[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 186 (Monday, November 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13642-H13649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          BALANCING THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly great to be here today 
talking about what has been going on in this House in a truly historic 
time. This is the first time in a generation that the executive branch 
and the legislative branch have come together and decided that we were 
going to do what Americans have had to do for over 200 years, and, that 
is, balance our checkbook, to only spend as much money as we take in, 
and to stop stealing from our children and our grandchildren and future 
generations.

[[Page H 13643]]

  I think a lot of people have heard the numbers before. They have 
heard that this is a country that is now $5 trillion in debt. We are a 
Government that spends $4 for every $3 that we take in, we are a 
Government that continues to steal from future generations and our 
children and grandchildren.
  I have got a 7-year-old boy and a 4-year-old boy. Right now the debt 
that they are holding on their head is $20,000. In fact, every man, 
woman, and child right now is $20,000 in debt if we divide that $5 
trillion by the number of people that are in this country.
  If you want to drive it home and figure out how much my 7-year-old 
boy Joey and my 4-year-old boy Andrew will be owing in taxes over the 
course of their lifetime if we continue down the same failed path that 
we continued down when the Democrats were in control for 40 years and 
if we followed the President's plan, my children and your children, 
your grandchildren would owe $187,000 simply in interest on the Federal 
debt. That is money that they would be paying over the course of their 
lifetime, as their taxes continue to escalate.
  We cannot say it enough, that today and this past week and over this 
past year we have drawn a line in the sand. We have ignored the polls. 
We have ignored the pundits. We have ignored everybody that said, ``You 
can't do it. You can't balance the budget. Washington will not let you, 
the bureaucrats will not let you, the President will not let you.''
  In fact, it was 1 year ago that the President, the man who is on the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and who has been telling the American 
people for the last 2 weeks that he has always been for a balanced 
budget, it was that same President who 1 year ago introduced his 
budget, 1994 style, to the American people.
  He introduced that budget that continued to allow deficits to 
skyrocket continually into the future. Ninety-nine Senators voted on 
that budget 1 year ago and all 99 Senators voted ``no'' on the 
President's plan.
  I guess they are pretty smart over there in the other body. They 
followed the President once. The Democrats followed the President in 
this Chamber and in the Chamber over there when in 1993 the President 
introduced his blueprint of what he wanted America to look like.
  Do you remember what that blueprint said? It said that President 
Clinton wanted to raise taxes, he wanted to raise spending, and he 
wanted to continue to let the deficit soar.
  The fact of the matter is his 1993 plan raised taxes more than any 
other President in the history of this country. He claimed it was the 
largest deficit reduction plan of all time. The fact of the matter is 
that if you look at it through the life of it, deficits soared at the 
end, because he put off all the cuts until the very end.
  Now he says, ``Well, we've brought the deficit down some in the past 
few years.''
  Well, sure, if we wanted to tax Americans and continue to tax 
Americans and continue to tax Americans and continue to tax Americans, 
we could bring the deficit down, too. Of course we would continue down 
the same failed path that we have continued down before and would 
continue to punish people for being productive, would continue to take 
their savings away from them, would continue to tax seniors.
  This is a thing that has amazed me the most about the debate, that 
the President and Members from the liberal side could look with a 
straight face at the American people and say, ``We want to protect 
senior citizens.'' Because the fact of the matter is that when they had 
their budget in 1993, when they had their chance to make a difference, 
what did they do? The first thing they did was they raised taxes on 
senior citizens. How much? Well, they made senior citizens pay taxes on 
85 percent of their Social Security benefits. But that was not enough. 
Nosiree, Bob. They decided that if you are a senior citizen and you 
actually want to be productive with your life after you start drawing 
Social Security benefits, well, productivity is something that liberals 
cannot put up with, so we are going to have to tax you.
  They lowered the earnings limit from $34,000 to $11,000, basically 
told senior citizens if you work, we are going to punish you.
  So let us fast forward. That is 1993. If they wanted to raise taxes 
on seniors, I guess that was their business. They paid for it. Not a 
single Republican in 1993 voted for the largest tax increase in the 
history of the world, Bill Clinton's tax increase, and the Democrats' 
tax increase, not one Republican voted for it and we saw what happened 
last year. The Republicans said,

       Elect us and we're going to lower your taxes and we're 
     going to balance the budget, we're going to save future 
     generations from the debt that is now crushing us.

  We did that. We got rewarded for it. There was an unprecedented 
landslide. I refuse to believe, despite what the President says, 
despite what the Democrats say, I refuse to believe that Americans now 
are against a balanced budget, or that Americans now believe, 1 year 
later, that they are not being taxed enough, or that 1 year later 
Americans believe that they are not being regulated enough.
  But if you get past the rhetoric and you look at what the President 
has done and what liberal Democrats in this Chamber have done, they 
have continued to espouse higher taxes, more regulations, and a 
balanced budget is nowhere in sight. I know it has got to be confusing 
to some who do not live in Washington and are lucky enough to live 
outside the Beltway, but the fact of the matter is that the President 
has changed his mind so much on the balanced budget that it is hard to 
keep track.
  Back in 1992, he promised he would balance the budget in 5 years. By 
my count, he has another year or two. Well, that changed very, very 
quickly. We all remember the horror that Americans watched as they 
watched the President tell us that, yes, he had promised a balanced 
budget plan, and, yes, he had promised a middle-class tax cut. In fact, 
we remember him in New Hampshire holding up the plan when people 
ridiculed him. He said, ``You laugh at me but I've got the plan right 
here.''
  But then we watched when Governor Clinton got elected and became 
President Clinton. What was the first thing he did? He got on the 
airwaves and said,

       Well, I know what I said in the campaign, I know, I know, 
     but, listen, we've been looking at the numbers and we're 
     not going to be able to give you the middle-class tax cut.

