[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13718-H13724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE BUDGET NEGOTIATION 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, as we have heard from previous speakers, the 
countdown has begun on the budget negotiation process. It is a 
countdown of greater significance than we have ever experienced 
probably in the history of the Nation. It is a countdown to the 
remaking of America.
  We are not just talking about budgets and appropriations. We are 
talking about a drastic overhaul, a remaking of America. We are not 
just talking about reforms, we are talking about destruction. We are 
talking about the wrecking ball that has to precede any rebuilding that 
may take place.
  As we move toward December 15, we have gone through a period where a 
gun was held at the head of the American Government. The Republican 
majority refused to allow a continuing resolution to go forward until 
it extracted certain promises from the Democratic President in the 
White House. That is a most unfortunate way to proceed.
  The general way of proceeding is to have appropriations bills passed, 
the President acts on those, Congress reacts, and we go through an 
orderly constitutional process. But a crisis was created this time and 
we have gone through that, and now we have a new framework established. 
The new framework says that we have until December 15 to work out the 
budget process, and in the process we must adhere to certain parameters 
that have been established.
  The framework is established. The environment for negotiations is 
set. We must negotiate within the parameters of the establishment of a 
balanced budget by the year 2002. In 7 years we must balance the 
budget. We must negotiate this. If we do not, we will not be able to 
continue the Government beyond December 15. The same kind of crisis 
that was artificially created a week ago will be recreated. So we are 
negotiating with a psychological bomb threat hovering over the process.
  Is this a logical and scientific way to remake America? No, but it is 
the conditions that have been set by people who have enormous amounts 
of power, and the process goes forward. The engagement is on now. The 
engagement is between the Democratic President and a Republican 
controlled Congress. The crisis in a revolutionary atmosphere has been 
created artificially and does not improve the decisionmaking process. 
We cannot expect a better America to emerge under the kind of 
atmosphere that has been created, a kind of bomb threat hovering over.
  I do not think the decisionmaking is going to be the best that we are 
capable of. I do not think the decisionmaking is going to be the kind 
of decisionmaking that the American people deserve, but that is the 
crisis and the revolutionary atmosphere that has been created.
  Those that have created the crisis obviously do not trust a rational 
step-by-step decisionmaking process. They do not agree with the 
process. They think that we have to have a crisis, we have to have a 
bomb threat hovering over the process. They are intellectual cowards 
who have nothing but contempt for the deliberative process of 
democracy, but they are in power. They have created the situation. That 
is the way it has to go forward as we count down toward December 15.
  Reform is not on the agenda of this controlling group. The Republican 
majority is not interested in reform. They talk about reform. They come 
to us in the clothing of reform, in the camouflage of reform, but what 
they really mean is they want to wreck and destroy. Wrecking and 
destroying is on the agenda of the Republican controlled Congress. They 
want to wreck what has been put together over the last 60 years. They 
want to wreck Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. They want to wreck Lyndon 
Johnson's Great Society.

                              {time}  2145

  They want to wreck Medicare. They do not really want to save 
Medicare. There are quotes which clearly show that they never believed 
in Medicare. The Republican votes were never there.
  Medicare was created 30 years ago. It is an infant program. In the 
life of nations, 30 years is a very short period of time. But now, 
Medicare must be slowly strangled. The reforms are not to save 
Medicare. It is hoped that Medicare, ``would wither on the vine.''
  There are other people that felt that Medicare was an idea that never 
worked anyhow, so the fact that they are attempting to make drastic 
cuts in Medicare now should surprise no one. It is logical. They are 
wrecking and destroying.
  The original Contract With America came camouflaged in the clothing 
of reform, but destruction is the objective. Destruction is the goal, 
and destruction is the mission of the present Republican-controlled 
Congress.
  The framework has been established. The countdown has begun. But each 
American voter, each constituent out there is not condemned to merely 
be a spectator. They do not have to be merely a spectator in this 
process. Their common sense has a vital role to play. Their common 
sense is already having a profound impact here in the distorted world 
of Washington decisionmaking.
  I want to thank the American people for raising their voices. I want 
to thank them for letting it be known that they can clearly understand 
the language of political used car salesmen. They can understand when 
they are being swindled. The public is far more intelligent than a lot 
of the professional decisionmakers here in Washington. I want to thank 
the American public.
  There are people who say that, ``Well, things are improving.'' 
Unfortunately, some within the Democratic Party. They say, ``Things are 
improving, and the public is coming around to seeing things the way 
Democrats see them and, therefore, we should lower our voices and we 
should not be shrill.''
  Mr. Speaker, I do not understand that reasoning at all. I think that 
raising voices has led to American voters 

[[Page H 13719]]
listening to each other. It has led to citizens out there waking up to 
the dangers that exist. It is not by accident that the polls now show 
that more than 60 percent of the American people do not want the cuts 
being proposed by the Republican majority in Congress. More than 60 
percent. More than 70 percent do not want the Medicare and Medicaid 
cuts.

