[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 194 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14220-H14227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     STATUS OF BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Metcalf). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that I am performing some 
special responsibilities tonight as what we call on this side of the 
aisle, the Theme Team leader. I hope to be joined by some of my 
colleagues in this special order lasting approximately 1 hour. This is 
time reserved by the Republican majority to talk about issues of the 
day.
  However, having said that, I will also point out that we have ended 
legislative business for the week and I do not know if I will be joined 
by some of my colleagues, but it is my hope to talk a little bit about 
the budget situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think Americans are curious to know the status of 
these negotiations, since we are roughly 1 week away from the December 
15 deadline for the short-term continuing resolution which has allowed 
us to keep, if you will, the doors of the Federal Government open and 
continue to pay our bills. A week from tomorrow, December 15, is when 
that continuing resolution expires; when the Federal Government runs 
out of funds.

                              {time}  1715

  So we have a little bit more than a week to reach a bipartisan 
agreement with the President and his administration and with our 
Democratic colleagues in the House over the terms of a 7-year plan to 
balance the Federal budget using honest numbers are generated by the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, a balanced budget over 7 years 
which does not resort to Washington budgeting. There is a little bit 
more than a week to reach an agreement to preserve the American dream 
for our children and our grandchildren rather than to leave them with 
the legacy of the American debt.
  I would point out the obvious, which is that we Republicans, while 
being the new governing majority in the Congress for the first time in 
40 years, lack the votes to override the President's veto. Therefore, 
we have to reach some sort of agreement with either the President and 
his administration or with enough of our Democratic colleagues to be 
able to override the President's veto, if the President continues to 
insist on balancing our plan, our balanced budget plan.
  But at the beginning of my special order I wanted to talk just a 
little bit about the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ruling 
yesterday on Speaker Gingrich, particularly since it was the primary 
topic raised today during the opening of legislative business, the time 
that we normally reserve for what we call 1-minute speeches or 1-minute 
addresses to the House.
  One of my Democratic colleagues after another came to the well, where 
I am now speaking from, to make or to reinforce accusations against the 
Speaker. It was clearly a smoke screen in my view to divert attention 
from what the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct really said in 
their ruling yesterday and also to divert attention away from the 
pressing business, the businesss of the American people, which is of 
course confronting this House, as I mentioned, and which we actually 
have just a little bit over a week's time to conclude. Again, the most 
pressing business, the most pressing issue confronting the House of 
Representatives is the American people's desire to have a balanced 
Federal budget.
  So, first of all, let me just take a moment to clarify this Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct rule on Speaker Gingrich. I think my 
colleagues, particularly my newer colleagues who perhaps do not have 
the history of this institution, certainly, or perhaps are not aware of 
how the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has been really 
turned into a tool or a vehicle for political vendettas, I want to 
spend a moment to talk a little bit about the history of the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct. I also want to take a moment to 
clarify that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the only 
standing committee of the House of Representatives that is truly 
bipartisan in nature. That is to say, an equal number of Republicans 
and Democrats are serving on that committee.

  Yesterday the five Democrats and the five Republicans, again an equal 


[[Page H 14221]]
number, making this truly the only bipartisan committee of the House, 
because all other committees have a majority-minority representation. 
That is to say, there are more Republicans, since we are now the 
majority party in the Congress, on every other congressional committee 
than there are Democrats, except for the House Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct. Yesterday those 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans 
serving on that committee voted unanimously, that is 10 to 0, to 
effectively dismiss 64 of the 65 charges leveled against the Speaker of 
the House.
  To me that clearly points out that these charges are baseless, and 
not only that, that they are largely frivolous and political in nature. 
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct gives us real reason to 
believe that these charges were part of a political vendetta 
orchestrated from the day that the Democrat Party lost control of the 
House, a vendetta orchestrated to discredit the Speaker by attacking 
him personally.
  After 15 months and millions of taxpayer dollars and hours and hours 
of time spent investigating, the liberal Democratic minority, the 
liberal Democrats who constitute a majority of the minority party in 
the House of Representatives, those liberal Democrats who launched this 
unfounded smear campaign owe the House and the taxpayers an apology. 
These were frivolous charges that were made for political reasons and 
attempt to politicize and to misuse the ethics process.
  This is not an isolated example. This continues a Democratic pattern 
of abuse of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. These phony 
charges against Speaker Gingrich are really nothing new because in 
1989, Democrats, in retaliation for then-Speaker Jim Wright's 
resignation, filed nearly 500 charges agsinst Representative Gingrich. 
Just like today, after a long and costly investigation, Representative 
Gingrich was exonerated.
  These attacks against Representative Gingrich may be phony, as he 
himself has said, but they are a serious pattern of misuse and even 
abuse by a frustrated Democratic Party bent on politicizing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. So, while we are working to 
try and change America, they are working to try and change the subject.
  These charges were a coordinated effort, again by the most liberal 
element of the House Democratic Party, not to seek the truth or 
justice, but to stop us from balancing the budget, reforming welfare, 
providing tax relief for families, and sending power back to States and 
to families, just as we promised to do and just in fact as we have been 
doing since we became the majority party in Congress last January 4.
  I also want to take a moment, because it really riles me to see that 
the gentleman from Michigan. [Mr. Bonior], David Bonior, has sort of 
become the point person for the Democratic minority in leveling these 
charges against the Speaker. It upsets me to see a Member of the House 
Democratic Party leadership really take the point in leveling these 
charges and leading the attack against the Speaker.
  I worry sometimes that again some of our newer colleagues perhaps may 
not have an understanding of the recent history in this institution. I 
certainly worry that many of our constituents, the American people, do 
not realize that some of the people engaged in this orchestrated 
political vendetta against the Speaker are the very people who presided 
over the scandals that have rocked the House of Representatives in 
recent years.
  It is very important to understand that the governing party, the 
majority party in the House of Representatives, has added 
responsibilities, a special duty to administer the House on a day-to-
day basis. That means all the administrative and financial functions of 
the House of Representatives. Of course until last January, the party 
responsible for managing the House of Representatives was the 
Democratic Party. I very well remember, because of my personal 
experiences from my first go-around in Congress as a Member of the 102d 
Congress, I remember vividly the House Bank and Post Office scandals 
that occurred on the watch of the House Democratic Party leadership.

