[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9653-H9660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ISSUES CONCERNING A BALANCED BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is recognized for 
50 minutes as designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, tonight we wanted to talk about a number 
of issues that stand between this Congress, the American taxpayers, and 
a balanced budget. There is a smorgasbord of issues, of course, that 
fall in that category. We are going to be touching base on the Davis-
Bacon Act and some of the student loan programs, this so-called Istook 
amendment, and Medicare reform.
  I have with me, of course, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. 
and always on special orders sharing his wisdom with us, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Smith], who has just given us a description of where 
we are in the ag program.
  Let me ask you gentlemen, and I say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] I am going to start with the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith] because he and I were freshmen together. We came 
here in 1992, along with a new President of the United States, trying 
to balance the budget and do everything we can. We did not, in the 103d 
Congress, get very far in that effort.
  How do you think we have done so far? Do not pat yourself on the 
back. People are tired of that.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. The House has done very well. Now we need to 
finalize our ambitions, get these bills enacted into law. You know, it 
should be frightening to everybody in this country, how big this 
Government has gown to be.
  After World War II, in 1947, we were spending 12 percent of our gross 
domestic product to run the budget of the United States. That is what 
we spent as a percentage of gross domestic product, 12 percent. Today 
we are almost twice that.
  Every day the United States writes out over 3,200,000 checks. Can you 


[[Page H 9654]]
imagine a government, in talking to Secretary Rubin, Treasury is not 
even sure of all of the points that they make these electronic 
transfers, these payments, these checks? But the estimate is someplace 
around 12,000 different locations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me give you a statistic. The reason why I wanted to 
mention this is because I want to contrast the 103d Congress to the 
104th Congress that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is a 
Member of.
  In the 103d Congress, before the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] started running this 
House, 95.7 percent of all witnesses at the congressional hearings 
advocated more spending. Only 0.7 percent were for less spending, and 
that is a statistic from the National Center for Public Policy 
Research.
  So now, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], you were 
not in that environment 2 years ago. Do you think we are moving toward 
balancing the budget?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think we absolutely are, thanks to your 
efforts and that of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith]. I think 
the fact is the 104th Congress, fired up by 86 new freshmen, 73 
Republican, 13 Democrat, I think it is pretty evident that we have an 
accountability issue out here where the people are saying, OK, you say 
you are going to make Congress more accountable, you say you are going 
to hold the line on taxes and spending, let us see if you can do it, 
and if you can, you may come back, if you do not, then maybe you are 
just like past Congresses that said one thing and did another.

  If I could just add to that point, I think we have certainly set the 
tone by passing the balanced budget amendment, line item veto, 
unfounded mandates, regulatory reform, deficit lockbox reduction where 
we are going to have the savings go into taxpayers having to pay less 
interest on the national debt, those kinds of programs which the people 
of the United States want, Mr. Speaker, which are, in fact, what they 
have gotten. So I think that we are on our road to putting our fiscal 
house in order just like State governments do, just like county 
governments and school boards, but the Federal Government when we have 
had a tax increase in the past and spend more and more, just put it in 
the deficit.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask, the folks in Michigan and Pennsylvania, are 
they saying we are going too far too fast, or all we are doing is 
passing bills out of the House, they are not doing it in the Senate, we 
are dead in the water, it is just rhetoric, there is no difference 
between Republicans and Democrats?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. At least in Michigan, they are saying you are 
not going far enough, you are not going fast enough. You know, we are 
not doing the traditional tax-and-spend anymore. I mean, the voters of 
this country have said, ``Look, we are paying over 42 percent of what 
we earn in taxes. Now, that is enough.'' So what Government has done is 
they have decided that they can go out and borrow the money and expand 
social programs and expand the size of this bureaucracy by borrowing 
more and more money. The interest just of servicing the Federal debt, 
the interest on the debt subject to limit this year was over $330 
billion, almost 22 percent of our budget just for servicing the debt, 
and so the borrowing has got to be stopped. We have got to bring down 
the size of this Government if we want individuals to to have the 
freedom and independence that the founders of our Constitution 
designed.
  Mr. KINGSTON. So what the people in Michigan are saying is keep going 
and do not chicken out. What are they saying in Pennsylvania?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, they are very happy about 
the fact we are holding the line on wasteful spending. They want to 
make sure, however, the direct services that can be handled by the 
Federal Government should be handled by the Federal Government, are 
done so in a meaningful manner. By this I mean we are looking at the 
whole budget this year in the right way. If it should be the private 
sector that should be doing what the Federal Government is not doing, 
give it to the private sector. If it should be done by the Federal 
Government, what is the government closest to the people doing the best 
job? It may be local government, it may be county government. The 
government of last resort that should be working on a program is 
probably the Federal Government. You have already seen we have 
recommended in the House the WIC program, the food nutrition programs, 
while we made sure there is a 4.5 percent increase in those important 
programs for our children, we have also said we are going to block 
grant that back to the Governors. We used to spend 15 percent to 
administer the programs. We told the Governors you can only spend 5 
percent. With the extra 10 percent, you have to feed more kids, more 
meals. That is meaningful reform. We are getting more direct services 
to the people, but less waste.