  Common sense is prevailing. People raised their voices and they heard 
each other. I do not think anybody wants to be shrill unnecessarily. 
For God's sake, understand what is at stake here. For the sake of the 
American people, for the sake of our families and our children, and for 
the sake of the greatest Nation that ever existed in the history of the 
world, it is necessary to raise our voices, wake each other up.
  Common sense is going to play a major role in what happens here. 
Common sense is going to be at the table in the White House, if it is 
kept highly visible and if the polls continue to record the truth of 
what the American people think out there.
  We have a problem and common sense will help us with that problem. We 
have a collision of visions. I heard this phrase used on the floor by 
one of my Republican colleagues. I do not remember exactly who the 
gentleman is, I cannot attribute it to him properly, but I liked what 
he said. I wrote it down. Definitely, there is a collision of visions.
  We heard the speakers before talk about their vision of America and 
one of them said that the government does not create wealth. The 
government has not created wealth. It has no role. Workers create 
wealth.
  I am glad the gentleman gave workers some credit. That is the first 
time I have heard workers being praised by that side of the aisle. 
Well, I would like to think that it is great that workers are given 
credit for the creation of wealth, but wealth is created by a number of 
different forces, and where there is no government, there is no wealth. 
Government is the key component of the preservation of wealth.
  Where would America be if there were no government to put the armies 
in the field to defend the principles of capitalism and the principles 
of democracy? Where would America be if we had no government to protect 
private property; if there were no government to maintain the kind of 
conditions which make it possible for some men to labor in the fields 
and sweat and others sit in their offices and earn their living by 
their ability to think of new kinds of ideas, and others to sit in 
offices and invest the money of other people?
  There is a whole range of activities that would not go on unless we 
had the government. When we had no control over the process of 
investment on Wall Street, we had the Great Depression brought on by 
the collapse of the stock market which was the result of no government, 
no government properly controlling.
  Of course, in all the wars that have been fought where American 
soldiers, ordinary people, sons and daughters of ordinary people have 
gone out to fight, if they had not gone out to fight those wars, we 
would have a different world. We would not have a world where America 
is basically economically in command and basically in a position of 
great privilege and advantage. That position is not there because some 
individual was able to use his mind and his advantages and his 
opportunities to create individual wealth. It all goes together.
  The Constitution had the focus of the idea of promoting the general 
welfare. Had the Constitution not made a commitment to facilitate the 
pursuit of happiness, we would have a different kind of America and a 
different kind of government, and a lot of the wealth that exists would 
not exist.
  The government also, in many other ways, has developed wealth. 
Science, technology, the organization and management of human 
resources; if there had been no American research and technology 
initiatives, if they had not been monumental, no individual 
corporation, no individual person could have financed and organized the 
kind of research and technology which went into the effort to win World 
War II and to maintain the edge, the technological and scientific edge 
on the Soviet Union following World War II.
  That great effort, all the research that developed radar and 
computerization and miniaturization and all the kinds of things that 
private industry now uses as a matter of fact and takes advantage of, 
all that wealth would not exist if it were not for government.
  So, the vision of those who say that government is in the way, and 
government is the problem, and government does not create wealth, that 
vision has to be challenged. Because if we do not believe that 
government is important, then we are saying that the great majority of 
the people who live in this society under the government are not 
important. Only those who can fend for themselves and are lucky enough 
to have reaped the benefits of all the previous efforts of government 
are worthy of existing. There is a collision of visions, definitely. 
And there is a collision of values.
  There is definitely a collision of values. The values of the 
Republican Majority go in the direction of abstract, hypothetical 
children of the future. They say,

       We are going to save the children of the future from having 
     to pay debts. We are going to crusade and pressure the 
     present system. We are going to create a crisis. We are going 
     to make children go hungry in the present, so that the 
     hypothetical children of the future will not be saddled with 
     hypothetical debts. We are not going to recognize the fact 
     that wealth is increasing geometrically. We are going to 
     focus, instead, on the fact that there are scarce resources 
     and create an atmosphere where it is believed that resources 
     are scarce and there is not going to be enough for everybody 
     and, therefore, we must squeeze the system and certain people 
     will be squeezed out and thrown overboard.
       There will not be enough for the elderly who need nursing 
     homes and there will not be enough for all the children who 
     need lunches. We are going to create a finite number of 
     lunches available for poor children, and when that number 
     runs out, then the rest will have to go hungry. We are going 
     to subscribe to elitism.

  The collision of values says that the Republican Majority believes 
that elitism is good for the country; a certain small minority has the 
right to control all the resources; they have a right to benefit from 
what is happening in America.
  We have a great shift in wealth in America where a small percentage 
of the people control most of the wealth. That shift has gone on at an 
escalating rate. Great Britain used to be the place where the ratio of 
the wealthiest to the poorest was the greatest. They had this great 
divide between the wealthy and the poor. Now, America has taken over. 
It has surpassed all the other countries in that notoriety. The 
difference between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest Americans, 
their income, is greatest, and it is increasing at an alarming rate.
  So, greed is good. If you have the value that greed is good and those 
that have the most should get the most and keep the most and not share 
and not even be bothered with a minimum amount of taxes; let the 
corporations continue to get away with paying the least amount of 
taxes, while individuals and families pay more and more taxes; then 
your value system certainly supports that of the Republican majority.

