[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 205 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15313-H15315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page H15313]]


                           A REALISTIC BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is recognized until 
midnight.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Pallone], my friend.
  Mr. PALLONE. You mean the stimulation of the economy.
  No, I believe that it is more important to balance the budget than to 
rely on a theory that says with these tax breaks that will go to most 
wealthy Americans that we can stimulate the economy. I think the 
economy would be better served by balancing the budget and not using 
and not providing the tax breaks.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for his honesty on that. We will 
have to debate that further and continue.
  Let me yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], my 
friend.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston] for yielding and, let me just say that in listening to my 
friend from New Jersey I have learned I have got some new terms for 
what I call my liberalspeak dictionary. The first term is the rich.
  The rich, according to liberalspeak, is anybody who has children, 
because the tax cuts and credits that are given in the Republican 
budget are given to people who have children.

                              {time}  2345

  That means if you get a $500 tax credit per child and you are a 
working guy who pays $1,500 a year in taxes, you have three children 
times $500, you take $1,500 off your taxes and you have reduced your 
taxes to zero. If you are a guy that pays $50,000 and you have three 
children at $500 apiece you take $500 off your $50,000 tax liability, 
and you still pay $48,500. The first liberal-speak term that they have 
been using extensively is ``the rich.'' ``The rich'' are any people 
that have children. That makes you rich in America. I guess in a way it 
does.
  The other liberal-speak term that we have all been learning is ``a 
cut.'' This is why we have a $5 trillion deficit today. For the 
liberals, any increase that is less than 40 percent is a cut, because 
Medicare payments per senior citizen are going under the Republican 
budget from $4,800 to in excess of $6,700 per senior.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If I could reclaim my time, I think I could enhance the 
gentleman's words. This is what is happening with Medicare under the 
Republican plan. It goes from $4,816 in the year 1995 to $7,101 in the 
year 2002. Only in Washington, DC would that be called a cut. I would 
suggest it is really a mathematics problem.
  Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is absolutely right. But we have to accept 
this liberal dictionary because all of our Democrat friends are using 
it across the country. Any increase in a government program that is 
less than a 40 percent increase they will call a cut.
  Lastly, they have a new term. It is called ``radical.'' Anybody that 
believes that working men and women who earn money with their own sweat 
should be allowed to keep that money is a radical. The moderate view, 
the accepted view for the liberals, is that all the money belongs to 
the government, and only in times of extreme prosperity can the 
government afford to give back working men and women the money that 
they earned with their own sweat. Otherwise, you are a radical. So we 
have some new terms from the liberal dictionary, and I just heard the 
fine gentleman from New Jersey expound on those terms and once again 
define them for us.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], 
but for a minute I want to point out the infamous $1 million check that 
is waiting here for any Democrat or any member of America who can 
show where the Republican plan is cutting Medicare. It is interesting 
that this check is dated December 6, and it has been collecting 
interest because nobody can prove there is a cut and nobody can collect 
this check.

  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and to have our 
colleague, the gentleman from California, and another great gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Collins] here during the course of this special order 
with my good friend, the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia, in the well.
  It is worth noting for the record, though, there have been those who 
have tried to change the terms of the offer, just as they have tried to 
change the terms of the debate. Indeed as my colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter] pointed out, this liberal lexicon is not 
limited only to the other side of the aisle in this Chamber. As my good 
friends know, Mr. Speaker, that liberal lexicon exists on the other end 
of Pennsylvania Avenue, with a President who I am sure means well but 
who has the most inventive approach to history that I have ever seen.
  For example, this afternoon the President of the United States went 
out to a press conference and said that there was one group in this 
institution that was causing all the problems, these infamous 73 
freshman in the House of Representatives. I know my colleagues here 
take great umbrage at that, because indeed they are part of the new 
majority.
  It is not only 73 percent of the freshman class, nor the 236 or maybe 
237 Members now of our new majority, but if the President would check 
the Record he would find, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday when his budget 
was brought to this floor no one, no Republican, no Democrat, not even 
the independent in this Congress cast a vote in favor of that budget.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me claim the time now, Mr. Speaker, because I want 
to make sure I understand what the gentleman is saying. Does the 
gentleman mean to tell me that the President of the United States had a 
balanced budget on the floor and not one Democrat voted for it? Is that 
what you are saying?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would ask my friend to yield, because that is the 
important caveat. You see, again the President, who talked about a 
balanced budget as a campaigner in 1992, said we could balance it in 5 
years, and who more recently has said 7, 8, 9, 10 years, the President 
of the United States has yet to send to this Congress a budget that 
will balance in 7 years. So I think, quite forthrightly and 
responsibly, Democrats, independents, and Republicans rejected that 
budget yesterday.

