[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10830-H10833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              RURAL AMERICA AND THE IMPACT OF BUDGET CUTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H10831]]

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, how a nation spends its resources says 
volumes about who is important, who is not, which regions of our Nation 
are favored and which are ignored.
  When we vote on budget reconciliation this week, this Nation will 
know the winners and losers.
  This budget will cause pain to many in America, but we will cause 
substantial harm to most in rural America.
  Rural North Carolina, including my congressional district, like most 
of rural America, is struggling to provide a minimum quality of life 
for its citizens.
  These communities, however, lack high-paying jobs and often lack the 
infrastructure necessary for economic expansion.
  The lack of basic resources and opportunities, such as employment, 
housing, education, and utility services, especially water and sewer, 
is compounded by limited access to quality health care and a shortage 
of health professionals, especially primary and family physicians.
  As Congress goes through its cost cutting, deficit reducing, budget 
balancing exercise, there is a message that needs to be emphasized 
among our colleagues: Farmers and rural communities have been important 
to this Nation's past, and farmers and rural communities are essential 
to this Nation's future, most notably, the small, family farmers.
  Today, I want to briefly discuss two of the areas affected by the 
Republican budget reconciliation legislation, and I will begin with 
agriculture programs.


                              agriculture

  Agriculture faces deeper, across-the-board cuts in Federal programs, 
such as the cotton and dairy programs, the food and nutrition programs, 
and the rural development and housing programs.
  Agricultural cuts have been going on for years, $50 billion since 
1981, but these are especially painful because of the nature of the 
cuts and in light of all the other cuts.
  The freedom to farm proposal offered by the House Agriculture 
Committee chairman--which will be part of the reconciliation package--
contains $13.4 billion in additional cuts to farm programs over the 
next 7 years.
  How much muscle and bone do we have to cut from the body of 
agriculture?
  Why should we compensate for a $245 billion tax cut for the wealthy, 
by destroying a mainstay of rural life--the American farmer?
  My primary opposition to the Freedom to Farm Act is that the link 
between prices and production will be severed as a result of these 
severe cuts. A fixed payment that disregards market price cannot 
possibly provide the help necessary when market prices are lower, while 
providing unnecessary payments when prices are high.
  I am also apprehensive about the availability of production 
financing, which will most certainly diminish as the agricultural 
safety net disappears.
  And, my final concern is that the Freedom to Farm Act is solely 
concerned with the next 7 years--but what will farmers and farm 
communities do after 2002?
  The Freedom to Farm Act will reduce farm income by 5 percent in 1998. 
Over the next 5 years, it has been estimated that net farm income will 
drop by an average of $1.5 billion per year for a total of $7.5 
billion--that's $7.5 billion lost from farm income to pay for an unfair 
tax cut. I do not consider that to be fair or just--do you?
  Congress needs to address agriculture in a fair and measured way--97 
percent of the population of the United States is fed by the 3 percent 
of farmers.
  The Freedom to Farm Act is neither fair nor is it prudent.
  The name is deceptive--instead of freedom to farm it should be called 
freedom to fail.


                               education

  In the area of education, more than 100,000 rural children will be 
denied basic and advanced skills, at a time when many small towns and 
rural communities are having a difficult struggle with their budgets.
  Rather than promoting education, this bill is an obstruction to 
education and is disastrous to small and rural education systems.
  Thousands of disadvantaged children who need a little help in the 
beginning of their lives--at the onset of their education--will not get 
that help.
  Head Start is cut by $137 million--abandoning 180,000 children 
nationwide and almost 4,000 in North Carolina.
  Title I is cut by $1.1 billion--denying critical basic and advanced 
skills assistance to 1.1 million students nationwide and 20,400 
students in North Carolina.
  Drug-free schools is cut by 59 percent--this program is currently 
used by 129 of the 129 school districts in North Carolina.
  The program is designed to keep crime, violence, and drugs away from 
students and out of our schools. And, the Republican majority wants to 
gut the program.
  The Goals 2000 Program is completely eliminated--381 schools in North 
Carolina will be denied this vital program.
  And, Vocational Education is cut by 27 percent.
  Thousands of those school children, willing to work, who have found 
hope in a mountain of hopelessness, will not be able to work. The 
School-to-Work Program is cut by 22 percent. Americorps, the National 
Service Program, is eliminated, denying an opportunity to 1,107 young 
people in North Carolina.
  And, the summer jobs program is eliminated altogether. Some 9,000 
young people in North Carolina will be put out of work for 1996 and 
some 61,000 will be out of work in our State by the year 2002. And, 
sadly, Mr. Speaker, that includes the 22 young people who wrote me that 
letter.
  The privilege of an education belongs to all in America.
  But, education cuts of the majority, with the stroke of a pen, takes 
that privilege away from many low income and rural children.
  This blind march to a balanced budget, without considering the merits 
of programs, is taking us down the wrong path.
  I wonder where it is taking our young people?
  Where is the balance in this kind of budget?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, when we consider budget 
reconciliation, let us not forget rural America.

