[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 203 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15075-H15083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    AMERICA NEEDS A BALANCED BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Radanovich). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening again to call our 
attention to the national debt. As of 3 o'clock this afternoon, it now 
totals $4,989,584,833,636.17.
  I have to confess to some amount of nervousness as to the stability 
of the platform on which the debt now stands, let alone the ability of 
this country to continue assuming a debt burden of this size.
  I also again point out for the record that it is $4.989 trillion when 
in fact we have a national debt limit of $4.9 trillion. Again, it is 
important to understand that there is at least another $89 billion that 
is not included under the congressionally mandated debt limit, nor does 
this number include the $61 billion that the Treasury Secretary has 
borrowed from the Federal Civil Service Retirement Fund.
  I would like to put some context behind the issues that we are 
discussing on the balanced budget and the need for this Congress to 
insist on finally, once and for all, balancing the Federal budget.
  Our high level of Federal spending did not arise overnight. It took 
place, it built up over a 50-year period. In fact, you can trace its 
origins to the days following World War II when the U.S. economy was 
one of the few economies left standing in the world and it was booming. 
We had 8 or 10 million veterans or more returning from war, finding 
jobs in an economy, continuous growth and tax revenues coming into 
Washington on a level that no one in their wildest dreams could have 
ever imagined.
  Very gradually successive Congresses, Republican and Democratic 
Congresses, became accustomed to very high levels of revenues and very 
willing to spend those revenues. In fact the case can be made that they 
became so accustomed to the high level of revenues that they began to 
think that they could spend more than the revenues that were coming 
into the Treasury. Hence, we now have at the end of these 50 years a 
national debt that is just under $5 trillion.
  I should mention that at the same time that spending was increasing, 
taxes were increasing as well, from several percent of income in the 
late 1940's to well over 20 and 30 percent, in many cases 40 and 50 
percent of income today, when you factor in local, State, and Federal 
taxes.
  But the bottom line is that we have been spending more than we have 
been bringing in, particularly in Washington.
  What does this have to do with the current debate? We have just 
listened to a very earnest discussion about some very valid concerns 
about the welfare of the seniors and those in this country who need 
help.
  But the point that I would make is this: There are many valid 
concerns in Washington. But we have a duty to our country, to our 
children, to the taxpayers, to total up what is the amount of money 
that we are willing to spend on these different concerns.
  I have to confess that this is a body that we organize along the 
lines of Republican and Democratic, majority and minority control. 
There is a reason for that. The heart of our system is a debate between 
two points of view.
  This goes right back to the first Congress following the 
Revolutionary War, that having two points of view, having a two-party 
system, we get the best thinking of both parties. But I have to confess 
that today that is not taking place, because what we have on the one 
hand is a Republican Congress that has stepped up to the plate and come 
up with a 7-year plan to balance the budget, but on the other hand a 
Democratic Party that has refused to do so.
  I note that today's papers indicated that President Clinton is now 
going to be offering his fourth budget. Fourth budget, that is, because 
not a single one of his budgets has achieved balance within the 7-year 
time frame. In fact, a good case can be made that none of his budgets 
would ever balance, that they would continue to pile on billions and 
billions of dollars on top of this Federal debt, a Federal debt that we 
and our children and grandchildren will have to pay not just for the 
rest of my life but probably for the rest of their working lives.
  There is something moral about the fact that if you want to take a 
stand in favor of serious needs in this country, that you owe it to the 
public, you owe it to the Congress to step forward with your 
convictions and show the Congress how you would pay for it. That means 
that if you think, as our previous speaker suggested, if one thinks 
that the Republicans have not done a good job of setting financial 
priorities within a 7-year budget, that someone should step to the 
plate and show us how to do it differently.

  Very honestly, that is not being done. I have a new appreciation for 
what the word ``rhetoric'' means, earnest language, but where is the 
substance.

[[Page H15076]]


                      CONTINUING THE BUDGET DEBATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunn of Oregon). 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, I am pleased to come to the floor tonight to 
be joined by some of my very distinguished colleagues, some of the best 
champions of our major concern and our foremost fight in the current 
session of the Congress, and that is balancing the Federal budget, to 
preserve the American dream for our families and for our children.
  I asked the gentleman from Maine, who has become a real stalwart also 
in the fight, to leave out here on the floor his daily national debt 
clock, and I think as the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who 
is one of the senior members of the House Committee on the Budget, 
would attest, the Committee on the Budget actually has, I believe, an 
electronic version of the national debt clock which shows interest 
compounding on the national debt, second by second, minute by minute, 
hour by hour, day by day. I think this is a perfect backdrop for our 
discussion here tonight.
  Before I turn to my colleagues for their comments and their 
contributions, I want to address the comments that were made by the 
President in his remarks to the American people, his brief press 
conference. This was a press conference without, of course, any 
interaction with the White House press corps, that he did not take any 
questions or comments from the media on Friday at just about the time 
that the continuing resolution which funded the operations of the 
Federal Government through Friday was about to expire. He made a 
statement in the White House briefing room that I believe should not go 
unchallenged and should not go unanswered, because it was in fact, when 
one looks carefully at his statement, a very elaborate attempt to 
mislead the American people.
  I want to turn my attention for just a moment to his comments, and I 
am sure my colleagues, by the way, would join me in welcoming back to 
the House floor any of the speakers from the previous hour which were 
some of the more liberal members of the House Democratic committee, if 
they would really like to debate what has been happening back here in 
Washington as we seek to put our fiscal house in order and again 
balance the Federal budget in 7 years or less using honest numbers as 
provided by the neutral, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  We should also remind the American people that the House and the 
Senate, with Republican majorities, have already passed a 7-year plan 
for balancing the Federal budget as certified by the Congressional 
Budget Office. That is the plan that, of course, went to the President, 
the plan known as the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 that he recently 
vetoed. That is the backdrop for carefully analyzing the comments that 
the President made again in his remarks to the American people and the 
White House press corps on Friday.