  Of course, 2 days prior to today there was another resolution on the 
floor of this House simply restating the parameters and the guidelines 
for the balanced budget agreement, the same words the President signed 
into law 30 days ago agreeing to balance the budget in 7 years, using 
the honest, nonpartisan numbers of the Congressional Budget Office. On 
that occasion, 2 days ago, not only did this majority vote for that 
resolution, but so did three out of every four Democrats, and the lone 
independent in this Congress, the self-described Socialist, the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. Speaker, I would make this appeal to the President of the United 
States. Mr. President, thanks for the credit, but in reality, if you 
fancy yourself a student of history and a self-described policy wonk, 
take a close look at the real numbers, because you see Republicans, 
Democrats, and independents united on this floor, and get real numbers 
into this budget negotiation process. Then you can join with us, Mr. 
President, and say that you truly have made history.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to do was get back on the 
tax issue a minute. We have the distinguished gentleman from Georgia on 
the Committee on Ways and Means here, and the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Duncan Hunter, who used to be in charge of the policy 
committee and knows all these things. It is interesting that the chart 
I am about to show you was actually developed by the Heritage 
Foundation which, while it is conservative, is certainly not Republican 
and is an independent think tank as opposed to some of the charts we 
are seeing by the Democrats.
  This $500 per child tax credit, which we have heard time and time 
again, ``a tax credit for the rich,'' and I do not know when the 
Democrat party crossed the line, but it is obvious if you are rich in 
the Democrat party, it is worse than being a criminal, and it is 
certainly a lot worse than being an illegal alien, given the benefits 
they want to give to illegal aliens in California. In San Diego, 
goodness gracious, you cross the border and you are a lot more welcome 
than somebody is who is rich. 

[[Page H15314]]
Good gosh, a rich person might be an employer.
  Here are 89 percent of the people in America who will benefit from 
the $500 per child tax credit, and almost 90 percent have a family 
income of $75,000 or less. These are the rich people. So I guess what 
the extreme left is telling us is that if you make $75,000 or less, as 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] said, if you got a job, they 
do not like you. You are one of those big, bad, evil rich.

  I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  A lot has been said about the agreement in the bill that the 
President signed some 30 days ago dealing with the balanced budget and 
the agreement that we would reach one by the end of this legislative 
session. You asked the gentleman from New Jersey a while ago a very 
good question about tax policy: Did he think tax policy change would 
actually help to create jobs, as evidenced by the $500 per child tax 
credit?
  I want to refer to the agreement, too, that the President also agreed 
with. That is, the last line in the first paragraph says ``Further, the 
balanced budget shall adopt tax policies to help working families and 
to stimulate future economic growth.'' Even the President himself 
believes that if you help working families, and working families are 
the ones that pay the bills in the this country, they are the ones that 
work, earn a paycheck, and money comes out of that paycheck and comes 
into the government, he agrees that if you help those people, you will 
help and stimulate economic growth, also through tax policy that helps 
benefit those who provide those jobs for those working people. So the 
President himself has said, ``Let us change and adopt tax policy that 
helps working America and also stimulates the economy.''
  Mr. KINSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, was that 
candidate Clinton or President Clinton?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, that is in the law the President 
signed some 30 days ago. He himself promotes the fact that we need to 
change and adopt tax codes that will stimulate the economy, and that 
goes back to the capital gains, the repeal of the depreciation 
schedule, the alternative minimum tax, the $500 per child tax credit. 
All of those things will help stimulate the economy, you do have 
growth, economic growth, as he agreed to.