                              {time}  1830

  And that brings up one more point, if I can, Congressman Kingston and 
Congressman Smith.
  Mr. KINGSTON. You bet it gets the point, and now the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]----
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. OK.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Will not get a chance.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. OK, the other point is this:
  On Medicare reform and things like that the people want to be 
involved in the dialog, and I think that is what is important, what I 
did this summer and what I think plenty of other Congressmen have done, 
and that is to talk about the problem.
  You know Medicare has run out of money. Seven years, there is no 
Medicare, so we have got to do something about it whether it is taking 
out the fraud, abuse, and waste, which I think is a large part of it, 
$30 billion a year is wasted just in fraud and abuse in our Medicare 
Program.
  So what we have done is, I think, responsible Republican Congressmen, 
working with our allies and friends on the other side of the aisle, is 
we now have legislation which is going to hasten the prosecution, 
investigation, and the eventual sentencing of people who are involved 
in this kind of fraud. People want the services. They do not want the 
fraud; they do not want the waste. They want to make sure the 
Government is efficient and doing its job.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Kingston, are they saying more or less 
spending in your area?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, in Georgia it appears the people are saying we 
need to be convinced here that you are serious. We want programs that 
eliminate, and consolidate, and end the duplication and inefficiency. 
We do want things back at local and State levels as much as possible.
  We have with us the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], who played 
college football for the Wolfpack in North Carolina, then tried to go 
on to the pros, and those coaches recognized what the college level 
should have recognized, is that he could not play football after all, 
and so now he----
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. To being a sportcaster, to being a politician, and I 
hesitate to yield the floor to him. I am going to put on a stopwatch on 
him, whatever you guys say; so tell us what are the people saying in 
Arizona. Do they want a budget cut or not?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, first, for purposes of rhetorical self-defense, 
and also to make sure the pages of the Congressional Record have some 
ring of truth, I am compelled to note for the Record that though I was 
recruited as right tackle at North Carolina State, I soon discovered 
myself left out. So, that is the first tale about football.
  But it is interesting to hear what you folks have seen in Georgia, 
and Michigan, and in Pennsylvania, and indeed I beg your indulgence for 
arriving a bit late, but we had the inaugural meeting of the----
  Mr. KINGSTON. Are you through with the introduction, or are you going 
to tell us----
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, this is something very important because you 
asked me what on the minds of the people of the State of Arizona, and I 
can tell you that although Arizona is the youngest of the 48 contiguous 
States, Arizonans are very concerned about what transpires here in 
Washington, indeed what is the proper role of the 

[[Page H 9655]]
Federal Government, and, when you get right down to it, this date in 
history, September 28, 1787, the Congress of the Confederation resolved 
to submit the Constitution to the respective States for the 
ratification which gives us this system of government which we use now, 
and there is a legitimate public debate as to what is the proper role 
of the Federal Government, and so what we are doing now in this new 
Congress, what some would call a revolution, is we are sitting down and 
examining what is transpiring, not as detractors would say, to turn the 
clock back, but to say what is the reasonable role of the Federal 
Government.

  So what I am hearing from seniors, from young married folks, from 
those who are new to the process, is this notion: Let us rethink the 
proper role of the Federal Government, and, as my friend from 
Pennsylvania spoke a moment ago, let us look for the practical role of 
the Federal Government as we approach the next century.
  With reference to Medicare, one of the basic notions in this Nation 
is one of choice, economically, to have a variety of different options, 
and, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] knows because another 
Congressman who ofttimes sits in the Speaker's chair here, this 
Medicare task force I think summed it up quite well. What we have with 
Medicare in its current state is basically 1964 Blue Cross codified 
into law. The question becomes, Do we maintain that? Or we should 
maintain that for those folks satisfied with the 1964 health insurance 
policy, but should we also offer the seniors innovative plans that 
maximize choice and give them the chance to have a greater role in 
health care?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, now let me ask you this because I hear so much on 
Medicare: Is it not true that seniors will still be able to keep 
traditional Medicare if they want to, and I know the gentleman from 
Michigan has done some work on this?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, there is no question that the design of 
the program is to preserve Medicare for not only the estimated 36 
million people that now use Medicare, but also for future generations, 
and so the No. 1 decision of the Republican conference is anybody that 
wants to stay in this current program as it is designed has the option 
to do that, and from there we expand to what is called Medicare Plus, 
giving seniors greater options. We have got to end up with seniors 
being better health care shoppers, and to do that we are suggesting 
that seniors should be allowed to keep some of the savings that they 
can derive for not only the Federal Government, but for themselves as 
they do a good job shopping for health care----
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, let me now ask Mr. Fox.
  I used to sell commercial insurance, not health insurance, but 
commercial insurance, not health insurance, but commercial insurance; 
very confusing, intangible product. Will my parents, and will I when I 
turn 65, be confused by all of this?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I do not think so. If we have done our job 
correctly----
  Mr. KINGSTON. Is it going to be simplified?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think it is our job to make sure it is 
simplified along with the Federal agencies involved, would be Health 
and Human Services. The fact is that the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth] was talking about, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Smith], is at least three options. If you want to still continue to 
getting the fee for services, that will be there. If you want to get 
managed care, which might include other options, might include other 
items such as getting pharmaceuticals, dentures, or hearing aids, or 
any other items that might be included in a managed-care proposal, 
that would work. And also the medical savings account, and there you 
would get $4,800 a year, but you could use it for whatever purposes you 
want. The money you would not spend you could keep or roll it over 
until your next year's medical savings account. Then that next year 
will be more money because under the proposal we have before the 
Congress every subscriber now will get $4,800. By the year 2002 it will 
be $6,700. So it is going to go up 47 percent, and I do not think that 
much has gotten out well.