  It gets worse. ``We're going to have to raise your taxes.'' It gets 
worse. ``We're going to have to pass the largest tax increase in the 
history of this country.''
  Well, obviously Americans were upset. He paid for it in the polls, he 
paid for it by reneging on his promise to balance the budget in 5 years 
and in the off-year election, the Republicans and conservatives were 
swept into power across this country.
  How did the President respond?

                              {time}  2015

  He was in the denial stage, and he denied that Americans really 
wanted a balanced budget, that it was not a priority.
  He introduced a budget plan that did not balance the budget. Then he 
moved forward and later on he came in an he said, ``Well, maybe we can 
balance the budget. Maybe we can balance it in 10 years.'' In fact, he 
went up to New Hampshire, which was coincidentally the site of the 
first primary, and somebody told him that he needed to support a 
balanced budget. So he said, ``I support a balanced budget.''
  Then he came back to Washington. His advisers got a hold of him. We 
said, ``No; no, no; maybe I do not support a balanced budget.'' Then he 
went back up to New Hampshire. They said, ``Mr. President, do you 
support a balanced?'' He said, ``Yes, we can balance the budget.'' Then 
he came back down to DC, changed his mind. ``No, we can't.''
  Finally he put out a plan that he says will balance the budget in 10 
years. Unfortunately, it was about $200 billion short. We run deficits 
of $200 billion well into the future. The plan did not balance the 
budget.
  House Democrats were enraged, enraged that the President of the 
United States would actually dare to put forward a plan to balance the 
budget. The ranking member of Appropriations got on the floor, and like 
many others, was very up upset. What did he say? He said, ``We are 
upset about the fact that 

[[Page H 13644]]
the President proposed to balance the budget.'' But what we found is if 
you do not like the President's position on any issue, just be patient, 
wait a couple weeks, it is sure to change, and sure enough, 2 weeks 
later it changed again, and he went from 10 years, saying we can do it 
in 7 years. Then he went to 9 years and 8 years and it was sort of hard 
to nail down the President exactly on what number he thought.
  Finally, the House Republicans said we demand a balanced budget in 7 
years using true numbers, that too much is at stake, and we did that.
  Now they are starting to try to weasel out of it again and are now 
saying, ``Well, I know we have said that we will commit to 7 years, but 
it is 7, maybe 8 years.''
  Well, we are sending a message to the Democrats, to the President on 
the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue and to all Americans, the 
freshman class of the 104th Congress will not compromise. We will 
balance the budget in 7 years using true figures or we will not go 
along with any plan. It is that simple. It is that simple.

  Why do we need to do it? We need to do it to ensure future 
generations have unprecedented economic growth. We need to do it to 
stop driving up the deficits, and we need to do it to save, protect, 
and preserve Medicare.
  I have got to tell you I am new to Washington. I have never been 
elected to office before this year. I have got to tell you one of the 
most shocking things to me has been the demagoguery that has flown 
around on this issue of Medicare. The President came out himself in 
April of this year saying that Medicare was going bankrupt. The 
trustees reported that. Three members of his own Cabinet are on the 
Medicare trustees. They said Medicare is going bankrupt. If you do not 
do something about it, you are going to pay because the system is going 
to go bankrupt in the year 2002.
  Well, we sent a CR to the President that reflected our plan to save, 
protect, and preserve Medicare, and the President got on the TV and 
said he could not sign that CR, that he was going to veto it and, he 
was going to send all the Federal employees out, that he could not have 
Medicare destroyed like this, it was unbelievable, these mean-spirited 
Republicans, and the press bought into it. And judging by some of the 
polls, a lot of Americans bought into it.
  But here is the catch: Our plan was almost identical to the very same 
plan that President Clinton had been supporting for some time. I mean, 
can you believe that; look at the news footage of him this past week 
and last week. You would think that this man had a plan that was 
radically different from the Republican plan and that the Republicans 
were mean-spirited and that only Bill Clinton could protect and 
preserve Medicare and he had to save the senior citizens from the mean-
spirited Republicans.
  But the unpleasant fact, in fact, they are difficult things to get 
around, but the facts show our Medicare plan is almost identical to the 
President's Medicare plan.
  Let me tell you something, there is a Washington Post editorial that 
was written last week on this issue, and the editorial reads at the 
top, ``The real default.'' Now, the Washington Post has never been an 
ally of the conservative movement or the Republican Party. But let me 
tell you something, this, I believe, is probably the most important 
editorial that has been written by any publication in the past 5 years, 
because it was after this editorial was written that the White House 
was finally shamed into backing off from their unabashed demagoguery.
  Let me read a little bit to you:

       Bill Clinton and the congressional Democrats were handed an 
     unusual chance this year to deal constructively with the 
     effect of Medicare on the deficit, and they blew it. The 
     chance came in the form of the congressional Republican plan 
     to balance the budget over seven years. Some other aspects of 
     that plan deserved to be resisted, but the Republican 
     proposal to get at the deficit partly by confronting the cost 
     of Medicare deserved support. The Democrats, led by the 
     president, chose instead to present themselves as Medicare's 
     great protectors. They have shamelessly used the issue, 
     demagogued on it, because they think that's where the votes 
     are and the way to derail the Republican proposals generally. 
     The president was still doing it this week; a Republican 
     proposal to increase Medicare premiums was one of the reasons 
     he alleged for the veto that has shut down the government--
     and never mind that he himself, in his own budget, would 
     countenance a similar increase.