  I remember when then-Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, speaking from 
this podium opposite me in the well of the House, took the report from 
the General Accounting Office. This was an audit of the House, the so-
called House bank, which was really a membership cooperative and check-
cashing office. I remember when Speaker Foley took the audit indicating 
over 8,000 bounced checks at the House bank, waved it in the air, 
standing down here at that podium right there, typically where the 
Democrats speak from. He waved that audit in the air, and he said: This 
is now a matter that is over and done with.
  He submitted the GAO report for the Congressional Record. 
Translation: We have not done anything wrong, and we will not do it 
again.
  A small group of us, proverbial back benchers because we were junior 
members of the Republican Party, the minority party, which was to 
become known as the Gang of Seven, happened to be on the House floor. 
And that moment we came together and said: We are not going to let this 
pass unnoticed. We are going to challenge what appears to be a 
deliberate effort on the part of the House Democratic Party leadership 
to sweep this matter under the rug.
  Well, the rest, as they say, was history, and to make a long story 
short, we ultimately helped lead the fight compelling full disclosure 
of the names of those who had abused their membership privileges, their 
part of the perquisites of being a Member of the House of 
Representatives at the House bank over the opposition of the entrenched 
Democratic Party leadership, which was to include in that 102d Congress 
the gentleman from Michigan who now attacks the ethics of the Speaker 
of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Later in that same Congress, of course, we had the post office 
scandal. I can recall, again, as a member of the Gang of Seven, 
standing upstairs in the House press gallery and telling a news 
conference of the national news media that there was prima facie 
evidence to suggest criminal wrongdoing at the House bank and post 
office. And I based that on my former experience as a law enforcement 
officer and police investigator. I can remember them laughing aloud, 
scoffing openly at the suggestion, the temerity on my part to suggest 
that there had actually been illegalities or criminal wrongdoing.
  But if you come forward to the present day, we now know that there 
have been a number of indictments, criminal indictments and criminal 
convictions on the part of House officers and employees as well as 
Members of the House of Representatives in conjunction with those two 
scandals. The bank and post office scandals really gave new meaning to 
the term, the old joke, the check is in the mail.
  Later, out of the House post office scandal, we had revelations of 
ghost employees, ghost employees on the payroll, on the official staffs 
at taxpayer expense of Members of Congress. Those are serious 
allegations. They were leveled against a former member of Congress from 
Illinois by the name of Dan Rostenkowski who was then chairman of the 
House Committee on Ways and Means and very much a part of the House 
Democratic Party leadership.
  I cannot recall any protest from the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior]. I cannot remember Mr. Bonior ever going on record. And this is 
the same gentleman now who constantly chases the TV cameras and anyone 
holding a microphone. I cannot remember that gentleman ever coming 
forward and condemning these ethical lapses and these deliberate abuses 
in the House of Representatives.
  In fact, in the last Congress, in the last Congress, there were two 
votes, two votes to force the House Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct to investigate the allegations against then-Representative 
Rostenkowski, both of which were defeated on pretty much a straight 
party-line vote, the Democratic majority outvoting the Republican 
minority. Where was Mr. Bonior then?
  Well, the answer of course is that he was part of the Democratic 
Party leadership. He was part of a concerted effort to control the 
damage, to cover up the true extent of the House bank and post office 
scandals and to thwart an 

[[Page H 14222]]
official Committee on Standards of Official Conduct investigation of 
Representative Rostenkowski.
  I might add that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] had 76 
overdrafts at the House bank for which he was never held accountable by 
his colleagues in the House of Representatives. Remember, of course, 
that Representative Bonior now insists that the House take action 
against the Speaker. He gloats that the decision to dismiss 64 out of 
the 65 charges against the Speaker of the House is some sort of great 
victory and that the appointment of an outside counsel to assist the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in investigating the 65th 
charge, which entails complicated tax issues, is somehow, again, a 
vindication of his position all along.
  But I would love to ask Mr. Bonior, where was your moral outrage, 
where was your indignation when this institution was consumed by the 
House bank and post office scandals? How did you vote on July 22, 1993, 
when the House defeated by a party-line vote of 242 to 184 the Michel 
resolution offered by then-Republican-leader Bob Michel to force 
immediate disclosure of House administration transcripts of the post 
office inquiry?
  In fact, the two gentlemen from Florida who have been prompted, 
coming down to this floor talking about how we are going to force the 
House to demand an immediate accounting from the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct, we want immediate disclosure of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct proceedings against the Speaker of the 
House, I dare say that those two gentlemen from Florida, Representative 
Peterson, Representative Johnston, both voted with the majority here 
back on July 22, 1993, to block immediate disclosure of the House 
administration transcripts of the post office inquiry.
  Then later, March 2, 1994, again by another party-line vote of 238 to 
186, the House of Representatives, under the control of the Democratic 
majority at the time, defeated a resolution by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] to immediately initiate a Post Office 
investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  So you can see, my colleagues, that there is clearly a double 
standard in this House of Representatives, clearly a very convenient 
short-term memory lapse by my Democratic colleagues with respect to the 
scandals which again rocked this institution under their watch.