  There is a collision. There are Democratic values which say we ought 
to have a minimum wage, as small as it may be. There are millions of 
people who are paid on the basis of that minimum wage and that minimum 
wage is way, way behind in terms of the cost of living. We only want to 
increase the minimum wage by 90 cents over a 2-year period and we 
cannot even get more than 110 cosponsors on the bill.
  The Republican majority refuses to let it be discussed in committee. 
Increasing the minimum wage has not been discussed in my Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities, which has jurisdiction. My 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections has jurisdiction, but we cannot 
get the majority to even have a hearing on the minimum wage.
  The value system is such that greed is great; those who have, let 
them have more. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget, by the 
way. Increasing the minimum wage does not impact on this great process 
of balancing the budget.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the public is the savior of the situation, the 
American people, the voters out there. Their common sense should 
continue to be focused. They set their common sense against the 
monstrous blunders that continue to go on here.

[[Page H 13720]]

  Both Republicans and Democrats have to look over their shoulder and 
watch the polls. The polls reflect the common sense of the American 
people. As I said before, the polls have shifted. The polls show that 
the word is getting out. The double-talk is being understood. The used 
car salesmen are being exposed. The public's common sense will save us.
  I urge those who are listening to continue to raise their voices and 
maintain a steady focus on the critical life-and-death situation that 
is taking place here. This is no ordinary congressional session. This 
is no ordinary year.
  Keep focus on the budget. The Republican remaking of America is an 
appropriation and expenditure revolution. This is war without blood, 
but there will be many casualties through this process of the way we 
appropriate money and the way we expend money. Many people will suffer 
and die. The process is beginning to take place already.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I say to those listening tonight, ``Raise your voice 
and maintain your focus, because what is happening here is more 
important than anything else that is happening in America today, or 
anything else that is going to happen in a long time.''
  I think Bosnia is important and we must make some critical decisions 
about Bosnia, because our government is a part of a world of 
governments and we cannot exist as if we were on an island by 
ourselves. We have to deal with that situation. I am not saying it is 
not important, but nothing is more important than the budget 
negotiation process that has begun now between the Democratic White 
House and the Republican-controlled Congress.
  Let common sense lead us to keep our eyes on the prize, and we should 
refuse to yield to any diversions. Between now and November 1996, 
``It's the budget, stupid.'' ``It's the appropriations process, 
stupid.'' ``It's the expenditure process, stupid.''
  How we spend the taxpayers' money is the issue of the 1996 campaign. 
The campaign for Members of Congress, the campaign for the Presidency, 
the campaign for the other body. That is the issue. Do not let anybody 
divert us from that issue. Keep the focus. Do not let Bosnia be used as 
a diversion. Do not let affirmative action, set-asides, voting rights 
be used as diversion. Do not let them abuse religion.

                              {time}  2200

  Come with a hypocritical focus on family values. We must not allow at 
this critical moment anybody to move away from the focus of the budget, 
the use of the American taxpayers' funds to provide for priorities that 
are determined by the American people. This countdown is everybody's 
business, and you can place yourself at the negotiation table. That is 
what I am trying to say. Keep your voices up, understand that you 
belong there. If you are not there, then terrible things will happen 
that will affect you right away and will affect your children and 
grandchildren, posterity.
  The framework is established, environment for negotiations is set. I 
am happy that the chief of staff of the White House hugged the chairman 
of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives. I am 
happy that they hugged when this agreement was made and the parameters 
were set for the negotiations.
  I wonder if we are not in a situation similar to that faced by the 
Greeks who made the Trojans happy when they said: Look, we are going to 
stop all this fighting and in order for us to show that we no longer 
have any animosity toward you, even though we came over here to take 
your gold and to plunder your fields and to do everything we could to 
enrich ourselves, we use family values as an excuse, somebody stole 
somebody's wife, so that was a great excuse, we did all that, we came 
over here. We have slaughtered your young people. We have killed your 
great hero, Hector. Now we have a stalemate. We would like to show you 
that we are no longer angry at you for all the terrible things you let 
us do to you. We want to give you a horse, and we have constructed a 
horse, and we will push it inside your walls.
  So the Trojan horse was pushed inside the walls of the city of Troy. 
The Trojans who had fought against the awesome might of the Greeks for 
so long found themselves overcome by a situation where a few men 
slipped out, inside the Trojan horse slipped out, then locked the gates 
and all heck broke loose. Troy was sacked. Every male child was 
murdered, and so forth. The legend goes on and on.
  I hope we understand that there is a danger that a Trojan horse is 
here, that the people who want to remake America are in a hurry to make 
a revolution and are not going to accept a mere balancing of the budget 
by standards that deal with accounting only. People who want to remake 
America want to destroy certain programs. They want to destroy aid to 
families with dependent children. They do not want to reform it.
  The President came into office saying he wanted to reform welfare as 
we know it. But he did not say he wanted to destroy welfare. He did not 
say he wanted to destroy the part which deals with children. But we 
have now reached a point where the entitlement which says that every 
poor child who meets a certain criteria and shows that they are poor is 
eligible for Federal aid.
  They have taken the entitlement away. Yes, the final has not been 
signed, it has not been, but on the President's desk, but the agreement 
was made. The agreement has been made by all who are concerned. We 
cannot bring back the entitlement for aid to families with dependent 
children. It is dead.
  It is dangerous to expend a great deal of energy mourning for that 
entitlement because the entitlement for Medicaid is now on the table. I 
cannot stress it too much. The entitlement for Medicaid is on the 
table. The beast has devoured the entitlement for aid to families with 
dependent children. And now the beast is hungry. The taste of 
entitlements is too strong to resist. The beast wants to devour the 
Medicaid entitlement.
  We have had discussions about trimming the budget and balancing the 
budget for the last 13 years. I have been in Congress for 13 years. 
Since my first year here, there was a classmate of mine named Tim 
Penny. His name has been used often in the last year. I saw his picture 
in the paper recently. Tim Penny is a part of a group that is trying to 
get together an independent run for the Presidency. So I take my hat 
off to Tim for his integrity. I take my hat off to Tim for his 
consistency. I take my hat off to him for his persistence, Tim Penny 
and the people who surrounded him and from the very beginning were 
pushing for more budget sense and wanting to trim the waste from the 
Federal Government and wanting to move toward a balanced budget.
  Tim Penny always started his dialog by saying, we must trim the 
entitlements that are not means tested, the entitlements that are not 
means tested. He did not talk about the means tested entitlements. By 
means tested, I mean you have to show you are poor before you can 
qualify. You cannot get aid to families with dependent children unless 
you prove you are poor. You cannot get Medicaid until you have proven 
you are poor. Those are means tested entitlements.

