[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11741-H11747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  THE HORRIBLE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES IN LIGHT OF BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION 
                                PROCESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the budget and appropriation process is 
behind schedule. I think that it has seldom been as far behind as it is 
now. But, as we all know, it is moving, and the critical high point is 
about to arrive. The negotiations between the Democratic President and 
the Republican-controlled Congress will mark the high point of this 
whole process.
  Already there have been preliminary negotiations, I understand, at 
the White House; and we are beginning to enter that process. I think it 
is important at this point to take stock of where we are and to have 
the American people understand their vital role in this process.
  I would like to, first, congratulate the American people, because the 
polls show that American common sense is again on target. American 
common sense, despite all the confusion, the double talk, the 
contradictions, the obfuscation, the diversions, despite it all, the 
American people understand basically what is going on; and their common 
sense has prevailed, and we have to listen to it.
  According to the Wall Street Journal, 61 percent of the people want 
the President to veto the Republican budget. Yes, the Republican budget 
produced by this House of Representatives and the Senate, both 
controlled by Republican majorities, 61 percent of the American people, 
according to the Wall Street Journal, want the President to veto that 
budget. Thirty-two percent said it is OK.
  Seventy-three percent of the American people prefer smaller Medicare 
and education cuts, and they prefer a 10-year budget, according to the 
Wall Street Journal. Seventy-three percent prefer a 10-year budget and 
smaller cuts. Only 22 percent would go with a 7-year budget and the 
deep cuts that are proposed by the Republican majority.
  Common sense is on target. Congratulations, American people, 
congratulations to democracy.
  When the decisionmakers and the people who are locked into the 
closets of Washington lose their way and cannot understand the obvious, 
the American people can bring them back to reality.

  Yes, the American people are on target right now, but I fear, as we 
move closer and closer to the climactic point of this whole process of 
budget and appropriations that there is going to be more attempt to 
confuse the American people. There will be more obfuscation and more 
diversions thrown at the American people.
  So we have to be careful. Contradictions will be rampant. There will 
be a refusal to acknowledge certain things, like they will not 
acknowledge the horrible truth about taxes in America.
  I believe we should have a tax cut. I believe American individuals 
and families, certainly those making $50,000 or less, must have a tax 
cut. It is only fair, because they have been swindled, they have been 
swindled since 1943 by having the great shift in the proportion of the 
revenue burden borne by individuals and families versus corporations.
  That is my chart that always bring because there is no truth more 
fundamental, no truth more important than the truth of this chart, 
which shows how the tax burden shifted from American corporations to 
American individuals and families.
  Herein lies the solution to the problem of the deficit, herein, lies 
the solution to the problem of a balanced budget, and herein lies the 
solution to the problem of giving some relief to the American people 
who have borne such high taxes for so many years.
  There might have been a justification during the era when we were 
fighting the cold war. So the American people made sacrifices. They 
bore the high taxes. The cold war is over now. There is no reason to 
continue, and there certainly is no reason why you had the shift which 
is so dramatic from the corporate world bearing the great portion of 
the tax burden to a situation now where the corporate world bears a 
very tiny portion of it and individuals and families are forced to bear 
most of it.
  I will come back to that, but that is one of those acknowledgments, 
one of the pieces of truth that both the White House and the 
Republican-controlled Congress refuse to acknowledge. We are going to 
have negotiations at the White House, and I certainly support my 
Democratic President. I am glad that you have the President there 
instead of a Republican President. We are 

[[Page H 11742]]

going to have a little more balance, but I worry about it.
  I recall several years ago when negotiations took place at the White 
House between the Republican President, George Bush, and the Democratic 
Congress, at that time I also worried, because the same phenomenon was 
under way, where corporations were still getting away with murder. 
Corporations were still being allowed to pay less and less taxes. 
Democrats will have to take responsibility for that.
  I remember at that time I wrote a rap poem which started:

     In that great white D.C. mansion there's a meeting of the 
           mob.
     And the question on the table is which beggars will they rob.
     There's a meeting of the mob.
     Now I'll never get a job.

  I wrote that from the point of view of the average person out there 
who deserves to have at least an economy which is producing jobs and an 
economy which is not going to take away too great a portion of his 
wages after he is able to get a job and make some wages.
  So this contradiction will not be discussed at the White House at 
great length. They are going to just give in to the phenomenon which 
exists, give in to corporations, and that is most unfortunate. We 
cannot let them do that.
  I think if the American people understood what is going on in a 
better way, that common sense out there, that common sense which makes 
our democracy work among the people, that common sense would be 
communicated up the ladder to both the Members of the Republican-
controlled Congress and the President and his staff in the White House.
  There is a refusal to acknowledge the great income gap that exists in 
America right now, that is getting greater, the gap between those who 
are richest and those who are poorest, has never been larger. We are at 
the top of the countries in the world in terms of income gap. We used 
to be in the middle. Great Britain had a greater income gap between the 
very rich and the very poor. Now it is in America.
  Democratic America now has the greatest gap between the very rich and 
the very poor. We have to acknowledge that. If we acknowledge that, 
then at the White House they would be discussing an increase in the 
minimum wage.
  The Republican-controlled Congress says, ``We will not discuss an 
increase in the minimum wage. We will not increase the minimum wage 
even one penny.'' That is what they have said. They will not discuss it 
because we want to bring the wages of American workers down to the 
level of the cheapest labor in the world. The labor in Mexico is cheap 
but it is even cheaper in Bangladesh. We want to make our workers come 
down to that level so our products will become competitive.