  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, let me ask the gentleman from Arizona. This 
medisave account, I am going to get to keep the leftover money in the 
account. Is that what I am hearing?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. That money is yours if you choose a medical savings 
account, and the notion is this. And I think we have to be very 
particular to restate, and restate and amplify, what is going on here. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] touched on something that 
cannot be repeated enough.
  For those in this policy debate who talk about a cut for seniors, the 
most charitable thing I can say to those who speak of a cut is that 
they are not very good students of mathematics because the average 
spending per beneficiary will increase from $4,800 this year to $6,700 
in the year 2002. I defy anyone to show me how that is a cut. It is an 
increase, but yet we have seen very interesting formulations and 
numbers that have emanated from here in Washington, DC.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, now I have heard this. Are we going to decrease 
deductibles, increasing copay? We are not; is that correct?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. That is very true. We are going to keep the program 
intact, but the idea is we are going to move toward a better Medicare 
that offers policy choices like the medical savings account, like 
managed care through HMO's, and again, as the gentleman from Michigan 
mentioned so eloquently, if a senior has this program, Medicare as it 
exists today, and wants to keep that program, that that senior need do 
nothing. It will remain the same for that senior.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, now the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] is on 
the Committee on the Budget. Why are we doing this at all? I hear some 
folks in the Congress and Government in Washington saying this is 
unnecessary to even do anything.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, you know, it is only partisan for those 
individuals that think they have a target to shoot down something, to 
criticize rather than being constructive to help develop the best 
solutions to save, preserve, and keep Medicare available to the current 
recipients and the future recipients, so, as far as a budget 
consideration, the trustees of Medicare came to the Committee on the 
Budget, and they said Medicare is going to be going broke. We are going 
to take in less money than is needed for payout starting next year. 
Something has to be done.
  Mr. KINGSTON. One second. Were those Republican trustees?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. No. Thank you, Mr. Kingston, no. These were 
the trustees actually, were three of the Cabinet Members that the 
President appointed.
  You know, the President has even said as we look at the Medicare B 
provisions, he--this is--what he expects recipients to pay for their 
share of the premium ends up to be $7 less than what the Republican 
proposal is, so we have $7-a-month difference in the President's 
proposal and the Republican proposal. Everybody that is honest about 
this knows that we have got to do a better job, and I do not want to 
talk too long here with these good ideas, but look what the private 
sector has done, look what the private sector has done in terms of 
lowering their medical health care costs. We have actually had negative 
cost increases in the private sector while we have had 11 percent in 
the public sector.

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Fox, I could tell what is your interest on----
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Well, Congressman Kingston and Congressman 
Smith, also Congressman Hayworth, I think it is very important to 
understand. You pointed out the President had a proposal, and you have 
heard a Republican proposal, but there has been nothing from the 
Democratic House in the way of a proposal, and it is not responsible, I 
would submit, for us to debate the issue of how we are going to save 
Medicare unless we have a proposal from more than one side of the 
aisle, and frankly American people expect that, if we are going to come 
to a resolution, every good idea from Congressman Hayworth's district, 
Congressman Smith's district, Congressman Kingston's district; we want 
to 