                              {time}  2045

  As I go through these, I want to give my colleagues who have joined 
me here on the House floor for this special order an opportunity to 
join in as well.
  First of all, the President said on Friday, ``As all of you know, 
today the Republicans in Congress broke off our negotiations on how 
best to balance the budget in 7 years.''
  The truth is, it has been 29 days since the President signed that 
continuing resolution back on November 20, committing to join with the 
Congress in developing and ultimately adopting a 7-year balanced budget 
plan as certified by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 29 
days since the President signed a bill, signed a law committing himself 
and his administration to negotiate in good faith with congressional 
Republicans regarding a 7-year balanced budget plan. So the truth is 
that on the very first day of these budget negotiations, White House 
Chief of Staff Leon Panetta assured John Kasich, who I think many of 
our constituents are getting to know, chairman of the House Committee 
on the Budget and the champion of the balanced budget fight in the 
House of Representatives, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, one 
of our former colleagues, former member of Congress from California, 
assured Chairman Kasich that the Democrats could produce a CBO-scored 
budget that achieved balance in 7 years and reflected the President's 
priorities.
  Twenty-nine days later, the administration has refused to keep its 
commitment. In fact, for anyone watching the David Brinkley show, 
``This Week With David Brinkley,'' a show that aired yesterday, Sunday, 
on the ABC network, you would have seen Leon Panetta very carefully 
skirt the question as to whether or not any of the proposals that the 
administration has sent up here to Capitol Hill could be balanced using 
Congressional Budget Office numbers, when that question was posed to 
him repeatedly by Cokie Roberts, one of the ABC news reporters sitting 
in on that panel discussion.
  So it has been 29 days since the President gave his word and made a 
personal commitment to join with us in balancing the Federal budget. We 
have done our work. We have kept our word in producing a 7-year 
balanced budget plan. And quite honestly, if the President does not 
like our plan, we believe that he has at a minimum a good faith 
requirement or good faith obligation to come to the negotiation table 
and present his own plan, pointing out where he would choose to differ 
with us. But he has failed to do that and we have told the 
administration, and I think I can say on behalf of my colleagues here 
tonight that, again, that our negotiating team, as Senator Dole and 
others indicated in the Sunday news shows, our negotiating team is 
happy and ready to meet with the President at any time provided that he 
is ready to keep his word.

  The President then went on to say, I want to turn to the gentleman 
from Connecticut to get his comments here, too, he said in this news 
conference, you really cannot call it that, these brief remarks on 
Friday, ``they said,'' referring to the new Republican majority in 
Congress, ``they would not even continue to talk unless we agreed right 
now to make deep and unconscionable cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. That 
is unacceptable.''
  The truth is, of course, that we are increasing spending on both 
Medicare and Medicaid, although at a slower rate than the current 
projections because the current growth rate of both programs is 
unsustainable. The truth of the matter is that we increase Medicare 
spending per Medicare beneficiary, this is a very sensitive subject to 
me, because both of my parents are on Medicare and receive their 
supplemental health insurance through AARP. I think that is probably 
fairly typical of many older Americans, but both of my folks are on 
Medicare. So it rankles me, to put it mildly, when the President of the 
United States goes before the American people and claims that we are 
making ``unconscionable cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.''
  We are proposing to increase spending per Medicare beneficiary over 
the next 7 years from roughly $4,800 today, I want to find the exact 
number here, I know I have it with me, here it is, we are proposing to 
increase Medicare spending per senior from $4,812 today, 1995, to 
$7,108 per senior in the year 2002.
  So let me put it a different way. Our 7-year plan for balancing the 
Federal budget anticipates and assumes that we will increase Medicare 
spending per beneficiary from $4,812 today to $7,108 per Medicare 
beneficiary in the year 2002.
  Those are not cuts. Those certainly in no way could justify the use 
of some of this rhetoric and demagoguery that we hear coming out of the 
administration during these budget negotiations. Again, it just 
obscures the truth. It diverts attention from the real issue here, 
which is will the President keep his word as he promised to do 29 days 
ago on November 20 and present to us, the congressional Republican 
majority, his own version of a 7-year balanced budget plan as certified 
by the Congressional Budget Office.

  We want to see, I think I speak for my colleagues when I say, we 
would welcome an honest, serious proposal from the President using, as 
he promised to do, Congressional Budget Office numbers. We think that 
that would move these negotiations, which are at a stalemate and have 
led to a partial shutdown of the Federal Government, off of dead 
center.

[[Page H15077]]

  Let me turn to my colleague and good friend from Connecticut, Mr. 
Shays, because I want to get his input at this juncture regarding these 
unconscionable cuts that the President talked about on Friday in the 
Medicare and Medicaid Programs.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I came to this floor after listening to my 
distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about 
certain statistics and facts that just simply do not hold up. They are 
not factually correct.
  Part of the reason for being here is not only to correct the 
President and his news conference on Friday, which was not correct and, 
candidly, he did not allow himself, as you point out, to be questioned 
by the media.
  This is a disagreement, be it a very significant disagreement, with 
the President and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about 
the importance of getting our financial house in order and balancing 
our Federal budget. It is about saving Medicare from insolvency 
starting next year and bankruptcy in 7 years, and it is about 
ultimately changing our social and corporate welfare state where you 
have 12-year-olds having babies and 14-year-olds selling drugs and 15-
year-olds killing each other and 18-year-olds who cannot read their 
diplomas and 24-year-olds who never had a job and 30-year-old 
grandparents. It is about changing that kind of society into what I 
would call a caring opportunity society.
  Behind you you kind of block out that first number, but it is $4.9 
trillion, almost $5 trillion of debt. That debt, in the last 25 years, 
has grown from about $350 billion to now $4,989 billion, et cetera. And 
so what are we about? We are trying to get our financial house in order 
and balance our Federal budget.