  I even think at one point our Budget chairman, Mr. Kasich, was a part 
of the same group. They always emphasized not going after the means 
tested entitlements. In the process of balancing the budget now and 
moving towards a balanced budget, all we hear about now is the 
destruction of the means tested entitlements, the destruction of aid to 
families with dependent children, an accomplished fact almost, and the 
destruction of the entitlement for Medicaid. We are not talking about 
the entitlement for farm subsidies, various farm credit programs, 
farmers' mortgage, all kinds of programs out there which go to farmers 
regardless of whether they are poor or not. In fact, there is no means 
test whatsoever.
  On two occasions, Congressman Charles Schumer, a colleague of mine 
from New York, has offered amendments, and I supported those amendments 
which said: Look, let us take away the farm subsidies from any farmer 
who makes $100,000 or more. Farmers who make $100,000 or more should 
not be given a government handout.
  Each time that bill was on the floor, it went down to inglorious, 
inglorious 

[[Page H 13721]]
defeat. I think we got less than 70 votes out of 435. Recently, the 
last time the agriculture appropriations were on the floor, several 
bills were offered to take away subsidies for tobacco and for mines and 
for a number of things. They went down to defeat also.
  The means tested entitlements have been put on the chopping block. 
One has been devoured already, and the others are about to be devoured. 
But the entitlements which do not relate to means testing--and there 
are some others that have not been put on the chopping block at all. 
The corporate welfare programs have not been put on the chopping block. 
The subsidies to corporations, the corporate tax loopholes have not 
been put on the chopping block. They are not even under discussion. 
They refuse to discuss my chart.
  The best way to destroy an idea and to defeat an idea is to ignore 
it. Here is the most ignored chart in Washington. Here is the most 
ignored chart which is definitely a part, could be a part of the 
solution to the budget balancing problem. Here is a chart which says 
that the revenue stream in America which flows primarily from income 
tax comes in two directions. It comes from families and individuals. 
And it comes from corporations.
  Yes, there are other taxes which make up the revenue, but the income 
tax comes from families and from corporations. Here is a chart that 
shows what has happened over the last 50 years. In 1943, this chart 
shows that families and individuals were paying a very small percentage 
of the revenue of the taxes; 27.1 percent was being paid by families 
and individuals; 39.8 percent was being paid by corporations. In 1983, 
that is the blue line, that is the families and individuals. And the 
red line is the corporate, corporations.
  In 1983, under Ronald Reagan's regime, the amount of money paid by 
families and individuals jumped all the way to 48.1 percent. This is 
from 27.1 percent in 1943 to 48.1 percent in 1983; at the same time 
watch the red bar. The red bar dropped all the way down to 6.2 percent; 
corporations, their income taxes dropped drastically.
  Do you want to know why we have a deficit? Do you want to know where 
your taxes went? Do you want to know why people are angry about taxes? 
They ought to be angry. Individuals and families have been swindled. I 
said this before and I will say it again and again, but nobody wants to 
talk about it.
  Finally, in 1995, is the situation drastically improved? No. Watch 
the blue bar and the red bar, and you still have 43.7 percent being 
paid by families and individuals and 11.2 percent being paid by 
corporations.
  This is fact that nobody wants to discuss in Washington. This is a 
fact that everybody wants to ignore. I invite you, the American public, 
the voters, to use your common sense and interpret what this means, 
especially in 1995.
  In 1995, individuals and families are suffering drastically from 
downsizing and streamlining. People who lost their jobs in industrial 
enterprises have gone to work in service enterprises at much lower 
salaries. Individuals are suffering but the economy is booming. The 
economy is booming. So corporations are making tremendous amounts of 
money as a result of their application of the science and the 
technology which has been developed by the American government, 
building on telecommunications, radar, computerization, 
miniaturization, all the things which our space program and our 
military program helped to design. Corporations are able to take 
advantage of that. And nobody wants to begrudge them. Let them make 
money. That is what capitalism is all about, making money. Why do they 
not pay their fair share? Why do not corporations pay half the total 
revenue that is derived from income taxes? They are the one sector that 
could afford it. They are the one sector that would hurt the least if 
they were to pay.