                              {time}  1730

  Clearly there is no limit on hypocrisy with a capital H in this town. 
In fact it reminds me, as I watched these shenanigans, I am always 
reminded, I think, of the wonderful Woody Allen line: ``No matter how 
cynical I get, I just can't seem to keep up,'' particularly when I 
watch the hypocrisy and the double standard on the other side of the 
aisle. So I wonder where is your moral outrage at what occurred then? 
How could you have been silent, and how could you have condoned and 
acquiesced to those scandals then but be so outraged today, and for 
that matter where is your outrage at the scandals that have rocked the 
current Presidential administration, the Clinton administration, which 
promised us the most ethical administration in the history of our 
country? Where is your outrage, Mr. Bonior  and others, over the 
Whitewater scandal and what appears to be with every passing day more 
and more evidence of a high-level coverup in the administration, a 
high-level damage control operation in the White House to prevent the 
American people from knowing the full truth and all the facts regarding 
the Whitewater scandal? And on, and on, and on.
  There is almost a joke today that the Clinton administration cannot 
have a Cabinet meeting without all the Secretaries bringing along all 
their independent counsels and their lawyers.
  So what is this all about? It is really an attempt, as I said earlier 
today during 1-minutes, to divert attention from the major issues 
confronting this Congress, the important work, the important business, 
of the American people, and that is balancing the Federal budget, 
keeping our promises, doing the right thing for our children's future.
  Now what happened yesterday? Mr. Speaker, yesterday, with one stroke 
of his pen, the President replaced the American dream with the American 
debt. Now the President of course has, having vetoed our 7-year plan to 
balance the Federal budget as certified by the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, the President vetoed our plan, arguably 
the most important bill to cross his desk since be became President of 
the United States, the President now has a responsibility to offer his 
own balanced budget, to tell us specifically what he does not like 
about our proposal, without any gimmicks and without any rosy economic 
scenarios.
  But before we get into the President's proposal, because bear in mind 
it has now been 2 years and 11 months roughly that he has been 
President of the United States, and he has yet to send to this 
Congress, or to the last Congress, his plan for balancing the Federal 
budget. But, first of all, I think we have to ask why, why did the 
President do this? Why did the President veto the most important piece 
of legislation to cross his desk since he became President?
  Well, why did the President veto a sound, reasonable, balanced 
budget? It sort of begs the question does he really want a balanced 
budget or does he want to play politics with this whole issue of 
balancing the Federal budget as part of what I call the nonstop 
campaign? And at some point in time I really believe you got to put the 
politics aside and act on principle, and that time is now.
  Why did the President veto welfare reform, because we had put our 
welfare reform proposal into the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 which he 
vetoed yesterday; why did he veto that? Does he really want, as he 
promised as a candidate for President of the United States, does he 
really want to end welfare as we know it? Why did he veto Medicare 
solvency? Does he really want to save Medicare? Is he completely 
ignorant of the report made by his own Cabinet Secretaries, the public 
trustees of the Medicare trust fund, that Medicare starts to go broke 
next year and will be completely bankrupt in 7 years? Why did the 
President veto Medicaid reform, the kind of Medicaid reforms that he 
lobbied for as the Governor of Arkansas? Why did he veto Medicaid 
reform that would give States, as he argued back when he was a 
Governor, more money, greater flexibility, and less bureaucratic red 
tape?

  All questions then await an answer from the President now that he has 
vetoed our plan to balance the Federal budget.
  The President has clearly, against the will of the American people, 
the President has clearly tried to ignore the will of the people and 
avoid balancing the budget.
  So I have got a message to the President, to my colleagues, 
yesterday. I have three children. I, like many other proud dads, carry 
their photographs everywhere with me in my wallet. Actually I have a 
large photograph, but I left it over in my office in my office desk. I 
wanted to bring that over here and hold it up, but I want my colleagues 
to know that the President said--what the President said to my kids 
yesterday, 20 and 13. Those are our two boys, Ryan and Matt, and our 
little girl, Sarah Ann, who is 8\1/2\ going on 18. I want the President 
to know what he said to my kids yesterday. He said:
  If you want a brighter future, here is a veto. If you want to be able 
to live the American dream and not inherit the American debt, here is a 
veto.
  I want to remind my colleagues that the Balanced Budget Act was not 
just a good bill, it is the only bill. There is only one credible plan 
in this town that would balance the budget using honest numbers while 
cutting taxes for working families, and that is the bill the President 
vetoed yesterday.
  All we can gather from this action is that the President wants to 
take more of my children's money, because remember, our children are 
going to be spending for our excesses, they are going to be paying high 
taxes to pay for our wasteful spending practices, and we really believe 
it is immoral on this side of the aisle in Congress to borrow from our 
children's future to pay for today's spending binges, but that seems to 
be the message from the President and his administration.
  Now let me just point out that we have some pundits weighing in on 
this particular subject, some pundits who have looked at all this give 
and take, 

[[Page H 14223]]
back and forth, between the Republican majority in the Congress and the 
President and his administration on the balanced budget, and I want to 
bring a couple of quotes to your attention.
  I want to quote from the Washington Post a couple of days ago, 
December 5, in a column written by James Glassman, and he is a regular 
columnist now for the Washington Post, but he is a pretty knowledgable 
guy about Capitol Hill because he used to be the editor of Roll Call 
newspaper, the weekly newspaper that is published on Capitol Hill, and 
here is what he wrote about the budget:

       My own judgment is that the lack of a deal is Clinton's 
     fault. To be fair, Clinton and Congress differ on how a small 
     part of this spending will be financed. If the two sides are 
     so close, why is there no deal? That is the big secret that 
     we seem to be keeping from the American people, is that we 
     are actually relatively close. In fact, the President has 
     proposed to limit the growth of Medicare, the President has 
     proposed to cut middle-class taxes. In fact, by the same 
reasoning that so many of our Democratic colleagues use here in the 
House of Representatives the President is proposing to limit the growth 
of Medicare to help finance a middle-class tax cut, but you will never 
hear that acknowledged by the Democratic minority in the House.