                              {time}  1545

  What they mean is so our profits will skyrocket even more than they 
are now. We are making the highest profits in the history of Wall 
Street, in the history of American corporations. They are doing very 
well, but they want to go down, wages to go down even lower so that 
they can make even bigger profits. That is a contradiction. That is a 
problem that they will not acknowledge on one side of the table at the 
White House. The President is on record that he is willing to raise the 
minimum wage, but not the Republican-controlled Congress. They will not 
acknowledge the fact that all of this talk about giving block grants to 
the States and having the States take over programs, especially the 
programs that are for the poor, that that has a big contradiction built 
into it. It is not sound at all.
  They imply that certain States, like my home State of New York, are 
wasteful States, that we spend too much money on Medicare and Medicaid, 
and yet the facts are that New York State as a State consistently pays 
more into the Federal Treasury in terms of Federal taxes than any other 
State in the Union.
  In 1994, we paid in almost $19 billion more than we got back from the 
Federal Government. It went as high as $23 billion 1 year, what New 
York State was paying into the Treasury, $23 billion more than we were 
getting back.
  On the other hand, the States of the South all pay less into the 
Federal Treasury than they get back. They get back more from the 
Federal Government than they pay in, all of the States of the South, 
except Texas, and the difference is they paid a little bit more in 
1994. They paid a little bit more in than they got back.
  But $68 billion more was received from the Federal Government by the 
southern States than they paid in. It is the Northeast States, it is 
the Great Lakes States, those are the States that are paying more in.
  If you want to have block grants, if you want to push these programs 
down to the State level, you are going to hurt, you are going to hurt 
the southern States. You are going to hurt the poorest States. If you 
gave New York all of its money and said, ``Look, you take care of 
yourself,'' we would have in New York $19 billion more than we have 
now. Nineteen billion more would be available to take care of the 
problems of New York State if they did not have to go to the Federal 
Government.
  You know, that kind of contradiction is built into all of this talk 
about States being given the priority to run programs, all of this 
criticism of States like New York State that has a higher expenditure 
for Medicare and Medicaid. We spend our money taking care of people. 
You know, what do the other States spend their money on? What is wrong? 
What is more noble than taking care of the health of people? That is 
another acknowledgment that needs to take place if these discussions 
are going to go on at the White House.
  They ought to come back to the American people's level. They ought to 
come back to the common sense level. They ought to acknowledge that 
there are generous, giving States and ungrateful, receiving States. 
Because those Representatives of the ungrateful, receiving States are 
always up talking about how horrible it is that you have so much money 
being spent on Medicare and Medicaid in places like New York, they do 
not acknowledge the fact that they are getting more money from the 
Federal Government than they paid in on a consistent basis.
  There is also a refusal, and this is a very costly refusal, a refusal 
by one side of the table, the Republican-controlled Congress side of 
the table, to recognize education as a priority investment, and to give 
education top priority. Again, there is a contradiction here, because 
we just had today on the floor an amendment related to giving certain 
additional funds to the District of Columbia for certain items related 
to education that the Speaker finds very pleasant and thinks, in his 
own commonsense opinion, a good idea, and we were going to add money to 
the D.C. budget for that purpose while, at the same time, the almost $4 
billion in cuts in education by the Federal Government, when you take 
away the D.C. portion of that cut, it means that D.C. has lost a 
tremendous amount of money as a result of actions taken by the Speaker 
and his Republican-controlled Congress. They are taking away far more 
than they are giving.

  It is like the slaves used to have to live under abominable 
conditions all year long. They had the worst possible housing, they had 
to wear flax shirts that scratched, they could not sleep in decent 
beds, they were fed the worst kind of food. At Christmas time the 
master always made sure everybody got as much as they wanted to eat. 
You could eat ham on Christmas day, and people rejoiced and they loved 
the master all year around sometimes because of what he did for them on 
Christmas.
  So there is an attempt in this D.C. budget that the Speaker has 
proposed for education to create Christmas time in D.C. and let 
everybody be grateful for some extra money that is going to be dropped 
in there while they cut the basics away from the education aid that 
comes from the Federal Government.
  So for education, health care, and other vital programs, we need to 
act here in Washington in a way which puts us in touch with the common 
sense out there in the rest of America. The rest of America is on 
course. We in Washington do not seem to get it. We are caught up in our 
own rhetoric. We are confused by all the entanglements, and we just do 
not understand what the basic American people understand.
  The budget and the appropriations process goes forward. The Senate 
and the House Appropriations Committees are now going to finalize a 
budget that 