  So here is the kind of fact that is destroying the kind of idea that 
does not exist because it is ignored. I urge you, the American people, 
to use your common sense and put this back on the agenda. Ask the 
question. Ask the question everywhere. Ask the Congress the question. 
Ask the Members of Congress. Ask the President the question.
  We are going into a situation now where the negotiations are going to 
take place within very narrow parameters. They will not even put this 
on the table. There are certain kinds of cuts that will not be on the 
table. The farm subsidies will not be on the table. The farm subsidies 
that go to people who are not poor, entitlements that go to people and 
they are not means tested, they will not be on the table.
  In 1990, we had a similar situation where there was a gridlock 
between the Congress and the President. The President at that time 
happened to be a Republican, President Bush. And the Congress was 
controlled by Democrats. At that time you had the same kind of 
negotiations initiated at the White House.
  On May 24, 1990, I entered into the Congressional Record the 
following extension of remarks, and I find it so relevant at this 
moment that I am going to bore you by reading part of it.
  In Extension of Remarks I submitted the following.
  Mr. Speaker, the White House budget summit now underway is a process 
saturated with pitfalls. These discussions generate great fear among 
those Americans who have been repeatedly neglected or violated by 
similar deal making.
  Since 1981, under the cloak of sweet reasonableness, we have watched 
the Democratic leadership being swindled. Tax reform gave more breaks 
to the rich while payroll taxes increased, resulting in the poor paying 
a greater percentage of their income than the rich.
  Let us not forget also that the Gramm-Rudman conspiracy almost drove 
a life threatening dagger into the heart of certain vitally needed, 
low-income safety net programs.
  Remember Gramm-Rudman? Senator Gramm is still around, Gramm-Rudman.
  Vigilance by the Congressional Black Caucus thwarted the vicious 
intent of the Gramm-Rudman conspiracy. It was through the efforts of 
the Congressional Black Caucus that seven low-income programs were 
exempted from the budget cutting axe of Gramm-Rudman: AFDC, school 
lunch and dependent care food program, commodity supplemental food 
program, food stamps, Medicaid, SSI, and WIC. They were all exempted 
from the Gramm-Rudman cuts.
  Remember the Gramm-Rudman cuts went across the board and cut 
everything equally, but we will manage to exempt these safety net 
programs.

                              {time}  2215

  Thank God for Tip O'Neill and his wisdom. He responded positively to 
our requests that the safety-net programs which are now under attack, 
which are now being destroyed, that they be exempt from Gramm-Rudman 
and not cut drastically.
  Mr. Speaker, these same crucial low-income programs are now in 
danger. This I am reading from my May 24, 1990, entry into the 
Congressional Record:

       White House spokesmen have announced that they want to 
     ``close the Gramm-Rudman loopholes.'' Our interpretation of 
     this threat leads us to believe that a tradeoff will be 
     offered. Defense cuts will be on the table in exchange for 
     low-income program cuts. Beggars will be robbed and all who 
     are present will be pressured to accept this goal as a 
     reasonable exchange.
       Mr. Speaker, the fear of the budget summit process in the 
     streets of my district is very real. I would like to use the 
     language and the attitude of a street constituent to sum up 
     this deeply felt concern.
And it is at this point that I entered a rap poem into the Record, a 
poem that I wrote from the point of view of a constituent in the street 
out there watching the process.

                           The Budget Summit

     All the big 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 we'll never get a job.
     All the gents will make a deal
     And the poor have no appeal.
     Which housing for the homeless will they hit?
     School lunches they will cut all the way to the pit.
     There's a meeting of the mob!
     Big ballouts they will cheer
     Cause the bankers they all fear.
     Closing loopholes is their role
     But never mind the S and L hole
     There's a meeting of the mob!
     Medicaid is against the wall
     Watch health care take a fall 

[[Page H 13722]]

     There's a meeting of the mob!
     These good fellows won't be frisked
     But welfare children are being risked
     There's a meeting of the mob!
     Not a cent will be left for AIDS
     When they finish with their raids
     Let addict babies remain with their pain
     This gang will deal a budget that is certainly insane

     There's a meeting of the mob!
     These bosses lack logic but they all have clout
     Old folk's COLA's will rapidly get rubbed out
     There's a meeting of the mob!
     At the big white D.C. mansion
     There's a meeting of the mob!
     Now we'll never get a job
     All these gents will make a deal
     And the poor have no appeal
     There's a meeting of the mob!

