[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H13976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                BUDGET REQUIRES GOOD-FAITH NEGOTIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Pallone] just gave some figures, and although I know he is well 
intentioned, I think some of the information that he gave out is not 
quite accurate.
  I would like to give a few figures to the people who may be paying 
attention to my colleagues. For instance, the earned income tax credit. 
In 1995 we are spending almost $20 billion on the earned income tax 
credit, and my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], the 
head of the Theme Team, points out that it is going to go up to $25.4 
billion. That is a 28-percent increase.
  They keep talking about cuts.

                              {time}  1830

  It is an increase of 28 percent. The School Lunch Program is going 
from $4.5 billion to $6.17 billion. That is a 37-percent increase. 
Student loans, they keep saying we are cutting student loans. They are 
going from $24.5 billion to $36.5 billion. That is almost a 50-percent 
increase.
  Medicaid, they beat on Medicaid all the time. Medicaid, we are 
spending $89 billion, it is going to $127 billion. That is a 43-percent 
increase. And Medicare, they are trying to scare the senior citizens to 
death in this country. Medicare, we are spending in 1995 $178 billion 
and it is going up over $111 billion. That is a 63-percent increase 
over the next 7 years.
  Think about that. All we hear is how we are cutting, and we are 
increasing all of these programs from 28 percent up to 63 percent. 
Medicare is going up from $178 billion to $290 billion. So do not 
believe all the baloney you are hearing from my Democrat colleagues.
  Let me talk about something that I think is extremely important. On 
November 19, 2 weeks ago, President Clinton, in writing, agreed to 
negotiate a 7-year balanced budget using Congressional Budget Office 
figures. He agreed to that on November 19.
  On November 20, the next day, his chief of staff, Leon Panetta, said 
that maybe we could reach an agreement on 7 or 8 years and he went on 
to say, ``But I don't think the American people ought to read a lot 
into what was agreed to last night.'' In other words, he was starting 
to back away from the agreement the President signed the day before.
  Two days later, on Wednesday, Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin 
began talking to reporters about a 9-year budget. Three days before the 
President agreed to a 7-year budget and he agreed to use Congressional 
Budget Office figures. Here we are, 3 days later, his Treasury 
secretary said, ``I think our 9-year budget is every bit as valid as 
their premise. I've never understood how 7 years got canonized.''
  But the President already signed the agreement, Mr. Secretary Rubin. 
He had signed the agreement. Yet 3 days later you are saying, ``Well, 
it's not really that important.''
  Then on Tuesday, November 28, the Washington Post reported ``a senior 
administration official said yesterday'' that an outcome without a 
reconciliation bill, balanced budget act, preserves our priorities and 
not theirs. Once again they are moving away from it.
  The Post went on to say even President Clinton in two interviews this 
month made the case that operating the government under reduced 
spending bills and leaving the big budget issues until 1997 would not 
be a bad outcome. In other words, he is not going to negotiate a 7-year 
balanced budget agreement as he said he would because he said it would 
be better to run the government on short-term spending bills through 
the elections in 1996, I guess for political reasons, because he thinks 
it would be good for him.
  But then let us see what the head of the Federal Reserve said, Alan 
Greenspan. He testified before Congress in November and he warned that 
failure to reach a balanced budget agreement would lead to higher 
interest rates, higher home mortgage rates, and that the economy would 
go downhill and suffer.
  So as the President made this agreement for a balanced budget in 7 
years using CBO figures, he and his staff knew that it was just to get 
over the hump that we had caused by closing down the government. He did 
not really mean it. That is why they are not negotiating in good faith. 
They have not sent up anything.

  Chairman Kasich of the Committee on the Budget has held up our 
agreement time and time again on television saying, ``Here is our 
proposed budget. Where is the President's?'' And it was a blank hand he 
held up in conjunction with that.
  We need to have a proposal from the President to get to a balanced 
budget in 7 years, as he agreed to, using CBO figures, and cut out this 
politics. If we do not do it, according to the Federal Reserve Chairman 
Greenspan, we are likely to see people buying homes having to pay much 
higher monthly payments, much higher mortgage rates. Interest rates on 
everything would go up. As a result, sales and the economy will go 
downhill.
  Mr. Speaker, if the President does not begin negotiating in good 
faith, the budget talks will break down. This will lead or could lead 
to another Government shutdown. It could also cause severe economic 
problems. If this happens, the American people should and I hope will 
hold President Clinton accountable.

                          ____________________