[[Page H 11743]]

they both agree on. In both the Senate budget and the House budget, 
there are horrible cuts to very vital programs. There is not much that 
can be done. That process is in motion, and if the two reach some kind 
of agreement on the basis of what they both have, the results will 
still be horrible, because they both have passed budgets and 
appropriations and the reconciliation package that, in the final 
analysis, cannot be salvaged. There is no salvaging of the budget 
between the Senate and the House for Medicaid. Medicaid as an 
entitlement is taken away. It is no longer there in the House-passed 
reconciliation bill. They did not do Medicaid the honor of having 
Medicaid be put in a separate bill so we could vote on Medicaid by 
itself and discuss the various aspects of what is being lost through 
these budget cuts. They would not give Medicaid that honor.
  They had Medicaid treated with great contempt. After all, Medicaid is 
a program for poor people. They had the worst of contempt for Medicaid, 
so they just folded Medicaid into the reconciliation bill. Medicaid 
does not even get a discussion, but the cuts in Medicaid are 
horrendous, $180 billion, more than $180 billion over a 7-year period. 
That is a greater percentage cut in Medicaid than the $270 billion cut 
in Medicare. The percentage cut in Medicaid is greater than the cut in 
Medicare.
  Who is getting cut?
  Mr. Speaker, the budget appropriation process goes forward. The good 
news is that the American people are on target. The common sense in 
America will redeem that situation if common sense is allowed to 
prevail, if common sense is not subjected to a lot of manipulation, a 
lot of confusion between now and the time the budget is finally decided 
during the negotiation process between the White House and the 
Republican-controlled Congress. Common sense says that the Republican 
budget should be rejected.
  Again, 61 percent want the President to veto the Republican budget. 
Thirty-two percent are willing to live with it. Again, among the 
American people, common sense says that 73 percent of Americans prefer 
smaller Medicare and education cuts and a 10-year budget.
  In other words, they say balance the budget over a 10-year period. Do 
not do it over a 7-year period, because that means that you have to 
throw certain groups of people overboard, deny them vitally needed 
services, and create a mean America, an extreme America that does not 
have to exist. They have come to that conclusion.
  At the time when Washington, when in Washington both Democrats and 
Republicans are wavering and nobody can see a clear path on a 10-year 
budget course, we once had that proposed by the President, then it 
became 9 years, 8 years, there was a lot of seesawing back and forth. 
The American people said, ``Look, what makes sense is to have a 
balanced budget, and if you do it in 10 years, that is good enough, 
because you can do it then without inflicting great amounts of pain and 
suffering on large amounts of people.''
  Why destroy the fabric of the Nation in an attempt to get the budget 
under control, if you can get it under control over a longer period 
without inflicting all of the destruction and pain? Why deliberately 
dismantle the New Deal, the Great Society programs which large numbers 
of people benefit from, and they have not been heard from in terms of 
their not wanting to have these programs continued. They want Medicaid 
to continue. They want Medicare to continue. They want the small 
Federal investment in education to continue.
  Federal investment in education is not that great. So why have that 7 
percent of the total education budget for the whole country, why have 
that cut back? You know, most of the education funds spent in this 
Nation are supplied by the States and by local governments. The Federal 
Government only provides 7 percent of the total. About $360 billion-
plus is spent on education in all forms. For the last years the figures 
are available, $360 billion-plus, and of that amount 7 percent only are 
expenditures that were Federal. So it is the other two levels of 
government that bear the education burden.
  The Federal Government bears a portion of it that is vital, however. 
It is very critical that there be some kind of research and development 
in education, very critical that there be guidance in terms of 
standards. It is very critical that what the States themselves would 
find very inefficient to do, because one State having to bear the 
burden of educational research means that you have a budget for 
research that is out of proportion with the total budget.
  Why do that when you can have the benefit of the economies of scale 
and have education research, since we all are Americans? We all are 
living in the same society and the same economy, basically. Why can you 
not have research with respect to how to improve our schools, how to 
teach better, how to make better use of our facilities, how to use new 
educational technology, equipment, why can you not have that done on a 
national basis by a Department of Education, and have all of the 
benefits of that research and development shared? That is common sense 
again, and we do not want to divert from that common sense.

  So we will have a situation where the commonsense approach that the 
American people have shown will be under attack, under assault. They 
will be trying to confuse the issue, trying to manipulate opinions, and 
the contradictions will be rampant. The contradictions, things that 
just do not make sense, keep coming out of Washington. Things that just 
do not make sense are proposed by the Republican-controlled majority.
  It does not make sense that you have cut education by almost $4 
billion, the Federal aid to education, and when you cut Federal aid to 
education, you are cutting Federal aid to Washington, DC.
  It does not make sense to cut that so drastically and then come back 
in a D.C. appropriations bill, District of Columbia appropriations 
bill, and offer $45 million for vouchers for poor children in the D.C. 
public schools. You are taking away some money that they had for 
lunches, you are taking away the money or part of the money they had 
for title 1 programs, you have taken away part of the money they had 
for Head Start programs, you have taken away Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children, so poor children may not have decent clothes or a 
decent place to stay. You have taken all of that away. Now your are 
proposing here on the floor to spend $45 million just for vouchers for 
children in the District of Columbia. You are going to start a voucher 
system so that children can go to private schools, instead of improving 
the public schools, and you are going to do that using a special 
approach which is totally out of sync with the rest of what the 
education laws are doing.

                              {time}  1600

  You are going to do that without using the Department of Education? 
You are going to do that in a way which would allow the worst kind of 
intrusion into education by the government?
  Government at any level should not have partisan interference with 
education. We work very hard to try to keep partisan interference with 
education at a minimum. But here the Federal Government is feared most 
of all. We went for years without having the Federal Government have 
any role in elementary and secondary education, because the American 
people did not want dominance by the Federal Government on education 
matters.
  I have always said this fear on education matters is an unfounded 
fear, because the tiny portion of the education funds provided by the 
Federal Government will never place it in a position to dominate 
education. If we are only providing 7 percent of the funds and the 
States and local governments are providing the rest of it, how can we 
come in and dominate education with only 7 percent of the funds?
  Even if you move that up to 25 percent, and I think it ought to go 
that way, I think we ought to have the Federal Government participating 
in the education process in the United States of America to the point 
where they are at least bearing 25 percent of the cost. If we went up 
to 25 percent of the cost, then State and local governments control 75 
percent of the revenue and the funding, and they would have control of 
the decisionmaking.