  Anyway, back to Glassman's quote. He says: ``If the two sides are so 
close, why is there no deal? I am not sure Clinton wants one right now. 
With shutdown two looming on December 15, next Friday, a week from 
tomorrow, he would rather portray the Republicans as extremist and 
obstructionist and himself as the savior of health care for seniors and 
the poor. The actual numbers, listen to this, the actual numbers from 
an objective, neutral, unbiased observer, the actual numbers prove this 
claim is malicious nonsense, malicious nonsense. The only question is 
how long it takes Americans to realize it.''
  That is James Glassman 2 days ago in the Washington Post.
  Now listen to this, same day, December 5, a quote from Democratic 
Senator and Senate Budget Committee ranking minority member James Exon 
in the Omaha World-Herald newspaper: ``When you come down to the 
numbers, it has been impossible to get the Democrats to agree to any 
kind of plan. I am critical of my own party,'' says Senator Exon 
regarding Congressional Democrats. ``I think we have to come up with a 
budget to be credible.''
  That is coming from one of the people inside the room, one of the 
leading budget negotiators, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate 
Budget Committee, Senator James Exon.
  Now listen to the Boston Globe on Monday of this week speaking of 
Leon Panetta, former Congressman and Committee on the Budget chairman 
in the House of Representatives, and now chief of staff at the White 
House leading the White House negotiating team on the budget 
deliberations. Here is what the Boston Globe says:
  ``Panetta acknowledged last week that Democrats are bargaining from a 
position of some weakness.'' They quote Panetta as saying, ``We should 
have been the ones who asked the toughest questions about costly 
government programs,'' he said. ``I think we lost something when we 
didn't,'' and I raise that now because I want to speak about my former 
California colleague, Leon Panetta, in just a moment, because, as you 
will see, Leon Panetta has been all over the political landscape when 
it comes to the idea of a balanced-budget plan, a credible balanced-
budget plan.
  So again, colleagues, with one stroke of his pen yesterday President 
Clinton vetoed the first balanced budget in 25 years, 25 years. The 
only real balanced budget plan the President has ever touched, he 
vetoed, and he vetoed it with a flourish, with a lot of fanfare, as if 
that is going to give him additional political mileage. His explanation 
for not giving the American people a balanced budget was that our plan, 
again certified by the Congressional Budget Office as balancing the 
Federal budget in 7 years, our plan which increases spending from $9 
trillion over the past 7 years to $12 trillion over the next 7 years, 
almost a $3 trillion increase, that our plan was, to use the 
President's word, ``extreme.''
  Well, let me tell you something. The American people know this. My 
constituents know this. There is nothing extreme and unacceptable, 
another term the President used, about lowering interest rates, giving 
American workers more take-home pay, saving Medicare from bankruptcy, 
ending welfare as we know it, and, yes, we are going to continue to 
remind the President of that campaign promise, increasing spending as I 
mentioned by almost $3 trillion and giving more power to the States and 
communities. This is what the President vetoed, despite his rhetoric. 
He vetoed a sound, reasonable, balanced budget. He vetoed welfare 
reform that really does end welfare as we know it.

  Now there is a certain rich irony in a new Republican majority in the 
Congress attempting to help a Democratic President make good on his 
fundamental campaign promises, because that is exactly what is 
occurring here. The President campaigned on a promise of ending welfare 
as we know it----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Metcalf). Would the gentleman suspend?
  As stated on page 175 of the House Rules and Manual, the Chair will 
remind the gentleman from California that it is not in order in debate 
to mention the name of a Senator--except as a sponsor of a measure or 
in quotations from Senate proceedings for the purpose of making 
legislative history--or to reefer to a Senator or his vote on a 
proposition.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the Speaker's reminder. I was quoting the 
Senator, I believe, from a newspaper, so I do stand admonished, and, 
Mr. Speaker, let me ask how much time I have remaining, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has one-half hour remaining.
  Mr. RIGGS. All right.
  Mr. Speaker, with that reminder let me pick up where I left off. I 
was talking about the irony of a Republican majority helping a Democrat 
President make good on his fundamental promises, and if you go back to 
the 1992 Presidential campaign, you will recall that the President 
campaigned on a promise of ending welfare as we know it and a promise 
of reducing middle-class taxes. We want to do both. We do both in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which he vetoed yesterday.
  So I want to say again the President with one stroke of the pen 
yesterday vetoed tax cuts for families, and do not--I know the American 
people see through this smokescreen, this constant class warfare 
demagoguery that they hear daily on the floor of this Congress, and I 
think that is evidence of just how intellectually bankrupt the 
congressional Democratic Party has become at times. But I know the 
American people see through that, but I simply want to stand here today 
and tell you that three-quarters of the tax relief we provide in the 
Balanced Budget Act goes to families with dependent children. We think 
that is very important.