                              {time}  2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, the vote tomorrow represents the very 
essence of why I was sent to Congress.
  One year ago I made a commitment to my constituents that I would 
balance the budget and save the future of our country from 
irresponsible reckless spending and ever higher debt and national 
bankruptcy.
  That is what I will vote to do tomorrow.
  A child born today will pay an average of $187,000 in taxes over his 
or her lifetime just to pay off the interest on the national debt, not 
to mention the principal.
  This is unconscionable; we have to balance the budget and begin to 
relieve our children of this unfair burden.
  But the positive impact of this bill will be felt much sooner by 
current generations as well.
  One can always find excuses not to balance the budget.
  A balanced budget will help lower interest rates, making it easier 
for families to finance the purchase of homes, cars, and college 
educations.
  It will create jobs, and maintain a rising standard of living for us 
and our children.
  In short, the package contains the most important goals of the 104th 
Congress: a balanced budget, tax relief, welfare reform, and Medicare 
solvency.
  In stark contrast to Congresses of years past, today we present the 
American people with a responsible plan not of ever higher taxes and 
rapidly increasing programs, but of serious prioritizing and meaningful 
tax relief for working parents and their children.
  The reconciliation package sets the budget on a 7-year glidepath 
toward eliminating the deficit by the year 2002.
  Balancing the budget is simply good economic policy.
  It will result in lower interest rates, a more vibrant private 
sector, and a reduction in the huge and growing part of our budget 
comprised of interest payments on our debt.
  But this is also a moral imperative.
  In effect, continuing to heap debt upon future generations for our 
short-term benefits taxes our posterity without their consent, all 
because, until now, we have lacked the will to make difficult decisions 
on budgetary matters.

[[Page H10832]]

  Balancing the budget is the overall aim of this package, but the bill 
also provides some much needed and significant tax relief for the 
working families of America.
  This bill provides families a $500 per child tax credit, helping the 
middle class save and pay for college, braces, clothes, or whatever.
  The point is that families, not the government, will be empowered to 
make decisions for themselves.
  American innovators will seize upon the capital gains tax reduction 
as an opportunity to invest in new businesses and create hundreds of 
thousands of new jobs, better jobs than any government bureaucrat can 
ever imagine creating.
  And the bill provides tax relief for seniors, repealing the 1993 
Clinton tax increase on Social Security.
  Also included in the bill are the provisions of the Medicare 
Preservation Act that saves Medicare from bankruptcy.
  Solvency is achieved in a fair and reasonable manner, containing no 
increase in deductibles or copayments, and no changes in the rate of 
premium growth while offering more choices to Medicare beneficiaries 
than ever before.
  Long overdue welfare reform is also in there.
  We put an end to the Great Society notions that Washington knows best 
without abandoning our commitments to the Nation's poorest and most 
vulnerable.
  As poverty rates hover around 1965 levels and illegitimacy rates 
skyrocket, this Congress has taken action and ended the cruel cycle of 
dependency and encourages workfare, not welfare.
  Thirty years and $5 trillion of misguided spending are enough: 
welfare reform is long overdue.
  Let's contrast this overall plan with that espoused by our President 
only a few short years ago.
  On June 4, 1992, he promised a balanced budget.
  A Democrat Congress never delivered.
  He promised a tax cut for middle-class families.
  A Democrat Congress never delivered.
  Worse than never delivering, they actually implemented the biggest 
tax increase in the history of our Nation.
  And now, the President has even admitted he raised our taxes too 
much.
  He never offered a plan to end welfare as we know it, and he stayed 
on the sidelines as we saved Medicare from going bankrupt.
  This Congress is about keeping promises, not breaking them.
  In the end, I will cast my vote for a bill that fulfills my 
commitment to the people who sent me here.
  The last election was a clear statement by my constituents: They want 
a balanced budget and a smaller Government that works more efficiently 
for them.
  They want a Congress committed to solving problems, not avoiding 
them.
  They want a Congress that keeps its promises, and gets the job done.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that this is what we will give 
them tomorrow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I have been 
here during these special order sessions for several nights to inform 
the public about what is in the fine print of the Republican budget 
package.
  I think our efforts are starting to pay off. The people of America 
are becoming aware of the enormity of the cuts in this reconciliation 
package and their effects on the children, the working poor, the 
disabled, and the elderly.
  Sen. Arlen Specter speaking on the GOP budget:

       . . . much of the pain of the spending cuts goes to the 
     elderly, the young and the infirm while allowing tax cuts for 
     corporate America . . .
  This is a Republican.
  Not included on this list is the group that stands to gain the most 
from the Republican package; The wealthiest Americans. The Republicans 
are financing tax cuts for their rich by increasing taxes on the 
middle-class and low-income working Americans.
  Republicans claim they are helping the poor by reforming welfare, 
however, it is dishonest to say that you believe in work over welfare 
and then cut the earned income tax credit and medicaid.
  Again, Jack Kemp.

       I hope you guys do not go too far on removing the EITC 
     because that is a tax increase on low-income workers and the 
     poor which is unconscionable at this time . . .

  In Florida, 1.3 million low-income workers and their families depend 
on the E.I.T.C. The working poor are barely getting by as it is, and 
now the Republicans are pulling the rug out from under them by cutting 
a program that was expanded by both Presidents Reagan and Bush.
  The Republican welfare reform plan, which is part of the bill, 
includes additional impediments to work, such as underfunding child 
care support services and underfunding the workfare requirement. The 
Republican plan is weak on work and tough on kids.
  Republicans talk about freedom and choice for the States. But the 
cuts in this plan will do nothing but force Governors to abandon any 
creative programs they have been able to initiate. Instead, Governors 
will be spending their time trying to stretch limited dollars to 
provide basic services for the poor and the elderly.
  The inconsistency in the Republican agenda is confusing. Are they for 
work, or are they for further injuring the working poor? Are they for 
allowing Governors to be creative and innovative in developing programs 
or are they for dumping the social problems of the Nation on the 
Governors while denying them the funds necessary to address the 
problems?
  The plan to block grant the Medicaid Program will be disastrous for 
Florida. Shifting from a program designed to meet individual needs to a 
capped program constrains a State's ability to meet health care 
demands. People will either be kicked off of Medicaid, or State taxes 
will have to be raised. A block grant formula allows for little 
flexibility to address not only variable economic conditions, but also 
events like natural disasters that increase the Medicaid need.
  While I no not support block granting Medicaid, if that is the 
framework within which we are operating, let us at least make the 
formula a fair one.
  Today, I went before the Rules Committee to offer an amendment to 
make the Medicaid funding formula equitable.
  Under my formula, Governors who use their Medicaid dollars 
efficiently would receive a bigger increase in their Medicaid grant. My 
formula encourages efficiency and the innovative use of Medicaid 
dollars.
  We need to correct the fundamental unfairness underlying the 
Republican Medicaid funding formula. Under their proposal, Florida is 
among the eight States that will shoulder fully one-half of the $182 
billion in cuts. Over the 7 years of the Republican plan, Florida will 
lose between $9 and $11 billion.
  The formula I offered was proposed to me by the Joint Legislative 
Auditing Committee of the Florida Legislature. It allows for 
adjustments in calculations to reflect increases in a State's elderly 
population, and increases in the number of people in poverty.
  Florida and other high growth States should not be penalized for 
increases in our population. We also should not be penalized for being 
efficient in our use of funds. Under the current plan, if a State has 
profited at the expense of the system, in some cases bordering on 
outright fraud, it gets rewarded with higher block grant numbers. To 
remedy this error and to encourage proper use of funds, my formula 
rewards States that use Medicaid dollars effectively and efficiently.
  But I will be denied the opportunity to offer my amendment tomorrow. 
This is just another reason why I cannot support the Republican 
reconciliation plan.
  I am glad America is listening. We will continue to try to get our 
voices heard so that Americans will know and understand the devastation 
that will result from the Republican plan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to rise in opposition to 
the reconciliation bill that is before the House today and tomorrow. 
For those who are not aware of this, the reconciliation bill is the 
budget bill, and 