[[Page H 9656]]
hear those ideas. That is how this Congress can do a better job, and I 
have invited my senior citizens and others interested in health care to 
come forward with those good ideas, and----
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I do think it is also important to point out that 
there are--there is bipartisan support on it. Now there is some 
partisan criticism, but we do have a lot of bipartisan support saying, 
Don't let this thing go broke in 6 years. Let's roll up our sleeves and 
work together for what is fair, and what is simple, and what is best to 
protect and preserve the system.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Can I just say that I understand from the 
Committee on Rules that, if the Democrats do propose a plan that meets 
the budget guidelines, that will be made in order for debate.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And if the gentleman would yield, I think it is 
important to note again for purposes of full disclosure, and again to 
bring some element of bipartisanship to this debate. Now I understand 
that Members of the new minority are taking their own fledgling steps 
toward coming up with a plan, and I welcome what in essence, according 
to one newspaper account, amounts to a, quote unquote, deathbed 
conversion after months of railing and ranting when we were willing to 
abandon politics as usual and say no. It is always better for a 
professional politician to try and explain away problems. No, we rather 
not confront this, the fact that we have come from different walks of 
life to serve here as citizen legislators and say to the American 
public this is an issue too important to play politics as usual, and so 
I think even though we had months and months of reticence, to put it 
diplomatically, from our friends from the new minority, now even they 
are understanding that the American people are not going to be 
satisfied with people sitting on the sidelines moaning, complaining, 
about very serious policy questions.
  So to their credit in fairness I am glad to see that many Members of 
the minority now say that they want to come up with a plan. However, it 
is important to remember this. Is it a fledgling step for political 
appearances that amounts to putting a Band-Aid across a very serious 
wound?
  The fact is we have to take on this problem and solve it, and it is 
not time for a Band-Aid solution to get us through 2 years to an 
election. No, when we take the oath of office here, we are here to act 
first as legislators, not ignoring the political dimension, but to act.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if we had ideas coming from 435 different 
Members of Congress from States all over the country, the best product 
would evolve, and that is what we want to happen because what we want 
the end product to be is not a Republican plan, not a Democrat plan, 
but an American senior citizens plan so that your mom, and dad, and 
grandparents, and you, and I, and our children one day can enjoy a 
system that is safe and secure.

                              {time}  1845

  That is what our goal is. One of the big tragedies, when we talk 
about cuts, is that what we are trying to do is slow down the inflation 
rate. Medicare inflation last year was 11 percent. Regular health care 
inflation, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], pointed out, was 
actually about 1 percent. What we are trying to do is get Medicare down 
in the 4 to 6 percent range, and if we can just slow down the growth to 
that degree, we will be increasing the benefits of the people $4,800 to 
$6,700, as the gentleman pointed out, and we will have more options for 
our seniors.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
point is that we have been leading. I am glad that the gentleman 
pointed out that it is now bipartisan, but it was also a bipartisan 
Republican leadership that led the fight to make sure the 1993 unfair 
Social Security tax was repealed by the House, and it also was a 
Republican-led House this year that made sure we allowed seniors who 
made up to $11,280, without having a bite out of their Social Security, 
can now, if this law gets approved by the Senate, make up to $30,000 
without having a bite come out of Social Security.
  So we are the same Republican-led House that is going to make sure 
that Medicare is strengthened, preserved, and protected, so not only 
will senior citizens who are living today, but those generations that 
will follow will also have a quality health care program as seniors 
that will be second to none in this country.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I believe 
there is one other important distinction we need to bring up that has 
been bandied about in the realm of political theater. Perhaps the 
gentleman touched on this previously, before my arrival, but again I do 
not believe we can repeat this too often.
  Mr. KINGSTON. J.D., even if you were sitting here when we said it, 
you would repeat it if you wanted to.
  We will not try to stop you.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. In the interest of full disclosure, I certainly will 
allow my friend the gentleman from Georgia's evaluation to remain a 
part of the Record.
  Let me make this point. You have heard a lot of talk about these 
plans paying for some tax cut. It is important to note this, Mr. 
Speaker, and I am sure my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, who 
worked long and hard as part of the Committee on the Budget, will 
attest to this fact: The historic tax cuts that benefit every American, 
not just a select few, were paid for, if you will, through the hard 
work of the Committee on the Budget long before this Medicare debate 
was enjoined. We did this long before, so there is no ``if'' then to 
this procedure. There is not a situation where the new majority is 
trying to fish out of thin air, or certainly not off the backs of 
America's seniors, to pay for a tax cut. That is just blatant fiction.
  Mr. KINGSTON. When the April 3, 1995, trustees' report came out 
saying that Medicare was going to go bankrupt, it did not say, ``It is 
going to go bankrupt in 6 years if you pass a tax cut.'' They just 
said, ``It is going to go bankrupt.'' They are two independent things.
  As the gentleman earlier pointed out, the gentleman from Michigan, 
the average American right now is paying 40.5 percent in taxes. These 
are middle-class people. Each family has two incomes, you never get to 
see your spouse any more, your children are all running around going 
crazy. It is their dollars. We are not giving them back something, we 
are just not going to confiscate it in the first place.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I would hope we can use part of this hour to 
talk about some of the other crazy things that are happening in the 
Federal Government, but it seems to me the fact is that there is no 
dollar savings as we look at revitalizing Medicare in this country. We 
are going to spend more and more money, as the gentleman from Arizona 
pointed out. Individual recipients who are receiving $4,800 now will be 
getting, by the year 2002, $6,700, so actually, we are continuing to 
spend more and more money.
  I would ask the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], as we talk 
about maybe some of the other issues in the minutes that we have left, 
if he would give us a briefing on the status of the Istook amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. What the Istook amendment is, there are 40,000 
different organizations that receive taxpayer funding in the form of 
grants or direct loans or straight funding. Many of these 
organizations, and by the way this is to the tune of $39 billion, many 
of these organizations, most of them, are not even open to public 
disclosure of their records, saying where the money is going, who is 
spending it, what kind of salaries the directors are making, and so 
forth. What the Istook-McIntosh amendment says is that if you receive 
Federal money, what you have to have is that kind of disclosure.