  Any democracy, if you have 75 percent of the control, then you are in 
control. Nobody can take 25 percent and come in and dominate how our 
schools are run. 

[[Page H 11744]]

  But if you have a program as the Speaker is proposing here in 
Washington, where they are going to set up their own private foundation 
with Government money and the Government money is flowing as a piece of 
largess from the Speaker, the master of the plantation will provide for 
Christmas some special goodies, and the master of the plantation wants 
to sit back and talk about his schools in the District of Columbia, his 
students in the District of Columbia and what they are doing and play 
games with it in a way which constitutes dramatic Federal interference 
into local school activities.
  That may lead to a lot of good. Christmastime was better than 
nothing. To be treated like animals all year long, given the least in 
food, clothing, and shelter, was the lot of the slaves for 232 years. 
They had to live that way. But if 1 day a year the master decided at 
least to give some decent food and let them take the day off to eat 
well and to be free to have a little fun, then Christmas stood out.
  We do not want that kind of situation in the funding of American 
schools. I do not see why the D.C. schools have to be a plantation, run 
by a benevolent Speaker, to have a situation where he can reach in and 
play with the resources, using Federal money, and dictate the degree to 
which students go to private schools, can use the powerful office of 
the Speaker to attract private money.
  There is a whole lot of interference there, which may be good, but, 
in the final analysis, will take away the decisionmaking and will set 
precedents that will be poisonous throughout the whole of America in 
terms of local school control all over the Nation.
  So that is one of those contradictions. That is one of the kinds of 
things you have to sort out.
  There were people who came to the floor and said, ``Should I vote for 
that Christmas gift on the plantation approach to D.C. schools? Should 
I make sure that some handful of kids get some benefits? Or should I 
vote for the principles of not having Federal interference to play with 
the schools in the District of Columbia?''
  It was not an easy decision, because when the Speaker hands out a 
possible Christmas gift of $45 million, it is kind of a hard gift to 
turn down. It is hard to say to the children of the District of 
Columbia, you cannot have this gift, because, in the long run, it is 
going to poison the whole Federal relationship with local governments. 
This will be a precedent that will certainly lead downhill. Every 
powerful politician in the Congress, in Washington, will want at some 
time to play with the education budget in order to be able to have his 
own plantation and give out Christmas gifts as he sees fit.
  That is not the way to go. It is dangerous. Despite the fact is 
passed the House today, I hope that wisdom will prevail and we will 
never see the Christmas gift approach to Washington schools, turning 
them into a plantation, take place.
  That is a contradiction you ought to take a hard look at. Take a hard 
look at the details, American people, with all your common sense. I 
leave it up to you to evaluate that and see it for what it is worth.
  Let me give you another example of the kind of contradictions you 
have to live with. In the great White House negotiations on the budget, 
neither side is going to be truthful about the waste of more than $28 
billion by the Central Intelligence Agency. The budget of the CIA, an 
intelligence operation of the United States, is admittedly $28 billion 
or more. Nobody knows that secret figure. Who can tell it? The few 
people who know it are sworn not to tell it. So the $28 billion that 
goes into the CIA is supported by both parties.
  Along with some colleagues, I brought a bill to the floor which would 
cut the CIA budget by 10 percent over a 5-year period. Now, over a 5-
year period, if you got 10 percent of $28 billion, you would get $2.8 
billion per year over a 5-year period. That is not bad in terms of 
funds that could be transferred to education.
  You are cutting education specifically by $3.8 billion, almost $4 
billion. You are cutting job training programs. You are cutting the 
Summer Youth Employment Program. With a $2.8 billion cut from the CIA 
budget, and it still would have 90 percent of its budget, we only cut 
it by 10 percent a year, if you got that $2.8 billion from the CIA 
budget, you would have some way to give money back to some of these 
vitally needed programs that have been cut. It is as simple as that.
  But the CIA budget will not be touched. We brought the motion to the 
floor. We had the amendment on the floor to cut it by 10 percent. The 
first year, we got 57 votes. The last time we brought it up, we got 54 
votes. We are going in the opposite direction.
  Why do Democrats and Republicans all want to keep a CIA funded at the 
level of $28 billion when the cold war is over and half of the role of 
the CIA was to spy on the Soviet Union? And they missed out on that 
because they did not predict the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  Since we brought our bills to the floor, there have been some recent 
developments in the CIA that even more justify the fact that the CIA is 
a great waste of the taxpayers' money. I am not saying to cut it out 
completely, but you could streamline and downsize the CIA, probably by 
cutting the budget in half.
  Because it is obvious that half of the people there are nothing but 
fumblers and bunglers, old boys in the network, who have a good time. 
They use the safe houses for illicit sex. They run up expense accounts 
that nobody can really control. They come up with slush funds.
  Recently, it was announced they had a slush fund, a petty cash fund, 
that was more than $1.5 billion. Can you imagine a petty cash fund in 
an agency for more than $1.5 billion, and the head of the agency does 
not know about the petty cash fund? Nobody in authority. The Director 
of the CIA stated he did not know that there was a petty cash fund of 
$1.5 billion or more. They do not give figures exactly, but I know from 
good sources it was at least $1.5 billion.
  Nobody knew about it. The President did not know. We have got two 
intelligence committees, one in the House and one in the Senate. 
Whenever you talk about cutting the CIA budgets, they always have 
spokesmen from those committees come forward and talk about the great 
work the CIA is doing and they need every penny. Here is a slush fund 
out there nobody knew about.
  The CIA also built a building for $370-some million near the Dulles 
Airport. They had a building going up under construction, and the 
Federal Government did not know who was constructing it. The 
intelligence committees here in Congress did not know that the CIA was 
constructing that building.
  How can you construct a building which costs $370 million near the 
Dulles Airport, and it be invisible? I suppose that may be an example 
of how wonderful the CIA is, how masterful their work is. They can 
construct a building for $370 million and you not know it is there, 
that takes real skill. I do not know whether it is espionage skill or 
skill in manipulating, but it takes some kind of skill to have a 
building that costs $370 million constructed near the Dulles Airport, 
and it be invisible to the members of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence and the President and the people who should know about it.
  So what I am saying is that while this great budget cut is going 
forward, while we are trying to balance the budget, while we are saying 
that we want to bring the Federal Government under control, we want to 
streamline the Government, while we are saying that the Medicare 
Program must make sacrifices to the tune of $270 billion, while we are 
saying we have to take away the Medicaid entitlement and Medicaid has 
to make a sacrifice to the tune of $180 billion, while we are saying we 
can have no more Summer Youth Employment Program, while we are doing 
all these horrendous things to streamline the budget and balance the 
budget in 7 years, we are still willing to keep funding the CIA at the 
same level. We are still willing to keep tying up taxpayer money in an 
enterprise that has discredited itself.
  We will not even cut it 10 percent, let alone one-half. Of course, 
you all know the Aldrich Ames story. I conclude finally with the CIA 
and the Aldrich Ames story.
  The last time we had our amendment on the floor, an amendment which 
called for cutting the CIA by 10 percent, the Aldrich Ames story was 
out 