                              {time}  1745

  We think it is fundamentally important to give American families an 
economic dividend from the first balanced budget in 25 years. Yes, we 
do philosophically believe that the American people are entitled to 
keep more of their own hard-earned money, that they are in a better 
position to determine how to spend that money than the Federal 
Government and the Federal bureaucracy back here in Washington, so we 
give tax relief to families. We have especially helped middle-class 
families which have felt the burden, the twin whammy, the pinch, if you 
will, of rising taxes and stagnant or even declining wages in recent 
years, so our tax relief is targeted to middle-class and low-income 
families. And, in fact, our tax relief would completely eliminate the 
Federal tax liability of 4.7 of the lowest-income families in America. 
That is what the President vetoed yesterday. He vetoed a $2.5 trillion 
increase in Federal spending in the next 7 years over the last 7 years, 
as I mentioned earlier.
  How much more money does the President want to spend? We will not 
know until we get a detailed proposal, a counter proposal, if you will, 
from the President. I will point out that when the President vetoed the 
Balanced Budget Act yesterday, he vetoed the American people, because 
in the largest public opinion survey ever taken, 7,200 registered 
voters with a margin of error of 1 percent on the 

[[Page H 14224]]
issue of a balanced budget, the American people said yes to our plan to 
balance the budget. Fifty-seven percent of the American people surveyed 
embraced our plan after being given a few facts; a few facts, not the 
rhetoric, not the distortions, not the demagogery; facts about how our 
plan treats programs like Medicare; student loans which increase from 
$24 billion to $36 billion, a $12 billion increase over the next 7 
years; Social Security, which has always been off the table, and I 
think that is one of our biggest accomplishments, balancing our budget 
while providing tax relief for American families and without touching 
Social Security.
  In fact, I think as other Members have pointed out, we have to 
generate a budget surplus here in Washington by 2002 or sooner, so we 
can begin paying down and ultimately paying off the national debt, and 
repaying the money to the Social Security trust fund that we have 
borrowed over the years. In fact, I think our constituents and our 
colleagues need a reminder that $1.5 trillion of the $5 trillion 
national debt that we have today is money borrowed from the trust funds 
of the Federal Government, chiefly, Social Security, so we have to 
repay that money. The only way we can do that, obviously, is to balance 
the Federal budget and then generate a budget surplus year in and year 
out. I still get wide-eyed looks when I raise the idea of budget 
surplus from my constituents in my town meetings, but we are going to 
do that.
  As I told one of my constituents at the beginning of this year, who 
asked me in a town meeting, ``Congressman, will I ever see a balanced 
budget in my lifetime?'' I said, ``Yes, you will. You will see it this 
session of Congress, and you will see in your lifetime budget surpluses 
in Washington that go to pay down and pay off the national debt so our 
children do not inherit that debt.''
  So 57 percent of the American people embraced the plan after they 
learned the facts, 86 percent believed that the President and Congress 
should deal with the budget issue now. That is the language of the 
short-term congressional, the continuing resolution that expires next 
Friday. We said ``shall,'' not ``maybe,'' not ``if.'' We said, ``We 
shall deal with the budget now.''

  Seventy-one percent of the people surveyed agreed that President 
Clinton should submit a 7-year balanced budget plan scored by the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as he himself once promised to 
do in a State of the Union address, standing at that podium right there 
behind me. My, what a difference an election makes, and the hypocrisy 
quotient begins to go up again.
  Seventy-three percent of the people surveyed agreed that the 
President and Congress will not balance the budget unless they stick to 
the 7-year deadline. Again, that is from the largest public opinion 
survey ever taken in the history of our country. So I wanted to try and 
stress a couple of those points. I wanted to take a moment again just 
to look at what the President said yesterday when he vetoed the 
Balanced Budget Act, H.R. 2491, and I quote from a transcript of his 
veto message which was on the U.S. News wire yesterday: ``The bill 
seeks to make extreme cuts and other unacceptable changes in Medicare 
and Medicaid.''
  I am here on the floor tonight to say to the President, to my 
colleagues, to my constituents, and to the American people that there 
are absolutely no extreme cuts in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. 
Total Federal spending, as I have already mentioned, over the next 7 
years when compared to the last 7 years actually increases $2.5 
trillion. Specifically, there are no extreme cuts, and I quote now from 
the President, there are no ``extreme cuts and other unacceptable 
changes in Medicare and Medicaid.''
  A spending increase is not a cut, as the President himself said in 
1993, when he also proposed slowing the rate of growth of Medicare: 
``Today Medicaid and Medicare are going up at three times the rate of 
inflation.'' The President recognized that was an unsustainable rate of 
growth in both of those programs. Then he went on to say, ``We propose 
to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a 
Medicare or Medicaid cut,'' from a speech he gave to AARP, the American 
Association of Retired Persons, on October 5, 1993.
  What has changed? If anything, Medicare and Medicaid are in worse 
condition, worse shape today than they were back on October 5, 1993. 
But what do we do in our bill? We increase Medicare spending 6 percent 
a year between this year, fiscal year 1995, and fiscal year 2002. 
Medicare spending in actual dollar numbers increases from $178 to $289 
billion, a 62-percent increase.