  Also, you cannot use the money for political lobbying. There was one 
example of an outfit that got 97 percent of its money from the Federal 
Government, and spent $405,000 in PAC contributions to congressional 
candidates; absolutely nothing but funding politics with taxpayer 
moneys. It is totally wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is one of the things we are doing that will 
help move us toward a balanced budget and put some common sense in this 
crazy government system.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield----

[[Page H 9657]]

  Mr. KINGSTON. I have never seen the gentleman speechless.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And you shan't during my time here. Although it is very 
good to listen to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, outline the 
parameters of very important legislation which passed this House 
overwhelmingly, and we look forward to seeing it enacted into law, and 
I realize quite often this is the function of State government. But 
when many highway projects were being completed when I was growing up, 
you would see that famous slogan, ``Your tax dollars at work.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is just important for the American public, 
who has seen so much of its income, the American families have seen so 
much of their income, taken in taxation by this Government, to the 
point, as my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, pointed out a few 
moments ago, in 1948 the average family of four paid roughly 3 percent 
of its income to the Federal Government. By last year, almost one-
quarter of the average family of four's income was surrendered to the 
Federal Government in terms of taxation. I believe the hardworking 
people of America need to know that oft times political advocacy here 
on the bank of the Potomac, rather than any charitable or philanthropic 
endeavor, is where their tax dollars were at work.
  Are we here to suffocate or strangle or silence public debate? Of 
course not; certainly not here in the well of this Congress, where we 
preserve everyone's right to have a diversity of opinion and to express 
that opinion.
  However, the point is, pure and simple, it is an inappropriate use of 
tax money for groups to come to this Congress and ask for the largesse 
which is the money of the American taxpayer, to take that money and go 
out and be involved in political campaigns, or to take that money and 
come back here to lobby in the halls of the Congress for yet more and 
more money.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I served in the State legislature before I was elected 
to Congress and served here one term, and then got put on the Committee 
on Appropriations this year. I cannot tell you how many tax-funded 
lobbyist schemes come across our desks in our office every day. You 
know doggone good and well people are there at taxpayer expense. They 
are printing the forms and so forth. Billy Joel wrote a song: ``You Can 
Speak Your Mind, But Not on My Time.'' This reminds me of what the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is saying: ``You can speak your 
mind, but not on my dime.''
  We need to move on because I want to talk about this train wreck, but 
I do want to say one thing. I have offered an amendment to the Istook-
McIntosh legislation. What it says is that if your organization spends 
less than $25,000 on political activity, then you can continue doing 
that. This way your local art museum, your local history museum, 
historic society, symphony, and so forth, they will not have any 
problem still calling you up, asking questions, and giving their 
valuable inputs and so forth. I think it is important for us to say we 
do not want to pick on the hometown folks because we need their input. 
But some of this Washington-based lobbying on taxpayer funds needs to 
stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] on 
this continuing resolution and the train wreck. Tell us, in non-
Washington terms, what all that means.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. We have two trains. There is a train on each 
track. One is the appropriation bills. We have 13 appropriation bills. 
They must be enacted to allow the Federal Government to continue 
spending in those areas. Those 13 appropriation bills have not been 
agreed to. So what we did today, this morning, is we passed what is 
called a CR, a continuing resolution. That continuing resolution allows 
the administration to continue to spend money, but at a lesser rate 
than they were spending money before the 1st day of October. So 3 days 
from now, when the new fiscal year starts, they will be allowed to 
continue spending until November 13 the average of what the House 
passed in the appropriation bills, compared to what the Senate passed 
in their appropriation bills, minus 5 percent. And so we are saying OK, 
we will allow continued spending, but at a very modest rate until we 
come to final agreement on the appropriation bills.

  The other potential train wreck is the debt ceiling of this country. 
There have been a lot of suggestions that withholding our vote on 
increasing the debt ceiling is going to cause catastrophe.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to explain to 
folks what the debt ceiling is, because I do not think the American 
households and businesses have debt ceilings. I am not sure they do. 
Tell us what that means.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from 
Arizona would agree that this person, probably after Congress, could go 
right into the radio business as a talk show host.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I will not let you guys get away with that.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. In 1917, Congress was passing on every 
borrowing, so they would agree who we were going to borrow money from 
and on the interest rate. In 1917 what they said was, ``OK, from now on 
we are going to set a debt ceiling. You can continue to borrow as long 
as you are under that debt ceiling.'' But it has sort of become a way 
of life. Since 1940, we have increased the debt ceiling 77 times. The 
last time we did it, at $4.9 trillion, was in 1993. We are going to 
reach that $4.9 trillion in about 3 weeks from now.
  Mr. KINGSTON. As you have explained it to me, it is a line of credit, 
that is what it is.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think the point has been made, there is a 
lot of talk in the press about how we are going to have a train wreck, 
and House Republicans are not going to come together with a resolution, 
and here we have seen a bipartisan effort, the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston] working with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] 
and others, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker.
  We have a continuing resolution now, and we are going to be able to 
work out, hopefully, with the Senate and the other side of the aisle 
the responsible things that the American people want. They want the 
government services that the Federal Government has to do, but they do 
not want the waste, the fraud, the abuse, and they do not want the cost 
overruns that have happened year after year.
  So I think there is a cautionary red flag from the public saying, 
``We understand you have some important programs. Prioritize them, 
phase out the ones you do not need, privatize the others, downsize 
still others, and if you have an agency that can be eliminated because 
the State government is already handling it, that is OK, too.'' I think 
we are going to have this resolution because of the work of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston], who are on the Committee on Appropriations. I think the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] is going to speak out about how 
this is going in the right direction.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think it is 
important, Mr. Speaker, because the vernacular of Washington, and 
especially the liberal press corps, has really taken over. Two years 
ago it was the notion of gridlock. Now it is the notion of a train 
wreck.