[[Page H 11745]]

there. We knew that Aldrich Ames, a key figure, a key person in the 
CIA, responsible for counterespionage or espionage with Eastern Europe 
and the Soviet Union, was a spy for the Soviet Union. That was a fact 
that had been let out there. The CIA probably would have wanted to keep 
it secret, but circumstances were such that it could not be kept 
secret. Ames used safe houses for elicit sex. He was a drunkard. I am 
sure his petty cash vouchers were never correct. Everything you can 
imagine, Aldrich Ames did it for years and years in the CIA. Yet they 
kept pushing him upstairs. They kept promoting Aldrich Ames.
  He got away with so much, he decided to go for broke, and he was on 
the Soviet Union's payroll for millions of dollars.
  Aldrich Ames is still arrogantly challenging the CIA. Aldrich Ames 
still has not told everything. But the Inspector General of the CIA has 
conducted an investigation, and the recent conclusion, it is not a 
secret, it is in the papers, the conclusion is that Aldrich Ames not 
only caused the death of more than 10 agents in the employ of the 
United States, not only caused the death of all those people, but he 
also had a system which was passing on false information up the ladder. 
Even when the supervisors in the CIA became suspicious of the 
information that they were getting, they passed it on anyhow, as high 
as the Secretary of Defense and the President. They let the information 
go through without saying there is a problem here, or there might be a 
problem here. The supervisors and the whole old-boy network within the 
CIA was contaminated to the point where they were knowingly passing on 
false information to all the Presidents in the past 10 years.
  That was going on while Aldrich Ames was in charge of spying on 
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. This is known. Yet we have in the 
budget an untouchable item. The negotiations at the White House will go 
forward and say yes, we can get rid of the Summer Youth Employment 
Program, 32,000 youngsters in New York City, all the big city across 
the country, where we have thousands of youngsters who get summer 
employment from the program. We can get rid of that, but must keep 
every dime in the CIA.
  These contradictions are what the American people need to know about, 
so you can keep your focus. You are right. You are on track when you 
say that the President should veto the Republican budget and when you 
say we should not cut Medicare and Medicaid so drastically; when you 
say we should spread the budget cuts out for a 10-year period and 
balance it over a 10-year period instead of 7 years. You are on target. 
American people, you are on target. Congratulations, democracy. Do not 
let anybody turn you around. Keep remembering the CIA and that kind of 
waste. Keep remembering the D.C. Christmas present, the D.C. plantation 
Christmas present that comes from the Speaker at a party that has cut 
education across the country by almost $4 billion.
  I have one more example, and then I will stop giving examples of 
contradictions that are running rampant. The final example I give you 
is an example taken from the Washington Post magazine. This magazine, 
October 29 of this year, the Washington Post. I give you the documented 
source. You can get a copy of this, there is no problem. Rush Limbaugh 
does not have to put his researchers to work to put this out. If Rush 
Limbaugh wants his researchers to check out the Washington Post, he has 
enough to do that, and he can do that. But this is a story of 
monumental waste that every taxpayer should be indignant about.