  This is still the Washington Post talking:

       We've said some of this before; it gets more serious. If 
     the Democrats play the Medicare card and win, they will have 
     set back for years, for the worst of political reasons, the 
     very cause of rational government in behalf of which they 
     profess to be behaving. Politically, they will have helped to 
     lock in place the enormous financial pressure that they 
     themselves are first to deplore on so many other federal 
     programs, not least the programs for the poor.

  You see, getting Medicare increases under control is not about 
protecting the rich. The Post has come out before saying the Medicare 
cuts have no correlation to the tax cuts, that we are saving Medicare, 
and in saving Medicare we are saving the system. We are making it 
solvent. It is about helping all Americans, helping get this debt out 
of the way and the deficit out of the way.
  But some people still want to default on leadership, and in the 
Washington Post article yesterday, written by Matthew Miller, the Post 
wrote:

       Though many of the President's advisers think that the 
     G.O.P.'s premium proposal is sensible and differs very little 
     from his own plan, the President fired sound bites from the 
     oval office daily, taking the low road in ways that only 
     Washington pundits could recast as standing tall.

  As the polls show, it worked. The fact of the matter is it worked in 
the short run.
  Many, when asked in this body, many had been asked when is this 
shutdown going to end, and many were cynical and said, well, it ends 
when the President's poll numbers start going down. It is not a 
coincidence that it was late Friday night that the President's approval 
ratings in this crisis had gone down six points, the next morning Leon 
Panetta marched on Capitol Hill and actually sat down and started 
negotiating seriously.
  I have got to tell you I have been deeply dismayed by this whole 
process, deeply dismayed not only by the administration's comments but 
by what Leon Panetta said. He, of course, said Republicans were 
terrorists. He said we were holding a gun to the President's head, 
because we simply insisted that he balance the budget in 7 years.

  The fact of the matter is Leon Panetta, time after time after time 
after time, attached things to the continuing resolutions in the 1980's 
when he was dealing with a Republican administration. He was not called 
on it. But that is fine. Then we hear him talking CBO numbers and 
saying that we should have OMB numbers.
  Well, it was President Clinton himself who, in 1993, stood right here 
in this Chamber and told the American people the CBO estimates were the 
most accurate estimates and we must adhere to CBO estimates so the 
American people do not think we are playing games.
  Well, we listened to the President. We want to adhere to CBO 
estimates because they are the most conservative, but as conservative 
as those CBO estimates are, one important fact remains. When the 
President, in 1993, stood in this Chamber and said we needed to go by 
CBO estimates because they were the most conservative estimates, those 
estimates in 1993 had been overly optimistic for 13 years in a row, 
which meant the deficit continued to shoot up for 13 years in a row.
  We have got to be conservative with our children's and our 
grandchildren's money. We have got to stop stealing from future 
generations. We have got to balance the checkbook and stop worrying 
about short-term political gains. My children's futures depend on it. 
All of America's children's future depends on it. We have to draw a 
line in the sand. That is what we have done, and that is why the 
President finally sat down and adhered to absolutely every demand that 
we asked and do it here, too.
  I would like to turn now and have a good friend of mine, the 
gentleman from the State of Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] discuss the 
issue.
  Were you not surprised at the turn we saw of the President this past 
week, how he was at 10 years, we were at 7 years, he wanted OMB 
numbers, we wanted CBO numbers; he came and compromised. Sure, he 
compromised with the freshman class. He wanted to balance the budget in 
5 years. Now he has come in an said he will balance the 

[[Page H 13645]]
budget in 7 years using CBO numbers, despite what the administration 
has been saying today. That is what they are committing to. Is that 
your understanding?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to talk a 
little bit about this, as both being Members of this freshman class, we 
have been called extremists, heretics, all kinds of names like that. I 
do think the American people sent a very clear message a year ago. I 
think they expect us to fulfill the promises we made.
  As you know, if I could, Mr. Speaker, and the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Scarborough], I would like to read a letter that the gentleman 
helped me draft, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough], and 
signed by virtually every Member of our freshman class, that we sent 
down to the White House last week. I think it sort of frames the issue 
from our perspective and how much impact this ultimately had on the 
President's decision over the weekend to get serious about negotiating. 
We do not know. But, hopefully, it had some impact.
  If I could, I would like to read at least some excerpts from it.

       Dear Mr. President: Some are holding us Freshmen Members of 
     the Republican House Caucus responsible for the actions of 
     the last several days. Permit us to share our perspective on 
     this important issue.
       It is unfortunate that 800,000 non-essential federal 
     employees were furloughed. But we believe very strongly that 
     it would be a tragedy of historic proportions if we were to 
     back down now on our commitment to balance the federal budget 
     in seven years. Twelve months ago, the voters of this nation 
     sent a powerful message that we needed to change the way 
     Washington does business. They wanted to put the federal 
     government on a diet, and they wanted us to balance their 
     budget.
       There is a misguided belief that the current debate 
     surrounding the balanced budget issue is about politics. 
     Balancing the federal budget, Mr. President, is about 
     principle. This is not about the re-election of the Freshmen 
     Class, it's about preserving the future of our country. In 
     fact, we believe it goes deeper than that. What is at stake 
     here is preserving the basic concept of self-government. If 
     we cannot balance our budget when we are the sole surviving 
     super-power, when we're at peace in the world, when we have a 
     relatively strong economy with low unemployment, then when 
     will we?
       We want to resolve this. The American people want us to 
     work together. We have been granted an historic opportunity. 
     Our children would not hold us harmless if we squandered it. 
     This is a moment of truth. This is when ``We The People'' 
     show whether we have the courage and moral character to stop 
     stealing from our children and grandchildren. Future 
     generations are counting on us to show some leadership and 
     courage. Let us agree on the destination. We can then have a 
     healthy debate about the road map.