  It is important to note, just borrowing that phrase right now, that I 
believe, as our good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny 
Hastert, has state so well, I believe the American people firmly have 
their train on the tracks toward lower spending, lower taxes, reshaping 
this to be a limited and effective government for the next century.
  With that train on the tracks, the challenge now exists in the 
executive branch for the President, who came on television in a brief 
5-minute speech a few months ago, who again asserted the importance of 
a balanced budget, for the President to come along with us in a 
bipartisan fashion to move to balance this budget in 7 years. And if 
the President is willing to do that, and if the President is willing to 
come along with us in a bipartisan fashion, along with members of this 
minority, then the American people's train will stay on track.
  However, if others who cannot seem to part from an almost 
pathological need to spend more and more money, to make government 
larger and larger, if they cannot abandon those outmoded notions, then 
the responsibility for any wreck will be on them. 

[[Page H 9658]]

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I would like to ask a test question. Mr. 
Speaker, I would like to ask the question to the American people to 
give me your best guess, of all of the money lent out in the United 
States last year, how much of that money do you think was borrowed by 
the Federal Government? I will give you the answer. Think about it a 
second.
  The answer is 42 percent of all of the money lent out in the United 
States was borrowed by the Federal Government. That is why Greenspan 
says if we can just do what we should do and not spend more than we are 
taking in, interest rates will go down 2 percent. How do we cut down on 
some of this wasteful spending of the Federal Government? I think that 
is a question for the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston]. Let us all 
pitch in some ideas on wasteful spending.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I am going to throw some things out at you. I have a 
constituent who wrote, Kenneth Richardson, actually from Atlanta, and 
he came up with this figure. He said that every minute in the U.S. 
Government, under their calculations, we waste $2,152,207, and they 
show what our interest is and what our fraud and waste is in various 
government programs year in and year out. That is a scary thought.
  He said, ``What are you going to do about it, because every minute 
you are costing the taxpayers $2.1 million.'' There are so many things 
that we have done in the appropriations process that, even though the 
Senate did not pass the balanced budget amendment, it is clear the 
American people want a balanced budget.

                              {time}  1900

  So I think the number one thing that we are doing is every bill that 
we pass, 13 different appropriations bills, we are moving to a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that I want to point out. 
There are 163 different Federal job training programs. Sitting in on 
the hearings, many of them do the exact same thing. You cannot get the 
agencies to agree to consolidate, but if you sit there and you are not 
involved in the program, they sound like they are doing just exactly 
the same.
  I would submit to my colleagues that out of 163 different Federal 
jobs programs, certainly we can combine many, many of them. I am not 
going to give a number, but I would say substantially most of them.
  Let me yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, talking about what we have 
tried to do so far, two items come to mind. First, the line-item veto 
which is the President's way that we have given him, once the House and 
Senate versions are agreed upon, to line-item out pork barrel 
legislation, which will take out those programs which have been in 
prior Congresses to get people reelected. They are not items that are 
of regional value or permanent value. That line-item veto is one item.
  No. two, the Lockbox Act which we passed is going to guarantee that 
the money that is saved from the elimination of a program through 
appropriations is actually going to deficit reduction.
  We have the problem that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] 
identified. They took out $25 million for a turbine program which was 
requested to be pork. He took it out in committee. The next day it was 
in someone else's district already reassigned as pork somewhere else. 
It is moving around, and we cannot catch all of this pork.
  Well the Lockbox Reduction Act which we passed last week is going to 
be one more way to make sure that the savings that the American people 
want of the waste and the inefficiencies and the items that do not 
belong in the Federal Government will in fact be eliminated 
permanently.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think it 
is very important, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, as Americans join us via C-
SPAN to be part of this process, many folks have spoke about the intent 
of the new majority to consolidate some roles and to eliminate various 
cabinet level agencies.
  I was involved in an interview with a national magazine yesterday 
where the question was put to me saying, Well, you have yet to 
eliminate a cabinet level agency. We realize you are working very hard 
in the Commerce Department, and certainly there is great merit to the 
elimination and consolidation of some worthwhile programs, and 
ultimately the elimination of that cabinet level agency, but the 
question came from the journalist, why have you not done more?
  I think again, this cannot be stated enough, Mr. Speaker, to the 
American public. It is very difficult in the span of 9 or 10 months to 
reverse the inexorable trend of the previous 40 years. We are working 
very hard to reduce the size of government, to rein in waste in 
spending, to eliminate not only waste, fraud and abuse in a program 
like Medicare as we move to enact Medicare Plus and enact a better 
Medicare, and do that across the board in every area of this Federal 
Government, but it is a challenge that takes more than a few weeks.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. That is right. Mr. Speaker, we have enticed so 
many people to come up to the public trough, that they have become 
accustomed to it. It is difficult to make the transition away from that 
trough. It has to be done.