                              {time}  1615

  Monumental waste. And yet it took place in the defense budget. The 
defense budget is being increased, Mr. Speaker. Over a 7-year period 
the defense budget will go up.
  The defense budget will be increased at a time when there is no more 
evil empire in the Soviet Union, at a time when we can certainly close 
down most of our overseas bases, at a time when we do not need any more 
Seawolf submarines, do not need any more high cost nuclear aircraft 
carriers, at a time when star wars is ridiculous. We are going to 
continue funding some of those same items.
  So the contradiction, the greatest contradiction is in the insistence 
by the Republican controlled majority in the Congress that we continue 
to build up the defense budget. A sad portion of that contradiction is 
that the Democrats in Congress and the White House do not challenge 
that assumption. Democrats have not proposed, as a party, that we cut 
the defense budget.
  Oh, yes, the Congressional Black Caucus proposed deep cuts in 
wasteful defense expenditures, but Democrats will not touch it and 
Republicans want to increase it drastically. That contradiction the 
American people should bear in mind. They should keep their commonsense 
head on.
  Mr. Speaker, listen to this. According to the report in the 
Washington Post, October 29, 1995, the magazine section, the Pentagon 
spent $3 billion on a stealth bomber that was never built. Pentagon 
spent $3 billion on a stealth bomber that was never built. Now, $3 
billion would almost keep the education programs, 70 education 
programs. Education programs were cut drastically. Some were zeroed 
out. The overall cost was $3.8 billion in cuts, to be exact. $3.8 
billion.
  If we just got back $3 billion from the waste in the Pentagon on this 
stealth bomber, we would be way ahead of the game in terms of funding 
education programs that are vitally needed. So understand the 
relationship, the refusal of the White House, the refusal of the 
Republican controlled Congress to talk about the waste in defense, 
which generates suffering and pain in the rest of the budget and it 
prevents us from investing in vitally needed programs like education 
and job training.
  Mr. Speaker, we vitally need education programs and we vitally need 
job training programs. We cannot do that if we continue to waste money 
like this. We spent $3 billion to build a stealth bomber and it was 
never built. Here is the additional information that the American 
people need to know. We may have to spend $2 billion more in order to 
get it finally canceled. Listen. We have already spent $3 billion on a 
stealth bomber that was never built, never flew, but we may have to 
spend $2 billion more because the companies that were supposed to build 
this bomber are now suing the Government and stating that the taxpayers 
owe them another $2 billion.
  This is going on right here in Washington, DC at a time when Medicare 
is being cut drastically, at a time when Medicaid is being cut, at a 
time when education is being cut by almost $4 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, listen to this. I read from the Washington Post 
magazine:

       It looks like something out of a sci-fi movie. A flying 
     triangle, 37 feet long and 70 feet wide. A plane that does 
     not have wings but it is one big wing. It is sitting in a 
     huge hangar in a defense plant in Fort Worth propped up on a 
     makeshift trailer. Bill Plumley, the man who saved it from 
     the scrap heap, stands on his tiptoes, reaches up to the 
     plane's lightweight underbelly, he sticks his right had 
     into its innards, he taps on the landing gear and he says, 
     `It is all plastic', he says with a smile. That makes 
     sense. After all, this is a model. This is a model plane. 
     It is a full-sized mock-up constructed to test whether all 
     the parts would fit together. But now it is all that 
     remains of the United States Navy's A-12 Avenger''.

  This is what the stealth bomber was called, the A-12 Avenger.

       A plane that has never flown and never will. It is a 
     procurement fiasco that has already cost the American 
     taxpayers more than $3 billion and is quite likely to cost 
     them $2 billion more.
       The A-12 was killed in 1991, smothered in its cradle by 
     Dick Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense. Cheney was 
     angry that the plane was at least a billion dollars over 
     budget and a year behind schedule.

  He was angry because those were the facts, but he was also angry 
because the Navy and its contractors had concealed from him until after 
he testified to Congress the fact--they told him the A-12 project was 
proceeding just fine. In other words, the Secretary of Defense came to 
Congress and testified the A-12 is on schedule and it is not exceeding 
its cost, and shortly after that he discovered that not only was it not 
on schedule, it was a year behind schedule and it was at least a 
billion dollars over the projected cost.
  Inevitably, because this is America, the A-12 has spawned a lawsuit. 
The Secretary of Defense killed it. He said, 

[[Page H 11746]]