  It was signed by virtually every member of our freshman class.

                              {time}  2030

  We sent that down to the White House Friday because we wanted to send 
a message that this is not about politics, it is about principle, and 
it is about the future of this country and whether or not we have the 
moral courage and character to do what we all know is right. The 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] said it. Most of us thought we 
ought to balance the budget in 5 years or less, and we believed it 
could be done if we were willing to make some really rough choices. In 
fact, some might argue that our budget we are proposing today is 
actually too generous.
  But I would also like to read this, because there has been some 
distortion already today, and, in fact, it started as early as last 
night, and I was somewhat disappointed in the news conferences at some 
of the comments made by Mr. Panetta and the President and others about 
what they duly agreed to. At some point the American people, and, if 
you would like an extra copy, they can call my office in Washington, 
drop me a note in care of the Cannon Office Building, I will send them 
out a copy of exactly what the President and the leaders of the 
congressional delegation agreed. Too, if I could, I would just like to 
read this. It is just a paragraph and a half long.
  It says:

       The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in 
     the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced 
     budget not later than fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office and the President, and the 
     President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget 
     must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, 
     reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, 
     education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the 
     environment. Further, the balanced budget shall adopt tax 
     policies to stimulate future economic growth and to help 
     working families.

  Now, that is essentially, in fact, that is word for word, what was 
agreed to between the House, the Senate, and the President. It says no 
later than 2002. That means in not more than 7 years.
  But no sooner had the ink dried on the paper that it was agreed to 
on, than already the White House was saying ``Well, we did not quite 
really mean 7 years.'' I think that is what is frustrating to the 
Members of the Congress, I think it is what is frustrating to members 
of the public.
  I think the interesting point, there is a story told about Yogi 
Berra. He has become one of my favorite philosophers. One night Yogi 
went out by himself to have pizza. He ordered a small pizza. The 
waitress said, ``Do you want that cut into 8 slices or 6?'' Yogi said, 
``Well, I'm not that hungry tonight; just cut it in 6. I do not think I 
can eat 8 pieces.''

  That is sort of what the argument is we have been having about the 
budget lately, because we have not agreed to how big the pizza is going 
to be. Now we can have the debate, about how much is going to go to the 
environment, how much is going to go to national defense, how much is 
going to go to transportation, how much we will spend on welfare, how 
much we will spend on Medicaid and other entitlements. At least we 
finally have agreed on the size of the pizza. How many slices and 
exactly the way it is sliced, I guess, is not as important to us as the 
fact we have agreed. We have agreed on a destination. Now let us have a 
healthy argument about the road map.
  Let me say this. Two points need to be made. First of all, as far as 
we are concerned, this is like the Contract With America that we signed 
last year. The agreement that was reached last night is a contract with 
the American people, and we take it very seriously, and we hope the 
White House will take it very seriously.
  Second, and this is even more important, it is now incumbent upon the 
President and this administration to come forward with a budget plan 
that they like. Now, they spent the last 6 or 8 weeks telling everybody 
about the things in our plan they do not like. That is fair enough. 
That is part of the democratic process. They have every right to 
criticize some of the things they do not like in our budget plan.
  But now it is their responsibility to put their plan on the table. I 
think we in the Congress and the American people have every right and 
expect and should demand that they put a plan on the table.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. If the gentleman will yield for 1 minute, I think 
this is an important point and important distinction. I have heard many 
say the Democrats do not have the responsibility. The Republicans were 
elected, they are in charge of the House. The Democrats do not have 
responsibility to put a plan on the table to save Medicare, which they 
have not done in the House, or to put forward a budget plan that 
balances the budget, which the majority of the Members have not done.
  But it is important to remember that in 1993, when the Republican 
Party was in its 39th year in the wilderness, that the gentleman from 
Ohio, John Kasich, the same John Kasich who has forever changed 
Washington, DC, through his leadership on the Committee on the Budget, 
putting together the first balanced budget in this generation, John 
Kasich came up with a plan. He had a plan, and the Republicans all 
supported that plan.
  That is extremely important. This year, the Democratic leadership has 
failed to put forward a plan. All they are doing is complaining, saying 
what we are doing wrong. But if you look at the minority leader and the 
whip and everybody in the minority, they voted against every single 
balanced budget plan. I have to tell you, they have had about six 
chances this year to vote for a balanced budget.
  They voted against a balanced budget, whether it is a Republican 
balanced budget; they voted against a balanced budget, whether it was a 
coalition balanced budget plan the conservative Democrats put together. 
They voted against every budget.

