[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 199 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2358-E2359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE COALITION BUDGET

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 13, 1995

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, December 13, 1995 into the Congressional Record.

                          The Coalition Budget

       Budget negotiations between Congress and the White House 
     have been difficult, but I am pleased that all parties have 
     agreed to a common goal--balancing the budget in seven years 
     and protecting Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the 
     environment. Thus, the central question to the debate is not 
     ``when'' the budget is balanced, but ``how''.
       Both sides in this debate deserve credit for making 
     progress on the deficit. Under the leadership of House 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich, Congress passed one budget version, 
     which was vetoed by the President. The President has 
     presented an alternative proposal, and negotiations will 
     continue on a final agreement. Throughout the debate, both 
     sides have moved slowly towards a proposal put forward by the 
     conservative ``Coalition'', a group of centrist House 
     Democrats.
       The Coalition budget is a tough and remarkably sensible 
     budget plan. It meets the 

[[Page E2359]]
     stringent test of balancing the budget in seven years by cutting 
     spending by more than $850 billion, and it results in even 
     less debt than the plan vetoed by the President. The 
     Coalition budget does not borrow money to pay for tax cuts 
     and it better protects important priorities such as health 
     care, nutrition, job training, education, and 
     infrastructure. Because it does not postpone tough 
     spending cuts, the Coalition plan would leave a national 
     debt of almost $100 billion less than the Speaker's 
     budget.
       I support the Coalition budget for several reasons:
       1. It puts deficit reduction first: The Coalition budget 
     makes spending cuts immediately, and postpones tax cuts until 
     the budget is balanced. In contract, the Speaker's budget 
     would give out $245 billion in tax cuts early on and delays 
     unpopular spending cuts until after the 1996 and 1998 
     elections. Under that plan, deficits would actually increase 
     in 1996 and 1997. Congress has passed balanced budget plans 
     before, but most failed because they made popular short-term 
     tax cuts while postponing the tough medicine until many years 
     later. This means that we borrow money to give ourselves a 
     tax cut, leaving our children with the bill. Surely we have 
     learned from recent history that when dessert comes first, we 
     never get to the spinach. The coalition budget begins 
     spending cuts immediately, and makes gradual cuts until the 
     budget is balanced in 2002.
       2. It spreads the sacrifice more fairly: The Coalition 
     budget takes a balanced, fiscally responsible approach to 
     major entitlement programs. It trims Medicare costs by 
     allowing recipients to choose private insurance plans and 
     charging upper-income enrollees higher premiums, but it takes 
     $100 billion less from Medicare than the vetoed budget. These 
     Coalition savings are equal to those necessary to keep the 
     program solvent for the foreseeable future, keeping promises 
     made to both today's and tomorrow's seniors. Medicaid, the 
     program of health insurance for the poor, survives at lower 
     levels than under current law, and with a spending cap 
     that adjusts for inflation and the number of enrollees. It 
     preserves the guarantee of assistance to nursing home 
     residents, the disabled, and lower-income women and 
     children. The Speaker's budget proposal calls for much 
     larger Medicaid cutbacks and takes no account of future 
     enrollment, inflation, or recessions. This approach often 
     hits states like Indiana extremely hard with cumbersome 
     block grant formulas that favor larger states with less 
     efficient health care delivery. Without the Medicaid 
     guarantee, state taxes, local governments, and the middle-
     class children of nursing home residents will bear the 
     brunt of longterm health care costs The Coalition plan 
     also proposes cost-of-living adjustments for social 
     security and other federal benefits, but designs those 
     changes so that modest income families will not suffer.
       3. It invests in the future: The Coalition budget rejects 
     cutbacks in student loans and job training, choosing instead 
     to create new opportunities for younger Americans. It does 
     not make cuts in research, technology, and export promotion, 
     and it restores funding for education, rural health, 
     research, and economic infrastructure. Overall, the cuts in 
     the Coalition budget are 25 percent less severe than the 
     harsh reductions proposed by the Speaker's budget.
       4. It makes work pay, and welfare recipients work: The 
     Coalition budget makes major welfare reform that balances 
     compassion with a sense of personal responsibility. It 
     requires people to move from welfare to work in two years, 
     and provides limited job training and child care to those 
     entering the workforce. The Coalition plan also eliminates 
     the vetoed budget's tax increase on lower-income working 
     families. Welfare should not pay more than work, and this 
     plan helps families make that transition.
       5. It enforces strict compliance: The Coalition budget 
     provides the only meaningful enforcement of spending cuts to 
     be found in any of the budget proposals. It uses nonpartisan 
     Congressional Budget Office estimates and includes a line-
     item veto and tough enforcement measures to make it difficult 
     for any future Congress to violate this plan. This honest 
     approach does not rely on ``smoke and mirrors'' to achieve a 
     balanced budget. It rejects gimmicks like ``unspecified 
     cuts'', as in the alternative plans.
       Conclusion: I am pleased we have agreed to balance the 
     budget in seven years. Congress and the President must now 
     decide how we balance the budget. To have the long-term 
     support of the American people, a balanced budget plan must 
     make tough budget choices while reflecting the values 
     Americans cherish: responsibility, honesty, fairness, 
     compassion, and the promise that the future will be better 
     for our children. Only a budget that is politically and 
     economically sustainable over a period of years will actually 
     achieve balance.
       Although differences are large, I believe the American 
     people want us to reach an agreement on the budget. It is the 
     responsibility of Congress and the President to put aside 
     partisan differences for the common good of the nation.
       The Coalition plan offers Congress and the President a real 
     opportunity to find common ground and unite the American 
     people behind a tough, honest, compassionate, and fair 
     balanced budget that reflects basic American values and 
     invests in our future. The Coalition plan may not be perfect, 
     but it is a good starting point for real progress on the 
     budget.

                          ____________________