[[Page H10833]]
in it we are supposed to reconcile taxes and spending.
  I believe that a budget bill should be a statement of our national 
values and how we spend our money is a statement of those values, and 
how we tax and who we tax is a statement of our sense of values in our 
country. I do not think that this reconciliation bill before the House 
meets any test that our constituents would have as a statement of 
values, a statement of national values, and a statement of a sense of 
fairness in our country. Indeed, in trying to achieve a balanced budget 
financially, we are indeed producing a lopsided budget way out of 
balance in terms of values and meeting the needs of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, the other day I was at an event and they asked me what 
the three biggest challenges to America were. What are the three 
biggest issues? As a Member of Congress, they wanted to know what I 
would name as the three issues.

                              {time}  2015

  I said, that is easy. The three biggest issues in our country are our 
children, our children, and our children. The sad thing about this 
legislation before us, the Republican majority reconciliation bill, is 
the devastation that it wreaks on children.
  Our colleagues are fond of saying on the other side of the aisle that 
this puts us on a glide path to a balanced budget. It puts us on a 
glide path to a crash.
  Because unless we invest in our children, we will never have a 
balanced budget. Unless we invest in our children and our families, we 
will not be able to produce the productive people that we need to keep 
our country competitive. Instead, we will continue, as this bill calls 
for, a continuation of the Republican notion of trickle down.
  But it is on the issue of children that I would like to speak this 
evening. Because, as I say, if it is a statement of values of what we 
stand for as a country, it should be a statement of how we care for our 
children.
  I do not think any of our listeners or viewers would consider it a 
statement of their values to cut millions of children out of Medicaid, 
guaranteed health care, in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest 
people in America. At the same time, I do not think our constituents 
consider it a statement of their values for us to give a tax break that 
the overwhelming majority of it benefits the top 6 percent earners in 
our country, the wealthiest people in our country.
  Do not take it from me, though. Listen to what a Republican has to 
say. My colleague from Florida already referenced Senator Specter's 
remarks when he said, ``Much of the pain of the spending cuts goes to 
the elderly, the young and the infirm, while allowing tax cuts for 
corporate America.''
  Senator Specter then also went on to say, ``I suggest to my 
Republican colleagues that we all rethink support for a combination of 
tax cuts and spending cuts that may lead to the perception of the 
Republican Party as the party of wealth, power and privilege, and not 
the party of ordinary workers.''
  As you can see here, Jack Kemp also had his concerns about what is in 
this bill. Jack Kemp, a leading light in the Republican Party, said, 
``I hope you guys do not go too far on removing the earned income tax 
credit, because that is a tax increase on low-income workers and the 
poor, which is unconscionable at this time.''
  Of course, the earned income tax credit is cut back in this bill. 
That is a tax credit that is given to the working poor in our country. 
Some of us view it as a subsidy for an unfair low minimum wage in our 
country, and it benefits America's businesses as much as it benefits 
the families. But no matter what, it does benefit the families. But we 
have to cut that back--a tax credit for the working poor--in order to 
give a tax break to the wealthiest people in our country.
  Who was it who said that, to listen to this debate, one would think 
that the poor people had too much money and the rich people did not 
have enough?
  But let us get on to the children.
  The Republican budget repeals the Medicaid program as we know it 
which provides health security to 36 million low-income Americans. Half 
of the beneficiaries are children. Consumers Union estimates that the 
Medicaid provisions in this bill will result in 12 million Americans 
losing health insurance coverage in the cutbacks that are proposed. The 
majority are uninsured children.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to just, in closing, say that we all care about 
our children. We want the best for our children. But unless we 
understand that the well-being of our own children is directly 
connected to the well-being of poor children of America, our own 
children will not be well-served. That is the reconciliation we must 
provide for our country.
  I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican glidepath to a 
crash.

                          ____________________