[[Page H 13646]]

  So when I hear them get on the floor or get into press conferences 
and say ``Yes, we support a balanced budget, but this one is mean-
spirited,'' I am sorry, those words just do not ring true to me.
  Introduce your balanced budget plan, and then you have a right to get 
involved with this debate. But if you do not introduce your own plan, 
if you do not have the nerve, if you do not have the guts, if you do 
not have the political will to show Americans what your vision of 
America is and how you want to balance the budget and save the next 
generation, then just be quiet and sit on the bench. I will yield back 
to the gentleman.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, that is what has really troubled so many 
Americans for so long. They have seen a lack of courage and will power 
in the Congress to actually follow through. It is what I call the 
``yes, buts''. In fact, Representative Chris Shays the other day said 
it so clearly, I think, on the House floor here. He said you know, 
everybody gets up and says we want a balanced budget. Everybody wants a 
balanced budget. But he said if that were true, we would have a 
balanced budget. Everybody says yes, I want a balanced budget, but. 
Yes, but. That is what gets the American people so frustrated.
  I have to congratulate Chairman Archer of the Committee on Ways and 
Means as well. He went down the other day and said our plan is not 
perfect. I do not think anybody on this side of the aisle would argue 
it is perfect. But there is one thing about our plan that nobody else 
can say about their plan, because they do not have a plan, but at least 
we have a plan, and it will work according to CBO scoring.
  CBO, as the gentleman says, has been the most conservative over the 
years. Frankly, I think perhaps too conservative, but I would rather 
err on the side of conservative when you are talking about balancing 
the budget and trying to save the future generations of Americans from 
a debt which is actually going to come crashing down around them.
  The gentleman talked earlier about polls. Sometimes we here in 
Washington get too much influenced by polls. The gentleman talked about 
one of my favorite newspapers, the Washington Post, which he indicated 
is not exactly a Republican propaganda organ. Many times in fact so 
many of those on this side of the aisle take what they say with a grain 
of salt.
  I would like to remind you of a poll done a couple of weeks ago by 
the Washington Post. Here is what they asked. It was October 30, 1995; 
that was a little over 2 weeks ago. They asked, ``Whom do you trust to 
do a better job with the main problems facing this Nation over the next 
few years?'' And they said, Republicans, 47 percent; Democrats, 39 
percent.
  Now, when we took over this House, if I remember correctly, on that 
same test ballot question the day before the election, the score was 
Republicans, 44; Democrats, 41. We only had a 3 percent advantage a 
year ago, and we picked up 73 seats.
  Even more telling, it seems to me, they went on to ask a somewhat 
different question, but along the same lines; they asked, ``Which party 
better represents your views on national issues?'' And this is 
according to the Washington Post poll taken about 2\1/2\ weeks ago. 
Republicans, 55 percent; Democrats, 25 percent.
  I do not know how your phone messages were over the last week during 
the furlough of Federal employees, but mine were overwhelming. One day 
we received something like 270 calls saying hang in there, continue 
back up, do not blink. We had 27 calls which said cave in to the 
President. I think that is pretty reflective of where the American 
people were, and I think the American people were well served by our 
negotiators, because John Kasich and our Speaker and other leaders did 
not blink.
  As a result, we are going to have a balanced budget agreement. We now 
have a contract with this President, and a contract with the American 
people, that we are going to do what we said we are going to do. We are 
actually going to balance this budget.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I appreciate that. I have got to tell the gentleman 
something. One of the reasons I believe why twice as many people are 
now saying the Republican Party reflects their views more than the 
Democratic Party is because the Democratic leadership, at least in this 
House, has had a total void. They have not told us what they believe 
in.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield on that point, this is a 
critical point. They did offer a Medicare alternative. I think it only 
got about 100 votes. Not even their leader, Mr. Gephardt, voted for 
their plan. On their alternate budget, not even their leader, Mr. 
Gephardt, voted for their plan.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. He did not vote for either plan. I do not believe 
the whip from Michigan voted for the plan. Yet they will stand there 
self-righteously and say they support the balanced budget and want to 
save Medicare. Yet they voted against every plan that will do that.

  Let me show you this chart, because this is an important chart. It 
shows that so many Americans have not realized because of what the 
President has been saying for the past few weeks. The Washington Post, 
and again I am quoting from them, this is not a Republican, this is 
what the Post says, it says:

       The Democrats and the President have shamelessly demagogued 
     the Medicare issue despite the fact that our plans are so 
     similar.

  This is the Medicare part B premiums over the next 7 years, and as we 
can see, as you go out 7 years to the year 2002, the Republican and the 
Democrat premium are the same. Look at this. You have got $83 and $87. 
There is only a $4 difference. That is why the Washington Post said 
that the President shamelessly demagogued on the Medicare issue.
  But it is not just Medicare that they are trying to scare Americans 
on. In my district, we have about as many veterans as any other 
district in the country. Our area has a long, proud military history, 
with a lot of veterans. Let me tell you, they are so important to this 
country.
  But if you remember, Secretary Brown has actually started sending out 
political messages on the pay stubs, saying that the Republican plan 
for future veterans benefits was going to savage VA benefits and that 
it was more mean-spirited than the President's plan.
  The fact of the matter is, when he came to Capitol Hill under sworn 
testimony, he had radically different testimony.
  This is what he was asked. This is Secretary Brown from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. When asked about Mr. Simpson's 
assertion that veterans would suffer more under the Clinton 
administration's proposed budget than other congressional plans, Mr. 
Brown said, ``He's absolutely right.'' That is November 8, 1995.
  Now, let me tell you, I understand in the Department of HHS and in 
other areas, I understand that sometimes we are going to have political 
differences. But we are talking about veterans. We are talking about 
going out there and scaring the men and women who fought to protect and 
defend the Constitution of the United States.
  This is just an extension of the mediscarce attack that the Democrats 
had. We have seen it in Medicare, we have seen it in Veterans Affairs, 
where they say whatever they want to say, just to scarce people and 
pick up votes, according to the Washington Post.
  Now we are hearing if, and, again, here is a Washington Post quote 
from November 15, 1995:

       The Democrats have been prospecting harder for votes among 
     the elderly and against the Republican proposal than they 
     have for the savings needed to bring down the deficit.