  Here is the real news to the American people. The difference between 
our proposal on Medicare part B premiums and the President's proposal 
is $4 a month, $4 a month in the year 2002. That is what the President 
calls an extreme, unacceptable cut. Of course, the flip side of that is 
to make American workers, including minimum-wage workers, pay even more 
taxes so that Medicare part B recipients do not have to pay a slight 
increase in premiums.
  Mr. Speaker, it just astounds me, again, the cynicism and hypocrisy 
that we see, and the evolution here of the President's position over 
the last couple of years. Medicare spending never differs more than 2 
percent under the two plans, and in two of the next 7 years our 
Republican balanced budget actually spends more on medical care than 
the President's budget. Overall, the difference in total Medicare 
spending between the two plans is $32 billion or 1.9 percent.
  The other program the President singled out was Medicaid. Yes, we 
will no longer allow Medicaid to be an individual entitlement, a 
universal individual entitlement. We make it, instead, a block grant 
program to the States, at the request of the Governors. I pointed out 
earlier that the President, when he was the Governor of Arkansas, 
requested these same innovations. I would also like the American people 
and my Democratic colleagues to understand that we are working very 
closely with the Governors in developing our plans, and in developing 
the particulars of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  Why are we doing that? We now have 31 Republican Governors in America 
representing 71 percent of the American people. Are we not going to 
consult them? Are we going to leave them out of the equation? Are we 
not going to treat them as equal partners in developing the Balanced 
Budged Act? Of course not. We have been acting on their bequest here as 
we craft a plan for reforming Medicaid.
  Instead, we have a Medigrant proposal which gives States more money, 
greater flexibility, less bureaucratic redtape, just as the President 
wanted when he was a Governor, and which increase Medicaid spending by 
55 percent. There is nothing extreme and unacceptable about lowering 
interest rates, giving American workers more take-home pay, saving 
Medicare from bankruptcy, ending welfare as we know it, increasing 
spending, and giving more power to the American people. That is just 
what I said earlier. I want to repeat it for emphasis, because that is 
what the President vetoed yesterday.
  I see I am joined by my very good friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California. I wanted to point out to her, she probably 
already knows this, but with our Medicare reforms, California, which is 
a high-cost, high-growth State, will get even more funding for Medicare 
recipients. Medicare recipients in California are going to realize and 
receive an increase of $5,000 per beneficiary today to over $8,000 per 
Medicare beneficiary in California in the year 2002. Our plans to 
balance the Federal budget in 7 years anticipate that we will spend 
over $50,000 per Medicare beneficiary in California over the next 7 
years. That is what the President apparently feels is extreme and 
unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. 
Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note, and the gentleman probably 
saw this article of November 29 of U.S.A. Today, it stated what life 
would be like in the year 2002 with a balanced budget. I was pleased to 
see that they agree with us. It means a larger economy, $150 billion 
more in goods and services, lower interest rates, 30-year fixed-rate 
mortgages below 5 percent, lower inflation, higher incomes, no trade 
deficit, a stronger dollar; but they have a ``but'' here, and it says 
``cuts Federal spending.''

[[Page H 14225]]

  I do not know if the gentleman from California hears from our 
constituents like I do, but that is why they sent us here. They know 
the Federal Government has to go on a diet. They want us to cut 
spending. They said also that there would be cuts, and they use that 
word cuts. They are talking about Medicare. We know that we are not 
cutting Medicare, as you just pointed out, we are going to increase the 
dollars there. We are slowing the rate of growth.
  I find it interesting. Last night I had a phone call. I was working 
in my office quite late and did the answering of my phones. People are 
always amazed back home that I am answering the phone and working late 
hours. It was interesting, because the gentleman was concerned about 
balancing the budget and concerned about cutting Government. I pointed 
out to him, did he realize that we were increasing, under our budget, 
the Republican budget for the next 7 years, we were increasing spending 
from well over $9.5 trillion to 12, and we are increasing it by $2.5 
trillion. When they are told this fact, people just stop dead in their 
tracks and say, ``Why are you not doing a better job of cutting 
Government spending?''
  Mr. RIGGS. They also say, I might point out, ``Why are you not doing 
a better job of getting your message out?'' on that point, and that is 
why we are doing the special order here tonight.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. That is why we are here, to try to get the message 
out to the hinterlands and California about what our plan is all about. 
I am doing my very best, as my colleagues are, to get our message out 
about how good our plan is for America.
  I think it is important to share the information about the good old 
State of California. We have been hit very hard these last several 
years. We know about the moving vans leaving California for other 
points, other States. We do not like that idea. We like people to stay 
in California.
  I have two children, 23 and 25, and they are now at the beginning of 
their careers. They are looking for a place, and they want to stay in 
the good old Golden State of California. They are concerned about what 
this means in their life: Are they going to be able to get a job in 
California? Are they going to be able to buy that dream home that they 
are dreaming about with that special someone that they hope to marry? 
Will they be able to have their children here and have a good life for 
their family?
  I just would like to stress that under our plan, all of this over the 
next 7 years, it would give each and every one of them, not only my 
children but other people's children, the hope that it is good to stay 
in California and things will turn in America.
  I would just like to say that under the Republican balanced budget 
plan, the Federal spending for our home State will increase from $177 
billion in the fiscal year 1995 to $215 billion in the year 2002, which 
is an increase, an increase. I am an old fourth grade school teacher, 
so when I see increase, that means a plus sign. I know it is very 
difficult for some people to understand the simple plus and minus, but 
we are going to increase it, increase spending in California with 
Federal dollars by 22 percent.
  Over the past 7 years the Federal Government's spending in California 
was $1.1 trillion. Under our Republican plan that unfortunately was 
vetoed by the President, total Federal spending in California would 
have been $1.46 trillion, an increase of 31 percent. Again, we are 
talking about a plus, not a minus sign. Social Security payments to 
Californians would increase by $15.9 billion over the next 7 years. 
Federal welfare spending would increase by $40 billion in the State of 
California over the next 7 years; the Medicare payments also, $9.2 
billion over the next 7 hears, and Medicaid payments, giving more 
control to the State, and yet we are going to increase those Federal 
dollars by $3.4 billion over the next 7 years.
  What I am saying is we are increasing dollars. We cannot be talking 
about cuts. We are slowing that rate of growth. We are trying to put 
the Federal Government on a diet and yet do the job by taking 
regulations, bureaucracies, out of the system.
  As a former State legislator in the State of California, I know what 
it was like to be told that you had to have a mandate, you had to do it 
the Washington bureaucrat way, and they treated us so often as if we 
did not have any sense, common sense; we did not have integrity at the 
State level, we had no compassion at the State level. I think what I 
saw, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, be they Republican or 
Democrat, they were concerned about their constituents.

