed their accounting system on paper, they 
could drive their tax obligation down to zero.
  I have a bill in to remedy that situation that should be part of any 
balanced-budget effort. It happens to be H.R. 1497, introduced with my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], and others who 
have helped me on this. It is called the Insurance Tax Fairness and 
Small Insurance Company Economic Growth Act of 1995. But what it does 
is exactly what you were talking about so eloquently earlier. It says 
let us not focus in on the children, let us not focus in on the older 
people that give them some dignity and some ability to participate in 
this society. Let us go after those who can afford it who have been 
leaving out their contribution, their fair contribution to the American 
society, and let us go after them. That will get the budget balanced 
and that is where our efforts should be focused.
  I say to my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], his 
insistence on this and his absolute dedication on this is something 
that we all admire. We are going to work with him to make that happen, 
and let us keep the focus on yes, a balanced budget, but let us make it 
fair, let us close the corporate tax loopholes, and let us see that 
those people, make sure that those people who should pay, pay fairly.
  Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman. I think that his bill along with a 
number of other items that have been introduced by the progressive 
caucus begin to deal in detail with the steps that have to be taken to 
reverse this imbalance, this gigantic imbalance where corporations are 
paying only 11 percent of the tax burden while individuals are paying 
almost 44 percent of the tax burden. We are proceeding to deal with 
that in legislation. What I am trying to do is awaken the American 
people out there to the fact that nothing is going to happen of great 
significance on this matter unless the President hears from them, 
unless the leaders of Congress hear from them, because we are going to 
have a deadlock, we are going to have a situation where we trust the 
President was going to veto these draconian budget cuts that will be 
played out in the appropriations bill process. We are going to have a 
gridlock come September 30 and the Government will be brought to a 
standstill, and the only way to get out of it is negotiations between 
the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress.
  When that happens, the President needs to hear from the American 
people, hear from them now about the unfairness, the fact that the tax 
burden is unbalanced, is leading to a situation where, if you attempt 
to balance the budget without balancing the tax burden, you make for a 
great deal of suffering by the great majority of the American people, 
and the President has to be our protector in this respect.
  Mr. FILNER. The gentleman's constituents are from New York, my 
constituents from San Diego, have got to get that message again and 
again. They have the power to help change the equation on this 
political battle that is looming. The people must be heard from.
  Let me also say to my colleague, we in San Diego have been prospering 
certainly during the eighties, had been prospering on the defense 
budget. You pointed out that the working people who were involved in 
that effort are the ones that are now getting hurt first, getting hurt 
first as we downsize the defense industry to some degree. 
[[Page H5619]] What has occurred in San Diego, for example, is 
consolidations have occurred, jobs have been lost, jobs have been moved 
out of San Diego.
  Mr. OWENS. And the industries are making the same amount of money or 
more than they did before.
  Mr. FILNER. Then those defense firms bill the Pentagon for savings 
that have come out and they get big grants for the savings that 
occurred in that consolidation, their corporate executives get major 
bonuses, and the people in San Diego or other communities have lost 
their jobs and no job training funds and no impact on community funds 
have come back to our community. So again, you have been emphasizing 
that. We as a Congress have got not only to plug those corporate 
welfare loopholes but to make sure that the people, the working people 
who fought that cold war, who fought and in a sense won it, are now 
losing their jobs as this consolidation occurs, and our own Defense 
Department is rewarding those firms for laying off those workers. That 
is what we have to change too.
  So again I appreciate your efforts and we are going to keep working 
with you on that.
  Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman. I would like to say, it cannot be 
emphasized too much, that the gigantic Department of Defense budget can 
certainly be cut in ways that do not immediately hurt workers. If you 
want to pursue a public policy designed to minimize hurting workers, it 
is possible to do that. Our overseas bases that are not employing 
American workers, are costing tremendous amounts of money, a little 
less than $100 billion, money being spent on overseas bases in NATO, et 
cetera, we could certainly begin to even downsize drastically there and 
not hurt jobs and bases in local communities where the economy is 
affected by the bases.
  There are ways to do that over a 10-year period which would minimize 
the pain and suffering. If you accept as policy that defense conversion 
should create jobs, you can certainly cut defense in a way which 
creates jobs at the same time, have a conversion where you use the 
money in ways that create jobs, and this has been all explained and was 
presented in the Congressional Black Caucus budgets by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums] who is a former chairman of the House 
Committee on Armed Services.
  To conclude, what I am saying is that we are in the beginning of a 
budget and appropriations process, the most important activity that 
takes place in Washington, the most important activity that takes place 
in our Government anywhere in the United States. This budget process 
will determine what our priorities are, how we are going to spend the 
money of the American taxpayers over the next year or so. It will 
probably set up a pattern which will continue over the next 5 to 7 
years. So it is very important.