  They have done it in education. I heard the last speaker get up here 
talking about all the mean-spirited cuts that we were going to have in 
student loans. I do not support cuts in students loans. Just because I 
do not want to turn over all the power to the Federal bureaucracy, 
which is what they are proposing, does not mean I am against student 
loans.
  The fact of the matter is, under our plan this year, we spend $24.5 
billion on student loans. Over our 7-year plan, that doubles or 
actually goes up 50 percent to $36.4 billion. I did not go to Oxford, I 
am not a Rhodes Scholar, I am just a dumb country lawyer, as they love 
saying in my part of the country, but the fact of the matter is even 
where I went to school, if you go from 

[[Page H 13647]]
$24 billion to $36 billion, that is an increase.

  Also, when I have somebody standing up here with a straight face 
telling me that direct student lending, where you have a consolidation 
of power in Washington, DC, is going to be more efficient than allowing 
the private sector to handle it and to stay involved in it, goes 
against history. It goes against 40 years of history.
  So, if we are increasing student loans by 50 percent, which we are, 
those are the straight numbers under the budget proposal, then how can 
that be a cut? The earned income tax credit goes from $19 billion in 
1995 to $25 billion through the end of our program. School lunch 
program goes from $6.3 billion to $7.8 billion; student loans again, 
from $24 billion to $36 billion; Medicaid spending from $89 billion to 
$127 billion; and Medicare spending from $178 billion to $289 billion.

                              {time}  2045

  So let us talk about new math, real math, and not Washington math, 
where a spending increase is called a spending cut.
  I yield back to the gentleman.
  M. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, a long time ago, one of our founding 
fathers who served in this body, John Adams, said facts are stubborn 
things. It is one of my favorite expressions, and I really do believe, 
as we debate this budget, facts are our friends. I think if we can get 
the facts to the American people, and again anyone who would like a 
copy of what Representative Scarborough has just talked about, where 
earned income tax credit goes from $19.8 billion this year to $25.4 
billion in the year 2002; school lunches, where we are making these 
draconian cuts, actually increases from $6.3 billion to $7.8 billion; 
student loans, again we have been criticized for these big cuts in 
student loans, we are spending $24.5 billion this year and we will go 
to $36.5 billion in only 7 years; Medicaid, again where people are 
going to be thrown out of hospitals, Medicaid spending this year $89.2 
billion will go to $127.3 billion in only 7 years; and, finally, 
Medicare, where they are using the greatest mediascare tactics, goes 
from $178 billion to almost $290 billion.
  If people will get the facts, I think facts are our friends, and even 
when we talk about these tax cuts for the rich. I must tell the 
gentleman, and I do not know if I should share this story. Obviously, I 
will not use his name, but I had a gentleman talk to me the other day, 
and by all accounts he is rich. He told me last year he earned 
$325,000. He will earn about the same amount next year. So he went to 
his accountant and had the blueprint of the Republican tax plan and he 
had his accountant go through his taxes and asked him how much of a tax 
cut will I get next year? Does the gentleman know what the answer was? 
Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
  He will get no tax cut. His kids are grown. He has no capital gains. 
This is all dividend income and other income that he has, so he gets no 
tax cut. So this idea that all rich people will get huge tax cuts is 
just bogus. Most of the tax benefit will go to those families earning 
less than $75,000 a year. And the trouble is, many of our friends and 
colleagues here in Congress know that to be a fact and yet they will 
not acknowledge it.
  I yield back and perhaps we can pursue a conclusion after we yield to 
the gentleman from Rhode Island.

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I appreciate that. We certainly will, and it is my 
honor to yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island, who also has a seat 
with me on the Committee on National Security, and we can work together 
as a body, Republicans and Democrats alike. He is going to be speaking 
on something different from what we have been talking about, but 
something very important and timely today.
  I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.


    resolution condemning atrocities committed in former yugoslavia

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, 
Congressman Scarborough from Florida, for yielding me this time.
  Fifty years ago today the Nuremberg trials began. On November 20, 
1945, the leaders of Nazi Germany were placed on trial for committing 
crimes against humanity. The horror of the Holocaust was exposed and 
the world hoped that it would never ever see such systematic evil 
perpetrated again.
  No one can begin to even compare any evil to that kind of systematic 
evil perpetrated during the Holocaust, but evil is evil. Tragically, 
history has proven this optimism wrong. As we all know, the Balkans 
have been the site of the most recent war crimes in Europe since the 
end of World War II. As Nuremberg proved, there can be no place for 
those who commit or order or condone such acts. There can be no 
tolerance for those who offer refuge for those responsible for such 
acts.
  Recognizing the danger of silence in the face of such tragedy, the 
United Nations established an international criminal tribunal for the 
former Yugoslavia. Today I am introducing a resolution condemning the 
atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and expressing the 
support of this Congress for this war crimes tribunal.
  The resolution affirms the following principles:
  First, those indicated by the tribunal cannot occupy any position of 
authority in any government or any entity in the republics of the 
former Yugoslavia;
  Second, that the United States should insist upon the full 
cooperation of the republics of the former Yugoslavia in bringing those 
who have been indicted by this war crimes tribunal to justice;
  Third, future support for the reintegration of the republics of the 
former Yugoslavia into the international community should be dependent 
on their full cooperation and support for this international war crimes 
tribunal;

