[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 179 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12170-H12171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 RHETORICAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I got a call from a good friend of mine 
tonight. His question was, what is this big difference of opinion 
between the White House and the Congress? What is it all about, and 
what can we do about it in the short time that remains?
  As we discussed it, it occurred to me that maybe the differences are 
not as wide as we think they are, at least in rhetoric, and maybe they 
are wider than we would like them to be perhaps in substance.
  In rhetoric, the President of the United States in 1993 appeared on 
``Larry King Live'' and promised a 5-year plan to balance the budget, 
not a 10-year plan like he came out with in 1995. A 5-year plan. This 
year, just recently he said, ``Well, maybe I could go along with a 7-
year plan. Maybe I could, if I liked the way it was done.'' But in 1993 
he promised a 5-year plan. You would think we could come together 
tonight.
  Also in 1993, the President spoke out very forcefully and I think 
very courageously on the question of Medicare and Medicaid. His words 
then were that we cannot let these two programs grow at three times the 
rate of inflation without them going bankrupt or bankrupting our 
future. He called for a reduction in growth.
  In fact, in his 10-year budget plan this year he called or a $192 
billion reduction in the growth of Medicare. That is on the same 
baseline we use here in Congress. He called for a $120 billion 
reduction in the growth in Medicaid according to our congressional 
baseline. That is some pretty severe reductions in growth.
  Our Democratic leadership would call that cuts. The President said, 
``Don't call that a cut.'' He said, ``I'm talking about reducing the 
growth of the spending out of these programs, the excessive amount they 
spend, because they are driving the programs and our future into 
bankruptcy.'' At least the President said that.
  You would think perhaps we are closer than we think tonight, because 
if we are talking about reducing the growth in Medicare and Medicaid, 
the President himself has conceded that that has to get done and he has 
recommended some pretty healthy reductions in the growth in Medicare 
and Medicaid.
  Finally, the President in 1992 when he ran for election, when he 
asked us all to vote for him, promised a middle-class tax cut. He did 
not give us one. What he did last year was to raise taxes.
  Just recently he appeared before a group of supporters and said, ``I 
know you think I raised your taxes too much, and guess what, I think I 
did, too.'' You would think the President would be supporting a 
balanced budget plan that included some tax relief for Americans.
  You could think we would be a lot closer than we are tonight. In 
fact, we are not. The reason we are not closer than we think tonight is 
that those who want a clean CR, those who want no changes in the way 
this Government operates and spends money, those who want us to send 
the President a clean CR, a clean extension of the debt, simply want to 
keep on going like we are going. That is wrong.
  The President knows that is wrong, you know that is wrong, I know 
that is wrong. The President has said he believes we ought to balance 
this budget in at least 5 years, or 7, or 10. He believes that Ameicans 
deserve a tax cut, he taxed them too much last year, and he believes we 
need to reduce the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending.

  One would think we could come to terms tonight. What holds us apart? 
One, we have a majority in this House 

[[Page H 12171]]
but not a two-thirds majority. We have got a majority in the Senate but 
not 60 votes to override a filibuster attempt, nor a two-thirds 
majority to override a veto. So the President can use his veto pen to 
stop changes here in Congress that he opposes.
  What kind of changes? Changes like changes in the regulations of this 
country. When you hear this talk tonight about, well, we are going to 
have dirty water and dirty air and dirty food as a result of what we 
are proposing, remember, this House voted for changes in the way 
regulations are made in those areas, to require a simple cost-benefit 
analysis. That is all that is in the CR, just the regulatory reform 
this House voted upon.
  You would think that there was something awful about the Congress 
trying to reform the Medicare Program, but the President himself said 
it has to get done. His trustees said if you do not do it in 7 years, 
your parents and my parents will not have a Medicare Program to depend 
upon because it is going bankrupt.
  You would think that there would be an interest in this House, in 
this Chamber and the other Chamber, to come to some kind of conclusion 
on a good Medicare reform. We have tried to deliver one, and this House 
passed one, but we do not have two-thirds to get it through. We do not 
have 60 votes to get it past a filibuster in the Senate, and so the red 
pen is being waved tonight.
  There is a big difference in substance, not much difference in 
rhetoric but a big difference in substance. Hopefully in the next few 
days those differences can be resolved and we can get about the 
business of reforming this country and bringing a balanced budget for 
our future and our children.

                          ____________________