  This was in May 1990. History has gone slowly, in unfortunate 
circles, and we are right back to where we were in May 1990, only the 
situation is far worse.
  An agreement has been made already that the budget will be balanced 
in 7 years, and it is required that the beggars must be robbed. Nobody 
is talking about taking away anything from the entitlements that exist 
for the middle class. It is the beggars who must be robbed.
  In my district right now there are poor people who are on welfare, 
home relief. The constitution of the State of New York requires that 
they take care of poor people, and home relief cannot be abolished, so 
there are people on relief, home relief, who are being forced to work 
for their welfare check. I have no problem with having anybody work for 
their check, their income. It is altogether fitting and proper that 
everybody should work who can work. There are able-bodied people who 
cannot find jobs and for various reasons are on welfare, and the 
workfare that has not been thrust upon them would be appropriate if 
they were being paid the minimum wage. But they are being made to work 
more hours than are necessary if they were making minimum wage to 
generate the equivalent of their welfare check.
  What does that mean? That means they are working for less than the 
minimum wage, they are moving toward a situation which you might call 
semi-slavery. When you are forced to work for your food and your basic 
necessities, and arbitrarily you are told that you must do a certain 
amount of work, even if it is inconsistent with the minimum wages that 
would be paid for that amount of work, then you are in a very serious 
situation, and that is a situation that exists in New York City right 
now. We have no problem with the workfare programs; the streets are 
cleaner, there are a number of things that are going on as a result of 
people being put to work. It should have happened a long time ago, but 
why not compensate them to the level of minimum wage, minimum wages? It 
is so slow anyhow.
  We are fighting to get minimum wages on the agenda here in the 
Congress. The President has stamped his approval on a minimum-wage 
bill, an increase of 90 cents per hour over a 2-year period, 45 cents 
one year and 45 cents the next year. The minority leader, the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], is the sponsor of the legislation, and 
yet we can only get 110 people signed on.
  There is suffering already as a result of the double-barreled agenda 
which has a lot to do with more than balancing the budget. New York 
hospitals are suffering already as a result of the atmosphere that has 
been created. They know the cuts are coming. The mayor has moved to 
drastically overhaul the hospital system; privatization is on the 
agenda. Whether it improves health care or not is of no concern. It 
will save money, so large numbers of administrators and supervisory 
personnel of hospitals are bailing out. They are leaving the system 
already. We have a lot of chaos and confusion in the city's hospitals 
now that could be avoided if we did not have this revolutionary 
atmosphere created that frightens everybody at various levels of 
government.
  Cost of Federal Government is a primary ingredient in the income of 
these hospitals. They are thrown into panic almost by the fact that so 
much change over such a short period of time is being projected.
  Schools are crumbling literally. There was an editorial in the New 
York Times yesterday which talked about every time it rains New York 
City schools get washed away or a little bit more. That is on the 
editorial page, and you think, well, what kind of joke is this? You 
look at the article more closely, you read more carefully, and they are 
literally describing a process whereby every time it rains and the rain 
runs through the crevices of the bricks and washes away the remaining 
dry cement, the bricks begin to fall off, and they have falling bricks. 
At a lot of schools you have ceilings falling, you have literally 
brigades of people in New York City schools carrying buckets and 
various newly fashioned aluminum vessels that collect rain.

  It is the truth described in the pages of the New York Times. Schools 
are crumbling, and there is no relief in sight in terms of new 
construction.
  At one time we had a bill that was passed here that called for the 
Federal Government to begin a program of physical assistance to exist 
in the physical plants of schools. It was a small program by Federal 
standards. The authorization, and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and I 
worked on it, and we had an authorization of $600 million to begin a 
process of emergency repairs in various schools that had emergencies; 
$600 million, a small amount of the total Federal budget. Well, that 
was cut down in the appropriations process to $100 million, and when 
the rescission bill came, it was cut down to zero.
  So the Federal Government might have stimulated a process, might have 
kept a process going and encouraged the State government and the city 
government to approach the physical plants of school buildings in New 
York differently, but it provided no stimulus. I cannot blame the 
Federal Government for what New York is failing to do or the State and 
city are failing to do, but the Federal Government certainly in 
education has been a stimulus and lost a great, we lost a great, 
opportunity.
  In this crisis and revolutionary atmosphere no one is willing to make 
any decisions about building new schools. There is nothing on the 
drawing board of consequence. As I said before, the crisis and 
revolutionary atmosphere does not approve of decisionmaking. It panics 
people not only here in Washington, but at the local level and at the 
State level, the panic sets in, and we are not having the best 
government at any level as a result of the kind of crisis atmosphere 
that has been created.
  Reform is not on the agenda. If it was reform, it would go at a 
slower pace. There would be a more deliberative situation. I am all in 
favor of getting rid of waste as fast as possible. It is the duty of 
every elected official, everybody who is in government at any level, to 
constantly try to get the maximum output for every dollar that is put 
into any program.
  We are in favor of reform, but reform is not on the agenda. It is 
wrecking and destroying that is on the agenda. If we wanted to reform, 
we would not have to throw programs down to the level of the State 
government. One of the ways to destroy programs for the poor is to 
block grant them to the State level. The States had the responsibility 
before the Federal Government assumed that responsibility for most of 
the history of the United States of America. States have had the 
responsibility for programs for poor people. States have had the 
responsibility for health care. States have had the responsibility for 
nutrition programs.
  When World War II came along and they had to enlist large numbers of 
men over a short period of time, they found thousands of American males 
not fit for the process of training to go into combat. They were 
malnourished, they were weak, they were undeveloped as a result of the 
tremendous crisis in feeding programs throughout the country. The 
States had ignored the fact that their populations were not receiving 
proper nutrition. The States had produced a situation which endangered 
the security of the Nation because you did not have healthy bodies to 
deal with the crisis created by World War II. The States were in 
charge, the States have been in charge of health care, and their 
charity hospitals kept us going for a long time, but we know there were 
great gaps in services provided by charity hospitals or by the Hill-
Burton Act which later came on from the Federal Government level and 
offered funds. 