  What we are asking the President to do is quite simple. If you do 
not, if you agree that we should balance the budget in 7 years, and he 
said yes, that is one step that is very important, we all agree. At one 
time he said 5 years, another time he said 8 years. But remember, that 
was 2 years ago. If we did a 7-year balanced budget 3 years ago, we 
would only have 5 years from now. So even our 7-year budget that he 
has, has 3 years now. We are talking about a 10-year budget from when 
he took office.
  What is this battle about using CBO numbers, the Congressional Budget 
Office? It is not a partisan office. It is not even a bipartisan 
office. It is a nonpartisan office. We on our side have had tremendous 
disagreements with those numbers, but why would we want those numbers 
to be used instead of the Office of Management and Budget? The Office 
of Management and Budget are partisan numbers done by the President's 
political appointee.
  We know from President Reagan and President Bush before them that 
when you use those numbers, you end up with what is called a rosy 
scenario. So 3 years ago, 2\1/2\ years ago, almost 3 years ago now, 
when the President addressed us in the State of the Union Address, he 
said, no more will we use the Office of Management and Budget, which is 
now his office. He said, we will agree to use the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Mr. RIGGS. I believe he said at least we can agree on using 
Congressional Budget Office numbers from this podium right behind me, 
and I believe that was his 1993 State of the Union Address.
  Mr. SHAYS. And we can agree on that. And it forced us to do some 
heavy lifting this year. We did heavy lifting because the numbers 
required us to be real and then not estimate our way out of a 
challenge. And the reason we are doing that is so that, in fact, we 
will have a balanced budget in 7 years and not think that we might.
  I could think of 100 analogies to give, but if you basically were 
working in a business and you knew that you had to balance your budget, 
you earned $50,000 a year and you said, Well, I am just going to 
pretend that I am going to get $60,000 a year and I am going to spend 
$60,000. If I pretend I am going to get $60,000 a year and I spend 
$60,000 a year, I have a balanced budget. Wrong. You are $10,000 over 
because you had a rosy scenario of your income.
  In fact, you knew your income would not be that. So that is why we 
are willing to use the test of the Congressional Budget Office. It is 
not about who calls it from any personal standpoint. We just want it to 
be real. We want to do the kind of heavy lifting that we have.
  There is a lot more we can talk about. I know we are joined by my 
colleague from Pennsylvania, and we have two other distinguished 
Members that will participate in this. I know my colleague from 
Pennsylvania came first.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Fox] for his comments. He has been one, another champion who has 
been down on this floor, along with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston], night in, night out, attempting to convey our message out 
beyond the beltway fog penetrating, if you will, the kind of the 
conventional Washington wisdom that seems to dominate and many times 
drive policy discussions in this city back out to the American people 
where they live in the local communities that are represented by us 
here in the Congress.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California as well as your colleague Mr. Radanovich and as well Mr. 
Shays and Mr. Kingston for being the truth squad, for getting the real 
message out to the American people. The fact is that when we asked the 
President to come out with a balanced budget, we were more than willing 
to go halfway and make sure that we achieved it. The last proposal from 
the President was $265 billion out of balance and certainly does not 
achieve the goal that Americans want.
  Mr. RIGGS. Is the gentleman saying that the President has not to this 
date, because I think we have seen now, what, three or four different 
budget proposals or variations on his initial budget proposal. But the 
gentleman is saying that we have yet to have seen a budget from this 
administration in this Congress that would in fact balance the Federal 
budget and to the contrary what we have seen projects red ink, these 
deficits, in the range of $200 billion as far as the eye can see, way 
out into the next century.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly correct when 
you say that there is no balanced budget coming from this 
administration. The President has not given us one yet. Yet on November 
20 he promised, along with congressional leaders, that in fact he would 
produce with us a balanced budget in 7 years.
  Alan Greenspan has come forward and said, he is not involved with 
just partisan issues for the President or for the Congress, he has said 
we have got to balance the budget because it will help us reduce 
mortgage costs, reduce car payments, reduce college expense, and make a 
middle-income people have a chance to have a part of the American 
dream. Ninety-five percent of Americans want a balanced budget for all 
these good Government reasons and good business reasons. And the fact 
is the President wants to support more D.C. bureaucrats and more taxes 
on the middle-income people.
  We need to have a balanced budget. We have gone more than halfway by 
proposing additional $71 billion in additions to Medicare, Medicaid, 
child care, and education. I have to take my hat off to Congressman 
Shays from Connecticut because when it comes to the Medicare reform, we 
are going to save a system through his assistance, it is his 
legislation that said, how did we get into this mess, $30 billion of 
fraud, abuse, and waste and in Medicare has caused the biggest part of 
the problem.

  Under his legislation we are going to have for the first time health 
care fraud in the United States that says that if you in fact commit 
such a crime, take money out of the pockets of senior citizens, you 
will not be provided any longer and in fact you will go to jail for 10 
years, that money under that legislation we adopted will in fact make 
sure that the funds go back into a Medicare lockbox for seniors, reduce 
the cost of paperwork, make sure that medical education is a separate 
line item and in fact offer two new choices to seniors beyond the fee-
for-service who also have the Medisave accounts and managed care.
  By doing so, we will have quality medical care for our seniors and 
the system is preserved. Frankly, I am glad you have this truth squad 
so that Members can let people know we can balance the budget and save 
Medicare for our seniors and in fact as well save Medicaid.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman's points. I want to reemphasize 
what he just said, because I think it is 

[[Page H15078]]
a very important point, central to these ongoing budget negotiations.
  The gentleman points out that our plans for preserving Medicare, for 
saving Medicare from bankruptcy and ensuring its solvency well into the 
next century, making sure that Medicare is there not just for today's 
seniors, our grandparents, but for tomorrow's seniors, the next 
generation of seniors as well, that our plans, known as the Medicare 
Preservation Act, were incorporated into the balanced budget act which 
the President vetoed a couple of weeks ago. Here is the wonderful irony 
of this, he vetoes the Balanced Budget Act a few days after signing the 
continuing resolution, which expired on Friday, but committed him to 
joining with us to balance the Federal budget in 7 years or less using 
honest numbers provided by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  So I appreciate the gentleman making that point. I just wanted, the 
gentleman, I think, stressed this, but I want to add again that the 
President on Friday said, I go back to his comments, I would love for 
one of our Democratic colleagues to hustle down here to the floor and 
perhaps explain and justify the President's comments for us, but he did 
say on Friday in his televised remarks again, I have already quoted him 
a couple times. I want to quote him one more time, that they, referring 
to congressional Republicans, would not even continue to talk unless 
we, referring to congressional Democrats and the President and his 
administration, agreed right now to make deep and unconscionable cuts 
in Medicare and Medicaid.