  Mr. Speaker, politicians are not going to do it unless the American 
people say, hey, it is time. Cut spending. We are willing to tighten 
our belts to make some of the sacrifices so that our kids and our 
grandkids have the same chance of improving their lifestyle as we did.
  Davis-Bacon comes to mind. Davis-Bacon is coming up in the next 
several days. Davis-Bacon was enacted by Republicans in 1931 so that 
some lower-cost, black labor coming into New York could not get those 
construction jobs where there was any Federal money. So the law was 
passed, it kept the beginning wage-earners out of the marketplace for 
anything that government was contributing money towards constructing or 
building. The Congressional Record of 1931 reveals that one of its 
primary goals was to block southern minority contractors from obtaining 
New York construction jobs.
  Let me just give an example of the requirement of prevailing wage. 
The prevailing wage in Philadelphia for electricians averages $37.97 an 
hour, but the average wage actually paid by private contractors is $15 
an hour. That has resulted in an overcost to the American taxpayer, and 
with the expenditures that we borrow from the United States, of $3.2 
billion. That is only the tip of the iceberg, because every place that 
government has any money in a State contract where the State may be 
paying the majority share of that contract, the State is now required 
to pay those prevailing wages instead of the market wages that could 
tremendously reduce the cost of schools and any other construction.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to mention another way that 
we can save money on the budget, which is to crack down on illegal 
aliens entering this country simply because of the generous and almost 
irresponsible, I think in fact very irresponsible, public benefit and 
assistance program.
  I am going to read something that maybe the gentleman from Arizona is 
very familiar with from a group called FAIR, the Federation for 
American Immigration Reform. I am not familiar with this group, but I 
have heard this story many times and I know the gentleman from Arizona 
has heard it also. That in the town of San Luis, Arizona, there are 
8,100 postal boxes, but there are only 4,000 people who live there.
  Every month the post mistress of the town, Ms. Rodriquez, has to sift 
through thousands of letters containing welfare checks, unemployment 
checks, and food stamps, and in the last month there were 13,500 income 
tax refunds that were all fraudulent.
  What is happening is that 10 to 15 people are using a mailbox and 
they are getting Federal Government, American support and they are not 
American citizens, but they are defrauding the American Government.
  This problem for the Western States and all the border States is 
tremendous, and it is costing Americans billions of dollars each year. 
I think the cost to the California school system alone is $2 billion to 
$3 billion. Twenty-two percent of the prisoners in our Federal penal 
system are illegal aliens, and my colleagues and me and our 
constituents are picking up the costs.

[[Page H 9659]]

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia would yield, 
yes, I am very familiar with the story of what transpired in San Luis 
and indeed would like to thank the Arizona Republic newspaper for 
bringing that story to such prominence to citizens of Arizona, and 
indeed, to the Nation.

  The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] points up something that is 
very, very important here. Again, it is time to pause for a 
distinction, because implicit in what the gentleman says is the notion 
that a lot of people, whether they are citizens or not, would move to 
take advantage of what I believe to be misguided largesse of this 
Federal Government, and we need to make this distinction.
  Mr. Speaker, when we are here tonight speaking, we are not here to 
demonize those who come to these shores looking for a better life who 
follow the path of legal immigration, but it is summed up in the very 
description that I believe some people have almost become immune to 
hearing. It has become a catch phrase. Why do you think we call it 
illegal immigration? It is against the law.
  Therefore, it is incumbent upon this Congress to carry out the wishes 
of the American people, especially the people of the border States, and 
indeed nationwide, who see the fruits of their labor, their hard-earned 
money taken through what many would call confiscatory taxation policies 
and bestowed on folks who are not even citizens of the United States.
  Now, there can be a legitimate debate, and indeed, there is great 
diversity in this House, and there are many different philosophies, and 
there are those in this body who genuinely believe that it is the role 
of this government to be the charity of first resort. I think that is 
blatantly wrong. Some people have that idea. But even if we accept that 
idea, should not charity begin at home?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that bothers my 
constituents as much as anything maybe is their experience standing in 
food lines and the individuals ahead of them at one time or the other 
have food stamps, and the food that they are buying with those food 
stamps is more than the individuals that are working very hard for a 
living, that go to work every day even when they do not feel like it, 
can afford. So they are bothered by what turns out to be a $25 billion 
a year food stamp program and welfare, AFDC.
  Can my colleagues imagine going to our own daughters and saying, I 
want to talk about your allowance. If you get pregnant, we are going to 
increase your allowance by $500 a month, provide you housing, and a 
food allowance on top of that. We never say hat to our own daughters, 
but as a society we are doing that. In some cases, it is a deciding 
factor in what has happened in this country with these young women, 
where now 30 percent of the births in the United States are out of 
wedlock.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a point made quite well by 
Marvin Olasky in his book, ``The Tragedy of American Compassion.'' 
Somewhere along the line in this country we decided that caretaking 
should be substituted for caring, and so engrained has it become in the 
subconscious of the body politic that it is pervasive almost to the 
point that we gauge caring by examples of caretaking through Federal 
largesse.
  Now, are we saying that people should just be cut off, tough luck? 
No, not at all. What we are saying is this: as we transform this 
welfare State into an opportunity society, we should take care to make 
sure that what we truly have is a safety net instead of a hammock. That 
is the challenge we face as we move to confront a new century, and as 
we engage in open and honest debate with those who may have a 
different point of view.

