[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6030-H6032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                               THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I would like, as one Republican, to 
welcome the President of the United States finally to the great debate 
on how we balance this country's budget, how we make Congress and the 
Federal Government do what middle class Americans have had to do for 
over 200 years, and that is spend only as much money as they take in.
  I have got to tell you, I believe that this $4.9 trillion debt is one 
of the great issues of our time. It is not just what I believe, it is 
what Republicans and even Democrats, grudgingly, alike have to believe. 
Because we can talk about every single issue we want to talk about: 
talk about education, talk about military issues, talk about the 
environment, talk about the infrastructure, talk about health care, 
talk about crime control. All of these issues are important. But if we 
are spending more money on servicing the interest on our huge $4.9 
trillion debt than we are spending on any of these programs, then there 
obviously is a problem.
  About 50 percent of every man and woman's income tax is spent on 
servicing the debt. In a few years we are going to be spending more 
money on servicing the national debt's interest than we spent today on 
our defense bill.
                              {time}  1615

  What does that mean? We are burning money. We are throwing away more 
money on interest on this national credit card than we are protecting 
our children and protecting our shores. Again, it is time that the 
President comes to the table and says ``Okay, I am going to step 
forward with a plan to balance the budget.'' We certainly welcome him.
  The last speaker on the floor began his speech by saying ``Fiscal 
sanity has finally penetrated the Beltway. The President has now come 
to the table with a balanced budget plan.'' The fact of the matter is 
fiscal sanity penetrated not only the Beltway but this entire country 
on the evening of November 8, 1994, when the Republican Party was swept 
into power on both sides of Congress, where not a single Republican 
incumbent Governor, Congressman, or Senator from Alaska to Florida got 
voted out, and where Americans stood up and said ``Enough is enough. We 
have been writing bad checks for 40 years. It is time for us to step 
forward and balance the budget.'' We got that message, came to 
Washington, tried to make a difference.
  The President now claims to have also gotten that message, but I have 
to tell the Members, it is kind of hard to figure out where he is on 
this issue and other issues at times. Let us follow his policy over the 
past few months. He stated out by opposing the balanced budget 
amendment. He worked overtime to kill the constitutional amendment that 
would make Congress abide by the same laws, and make Congress abide by 
the same fiscal restraint that middle class Americans have had to abide 
by for over 200 years.
  He said we did not need a balanced budget amendment, that we could do 
it on our own, we just needed a little bit of discipline. He succeeded 
in killing the balanced budget amendment, which over 70 percent of 
Americans supported. What was his next step? After he killed the bill 
and said we could do [[Page H6031]] it on our own, he then stepped 
forward and said ``I changed my mind. This country really does not need 
a balanced budget right now. It would be too harmful.''
  Then we went to Hew Hampshire in May, and he said he would balance 
the budget; that he would step forward with a plan to balance the 
budget, that it was important. Then he came back from New Hampshire 
later on in May and said no, he changed his mind, he really did not 
need to balance the budget right now. Then he went back up to New 
Hampshire. When he came back again from New Hampshire this week, he 
changed his mind again and said ``Yes, we are going to balance this 
budget.''
  I have to tell you, his budget policy is as confusing as his policy 
on Bosnia and other issues. In fact, the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, a Democrat from Wisconsin, said today in 
the Washington Post ``If you do not like the President's position on a 
certain issue, just be patient, wait a few weeks, and watch. It will be 
sure to change.'' I am here today to tell the Members that I certainly 
hope the President does not lose his attention span on this issue, that 
he sticks with it long enough to sit down at the table with Congressmen 
and Senators and Americans alike, and figure out a way to balance our 
budget. We have to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have two boys, one 7-years-old and the other 4-years-
old. Both of my boys have about an $18,000 debt on their heads already, 
as do all Americans, because of the $4.9 trillion debt this country is 
carrying. It is time for leadership from Washington. It is time for 
leadership from the White House. It is time for leadership from 
Congress, from the House and Senate. I certainly hope the President 
will sit down and debate these issues in the coming months, and let us 
put demagoguery behind us, and let us do what is best for the American 
people.
  That being said, I welcome him to the table, but at the same time, I 
have some real concerns about some of his proposals. The first concern 
that I have concerns senior citizens. The President of the United 
States several months ago got a report back from trustees that studied 
the issue of Medicare and Medicaid. It is a dirty little secret in 
Washington, DC that Medicare and Medicaid is going bankrupt. The 
President got a commission working on it. The trustees came back and 
told him ``Mr. President, if we do not do something about Medicare and 
Medicaid, it is going to go bankrupt in the year 2002.''
  Think about that. ``We will have no more money for Medicare and 
Medicaid. We will not be able to take care of our senior citizens. We 
will break the sacred contract between generations that we made with 
our senior citizens, if you do not do something to reform Medicare and 
Medicaid.''