                              {time}  2100

  Well, let me just point out that under our proposal to balance the 
Federal budget in 7 years we reform Medicaid, we turn it into a State 
block grant program, but we increase spending on Medicaid by 43 
percent, 43 percent, which the President of the United States calls in 
his careless rhetoric and demagoguery an unconscionable cut, a 43-
percent spending increase, going from $89 billion this year spent on 
Medicaid to $127 billion in the year 2002, and the other point that the 
gentleman made, which is that last week we agreed to recommit our 7-
year balanced budget proposal to the Congressional Budget Office so 
that they would have another opportunity to score it, which just means 
simply review it and make certain informed estimates and projections, 
we submitted that plan, which we are now calling the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1995 to--this is a sequel that is better than the original--but 
we submitted that to the Congressional Budget Office, and they said 
that based on an improving economy and more optimistic economic 
assumptions and projections that we would have an additional $135 
billion available to the budget negotiators, and, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] points out, we have already proposed, we have 
put on the table late last week before the continuing resolution 
expired, a proposal to spend between $70 and $75 billion of the $135 
billion on Medicare, increased spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and the 
earned income tax credit as evidence of our good faith, yet we have not 
yet to date seen any evidence of good faith from this President and 
this administration.
  I would like to turn now to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I think that it is important that we do emphasize 
to the degree that people outside of Washington understand we are not 
even cutting the budget. You look at the overall spending; we are not 
even freezing it. The Republican Party is arguing about increasing the 
growth $3 trillion over the next 7 years, and President Clinton wants 
to have it increase $4 trillion over the next 7 years, so what we are 
arguing is 3 versus 4 trillion new dollars in spending, and, as you 
have pointed out, while the President will say that we are devastating, 
and decimating, and dissecting, and all kinds of bad things Medicare, 
he--we are still increasing it 42 percent, and it is interesting also 
that on that same subject that Haley Barbour, the President of the 
Republican National Committee, has said that, if any Democrat House 
Member, Democrat Party member, American citizen, or even Republican can 
show where we are cutting Medicare, well, then come pick up a million-
dollar check, and what was so ironic is I listened for months, and 
months, and months to the folks on this side of the aisle saying, 
``You're cutting, you're cutting, you're cutting.''
  Well, here is your chance, come get a million dollars. I do not think 
any of them are going to make that much in the U.S. Congress, not 
legally anyhow, but you can imagine. We should have had a line of 
people coming in saying, ``I want my million dollars. You all are 
cutting that budget.'' But nobody has stepped forward with it.
  Now just think about it. If you were a Democrat Party member, and you 
have been saying all along, ``Republicans are cutting, and cutting, and 
cutting,'' what a hero you would be to your side if you could pick up 
that million dollars. The motivation would just be incredible to do it, 
and yet that offer is what? Ten days old now? Have not heard, still out 
there, silence.
  You know my little boy plays on a soccer team, and it is ironic, as I 
go out to the soccer fields, and I look at these kids, and I realize 
that we have an opportunity to do something for them: more jobs because 
interest rates will come down, lower home mortgages, more student loans 
at lower interest rates. We are increasing student loans, as you know, 
and we have got this great opportunity for these children, to do 
something for them now.
  And I was thinking, you know, now what would happen if kids could 
vote, if kids could vote on all the spending programs that President 
Clinton and the administration are saying are for children, for 
children, for children; what if they could vote and say, ``Hey, wait a 
minute, wait a minute, Mr. President, I don't want to be stuck with the 
tab that you have run up to us, that each boy and girl born today owes 
$187,000 in interest as his or her share of the national debt on top of 
local, Federal, and State taxes.''
  I have a nephew, Morris Watson. He is going to owe $187,000 in 
interest on the debt. This is real stuff.
  Let me get back to the soccer field, and I want to yield back, do not 
want to grab the mike too long, but ironically the name of my son's 
soccer team is Budget, and I was thinking, you know, you do get spoken 
to in different ways and different omens are out there, and I was 
thinking while I am away from them during this Christmas week, as we 
all are, you know, maybe there is something that is worth fighting for 
out there because, if those boys and girls on that soccer team can live 
in a world where there is a balanced budget and a government that is 
honest, then maybe this is and certainly this is worth what we are 
trying to do.

  Mr. RIGGS. Very much appreciate the gentleman's comments, and he also 
helped us sort of set the context for the rest of our conversation this 
evening when he pointed out that our plans for balancing the Federal 
budget over the next 7 years anticipate that we will spend $12 trillion 
on the programs, the agencies, the beneficiaries of the Federal 
taxpayers funded by Federal taxpayers as opposed to $9 billion over the 
last 7 years, a 3--did I say billion?--$9 trillion over the next 7 
years versus--excuse me, $9 trillion--let me slow down $12 trillion 
over the next 7 years as opposed to $9 trillion over the last 7 years, 
a $3 trillion spending increase.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield a second, I want to, you 
know, remind folks that I really and truly think that if a lot of 
people knew that we are not really talking about cutting the budget, 
they would be furious, you know, these right-wing freshmen that we keep 
hearing about. If they knew, hey, you are going to increase the budget 
$3 trillion, they and the sophomore class that I know, we would be out 
of a job. The people would be disgusted with that.
  Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman is so right, and we are finding out, I am 
sure when we go home, even though our opportunities to do that have 
been rather limited in recent weeks because of these ongoing budget 
negotiations and the current crisis here in Washington, but we are 
finding out when we go home and have an opportunity to speak with our 
constituents, have an opportunity to engage in some public education 
about our budget proposal, that there is broad and deep support for our 
plans. In fact I dare say all of us are hearing on a daily basis from 
many constituents who say, ``Hang in there, stay the course, do the 
right thing.''

[[Page H15079]]

  Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman would yield and then I know my colleague 
has been waiting awhile, you know I am not getting that from everyone 
because I might get from someone that they do not like the incredible 
increase in spending that we are doing on Medicare, increasing the co-
payment and deduction. I am saying, ``Excuse me, we're not increasing 
the co-payment, we're not increasing the deduction.'' They say they do 
not like the fact that we are throwing them and forcing them to have 
private care and they have to leave their fee for service. I say, 
``Excuse me, we're not doing that either.''
  So, before yielding to my colleague, I just want to point out 
something on Medicare that my colleague has pointed out, that Medicare 
is going from $178 billion to $289 billion by the 7th year. We are 
going to be spending about in the last 7 years $926 billion for 
Medicare rather, and in the next 7 years we are going to spend $1.6 
trillion on Medicare, an increase of 727 billion of new dollars.
  Now we did that with no increase in co-payment, contrary to what our 
colleagues said earlier. I mean it is just a blatant falsehood for them 
to say that the deductible went up or the co-payment went up. It did 
not. The beneficiary premium stays at 31\1/2\ percent, 31\1/2\ percent 
of the cost. Now obviously as the costs go up 31\1/2\ percent is a 
higher number, just as it has been in the past. But the taxpayers are 
still going to pay 68\1/2\ percent.
  Now with our Medicare Plus, Mr. Speaker, people can stay in their fee 
for service, or they can get private care and get better care. If they 
do not think it is better care, they have every month for the next 2 
years, they have the opportunity to get back.
  So I just want to correct one point. My colleague is right. I have a 
lot of people say $4.9 trillion debt is obscene and it stopped deficit 
spending, do it, and they say, ``Do it sooner than 7 years.'' But some 
say they do not like what we are doing with Medicare until I tell them 
what we are doing. When they learn what we are doing, they say, ``Hey, 
it makes some sense,'' and I just would conclude by saying my colleague 
from Washington pointed out what we were doing with Medicare and 
described how you could not afford to continue to pay people $4,900, 
and I am thinking where is he getting that number from, what is he 
talking about? We allow--the beneficiary rate is at $4,800 in 1995. It 
goes to $5,200 in 1996. It goes to $5,490 in 1997. It goes in 1998 to 
$5,563; in 1999, $5,776, and the year 2000 it goes from--to $6,221, and 
just two more. In 2001 it goes to $6,634 and the year 2002, as you 
point out, it goes to $7,108.
  Where is the cut?
  Mr. RIGGS. That is exactly the point. I believe that Haley Barbour, 
our friend, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, is 
trying to make with what is admittedly a pretty unusual, even novel 
proposal in American politics. Now the gentleman has pointed out, I 
made the point earlier, under our Medicaid reform proposal, known as 
Medigrant, spending goes up 43 percent. The gentleman has just pointed 
out that Medicare spending increases by more than 50 percent. So where 
are these unconscionable cuts that the President of the United States 
was talking about on Friday? It has caused Haley Barbour, again 
chairman of the Republican National Committee, under the theory that it 
takes a big check to expose a big lie, the big lie as far as I am 
concerned when you look at the whole mediscare campaign that is being 
waged by the congressional Democrats through their campaign arm through 
what I think is just a naked, but desperate, attempt to win back the 
control of the House of Representatives--it has caused Haley Barbour to 
now come out and say--he has now come out and offered, as the gentleman 
from Georgia pointed out, a cashier's check for $1 million to the first 
American, so that certainly would not exclude a Member of the House 
Democratic Party--the first American who can prove the following 
statement is false, quote, ``in November 1995 the U.S. House and Senate 
passed a balanced budget bill.'' it increases total Federal spending on 
Medicare by more than 50 percent, as the gentleman from Connecticut has 
just pointed out, from 1995 to 2002 pursuant to Congressional Budget 
Office standards, and, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, the 
response so far has been deafening silence.
  Let me turn now to my good friend, who has been waiting patiently, 
and colleague from California, Mr. Radanovich.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. It is good to be here tonight with a fine bunch of 
gentlemen on both sides of the aisle, and, you know, I had the 
opportunity to be in the Chamber during the time when the--when my 
colleagues were discussing the current shutdown that we are in and the 
events that led up to it, and I found myself puzzled to really not hear 
much mention of the importance of the Congressional Budget Office 
calculating these budgets, and not so much the CBO, but one office 
doing this, doing these calculations, and you know the thing that 
really surprises me the most is that on November 20 an agreement was 
signed between the legislature and the executive branch, and in that 
commitment was a proposal that was to be developed by the White House 
that was to be sent to the Congress that would balance the budget in 7 
years according to CBO numbers, and in those things would be priorities 
of Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment. It is very, very 
difficult, and I think people cannot understand this budget process.
  I mean I have been here 11 months, and I have watched this process, 
and I have had the opportunity to watch it first hand, but the average 
American does not get that ability, and I am sure what they see here in 
this process is so mind boggling, and part of it is because, if you and 
I are negotiating a budget on two sets of books, you may as well be 
speaking Chinese, and I may as well be speaking Croatian, none of it is 
going to be making sense, and yet this is the way we have operated in 
this Chamber for 40 years, so that people can say, yes, I want to 
protect this program and I am only going to spend this much according 
to these numbers, and this party over here can say I want to accomplish 
the same thing, but I can, you know, be this or--I can do it in such a 
certain way that I can be nicer about it. And unfortunately the world 
does not work that way, and I would, you know, I would say to every 
American right now that nobody in their right mind would want to 
discuss or negotiate a budget based on two sets of books. It just does 
not work.

                              {time}  2115

  It just does not work. That is why we are so insistent about using 
one agency, the Congressional Budget Office. So if the President, and 
going back to the November 20 agreement where he decided, if the 
President has in his priorities, and I think we all have those same 
priorities of protecting Medicaid, Medicare, protecting the 
environment, and also education, then why did he not submit a budget 
that balanced by the Congressional Budget Office that proved that with 
those resources he could protect those programs and have his own sets 
of priorities in them?
  Instead, what he did was that he got the 7-year part right, and he 
got just about nothing else right, because he did not score it 
according to the CBO, and all his priorities in his way put us out of 
balance by $365 billion at the end of 7 years. This is not logical and 
this does not make sense.
  That is why we here are saying our priorities are a 7-year balanced 
budget, scored by CBO, and then we are going to concentrate on deficit 
reduction. But how can you even think of affecting that number right 
there that is beside you without using a common set of books so we are 
all speaking the same language? Once you have that, then we have 
constructive dialog.
  Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman is so right. Any successful negotiation is 
based on certain common assumptions and premises. That is what we 
thought we were doing when we sent this continuing resolution to the 
President, which he signed into law. Nobody twisted his arm back on 
November 20, 29 days ago, committing to use the nonpartisan, neutral 
Congressional Budget Office as the honest referee, if you will.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
gentleman from California has certainly outlined well what the American 
people are thinking. The point is they have to balance their own home 
budget, State governments balance their budget, county governments do, 
school boards do. Why is it that the Federal Government has not?

[[Page H15080]]