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think what we want 
with welfare reform is a program that has a work requirement, if you 
are able to work, a program that lets States have flexibility, because 
in Georgia we are going to do it differently than you do in Arizona, 
different than in New York City and San Francisco, and that is the way 
it should be.
  Let us decide how we are going to deal with our poverty. Give us some 
guidelines, but give us the flexibility that we need, and then there is 
that illegal immigration component. We do not want money being used to 
attract people to come to America just so that they can enjoy the 
public benefit.
  Then finally, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] said, you 
want to have a component in there that does not reward 
irresponsibility, particularly when it is not age appropriate for 16 
and 15-year olds to be parents.
  Mr. Speaker, we are coming to a close. I do want to say on the 
subject of welfare reform and all of the things that are going on in my 
hometown, Savannah, GA, where there is a group called the Chatham 
Citizen Advocacy led by a good friend of mine, Tom Kohler. I believe 
Tom Kohler leans Democrat, but I was kidding him because he works for 
an agency who I think the philosophy is Republican, because No. 1, it 
does not take any Federal dollars or local dollars.
  What Tom does is he matches up somebody who is established, 
prominent, better off, upper middle class with somebody who is 
unfortunate, who has had some hard knocks, who is down on the ground. 
He matches the two together. Not so that the wealthy one can write a 
check and feel good about himself; he turns them into friends. The 
wealthy person says to the poor person, let me help you. What are your 
problems? How can I help you get a job? How can I get you to the 
hospital today? How can I help you kick the habit, or whatever it is.
  Tom says that the benefit to society of course is economic. The 
benefit to the two individuals when they come together with human 
compassion is immeasurable.

                              {time}  1915

  I am not saying that is going to solve our problems, but, doggone it, 
the thing about it is it is a local problem and it is not taxpayer-
funded money but it complements what we are trying to do. We all have 
to have a role in it, the Federal Government, the State government, the 
local government. But certainly the volunteer sector can come in, also. 
If we get out of the way, there will be a lot more room for them.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentleman brings to mind a program in Arizona, 
known by its acronym, WOW, Women Off Welfare, which employs many of the 
same notions that you describe in the program in your home district in 
Georgia.
  Let us hope for our society that we never go down the road where 
Government has grown so large, where it has taken over acts of kindness 
and charity to such a great degree that we denigrate those who would 
step forward through traditional notions or innovative notions of 
charity that offer perhaps the most elemental and the most significant 
contribution that can take place, one-on-one caring, not care-taking.
  For indeed as we see, who cares more about children? Their parents. 
Not someone employed by the Federal Government in Washington.
  I do not call into question a government employee's dedication. But 
it will never take the place of a parent's love, it will never take the 
place of mentoring that most parents can provide, and indeed as we 
confront a new century, it is important to note that Uncle Sam is our 
uncle, he is not to be big brother, nor is he to be Mother and Dad and 
surrogate family to the American people.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think you have wrapped it up real well. I am going to 
add one last line. A lady named Charlie from Denton, TX wrote me and 
said on the subject of the public debt, which is of course what has 
been our central theme today, saving money, cutting back on the size of 
Government and so forth, she says:

       I'm very upset that some people think it's okay to tax my 
     grandchildren, 17 years to 3 months old, for things other 
     people have already used up.

  We have got to balance that budget, we have got to give a promise so 
that Charlie's grandchildren and your grandchildren and my 
grandchildren will have a bright, great America as we know it can and 
should be.

[[Page H 9660]]


                    FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A further message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its 
clerks, announced that the Senate had passed with amendments in which 
the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the 
following title:

       H.R. 4. An act to restore the American family, reduce 
     illegitimacy, control welfare spending and reduce welfare 
     dependence.

  The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its 
amendments to the bill (H.R. 4) ``An Act to restore the American 
family, reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending and reduce 
welfare dependence'' and requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

                          ____________________