  Everybody should understand the process is just beginning. Understand 
that the President cannot veto the budget when the Senate and House 
agree on the budget; the President does not have the power to veto that 
budget. The President will have the power to veto the appropriations 
bills that come out of the budget. We hope the President is going to 
veto most of those appropriations bills. Those that have the draconian 
tax cuts, those that have the ridiculous measures like the elimination 
of the Department of Education, we expect the President to hasten to 
veto. We do not expect either the House or Senate to have the power to 
override the veto. Therefore, we are going to have gridlock and the 
President is going to have to negotiate, our Democratic President will 
have to negotiate with a Republican-controlled Senate and House.
  You should know this and understand that as a citizen you cannot sit 
and be a spectator. Get ready to be a soldier. There is a war underway. 
The budget and appropriations process is a major battle of the war that 
has been declared by Speaker Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich said politics 
is war without blood. Anybody who does not hear that statement and 
react is doomed to failure. If we do not gear up for a war, in order to 
defend Medicare you have to wage a war, in order to defend Medicaid you 
have to have a war, in order to defend school lunches we have to wage a 
war. In order to keep housing for homeless you have to wage a war. 
Every citizen has to be a soldier in this war. It is a war against the 
majority; the majority of our people will be hurt by these cuts. The 
majority of our people will be hurt by this crisis that has been 
artificially created.
  Can the elite minority win a war against the caring majority? That is 
the basic question. In America we are a democracy; we cannot accuse 
anybody of having subverted our democracy. The people in our House of 
Representatives got there through a democratic process, the people 
elected them. Yes, it is true only 38 percent of the people came out to 
vote for Members of the House of Representatives, and the Republicans 
got a little more than half of that 38 percent. Therefore we did not 
have an overwhelming mandate. But it does not matter in our democracy; 
whoever gets the most votes wins. They are in power.
  How far will this go? Now that they have revealed that they are going 
to make war on the majority, the elite minority in order to preserve 
their privilege, in order to have a situation where the rich can get 
rich faster, the elite minority in order to have the rich not have to 
put up with the nuisance of a few more taxes, the elite minority in 
order to have the power to go into the courts and limit any suit to 
$250,000 no matter how serious your injury and situation might be, 
protecting against the elite minority and protecting the corporations, 
are we going to continue with a situation where the elite minority 
protects corporations from bearing their fair share of the tax burden? 
Are corporations going to get away with paying 11 percent of the tax 
burden while individuals pay 44 percent? Are we as a majority going to 
allow the elite minority to do that to us?
  How long are we going to suffer that? How long are we going to let it 
go on? That is the question. Can the elite minority win a war against 
the caring majority? Can the elite minority prevail in a democracy? Can 
the majority be stampeded into voting against their own interests? In a 
democracy can the majority be stampeded into voting against their own 
interests?
  In November 1996, and in 6 months before that, are we going to be 
discussing the budget? Are we going to discuss the tax burden and the 
fact that corporations are paying so much less of the tax burden than 
they should be paying while individuals and families are paying so much 
more of the tax burden than they should be paying? Will that be on the 
agenda? No; we will probably be discussing diversionary issues. The 
elite minority will use their power to control the media, and they have 
launched billions of dollars for this process. They will use their 
power to control the media to divert the eyes of the minority in 
discussions of affirmative action, into discussions of abortion, into 
discussions of prayer in the school, into discussions of a number of 
items that are important, but they are not at the center of what is 
going to happen in this society or determine what is going to happen in 
this society in the next 10 years. They are diversionary, gut, 
emotional issues that are going to be used to stampede the majority 
into voting for a prospect with respect to the finances and the budget 
and the appropriations that favors the elite minority. I hope that 
every citizen will understand the Speaker has made it quite clear that 
we are in a war. Politics is not what it should be. I think politics, 
as I said before, should be a noble contest between parties that want 
to reach the same goal, parties that are interested in promoting the 
same causes. Politics should be a situation where all America wins. 
There are no losers in a political process which is conceived of as a 
noble contest to improve America, as a noble contest to have everybody 
come out better than they were before. Every citizen should understand 
that we are in a war that you did not declare. It is not a contest 
anymore because the Speaker has said so. It is war without blood.
  We are in a war without blood. War means that casualties have to be 
taken. War means destruction, war means inevitable enemies. We are not 
going to be able to deal with each other much longer except as enemies.
  Every American understands this and understands we are still a free 
people and still a democracy. You can use [[Page H5620]] your Bill of 
Rights, you can demonstrate, you can sign petitions, you can get in 
touch with your congressman, you can do a whole lot of things and not 
sit still and watch the war make you a victim. Do not be a victim; be a 
soldier.