no, we will not go further. I will not waste any more of the taxpayers' 
money. This project is over. We have spent $3 billion, the plane is not 
here, it does not fly, it is continually mounting in overrun costs, it 
is canceled. But he found he could not do that. The company sued.
  It is a gargantuan and seemingly endless case, described in various 
newspaper accounts as the largest claim ever filed against the Federal 
Government and the most expensive lawsuit ever. In other words, the 
American taxpayers have paid out already $3 billion and now these suits 
will cost them another $2 billion, these lawsuits that the companies 
are bringing.
  At issue is a huge sum of money. The Navy wants the contractors to 
return $1.35 billion of the money that they have already received for 
the plane that they never built. All this has happened and no one has 
gone to jail yet. Only in America could this happen and no one ever go 
to jail. Even in Europe the head of NATO was recently told he is under 
investigation and probably will be indicted for some crooked things he 
did in terms of procurement of weapons. But in America nobody has been 
indicted; nobody is being investigated for wasting $1.35 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, the contractors now have the nerve to say not only did 
they not build the plane and wasted the taxpayers' money, but they want 
the taxpayers to pay $1.6 billion more. Nobody expects this case to end 
any time soon, and one attorney for the contractors said it could drag 
on until the year 2007. The government could lose this case merely 
because the Secretary of Defense eagerly took responsibility and said I 
will not let this swindle of the American taxpayers go on any longer. 
He took action quickly and hastily, and they say he had no authority to 
take that action. Somebody else was supposed to make that decision. And 
that is the basis of a court suit that will rob the American people 
probably of another $2 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers have spend $3 billion on a plane that 
cannot fly. Three billion dollars. Three billion dollars is the cost of 
all the cuts in education except a few. We could take that $3 billion 
and restore most of the cuts in education programs.
  $1.1 billion has been cut from title I programs. Title I programs go 
all across the country to schools where poor children exist. Three 
hundred million dollars has been cut from Head Start programs all 
across the country. The only time Head Start has been cut since its 
existence. President Nixon funded Head Start with an increase, 
President Bush increased Head Start, President Reagan increased Head 
Start and President Carter increased Head Start. We have never cut Head 
Start since it came into existence.
  Now we have cut Head Start, but we will continue to pour money down 
the drain on this weapon system we have already decided to cancel. And 
in this reconciliation package, which is summarized here, the one place 
where there are increases in the budget is in the defense budget. Great 
increases take place here in defense.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are on target. Remember what I said 
in the beginning. The American people said the President should veto 
this budget. He should veto the budget that contains these 
increases. He should veto this budget that contains all these increases 
for defense while cutting education, while cutting Medicare, while 
cutting Medicaid. Sixty-one percent of the American people said veto 
the budget. Seventy-three percent of the American people say we prefer 
smaller Medicare and education cuts, and we prefer smaller Medicare and 
education cuts, and we prefer a balanced budget over a 10-year period. 
Common sense is on target.

  The contradictions are what we have to watch in order for the 
American people to maintain their common sense and in order for the 
American people to understand they are right and people are wrong here 
in Washington; that the Republican-controlled Congress is wrong. The 
Republican-controlled Congress is dangerously wrong. The American 
people are right and the Republicans are wrong. The American people 
should keep their heads on. They should not let all these 
contradictions I just talked about confuse them.
  Mr. Speaker, another thing the American people have to worry about, 
and the reason why they are right and the Republicans are wrong here, 
is because the Republicans refuse to acknowledge basic facts like the 
ones exhibited by this chart. They refuse to acknowledge the horrible 
truth about taxes in America.
  The horrible truth about taxes in America is that families and 
individuals have been grossly swindled. And I cannot say this too 
often, because nobody else in Washington is willing to say it. Here is 
the answer. Yes, we need a tax cut. The American people need a tax cut. 
Families below $50,000 deserve a tax cut. They should have a tax cut. I 
think the President's proposal for a tax cut is on target. The 
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Gephardt's proposals for a tax cut is on 
target. When we combine the two, we can get a sensible tax cut that 
takes care of trying to correct a wrong that has been done to the 
American people.
  The red line here is corporate America's share of the tax burden. The 
blue line here is the share of the tax burden borne by individuals and 
families. In 1943, the first year for these two charts, individuals and 
families were paying only 27.1 percent of the total tax burden.
  If Rush Limbaugh and his various researchers want to check these 
figures out, these figures come from the U.S. Office of Management and 
Budget. They can go to the Congressional Budget Office. These are not 
the kind of figures that there is any controversy about. These figures 
are all hard figures.
  In 1943 27.1 percent of the tax burden was borne by the families and 
individuals, while 39.8 percent, almost 40 percent of the tax burden 
was borne by corporations. Corporations, where they are making the 
greatest amount of money now. Individuals are making less money. Wages 
have gone down but corporations are making more. At that time they were 
bearing more of the burden.
  We had a great change take place in 1983 when Ronald Reagan first 
proposed his trickle-down theories. It was not just Ronald Reagan by 
himself. He had to have some cooperation by the Democratically-
controlled Committee on Ways and Means. So the burden for this one is 
borne by all of the Washington decisionmakers.
  It shot up from 27.1 percent in 1943 to 48.1 percent of the tax 
burden being borne by individuals and families in 1983, 40 years later. 
48.1 percent of the tax burden while corporations dropped all the way 
from 39.8 percent of the tax burden to 6.2 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people should listen and let their common 
sense go to work. They should let their common sense look at these 
figures. There is no common sense in Washington. Somehow it all gets 
clouded. There are a lot of factors that go into motion here which make 
it impossible for Democrats to see this chart and makes it impossible 
for the Republicans to see this chart. There are obvious answers that 
jump out at us from this chart.

                              {time}  1630

  Are things better now in 1995 than they were in 1983? Yes, they are 
slightly better. Individuals and families are paying 43.7 percent of 
the tax burden, instead of 48.1 percent of the tax burden. So 
individuals are paying a little less than they were before.
  Corporations are paying 11.2 percent of the tax burden instead of 6.2 
percent, which was the low point they achieved under Ronald Reagan's 
trickle-down theory. There has been an adjustment. It is a little bit 
better. But look at the discrepancy here. We still have 48.7 percent of 
the tax burden being borne by families and individuals, while 11.2 
percent is borne by corporations.
  Do Members want to balance the budget? Do Members want to lower the 
deficit. Do Members want to give a tax cut all at the same time? We do 
not need to use magic. Magic is not necessary. Cut the defense budget 
that is wasteful that I was talking about before and we get rid of the 
corporation loopholes.
  Mr. Speaker, no Democrat wants to be caught raising taxes. No 
Republican wants to raise taxes. We can raise this figure here, the 
share of the revenue that is contributed by corporations can be raised 
without increases taxes. What we do is close the tax loopholes.