  Since 1969 we have now acquired, because Congress has not balanced 
its budget and has been overspending, we have now a debt of $4.9 
trillion. People are paying taxes every year and not getting much for 
it. I hope the President will meet us halfway and hope we will meet 
that balanced budget in 7 years, which he has already committed to, and 
the American people want for the savings it will bring.
  Mr. RIGGS. Exactly. I want to point out that even though the 
President has made that commitment of signing the continuing resolution 
of the four budget proposals he has sent up to Capitol Hill, he comes 
nowhere close to actually balancing the budget. He talks again about 
these unconscionable cuts, which are not real, but knows in his heart 
of hearts there is no way you can balance the Federal budget without 
taking on the entitlement programs which have been growing at an 
exponential, unsustainable rate. He knows that full well. We have said 
throughout these budget negotiations over the last 29 days, while 
waiting for the President to come to the table, that everything is on 
the table.
  I think I can safely say for my colleagues tonight, everything 
remains on the table with the exception of no 7-year plan using 
Congressional Budget Office numbers from the administration. That is 
the one thing we have yet to see on the table. It is the one thing that 
is absolutely essential to good-faith negotiations that can conclude in 
a successful balanced budget agreement between the Congress and the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and my other colleagues here 
tonight. I really came down from my office after listening to the 
discussion here on the floor to make two points. The first has to do 
with the discussion of what numbers do we use in trying to balance the 
Nation's budget.
  I was on the floor when I listened to the gentleman from California's 
remarks about yesterday's appearance by the President's Chief of Staff 
on this week with David Brinkley. I will tell you I was shocked by 
that, because it was really, in fact, a rather shocking revolution, or 
revelation, which is not part of this revolution.
  What happened is that Cokie Roberts said, ``Look, you, through the 
President, agreed 3 weeks ago after a 6-day shutdown, the Nation was 
shut down, the Federal Government did not operate for 6 days, at the 
end of that you came to an agreement. The agreement was that you would 
put forward or ultimately agree to a budget which balanced in 7 years 
using CBO numbers, and with consultation with OMB.'' She put to him 
point blank, ``in that agreement you said you wanted to protect certain 
programs: Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. Is it 
possible,'' she put directly to him, ``Is it possible, Mr. Panetta, for 
you to put forward a budget which the President will agree to which is 
scored by CBO, reaches balance in 7 years, and protects those 
programs?''
  And as you pointed out, he dodged the question the first time. He 
dodged it the second. He dodged it the third. Ultimately, in 
frustration, Ms. Roberts said to him, ``The answer is it is not?'' And 
essentially he conceded that point. He basically nodded his head and 
acknowledged that he had grave doubts. As a matter of fact he went 
beyond that and he said, ``No, not without further revision in the 
current CBO numbers.'' That is, ``No, it is not possible. It is only 
possible for us to do that if CBO changes the numbers.''
  That raises a fundamental question, because as my colleague, the 
gentleman from California, has pointed out, it is impossible to do a 
budget using two different sets of numbers. We have to first come to 
agreement on a set of numbers. Why, the American people should ask 
themselves, did the President agree 3 weeks ago, now almost 4 weeks 
ago, that he would propose a budget or agree ultimately to a budget 
which balanced in 7 years, using CBO, after consultation with OMB, that 
protected those priorities, his priorities on education, Medicare, 
Medicaid, and the environment, if in fact his Chief of Staff 3 weeks 
later says it is impossible, it cannot be done? I was shocked by that 
revelation.
  I was further shocked to find that in the day we discovered another 
fact. That was while the President had asked for OMB to consult, OMB 
did not begin consulting until the day before the day the budget 
resolution had to be agreed upon; that is, funding ran out on our 
current resolution on the 15th, and the President's OMB office did not 
even begin consultation, something he had fought for, until the 14th, a 
second shocking event.
  Then I was rather stunned when last evening I flipped through the 
dial and I caught the President himself being interviewed in front of 
the church he attended yesterday. He was asked the same question. I do 
not know how many of you caught it. He was asked the question: ``Mr. 
President, is it possible for you to put forward a budget balanced in 7 
years by CBO numbers that protects your spending priorities?'' And in 
direct contradiction of his Chief of Staff, he said, ``Absolutely.''

  As far as I am concerned that means he has a duty to put it forward, 
he should put it forward. If he says absolutely, he needs to sit down 
with his Chief of Staff and put it forward so we can all move forward 
and get it started again.
  The second point I want to make is one I found phenomenally 
encouraging. It actually made my day today. That was as revealed in 
this chart. Tomorrow I am going to have a larger blowup of this chart 
made. I have distributed copies of several of my colleagues here. There 
is tremendous encouragement for the Nation here in this chart. We all 
know that we must reform entitlement spending if we are going to save 
the Nation. If we are not going to continue to pass the debt as laid 
out in the chart behind you on to our children and our grandchildren, 
it is necessary to look at our spending priorities.
  This chart is phenomenally encouraging. It appeared in today's Time 
Magazine, the Time Magazine which has the Speaker on the cover and 
makes him Man of the Year. It is a poll taken by Time and CNN, by the 
Yankelovich Partners, Inc., taken December 6 and 7, that it is a very, 
very current poll.
  The fascinating thing about this is that although our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have spent $22 million in advertising 
telling us how draconian and how extreme our cuts are, and although the 
President has had almost a monopoly on the press coverage and the media 
coverage saying how extreme and outrageous our cuts are, here is where 
the American people stand as of December 6 and December 7.
  True, 47 percent of them have bought the argument that our cuts go 
too far. But look at the other side of the graph. If you add up those 
who say our cuts are about right, 27 percent, with those who say we 
have not yet gone far enough, which is 19 percent, you discover that 46 
percent of Americans think that we either have gone the right distance 
or should be actually cutting even further. That is a dramatic 
testimony to the validity of what we are doing here in the Congress, to 
the message that we are getting out.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that you can 
mischaracterize our program until the cows come home until it is 
enacted. It is what our mothers taught us as we were going to the 
doctor and dentist at the time: Anticipation is worse than realization. 
They can claim that we are gutting Medicare, because our proposal is 
not in law. All we can do is rhetorically defend it, and point out that 
Mr. Panetta voted for deeper cuts in Medicare himself.
  Mr. SHAYS. When you say cuts, if I can just correct the gentleman, we 
are talking about significant increases. What we are talking about is 
slowing the growth. If the gentleman is referring to the fact that we 
are slowing the growth of Medicare to 7.2 percent, and he recommended 
slowing the growth less than that, as did Mrs. Clinton----
  Mr. SHADEGG. As did the First Lady. In any event, they can 
mischaracterize our program as long as it does not go into effect. Look 
at this poll. This poll shows even with their mischaracterization of 
what we are doing, and by the way this says ``Cuts,'' which in fact we 
all know none of these are cuts, every program is going to grow, and 
grow roughly at the rate of 