  What did we do? Congress stepped forward and passed a budget 
resolution that balances the budget in 7 years, and more importantly, 
saves the Medicare and Medicaid systems, makes them solvent. They do 
not go bankrupt by the year 2002. We stood up and said to the trustees 
``We hear you, we understand your concerns. We cannot allow senior 
citizens to go unprotected. We cannot allow the poor to go unprotected. 
We cannot allow them to be harmed. We are going to step forward with a 
balanced budget amendment that makes Medicare and Medicaid solvent 
beyond the year 2002, and far beyond into the future.'' We did that.
  The President of the United States attacked us, attacked us because, 
quite frankly, we were following the recommendations of his own 
trustees: ``save the system.'' Then he came out with his budget. Did 
his budget follow the advice of the trustees? Did his budget make 
Medicare and Medicaid solvent? No. It still goes bankrupt. Think about 
that.
  I cannot, for the life of me, imagine running a business, and let us 
talk about running government like we run business, I cannot for the 
life of me think about running a business, bringing in my top advisers 
and saying to them ``You guys go out, you women go out and tell me 
about the health of our business, of our company, tell us what we need 
to do to make sure that we are just as strong 10 years from now as we 
are today,'' and you send them out, you give them money, you give them 
resources, you give them time, and they come back to you and they say 
``If we do not make these changes, this company is going under by the 
year 2002, in 7 years.''
  If somebody came back to me and told me that, I would sit down, take 
a long, hard look at it, and then I would act on it. That is something 
we have done as a Congress when we passed the budget resolution. 
Unfortunately, the President is not willing to make those same steps. 
For the sake of our senior citizens, for the sake of our poor who 
depend on these programs, I ask the President of the United States to 
step forward and show some real courage and show some real leadership, 
dare to make a difference, dare to enter into the arena that Teddy 
Roosevelt talked about, and allow himself to be bloodied, if that is 
what it takes; expend a few cents of political capital to help our 
senior citizens and to help our poor. He has not done it yet, but I 
think there is hope. He has come forward with a balanced budget 
proposal, so let us see what happens.
  A second concern with the President's budget is the fact that he says 
``We can balance the budget in 10 years.'' Let me tell the Members 
something, when we talk about a dirty little secret, the dirtiest 
secret in Washington, D.C. is what we do in the out years when it comes 
to balancing the budget. Congress says ``We are going to balance the 
budget in 10 years.'' Then a new Congress gets elected a few years down 
the road, they get a little antsy and say ``We do not want to make 
these cuts, so we are going to push these cuts off 5, 10 more years.'' 
After a while it does not get balanced in 10 years, it does not get 
balanced in 20 years, it does not get balanced in 40 years, which has 
happened in Washington, DC.
  It is just like his 1993 plan to reduce the deficit. He had massive 
tax increases and marginal cuts. The tax increases, not only did they 
apply the very next year, he applied the tax increases retroactively, 
so he got you coming and he got you going.
  What did he do on the spending cuts? Those spending cuts were pushed 
7 years out, pushed to the end of the plan, because he knew, and 
cynical politicians around Washington, DC have known for a long time, 
that if we push the cuts far enough out in the future, that new 
politicians will come to Congress, and when they come to Congress, we 
will not have to make those tough cuts. That is the problem with saying 
we are going to balance the budget in 10 years. We need to do it now. 
We cannot go beyond 7 years. We need to balance the budget now.
  I certainly hope the President will shorten his timeframe.
  Third, and I think most importantly, Mr. Speaker, for our children in 
this country, I have great concerns about what the President of the 
United States said about education and education funding. As I said 
before, I have two boys. My 7-year-old is in the public school system 
in Florida. My 4-year-old will enter into the public school system next 
year, so I have a personal stake in the health and well-being of our 
Nation's schools.
  In fact, if our children are going to enter the 21st Century 
workplace and be able to compete with Japan and with Germany and other 
countries that are in the G-7 that the President is speaking with 
today, we are going to have to do better. We are Americans. We can do 
better, but we are going to have to make sure and not in Washington, 
D.C. We are going to have to make sure that funding for your children's 
education is made in your home town, and not in Washington, D.C. We are 
going to have to make sure that funding for your grandchildren's 
education is made in your home town, and not behind some bureaucrat's 
walls in Washington, D.C.
  When the President of the United States says ``We have to increase 
spending on the Federal level,'' all I can do is sadly shake my head, 
because I know the history of our horrible experiment with the Federal 
Department of Education. I understand that it started out as a back 
room deal between Jimmy Carter and the NEA's teacher's union.
  I understand that when it was set up, this education bureaucracy was 
set up in 1980, that we were spending $14 billion a year on our 
national education [[Page H6032]] bureaucracy. Today, that number has 
exploded up to $33 billion. Let us make no mistake of it, I have 
children. I understand the importance of education. It is at the top of 
my list on issues that are important in this country. However, sending 
$33 billion to Washington, D.C. for an education bureaucracy that has 
failed over the past 15 years simply is not the answer.
  Look what has happened since 1980, since we went from spending $14 
billion on this new agency to $33 billion in 1995. Test scores for 
reading and writing have plummeted, while funding has shot up for this 
bureaucracy. Test scores for arithmetic and science have stagnated, 
while funding for this Federal bureaucracy has skyrocketed. We are not 
getting the best bang for our buck.