  Fourth, investigators for their tribunal should be given full access 
to all the sites, to all the witnesses, and to all the evidence of 
alleged and suspected war crimes; and
  Fifth, the United States should oppose amnesty for any indicated war 
criminals.
  On this, the anniversary, the world hopes for peace in the Balkans, 
but it is the responsibility of the Congress to say unequivocally that 
there will be no peace without justice. This century has been marked by 
many tragedies. If the next century is to be free of such horrors, the 
responsibility falls on us to lay the foundation today. We cannot erase 
what has happened, but we can and we must do all that we can to prevent 
such a recurrence from ever occurring again.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this 
resolution, and I thank, once again, my colleague from the State of 
Florida, Joe Scarborough, for allowing me this time.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, and I also 
thank him for his leadership on the National Security Committee, and 
certainly I have been with him when he has asked some very tough 
questions to our policy leaders and questioned those who would simply 
say that we would put Americans in harms's way simply to protect our 
standing in NATO.
  I think we have to have a more hard-nosed approach than simply worry 
about how we are going to look at NATO, and have to ask what America's 
role is and what America's vital interest is in that conflict.
  Certainly there have been horrors. I saw a picture of a 7-year-old 
who was blown off his bike by a Serbian mortar shell, and the ABC 
cameras followed him and he was crying to his parents, ``Please don't 
cut off my leg; please don't cut off my leg.'' And the news reporter 
said they did not cut off his leg. But, unfortunately, the young boy 
died a few hours later.
  The horrors are absolutely indefensible, and I would gladly sign on 
to your resolution, and I thank you for bringing that up. Congress has 
made some controversial decisions on the Bosnian conflict over the past 
week or two, but that is certainly something I would hope all 
Republicans and Democrats alike could come together.
  I yield back to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about balancing the 
budget, and I think sometimes we have been characterized in the 
national media as mean spirited and that we are draconian and that this 
is simply an accounting exercise. But I think sometimes we need to step 
back and understand that there are going to be enormous benefits to the 
average American family if we are able to finally, at last, balance the 
Federal books.

[[Page H 13648]]

  A study was done by DRI McGraw Hill that essentially says that if, 
and this is pursuant to what Alan Greenspan had said, that if we 
actually could balance the Federal budget for the first time in over 30 
years, it was his opinion that real interest rates would drop by at 
least 2 percent and that economic growth would be at least 1\1/2\ 
points stronger.
  I think people need to understand what that means to the average 
family in terms of if real interest rates really do continue to come 
down, as they are now coming down. As a matter of fact, I think just 
with what we have been doing, and the belief now in the financial 
markets that we are finally serious, Congress is serious about putting 
the Federal Government on a diet and limiting the growth of 
entitlements, we are already seeing the benefits of that.
  What this will mean to an average family is, the average cost of a 
mortgage would drop by $121 a month. The average student loan repayment 
would drop by $4 a month. A car loan would be $9 a month cheaper. The 
child tax credit, the economic growth advantages all add up to an 
increase to the average family of at least $192 a month.
  That may not seem like much to some folks, but to the average family 
trying to get by on $30,000 a year, it works out to $2,300. What we are 
really talking about is allowing them to keep more of their own money 
so they can invest and save, and they can be responsible for 
themselves.
  There are enormous benefits if we can simply, for the first time, 
have the moral courage to say no to some of those interest groups, to 
limit the growth of entitlements, to actually downsize the Federal 
Government. We will have eliminated, at least on the House side, over 
300 programs. We hope many of those cuts will survive.
  There are huge benefits and sometimes those do not get talked about 
enough. And I would yield back to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I do not know if the gentleman was with us when we 
had some of the top investment minds in this country from Wall Street 
come down and talk to our conference, but what did they tell us? They 
told us, go ahead. If you have to draw a line in the sand and shut down 
the Federal Government to make a point to force a balanced budget, go 
ahead and do that. They said Secretary Rubin is telling you that it 
will cause financial chaos, but that is not the case.
  They told us what will cause financial chaos is if you continue to 
allow deficits to soar over the next 40 years the way we have allowed 
them to soar over the past 40 years. It will cause an incredible 
destructive result on Wall Street and in financial markets around the 
world.
  And, sure enough, did you notice that during the Government shutdown 
that was supposed to cause such conflict that the stock market reached 
an all-time high and that every indicator was positive?
  When we talk to the leading traders on Wall Street, what do they say? 
They say the reason why is because the Congress has finally showed that 
they are ready to put their house in order. They have finally shown 
that they are going to stop stealing from future generations and start 
doing what Americans have had to do for 200 years and balance their 
checkbook.
  They said, please, hold the line. Your message will get out. And at 
that time we were upset about getting bashed on Medicare. They said, 
sure, right now there may be short-term political gain for the other 
side for attacking you for daring to save Medicare, but on Wall Street 
and in my business, they said if you raise spending by 45 percent, that 
is not a cut. And they got the numbers out, got the calculators out, 
and, sure enough, a 45 percent increase in Medicare is exactly what we 
are proposing.
  More importantly than that, it is a moral issue. More important than 
that, if we look at what we have done since we have been elected, we 
have caused interest rates to go down 2 percent because we vowed, elect 
us, send us to Congress, we will keep our word, we will balance this 
budget, we will save future generations. And they said to us, these 
Wall Street traders, the top Wall Street minds said to us, give 
yourself a pat on the back. You are responsible for the interest rates 
dropping 2 percent because you finally have gotten serious about 
balancing the budget. You have finally dared to make a difference. You 
have finally stood up to special interests. You have finally stood up 
to bureaucrats. You have finally said good riddance to the tax-and-
spend policies that have destroyed this country for the past 40 years.