                              {time}  1800

  Mrs. SEASTRAND. So I just would like to give greater control to our 
States and the State of California and see that we have a better future 
for the State of California.
  I would just like to add that a drop of 2 percent in interest rates 
with the balanced budget over the next 7 years would mean 97,000 new 
private sector jobs in California. I know the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] is facing tough times in his district to the north of San 
Francisco on the coastline, and I am too on the central coast of 
California.
  We have been hit very hard with defense closure. We are trying our 
very best to commercialize the spaceport at Vandenberg Air Force Base; 
we are trying to think of new ways for high-tech jobs.
  But this means so much about what a balanced budget would mean to the 
State of California. It is going to reduce taxes of working families in 
California by $23.8 billion over the next 7 years.
  Let us look at a house in Santa Barbara. This might be unbelievable 
to some people across America, but in the county of Santa Barbara, the 
average home sells for $225,000. Now, if they were to get a 30-year 
loan, we are talking about a savings, with a 2 percent drop in interest 
rates, a savings of $111,000 over the life of that loan.
  Now, I do not know about you, but again, it means something to my 23- 
and 25-year-old children when they are thinking of buying that home and 
starting their families.
  In San Luis Obispo County, the other county in my district, the 
average home in 1995 was $163,000. Well, again with that drop of 2-
percent reduction in mortgage rates, if we have that balanced budget in 
7 years, using those honest numbers, we are going to see that we are 
going to save those working families again, 23-, 25-year-olds that want 
to buy a home, they are going to save $100,000. Now, that is not just a 
dollar here or there; this is real money.
  It is interesting to note also, my son unfortunately had his car 
stolen, and he is now in the situation where he has to figure out how 
he is going to get a loan to buy another car and so on. A 4-year car 
loan, $15,000. Well, if you have a 2-percent drop in interest rates, he 
can save $900. Let me tell you, that is important to him.
  My daughter is graduating, and she is looking to go on to a master's, 
and saying, Mom, I think I might do it on my own and look for some 
student loans. Well, again, a 10-year student loan, so important to my 
University of Santa Barbara and my Cal Poly students in San Luis 
Obispo. If they apply and receive a 10-year loan of say $11,000, they 
are going to save $2,160 over the life of that loan.
  So all in all, this means so much that we push on; and unfortunately, 
our Balanced Budget Act of 1995 was vetoed by the President, and I am 
just hoping that as we move forward, we can continue to work for a 
balanced budget in the 7 years, with honest numbers working with the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  Folks at home understand how we play funny games here in Washington, 
DC, and they know about the numbers and how we can take a zero here and 
move things around. They want honest numbers. My calls over the last 
several weeks, well over 1,000 phone calls, saying, hang in there, hang 
in there for a balanced budget in 7 years; I know I am going to have to 
feel a little pain; do it across the board, and let us balance this 
budget for our children and grandchildren.
  So I just appreciate the gentleman from California letting me join 
him this evening to try and explain and get our message out about what 
this balanced budget means to people not only in the State of 
California, not only to my children, not only to my 83-year-old mom who 
depends on Medicare, but what it means to the folks across 