[[Page H 13723]]
The States had had responsibilities before, but they are now being 
handed back, and States have done a very poor job.

  Now if we really wanted to make some improvements and to reform, we 
would not have this blanket determination that give it to the States 
and let them handle it. If you want to destroy programs, then give it 
to the States, and let them handle it. It is an ideological decision, 
not an administration decision. It is understood that the States will 
let Medicare wither on the vine. It is understood that the States will 
ignore large numbers of poor people, and welfare as we know it will 
certainly be gone in 5 to 10 years if the States are in charge. States 
have made monumental blunders. States have been guilty of horrific 
corruption.
  I served in government at all three levels. I was commissioner in New 
York City government for 6 years. I was a State senator for 8 years. I 
have been in Congress now for 13 years. And I will tell you that the 
level of government which is the least efficient, the level of 
government which is most unreal, the level of government where you have 
the greatest amount of waste, is at the State level, not the municipal 
and local level where people in the government have to meet face to 
face with the people they are serving, not at the Federal level where 
you are forced to a process of competition. Believe it or not, 435 
people from all over the country do generate a kind of creative 
competition in working out programs, and oversight, and a number of 
other things that we do right, but at the State level, this sort of in 
between, they have a lot of power and no responsibility, and if you 
want to cut out one level of government and save money, you find the 
State is a level you could cut out, and you would not miss it. Just 
give the money directly to the local governments, and you save a lot of 
money, but States have moved in to use their powers, the Governors are 
using their powers to grab a great segment of the American Treasury. We 
have a Balkanization of America about to take place. It is very 
dangerous when you start dividing up the responsibilities at the 
Federal Government and giving them to the States. You set in motion a 
process where States will begin to compete with each other, and in the 
case of services to the poor, Mr. Speaker, they will all strive to 
reach the lowest common denominator most rapidly.
  In other words, the State which provides the least amount of services 
to the poor, the worst Medicaid that is provided will become the norm 
because every other State will be moving in a way to prevent citizens 
from one State which provides lower levels of service from moving to 
their State.

                              {time}  2230

  You will have a situation where Mississippi, which is at the bottom 
of the rung in so many ways, will set the level for the rest of the 
country. The States right around Mississippi in the South will be 
pushed into a situation where they have to lower their standards to 
keep Mississippians from moving out of their States, and then those 
States in the South, the surrounding States that surround them, will 
lower their levels, and it will go right across the country, where 
everybody will have the lowest possible level of service in order to 
defend themselves against people seeking better health care services 
trying to survive.
  You may even have tremendous tension created between the States. 
There was a time in our history shortly following the Emancipation 
Proclamation and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, where slaves were 
moving across the country, not wanted in any State or city, and large 
amounts of people were driven out with violence, large amounts were 
murdered, from one locality to another. They pushed them around because 
nobody wanted to take responsibility for poor people who had nowhere 
else to go. You may have that kind of situation. You may even have a 
situation which results in the largest States using their muscles to 
force the smaller States to not drop their people off on them.
  You have a situation now where the United States of America is one 
America. You have a situation now where FDR, or Franklin Roosevelt, who 
started the New Deal, looked at the richest on the east coast. Franklin 
Roosevelt was a New Yorker. He clearly understood that New York is much 
richer than Georgia or Tennessee or Mississippi. He clearly understood 
if you create a new deal, if you have a Federal Government taking 
revenue from the richest States and you need to supply funds for 
programs in the poorer States, that it is going to come from the 
richest States and go into the poorer States.
  Franklin Roosevelt was not stupid, not naive. He clearly understood 
that America is one America, and where there are riches and surplus, 
where people can give, they should not mind assisting the rest of 
America. That is what happened. It even endures until today, the 
unevenness in the distribution of Federal funds I have talked about 
previously.
  There is a study that is done every year by the Kennedy School of 
Government and Senator Moynihan, who originated the study in his own 
office. Jointly Senator Moynihan and the Kennedy School of Government 
do a study of how the revenues of the Federal Government are 
distributed throughout the States. They list States which give more 
than they receive. They list States that receive more than they give 
also.
  The pattern is shown, and I read from that booklet from this podium, 
and the pattern is clear. It is the Northeast States, it is the 
Midwestern States, the Great Lakes States, which even until today are 
giving much larger amounts of money to the Federal Treasury than they 
receive from the Federal Treasury.
  The pattern is clear at the other end, the Southern States, all of 
them except Texas, and whether that is Southern or Western, it is not 
clear which category they fall in, but all of the Southern States are 
recipient States. They receive large amounts of Federal money, much 
more than they pay into the Treasury.
  New York State, almost $19 billion in 1994, almost $19 billion more 
flowed from New York State taxpayers to the Federal Government than 
went back to the New York State people in terms of Federal services and 
expenditures; $19 billion.
  Now, if you have a balkanization of America and every State is 
allowed to reclaim some of what they pay in, if you had a revenue 
justice program, a revenue justice act, maybe the New York legislators 
ought to join me in creating a revenue justice act, where every State 
will get back at least half of what it overpays.