  When the President of the United States says to us that he needs more 
money for education, he is actually saying he needs more money for his 
Washington, D.C. education bureaucracy. Do not take my word for it. I 
ask you to take that education bureaucracy's word for it, and read 
their budget.
  What would you think if you knew that the Department of Education was 
cutting $100 million from schools' infrastructure programs across the 
country, $100 million this year? They say they do not have the money, 
they do not have the money to keep your children's schools safe, they 
do not have the money to upgrade school systems, to make sure that 
children can go to school in safe schools. They say ``We are too 
financially constrained right now. We are going to have to cut $100 
million from the program to keep schools safe.''
  Then they turn around in that very same budget and say ``We are going 
to increase spending by $20 million for our own education bureaucracy, 
which sits a few blocks down from Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.''
                              {time}  1630

  Think about that. They are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. They are 
stealing from our schools in our hometown, to pour more money into 
their education bureaucracy building down the street.
  Does that make sense? When the President says he needs more money for 
education and that is how education is defined in Washington DC, does 
that make sense? When your education dollars and my education dollars 
are not getting back to our children and to our teachers and to our 
principals and to our school boards and to our communities and to our 
hometowns and to our States but instead are strangled in the 
bureaucracy of Washington, DC, does that make sense? Is that the type 
of education policy we need to move into the 21st century, to help us 
compete in the 21st century workplace?
  I do not think so. I know you do not think so. I certainly know that 
our Founding Fathers did not think so.
  I carry with me a copy of the Constitution of the United States. If 
you want to know what our Founding Fathers thought about education, all 
you need to do is read the Constitution of the United States and 
specifically read the 10th amendment.
  In the 10th amendment, it states all powers not specifically given to 
the Federal Government through the Constitution are reserved to the 
States and to the citizens.
  What does that mean? It means if it does not say it in the 
Constitution, that this body, that this Congress, is not permitted to 
spend money on it, is not permitted to interfere in it, is not 
permitted to interfere in the education of citizens' children. That is 
why for almost 200 years we got by fine without a free-standing 
Department of Education bureaucracy. That is why we have gone from 
spending $14 billion to $33 billion and actually seen a decline in our 
educational standards, have seen drops in our test scores, have seen an 
increase in violence in schools, and have seen an increase in dropout 
rates when you start measuring those dropout rates with 8th grade 
students.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better, and we will. We are going to start 
doing better in the coming weeks as we introduce a bill to Congress 
that is called the Back to Basics Education Reform Act of 1995. Is that 
not really what it is all about, getting back to basics, moving away 
from the social engineering that we have been trying to accomplish and 
that we have failed on for the past 30 years? Would it not be great to 
get back to reading and writing and arithmetic and the basics?
  Most importantly, would it not be great to once again allow parents 
and allow communities and allow hometowns to decide how to educate 
their children instead of having bureaucrats in Washington, DC decide 
without their input?
  James Madison wrote over 200 years ago as he was framing the 
Constitution, ``We have staked the entire future of the American 
civilization not upon the power of government but upon the capacity of 
each of us to govern ourselves, control ourselves and sustain ourselves 
according to the 10 Commandments of God.''
  It was Thomas Jefferson who said that the government that governs 
least governs best. Why did Jefferson say that? Did Jefferson say it 
because he was anti-government? No. Jefferson said it because he was 
pro-freedom, because he was pro-individual, because he was pro-States 
rights, because he believed, and James Madison believed, and our 
Founding Fathers believed, that when you allowed individuals and
 communities and States to experiment with education reform in the free 
marketplace of ideas that only the strong ideas would survive, that we 
did not need big brother and big sister telling us from Washington, DC, 
``This is the only way you can educate your children.'' It is time to 
move away from that failed vision. We have tried it for over a 
generation now and we are getting nowhere with it. We need to move 
beyond and dare to experiment, to dare to give power back to the States 
and to the citizens where it belongs.

  Mr. Speaker, I believe, like many Americans believe, that we can have 
50 State legislatures and Governors experimenting with education reform 
and we will have 50 legislative laboratories where only the strong 
ideas survive instead of being dictated from Washington, DC by a 
bureaucracy that says. ``This is how you do it and if you don't do it 
this way, we're not going to send money back to your school 
communities.''
  ``Oh, I understand we ripped money out of your communities, we took 
away education funding from your community and brought it up to 
Washington, DC, but we ain't giving it back unless you do A, B and C.''
  Let me tell you something, there is a new way to do things, and that 
is to do it the old way, the way that Thomas Jefferson and James 
Madison and our Founding Fathers intended. With the Back to Basics 
Education Reform Act, we are going to start down that path.
  I ask you, when the President of the United States pleads for more 
education dollars, remember, he is not talking about education dollars 
for children, he is talking about education dollars for bureaucrats. We 
can do better and we will, and we must if we are going to compete in 
the 21st century.


                          ____________________