  I am happy to point out in closing in New York City we have several 
different regions, battlefields. We have a battlefield that is being 
commanded by General Pataki in the State government; we have a 
battlefield that is being commanded by General Giuliani in the city 
government. The people of New York City are under attack by generals in 
this war who all share the same philosophy as the Speaker. The elite 
minority is in charge of the city hall in New York City. The elite 
minority is in charge of the Governor's Mansion in Albany, the capital 
of New York. So we are under attack from three different battle scenes, 
three different generals are pressing a campaign down upon the people. 
The majority are under attack.
  I am pleased to announce that I attended a press conference yesterday 
by a group called the Same Boat Coalition, little groups that have 
gotten together more than 100 strong who want to fight back, and I give 
you this example because it has to happen all over America. Unless you 
understand what is going on, unless you say I am going to fight for 
myself, unless you understand I want to be a citizen soldier, there is 
a war, and I am going to either be the victim or I am going to be a 
soldier, and we must get up and become soldiers, then you will not be 
able to overcome what is about to happen.
  So I congratulate the Same Boat Coalition and I close with a 
statement from their mission statement. The Same Boat Coalition is 
primarily designed to fight the cuts at the New York City and New York 
State level. But the New York City and New York State cuts are being 
driven by the cuts in Washington. Medicaid is a major problem, and the 
cuts in Medicaid are being invited by the mayor of New York City. He 
said make more cuts because when the Federal Government cuts the city 
has to spend less. The Governor said make more cuts in Medicaid; we 
will be happy to spend less; make more cuts in Medicare. Our hospitals 
are in danger. There is talk of selling the hospitals in order to make 
ends meet. All kinds of draconian measures are under way and it started 
here in Washington, the tone was set here. This is a war declared here 
and they
 have generals who are waging the battle against the people at every 
level. So the Same Boat Coalition, this group of more than 100 
organizations have issued the following mission statement, and I will 
read partially from it.

               The Same Boat Coalition Mission Statement

       The United States is at a crossroads. This generation must 
     choose the future course of our society--whether toward 
     greater social justice, enfranchisement and well-being for 
     all, or toward a more oppressive and distressed society with 
     material, cultural and spiritual impoverishment for all but a 
     wealthy few--and escalating pandemic of illness and violence. 
     At all three levels of government, the quality of life is 
     under assault.
       Confronted by this challenge, we have come together on the 
     following principles:
       Everyone has a right to an adequate standard of living, 
     including a decent job and income security, sufficient food, 
     safe and affordable housing, access to quality education and 
     health care, and a sound environment. Our tax dollars, 
     collected equitably and distributed fairly, would enable 
     these rights to be realized. In our society, so rich in 
     natural, human and capital resources, we reject as baseless 
     the logic of scarcity.
       Our society cannot flourish while many among us lack the 
     basic necessities. All but the wealthiest of us are 
     vulnerable to loss of employment and to costly illness or 
     injury. Entitlements to food, shelter, health care and other 
     basic necessities are essential protections that must remain 
     public priorities, never to be stripped away.
       Ours is an interdependent, democratic society, where each 
     of us is secure only so long as the liberty and well-being of 
     all of us are protected. In innumerable ways, we are all in 
     the same boat. We oppose restrictions of our most basic 
     freedoms, the destruction of hard-won safeguards to ensure 
     equal access, and the exclusion of immigrants from our 
     national vision. Governments must be held responsible for 
     protecting and promoting the fundamental human rights, 
     dignity, personal security and welfare of all.
       We are a diverse coalition of individuals and 
     organizations, including students, trade unionists and other 
     working people, unemployed, social workers, religious groups, 
     health workers, teachers and professors, community 
     developers, environmentalists, legal services workers, small 
     business people, advocates, people all of all ages, races, 
     ethnicities and religions, lesbian, gay and straight, people 
     with disabilities, mothers, fathers and children. In the face 
     of wide-ranging attacks on these principles, we are united in 
     a struggle to take back our city, our state and our country.

  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my beginning. We are at 
the beginning of a process, of a budget and appropriations process, 
which is the most important process undertaken in our Government each 
year. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has stated that 
politics is war without blood. It is important that every American 
understand that, and come out to participate in the war that is going 
to decide your fate. You must know what is in the budget, you must 
insist that the budget can be balanced. The budget can be balanced in 
10 years without hardships, without suffering if you balance the tax 
burden. If you balance the tax burden and have corporations pay as much 
as families pay, balance the tax burden and you can balance the budget.


                          ____________________