[[Page H15081]]
inflation or better in some instances; but even with all that and even 
with the media opposition we have, as a very current poll done by Time 
Magazine, not in-house by any stretch of the imagination, says that the 
American people are divided on this issue, with 46 percent saying we 
are either going about the right amount of cuts, or maybe not going far 
enough, versus 47 percent saying we have gone too far.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California will 
continue to yield, I would point out that what is incredible is that 
people actually think we are cutting. When they learn that we are 
allowing Medicare to grow so significantly, that number that you see at 
19 percent says we are not going far enough expands significantly; the 
number of 27, saying that it is just about right, becomes much larger, 
and that number of 47 saying we have gone too far, a good number of 
those disappear, because they realize we are not cutting the program, 
we are increasing it.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I would quickly point out, even the question puts it 
wrong, ``have the cuts,'' and we are not cutting, we are not. No, they 
are not cuts in Federal spending; have we gone too far--they are not 
cuts in Federal spending, they are reductions in the increase in 
spending. Had the question been put properly, the numbers on this graph 
would be dramatically more in our favor.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
if you would take out members of the media in this 45 percent, it would 
fall down to 25 percent.
  One thing that has been quite clear this whole time, it is that 
whenever you read the poll numbers, the poll numbers shows the media 
loves President Clinton far more than they want to give Speaker 
Gingrich or Leader Dole a fair shake, so I think that is one of the 
realities.
  When people back home say to me, ``Do not cave,'' their second 
comment is, ``Doesn't the media make you sick? You cannot believe 
anything you hear on national networks.'' They have shot their own 
credibility in the foot. I do not know that they realize that they are 
not--they are listened to, but they are not believed at all.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Just one quick question. The credibility risk is by our 
colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, because they are making 
the claim that what we have done is extreme. As soon as we get it into 
effect and we are at the next election and you can see what the reality 
is, that claim will be clearly hollow, and how they will defend it then 
will be a grave problem for them, I would suggest.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman's point. I want to go back, 
because I think we all feel a little pent-up frustration at this 
careless demagoguery and rhetoric that has been thrown all over this 
town, particularly when it comes from the one person who enjoys the 
bully pulpit.
  The bully pulpit, as Teddy Roosevelt called the Presidency, suggests, 
I believe, that our national political leader should speak with some 
moral authority, and hopefully some credibility at all times. Yet I go 
back to the President's comments on Friday when he said, ``Now the 
Republicans in Congress are not only refusing to talk. Once again they 
are threatening to shut the Government down if I do not accept their 
deep cuts in health care, education, the environment, and their tax 
increases on working families. I did not give in to such a threat last 
month and I will not give in today.''
  Here is the truth. I do not know, honestly, when I hear this kind of 
rhetoric, what the President of the United States is talking about. 
There are no deep cuts, as we pointed out here on the floor tonight. 
Medicare and Medicaid spending will increase by more than--are you 
ready for this--Medicare and Medicaid will, combined, increase by more 
than $1 trillion, $1 trillion. Education spending increases by $25 
billion.
  As I mentioned a little earlier, on Friday, just before the 
continuing resolution ran out and we had this second partial Government 
shutdown, we offered a good-faith proposal which increased 
discretionary spending by $25 billion, including additional spending 
for the environment and education.
  As far as tax increases on working families go, there are none, 
period. In fact, maybe Haley Barbour ought to extend his offer, the $1 
million cashier's check for anyone who can prove that there are tax 
increases on working families, because middle-class families, working 
families under our balanced budget proposal, are offered a $500 per 
child tax credit. We increase spending for the earned income tax credit 
by 131 percent. Our reforms will ensure that all qualified families 
with children receive at least the same benefits as called for in 
current law.
  In fact, the gentleman from Arizona made mention, as I did earlier, 
of Leon Panetta's comments on the Brinkley show yesterday. He also said 
yesterday, and I quote: ``They increased taxes on working families by 
getting rid of the earned income tax credit.'' He claimed that we get 
rid of the earned income tax credit, when in fact we will spend $93 
billion, $93 billion more during the next 7 years compared to the 
previous 7 years, as I mentioned earlier, a 131-percent increase.

                              {time}  2130

  So the American people are under the wrong impression. Let us be 
honest about it. It is because they are being misled and deluded by the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield just 
briefly on that one point. My comments were pertinent to your remarks, 
and I cannot stress too much the concept of dealing squarely off of on 
set of books. Because when we try to tackle this number here and we try 
to balance this budget, and we are really serious about doing it, our 
options become severely limited.
  Once the executive and the legislative branch are committed to one 
set of numbers, the demagoguery stops and the heavy lifting starts. 
Unfortunately, we have not seen heavy lifting from the executive branch 
of this government in dealing with this issue. That is why we are here 
today, very likely to even spend Christmas Day in this legislature, 
waiting for the President to make good on his commitment, his promise, 
to submit a balanced budget scored by CBO, using common ground, which 
is apples-to-apples comparison, which is CBO numbers.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there is a grain of truth in 
something the Democrats say, and then they blow it out to an 
unrealistic statement, and that is that we have decided that the earned 
income tax credit should go for families. We have said that a single 
individual will no longer qualify for the earned income tax credit. We 
do, though, provide for it.
  The other area where again, unfortunately, my colleagues on the other 
side have decided to distort what has happened, the earned income tax 
credit, which was $19.9 billion this last year, grows to $25 billion in 
the year 2002. It is a significant growth. Had we not made changes in 
our balanced budget bill, that would have grown to a higher number than 
25. So that is kind of where they make their point.
  Where they fail to acknowledge the facts is that any family that is 
under the earned income tax credit with our $500 credit will get as 
much as they got in the past, and in our legislation we hold everyone 
harmless, we grandfather them so on one will get less.
  So it would really be I think somewhat of a distortion on our side to 
overstate the fact that we have made some tough decisions. We are 
slowing the growth of Medicare, we are slowing the growth of Medicaid, 
we are slowing the growth of the earned income tax credit. We have made 
some very real cuts in discretionary spending; actual cuts, not just 
slowing of the growth. Overall spending goes up, but there are some 
real cuts.
  Now, my whole point and why we need to weigh in significantly on the 
entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, and why we want to save money in 
those programs is it is a concept of opportunity cost. If we do not 
slow the growth of Medicare the way we do in Medicaid, then we are 
going to have to slow the growth of another program or actually cut 
another program; and this is the problem that the White House is faced 
with. They cannot balance the budget, even though the President says 
so, because they are unwilling to say well, if we put more in Medicare 
and Medicaid, we are not going to be able 

[[Page H15082]]
to put as much in some other programs.
  We have had to deal with that. We have made those tough decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you that I like everything in our budget. 
I was kind of hoping the President would come in and look at what we 
have done in urban areas; I would like to have seen the President weigh 
in in that area.
  Mr. SHADEGG. The natural consequence of what you are explaining is 
that the choice that the American people are hearing from the White 
House right now is a false choice. Let make that point. What the White 
House is saying is that Republicans want to cut these programs too far, 
and what I propose is that, instead, we could keep them all going and 
you will have them. So it is a choice he is presenting between we can 
have what we have plus maybe even a little bit more off into the 
future, or less, which is what the Republicans are proposing, that we 
have to scale these programs back down to where their growth matches 
inflation. He says, that is the choice.
  That is a false choice, because in reality, and even the President's 
own cabinet in the instance of Medicare has made this point poignantly 
clear in their report, that is not the choice at all. If we pursue the 
course that the President is advancing, that is, allowing the growth to 
go unchecked, in a very brief time, it will be bankrupt. So it is not a 
question of keeping it the way it is or scale it back; it is a question 
of scale it back or have it go bankrupt and be gone, and not be there 
for anyone. That is the fundamental falsity in the debate.