[[Page H 11747]]

  Close the tax loopholes which allow foreign corporations, American 
corporations with foreign operations, to pay less taxes than 
corporations in this country totally. Corporations who have all their 
operations in this country and give all their jobs and business to 
American workers and pour it into the American economy, they do not get 
the same benefits as corporations who have foreign operations.
  Mr. Speaker, if we just eliminated that loophole, we would raise this 
figure a little bit. If we eliminated the subsidies that go to 
corporations for advertising products in foreign markets, we would 
raise it a little bit more.
  In our Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget we eliminated 
enough loopholes to raise the revenues of the corporations up to 16 
percent. If we raise it up to 16 percent and we cut the defense budget, 
the waste in the defense budget, we can end up with a balanced budget 
and we do not cut Medicare and Medicaid 1 cent.
  We could end up with a balanced budget and not cut education. Instead 
of cutting education, education was one area where we increased the 
budget by 25 percent. In the Congressional Black Caucus alternative 
budget, education was increased by 25 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, education is an investment that America needs to make. 
It is an investment that the Federal Government needs to make, and we 
gave it the highest priority. We can do that and still balance the 
budget and eliminate the deficit and give a tax cut, but we have to 
deal with the corporate tax loopholes. We have deal with the swindle, 
the great swindle down from 39.8 percent to 11.2 percent.
  We do not have to be geniuses. Any sophomore in high school could do 
the figures and see, calculate the percentages and see what this figure 
is. It got as low as 6.2 percent. The scandal was so great, until there 
was an agreement that we had to do something about this figure. 
Corporations were paying in 1983 as little as 6.2 percent of the total 
tax burden, and individuals were all the way up to 48.1 percent.
  What am I talking about? I am saying that there are facts and 
circumstances which the negotiators at the table who are going to 
decide on the budget that is going to set the course for America for a 
long time to come will not even acknowledge. They will not acknowledge 
this chart provides the key to balancing the budget, ending the 
deficit, and giving a tax cut. They will not acknowledge that a great 
swindle took place.

  So, Mr. Speaker, I present it to you. The American people have common 
sense who show in the polls that they know what is happening. I say to 
the American people, ``You be the judge. You be the judge of what ought 
to be happening here in Washington.'' This is a truth that must be 
acknowledged.
  Another truth that must be acknowledged is the fact of the income 
gap. Those people who are lucky enough to have a job, the only way that 
they can get more income is if we lower the taxes. They deserve a tax 
cut. Families and individuals making $50,000 or less must get a tax 
cut. I am in agreement with the President and the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] on the kind of tax cut that we ought to have.
  Mr. Speaker, we lower this figure so that the income of these people 
would be increased. That is justice, to bring down the tax here. It 
would be justice if we brought them up here, so that we do not increase 
the deficit at the same time.
  The minimum wage would not cost the American people anything. 
Taxpayers do not pay a penny in terms of minimum wage increases. It 
means that we pay a decent wage to people in corporations and private 
businesses. The government sector also would have to pay additional 
money, although there are almost no government jobs still that are 
paying minimum wage. They are already above the minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage is low, $4.25 an hour. The President 
and the Democrats in Congress have proposed to increase this $4.25 an 
hour by 90 cents over a 2-year period; 45 cents 1 year and 45 cents 
another year. That is the least we can do to deal with a situation 
which has steadily grown worse.
  As the minimum wage has stagnated and stood still, the earning power 
of these families has gone down. So, we have a situation now where what 
workers make at the minimum wage pays for far less than it used to.
  The minimum wage as a percent of the average nonsupervisory wage has 
dropped from 52 percent in 1960, to a current low of 37.7 percent. In 
other words, people in supervisory positions, executive positions, as a 
percent of wages, minimum wage earners are making 37.7 percent where 
they used to make about half as much as what the bosses made. The gap 
in the income is great and it must be attended to.
  This is the 57th anniversary for the minimum wage. It was started 
October 24, 1938. American workers were guaranteed 25 cents an hour 
wage to protect them from exploitation and to be sure that their work 
was fairly compensated. We need to increase the minimum wage. Nobody 
wants to deal with the truth of the income gap and increase minimum 
wage.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to deal with the truth or the fact that as 
they move all of these programs, like Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children, like the school lunch program, like portions of Medicare, 
programs are being pushed down, education programs, to the State and 
local level. They are saying that the State and local level can handle 
them better and they are saying that Washington is wasteful. But in 
America, many States would not have these programs at all if they had 
to pay for them alone.
  Franklin Roosevelt knew what he was doing. He was not naive. Lyndon 
Johnson knew what he was doing. He was not naive. They understood when 
they created the New Deal programs that we had a situation where the 
wealth of the East and Northeast would be translated and go to the 
poorer States.
  Mr. Speaker, let me wind up by saying my message is that Americans 
are on track. Their common sense, the way they read the situation in 
Washington, is the one that is correct.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to Americans, ``Do not allow anybody to confuse 
you. Maintain your common sense. America needs your common sense in 
order to get through this budget crisis.''

                          ____________________