[[Page H 14226]]
America, those hard-working folks that want a better tomorrow.
  Mr. RIGGS. Well, I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. I 
want to stress a couple of points that the gentlewoman made.
  First of all, I want to make sure everyone understands again that the 
principal form of tax relief that we want to give to families is a $500 
credit, child credit, and this is a tax credit, it is not a deduction, 
so it comes right off that bottom line on your tax return, your 
ultimate Federal tax liability, calculated after any other deductions.
  The gentlewoman made a very good point, that the $500-per-child tax 
credit means a $1,000 tax break for a family of four, each and every 
year until those children become adults, and that is to say until they 
turn 18. Furthermore, the gentlewoman made an excellent point that with 
the reduction in interest rates to be brought about by our plan, and 
let us be clear about one thing and that is that interest rates have 
been steadily coming down since last, really since last November, and 
the election of the Republican majority of the Congress, but they have 
been coming down precipitously in recent weeks with the expectation of 
the markets that we are going to ultimately reach some sort of 
agreement regarding a 7-year plan to balance the Federal budget.
  Those interest rate reductions mean, as the gentlewoman so well 
pointed out, that all Americans will benefit from our balanced budget 
plan. All Americans will pay less in interest on their home loans, 
their home mortgages; student loans is another example, car loans, and 
right down the list. It just basically means that any borrowing will be 
less expensive; that we will be able to give the American people some 
immediate tax relief as well as give the economy a real shot in the 
arm.
  There is nothing that will stimulate the economy and job creation in 
the private sector faster, of course, than bringing down interest rates 
and bringing down taxes, as we also propose to do, for businesses 
through a reduction in long-term capital gains.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Of course.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting because so often we 
are told we have the tax cuts and we are giving them for the rich. I 
just want to point out my background. My daddy was a bus driver in the 
city of Chicago, a union man. My mom was a part-time office worker at 
the time, 1950's. I was a latchkey child and did not know it at the 
time. We have an unfortunate habit today of labeling everybody.
  But I have worked hard, studied hard, and I am privileged to serve in 
this House. So I can really relate to those folks back there saying, 
oh, well, is this just one of those people who is looking out for the 
rich. I know what it is to sit around the kitchen table with my family 
looking to how we are going to pay for my college tuition and so on. I 
came from that background. So I am very concerned that we do give tax 
relief to the working families.
  I would just like to point out that 75 percent of our family tax 
credits are going to go to families earning less than $75,000. Now, in 
today's world, $75,000, you are not rich at $75,000; and being a 
teacher by profession, Mr. Speaker, today you can have two teachers in 
the family working and you are lucky if you can make $75,000. But we 
are talking about $50,000 to $75,000 for perhaps two teachers in the 
household working full time.
  The other point I wanted to make, 90 percent of the tax credit going 
to families, what we are proposing, would go to families earning less 
than $100,000. So we want to take care of the working families, because 
they know best what they are going to do when they sit around that 
kitchen table and figure out their priorities every month, or every 2 
weeks, as it was in our family instance.
  It was one of those situations that they know how to deal with best. 
Are we going to buy that coat, or are we going to buy the kitchen or 
the dining room, or are we going to forget about that and buy those 
expensive gym shoes that we have to get? Those are the kinds of things 
that the common folks in working America are concerned about.
  So I wanted to point out that what I was supporting and what you are 
supporting is not for giving tax credits to the rich. We are talking 
about good old folks across America that are probably doing two jobs, 
three jobs, and trying to figure out how they are going to survive the 
next day.
  Mr. RIGGS. Well, the gentlewoman makes again a very good point when 
she talks about most of the tax relief going to families in an income 
range of $50,000 to $75,000. She is describing middle-class families. 
Certainly, by the congressional districts that the gentlewoman from 
California [Mr. Seastrand] and I represent in California, $50,000 to 
$75,000 is very much middle class by the standards of our congressional 
district, and that again is where we target most of our tax relief. 
Those are the families who most need help again, most need relief from 
this pinch of rising taxes at the Federal, State, and local levels and 
stagnant or even declining wages in recent years.
  I just want to point out that the President, after vetoing the 
balanced budget plan, has said he is now going to send us at long last, 
after 2 years and 11 months, he is going to send us his own specific 
balanced budget plan, but now he insists on using, despite his 
commitment in signing the short-term continuing resolution, despite his 
remarks 2 years ago in the State of the Union addressed about using the 
Congressional Budget Office as the honest referee in budget battles 
between the legislative branch of Government and the executive branch 
of Government, despite all of that, he wants to use his own Office of 
Management and Budget estimates, rosier economic projections, generated 
by the Office of Management and Budget in the White House.

  Well, Mr. President and my colleagues, we know that is a nonstarter, 
we know that kind of proposal is dead on arrival here on Capitol Hill. 
We know that the President earlier gave us a vague outline of a 
balanced budget plan, 22 pages, and it was based on those same OMB 
estimates, and when we handed that to the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office for scoring. This is his plan that had deficits in the 
range of $200 billion well into the next century. When we gave that to 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, they said, the plan in 
fact never balanced and would add almost an additional $1 trillion on 
top of our national debt of $5 trillion.
  So again, I want to thank my colleague for joining me, and I want to 
close our special order and my remarks with a letter that I recently 
received from a friend and constituent back home, because I think it is 
so representative of the mail and the calls that so many of us have 
gotten in our office during the last few weeks as this budget battle 
has heated up back here in Washington. It is from a gentleman by the 
name of David Rudig, Ukiah, CA in Mendocino County, which is one of the 
counties that I represent in northwest California. He writes:

       Dear Frank, Just a short note to say ``hey'' and that all 
     of us are keeping an eye on things in Washington. I called 
     your office at the beginning of the government shutdown to 
     express support for the Republican effort to pass a balanced 
     budget and reductions in government spending. The man who 
     answered the phone in your office was almost surprised to get 
     the call.
       My wife went the same day and changed her voter 
     registration to Republican. When I asked why, she just said, 
     ``Because of the President.'' Ditto for my oldest daughter.
       I took the liberty of sending you a picture of my grandson 
     in this ``package.''

  Right here is David's grandson, and there is a little note on it; it 
says:
  ``Hi, my name is Patrick,'' here is a note.
  ``Hi, my name is Patrick. Unless you change things in Washington, I 
will owe 82 percent of all of the money that I will ever earn to the 
Federal Government. Please help me.'' This is based on the Federal 
budget, the year he was born. So he says--

       I took the liberty of sending you a picture of my grandson 
     in this package. There is a quote on it. Please, if possible, 
     put it on your desk and look at it each day. I got into this 
     whole thing after he was born and I realized that unless I 
     did something, I was not going to leave him a very good place 
     to live in after I was gone. Our fight for this budget and 
     the reinventing of government is about him and all of the 
     other kids who do not realize that they owe 82 percent of 
     everything that they are ever earn to the Federal Government. 
     That is, unless we change things.

  He goes on to just include another little article from one of the 
local newspapers back home, headlined, ``GOP Child Tax Credit Will Cost 
$700 Million to Implement,'' and he notes 

[[Page H 14227]]
the irony of this article which says, the IRS claims that it will cost 
hundreds of millions of dollars to let families keep more of their own 
hard-earned money.
  So the message to David and to constituents back home is, be assured, 
we are going to hang in there, we are fighting the good fight, we are 
going to do what is right by our children; and with your support and 
with, frankly, the backing of the American people, we will prevail in 
this battle over the next week, or however long it takes, and we will 
convince the President to do the right thing and to sign into law a 
balanced 7-year budget.
  I thank the Speaker for his indulgence, and I thank my colleague, 
Congresswoman Seastrand, for joining me for this special order.

                          ____________________