  We simply have to in these entitlement programs restructure them in a 
way that makes them sustainable over time so that the beneficiaries can 
get the benefits, or they will go bankrupt and be gone and not be there 
for anyone, and that is the fundamental truth.
  Mr. RIGGS. Let me yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and then 
I will go to my colleagues for their concluding comments.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. The fact is that seniors under Medicare 
under this reform package will still have the benefits they have been 
having for fee-for-service or for the Medisave account or for managed 
care. What we are doing is taking out the waste from the program, the 
fraud and abuse, and $30 billion is a lot of money. We go to electronic 
billing instead of the huge paperwork costs we have had, and making 
sure that we have in fact, besides the savings, the medical education 
portion being separate, we are going to give the best medical care for 
our seniors that they have ever had; but we also giving choice, when 
they have never had, and that is a great new plus that should be 
stressed.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and his 
participation tonight. Let me yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Just briefly, I want to say that negotiating off the 
same set of books for the first time will get us into constructive 
debate on balancing the budget. We have not had constructive debate up 
until this time.
  Mr. RIGGS. In other words, the gentleman is saving, it has been 29 
days and we are still waiting for a good-faith proposal from the 
administration, using Congressional Budget Office numbers, so that we 
can, as I think we all hope and wish, reach an agreement, a bipartisan 
agreement with the administration regarding balancing the budget. We 
need to remind our colleagues and our constituents that the American 
people, to date, seem to prefer divided government; the tables are 
reversed from the 1980's, the legislative branch is under the control 
of one party, the Republican Party, the executive branch of government 
is obviously under the control of the Democratic Party.
  So we must, by definition, work in a bipartisan fashion here because 
we do not have the votes in either House of Congress to override the 
President's veto.
  So Mr. President and our Democratic colleagues, we recognize that we 
must, at the end of the day when the debate has ended, reach a 
bipartisan agreement here, but as the gentleman from California points 
out so well and so eloquently, we cannot do that if you will not come 
to the table in good faith and participate in these negotiations using 
Congressional Budget Office numbers.
  Let me yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, or the gentleman from 
Arizona, for their concluding comments.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by saying, we have 
spent most of the last hour, with the leadership of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] talking about the nitty-gritty of this and the 
details, and the fact that using real numbers and using a common set of 
numbers is important. However, one of the greatest communications, I 
get from my constituents is a sense of frustration: Why can they not in 
the Congress and in the White House act like adults and resolve this 
issue?
  I would ask the American people to step back and to recognize that 
this is not a petty little fight over numbers; it is a contrast between 
two different visions for America. One which simply says, we can go on 
the way have been going forever and we do not ever have to pay the 
piper, that in fact we can spend and we can spend, and the Federal 
Government is not too large and it can do all things for all people.
  The other is a very different view of government, which is the 
Federal Government has tried for 40 years to be all things to all 
people and has failed, and in doing that, it has not solved the social 
problem it has addressed, it has made them worse. But worse than that, 
in doing that, it has created the debt that burdens our children and 
our grandchildren.
  So I implore those listening tonight at home that, yes, it looks like 
a petty fight, but it is really a very important fight; it is a fight 
over different visions of America and one which we all hope to resolve 
as soon as possible, but one which is essential to determine the 
direction of this Nation for the future of our children and our 
grandchildren and for the solvency of the Nation as we move forward.
  Mr. RIGGS. I very much appreciate the gentleman's comments, and he 
puts it so well and really reminds me of the comments that were made by 
our leader, the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich as he points out, 
Time magazine's Man of the Year, earlier at a caucus of our conference 
when the Speaker pointed out, and I really agree with him when he says 
that if we fail in this task, our most important challenge as Federal 
legislators, Members of Congress, it will be a generation or more 
before the American people through their representatives can muster the 
political will to deal with these fiscal issues and balance the Federal 
budget; or as John Kasich puts it even more simply, this is our last 
best chance.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am actually going to yield, speaking of 
John Kasich, back to the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, a 
member of the Committee on the Budget to conclude our special order, 
because he has been right there alongside John Kasich as a real model 
of integrity.
  We have been a family of this Republican Party to try to get our 
financial house in order and try to emphasize that we have an 
opportunity that does not happen often, and if we fail as this majority 
party to present a plan to balance our budget and end this obscene debt 
of $4.9 trillion, if we fail now, we will not have that opportunity for 
decades.
  I would just make the point that Mr. Rabin said before his 
assassination that he was elected by adults to represent children, and 
that is what we are all about. We are looking to stop mortgaging our 
country's future, and we have devised a plan that still provides for 
significant increases in spending, but in the seventh year balances our 
budget.
  The earned income tax credit will go from $19 billion to $25 billion. 
School lunch will go from $5 billion to $6.8 billion. The student loan 
will go from $24 billion to $36 billion. Only in Washington when you 
spend this kind of money do people call it a cut.
  Our Medicaid goes from $89 billion to $127 billion, Medicare from 
$178 billion to $289 billion. These are significant increases in 
spending. But by the seventh year revenue and spending will equal. We 
are doing it for our children and their children. That is what it is 
all about. We are trying to do it in a humane way, and we are eager to 
have the participation of the White House in 

[[Page H15083]]
coming forward with its balanced budget, and then compare where our 
priorities are, and then work out our differences. And our differences 
can be worked out.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for allowing us to 
participate in this special order. I just want to welcome, I know we 
have a new member, Jesse Jackson, Jr., joined by Mr. Fields, to 
distinguished Members, and it is nice to serve in this body with them.
  Mr. RIGGS. I very much appreciate the comments of the gentleman. I 
very much appreciate the participation from my colleagues. I am mindful 
that the San Francisco 49ers are playing the Minnesota Vikings.
  I just want to reemphasize in closing the point that the gentleman 
made so beautifully. I really believe that there is bipartisan, I hope 
there is emerging bipartisan consensus in Washington and across this 
land that the American people want a 7-year balanced budget using 
honest numbers to save Medicare, returning power to families and to 
State and local governments, reforming welfare and providing tax relief 
for families and job creation.
  I thank my colleagues again for their participation.

                          ____________________