  New York would be receiving, if it got half of $19 billion, they 
would be receiving $9.5 billion. $9.5 billion would balance the budget 
of New York State. We could solve all of our budget problems if we had 
$9.5 billion. If we had the whole $19 billion, New York State would be 
a paradise. Prior to that, there was $16 billion more paid by New York 
State the year before than they received back. Prior to that, $23 
billion more was paid into the Federal coffers than New York received 
back.
  So, the question is, who benefits by the balkanization of America, if 
you start giving the States the power, if the States are going to run 
it. Where does it lead to? The Southern States receive $68 billion. The 
collective Southern States receive $68 billion more from the Federal 
Government than they pay into the Federal Government. The Southern 
States, they lose if you balkanize America.
  What is the great advantage of this process of handing it down to the 
States with the hope that the States are going to destroy the programs? 
It is dangerous precedent. It is not needed to accomplish the process 
of balancing the budget, but it is part of the destruction of programs.
  The framework has been established, the countdown has begun. But, as 
I said before, each American, each constituent out there, is not 
condemned to be merely a spectator. Common sense has a vital role to 
play. Your common sense is already having a profound impact.
  Stop and consider what some of the commonsense impacts are. If you or 
your child who is a sophomore in high school, or maybe they are just in 
the fourth grade, were to take out a pencil and paper and look at the 
options, take a look at the chart that I showed you before, would you 
not consider that it makes a lot of sense to help balance the budget by 
lowering the level of income taxes for families and individuals 

[[Page H 13724]]
while you raise the level of income taxes paid by corporations? Would 
not your common sense tell you that ought to be one of the answers to 
increase the amount of money paid by corporations into the Federal 
coffers? Corporations are making all the money. Let them pay more in 
revenue as a part of the way to solve the problem.
  Using your common sense, would you not say that even though there has 
been an agreement to do all of this in 7 years, that there is no magic 
to 7 years? If you have to, in order to do it in a more humane way and 
lessen the suffering, if you have to do it in 10 years or 9 years, why 
not do it in 9 or 10 years? Your common sense would tell you that.
  Yes, your common sense has told you over the years that something is 
wrong in Washington. You wanted to eliminate the high price toilet 
seats that the military was putting in their planes. You want to 
eliminate the $600 coffee pots.
  Common sense has always been against waste. Medicaid waste, Medicare 
waste, food stamp waste, Embassies abroad wasting money, all of that 
waste, your common sense tells you to eliminate. So let us bring our 
common sense into this debate, keep it focused.
  Look at the CIA. The CIA has blundered and is now a danger to our 
foreign policy, a danger to America. It makes so many blunders, until 
we would be better off if we did not have a CIA. Yet the CIA goes on.
  Recently the CIA was exposed as having a petty cash slush fund that 
nobody knew about, the Director of the CIA did not know about it, the 
President did not know about it. It was at least $1.5 billion .

  We have proposed on this floor several times that you cut the CIA 
budget by just 10 percent a year. If you cut it by 10 percent a year 
over a 7-year period, take out your pencil and paper, and you will see 
that the CIA cut by 10 percent a year, and the admitted amount is at 
least $28 billion, 10 percent is $2.8 billion a year, times 7 years, 
you will end up with $19 billion in 7 years. The CIA would still exist, 
but it would only be cut 10-percent a year over that seven-year period.
  If you take that $19 billion that you get from the CIA cut of 10 
percent over a 7-year period, and you add to that the $1.5 billion 
slush fund that the CIA discovered that it had and nobody knew about, 
you would have $21 billion, and $21 billion is more than you need to 
make up for the education cut. Education is being cut by $4 billion 
next year.
  $21 billion is not quite enough. Take the B-2 bomber and add that. 
The B-2 bomber over the period of its life will cost about $33 billion. 
One-third of that is $11 billion. You add the $11 billion of the B-2 
bomber to the $21 billion of the CIA, you have $32 billion. Education 
cuts are going to be $4 billion left over, if you take out your pencil 
and paper and use common sense and get rid of real waste. But nobody is 
discussing a cut of the CIA. The CIA goes on blundering and nobody cuts 
it.
  We must raise our voices, maintain a steady focus on the critical 
life and death target here in Washington. It is the budget. The 
Republican remaking of America is an appropriation and expenditure 
revolution. This is a war without blood, but there will be casualties. 
The common sense of the American people is necessary to minimize the 
casualties and to save America. We must raise our voices. We must 
maintain a steady focus. Do not let anybody tell you to lower your 
voice. Scream and scream loud.

                          ____________________