  I think, more importantly, and I cannot say it enough, it is not 
merely an economic issue. We could be the richest country in the world, 
but if we failed to be decent, we would be a failure. We have heard the 
quote before, America is great because America is good. And when 
America ceases to be good, then it will cease being great. And what is 
great about stealing money from the future generations?
  I do not care how people want to gloss over the fact, when we spend 
money that we do not have, when we are $5 trillion in debt, when the 
Japanese and the Germans and people on Wall Street are holding these 
bonds, who is going to pay those bonds off, if not us?

                              {time}  2100

  If not us, it will be my 7-year-old, Joey, my 4-year-old, Andrew. It 
is going to be your children. It is going to be grandchildren of those 
people that watch the House every day. It is going to be future 
generations.
  For all the talk about how mean spirited we are, it seems to me that 
we have offered the only compassionate plan to save future generations 
from the mean spiritedness of the liberal/socialists that have been 
running this institution for too long and putting forward tax-and-spend 
proposals that steal from your children and my children and their 
children.
  This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. This is about having 
the discipline and the decency to finally balance the budget and allow 
our children to have a better future than we even had. That is what it 
is all about: For Americans to make sure that we can ensure that when 
we pass the torch to the next generation, that that generation will be 
assured that they will have the opportunities that we had.
  That is not good enough. We want them to have a better life and more 
opportunities that we ever had. That is what every parent wants. That 
is what and that is why I am so proud to be part of an institution with 
Republicans and Democrats alike that this past week stood up, drew a 
line in the sand and said, ``Enough is enough. We are going to get our 
financial House in order.''

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, I would say one of my 
favorite heroes in world history was Winston Churchill. My wife needle-
pointed for me one of my favorite quotes from Winston Churchill, which 
I have in my office. It says, ``Success is never permanent. Failure is 
seldom fatal. The only thing that really counts is courage.''
  The thing that I feel proud about, what has happened in this Congress 
in the last 11 months, and particularly in this past week, we finally 
demonstrated some courage. I do not know if the American people have 
responded to that or whether they ever will. But you said this is 
really a moral issue. This is an un-American issue.
  If we look historically, the people who started throwing tea in 
Boston Harbor, who started this great revolution that started this 
great American experiment in self-government, the reason, partly, they 
did that was because they did not believe in taxation without 
representation.
  If we get down to the nub of it, when we talk about borrowing from 
future generations the way we have for so many years in this 
Government, it is taxation without representation, because we are 
taxing people who cannot even vote yet and it is morally wrong. We know 
it is wrong.
  I live in the Midwest and we have an awful lot of farmers in the 
Midwest. Most of us are no more than one or two generations removed 
from the farm, and farmers know this. Most farmers, what they want to 
do is pay off the mortgage and leave their kids the farm. But if we 
look at it from a societal standpoint, what our previous Congresses 
have been doing in Washington is they have been selling the farm and 
leaving the kids the mortgage. I think all Americans know in their 
bones that it is wrong.
  I hope that all Americans will begin to realize that those days are 
over and 

[[Page H 13649]]
we have begun to change the paradigm and we are going to make this 
Government do what they have to do every single week and every month, 
and that is live within their means. That is the American thing to do 
and the morally right thing to do.
  I am proud to be a part of this Congress and part of the group of 
freshmen, and if we take the credit, so be it. And if we take the 
blame, so be it. But some day I hope that future generations of 
Americans will look back and say, ``Finally, they had the courage to do 
the right thing.''
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman. This past weekend while we were in session on Saturday, 
during lunch I went down and had lunch with the gentleman from Ohio 
[John Kasich] the budget director, and what you said reminded me of our 
conversation when you said you do not know whether the Americans will 
reward us for this. You do not know whether we are going up in the 
polls.
  I turned to Mr. Kasich and I said, ``How do you think this is going 
to turn out?'' And he said, ``Joe, I don't care. That is not relevant. 
We are going to balance this budget. I don't care if we get defeated. 
If I get defeated because of balancing the budget, what a grand and 
glorious way to go out.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is the way I feel. It has been such an honor this 
past week to see the freshman class on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday 
and Thursday of this week, when poll numbers shot up for the President 
and down for us, it was so great to talk to them and not a single one 
said they were going to budge.
  Reporters would come and say, ``What about the poll numbers?'' And we 
would cut them off and say, ``That does not really matter. The polls do 
not matter. What matters is we keep our word.''
  Mr. Speaker, if I could read what we passed tonight, it is a 
commitment to a 7-year balanced budget and this is the language I would 
like to end on:

       The President and Congress shall enact legislation in the 
     first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced 
     budget not later than fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office. The balanced budget agreement 
     shall be estimated by the Congressional Budget Office based 
     on the most recent current economic and technical 
     assumptions.

  Mr. Speaker, it goes on and has some more verbiage in there. But what 
a great honor that tonight we truly were a part of history. We have 
started down the path that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and our 
Founding Fathers intended for us. As James Madison, one of the framers 
of the Constitution said,

       We have staked the entire future of the American 
     civilization not upon the power of government, but upon the 
     capacity of the individuals to govern themselves, control 
     themselves, and sustain themselves according to the Ten 
     Commandments of God.

  Tonight we started down that path. We dared to make a difference. We 
dared to balance the budget. I am going to be very proud tomorrow when 
I fly home and get off the plane and see my 7-year-old and 4-year-old 
and know that we had a part in history and a part in ensuring that 
their history will be even brighter than our own. That is all we can 
ask.

                          ____________________