                              {time}  2355

  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield, one thing we have noticed 
with the liberals with their new dictionary that says that if you are 
rich, that means anybody who has children is rich. They have avoided in 
all of their descriptions of the budget, of the Republican budget, the 
term children, because they know that the American people have common 
sense, and if the American people know that the bulk of the tax cuts in 
the Republican plan are giving anybody who has children $500, count 
them, $500 per child tax credit, then everybody has enough common sense 
to realize that that is mostly going to be absorbed by working people.
  Rich people do not have 50, 100, 200 children. They do not have more 
children than people in middle income class or lower income class. They 
know that everybody has children. They also know that working people, 
the working guy who is paying $1,500 a year in tax liability who has 
three children at $500 apiece will see his tax liability totally 
erased, and the guy who has $50,000 a year in tax liability and has 
three children at $500 apiece will only have it reduced about 1 
percent, down to $48,500.
  That is why the Democrats never use the word ``children.'' They think 
they want to let the American people rely on the notion that there is 
some obscure formula that we put together that says only the Forbes 
family gets this tax cut, and that is not true. Anybody with children.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield? Let us look at how 
that $500 actually helps that working family and then simultaneously 
stimulates the economy. What will they do with the $500? They will 
spend it. They will spend it on their family. That is how it helps that 
family, and once they spend it, they spend it normally on consumer 
goods or some type of service.
  That helps stimulate the economy. It is a very positive move for this 
country to adopt tax policy, as the President has agreed, that will 
help working families and stimulate economic growth.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, the thing that I think is also important to 
remember is that the average middle-income family in the 1950's paid 2-
percent Federal income tax. Today that same average middle-income 
family pays 24-percent Federal income tax, and that does not even take 
into account all of your State and local taxes that have gone up year 
after year, and as a result, we have less time as a family to sit down 
and import information to the next generation: help educate kids, help 
teach them manners, and help teach them right from wrong. You have to 
have two-income families just to pay the Government. It has become a 
lower quality of life.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Georgia, and I think he 
absolutely again addresses this situation in the most accurate manner 
possible. Because again, when we are talking about our children, there 
is nothing ignoble or selfish about letting hard-working Americans hang 
on to more of the money that they earn, because as our colleague from 
California points out, this money is not the Government's; the 
Government does not create the wealth. Working people create the wealth 
by the fruit of their own labors. As our colleague from Georgia points 
out, yes, Americans will spend that money, but it is also true, Mr. 
Speaker, that those Americans will save that money and invest that 
money in their children's future.
  I thought my colleague from Georgia who stands in the well here in 
this special hour said it quite well during the course of the debate. 
This is all about children, and how dangerous and how immoral for us to 
saddle unborn generations with a debt that my young son faces. John 
Michael Hayworth, now 2 years old, over $185,000, almost $187,000 in 
interest on the debt the will have to pay if we do not make a change 
for the better.

  Mr. KINGSTON. Gentlemen, we are about out of time. Let us all wrap up 
quickly.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Our final word for my colleague from Georgia. 
You made a very important statement a while ago when you compared the 
tax policy of 1950 to today and how much more it takes out of a family 
income.
  There has been a lot said in this Chamber about the erosion of family 
income. The President himself has talked about the erosion of family 
income. One of the reasons for erosion is taxation. Another is 
excessive regulations that go into the cost of consumer goods and 
services. That has accounted for the erosion of family income in this 
country.
  Mr. HUNTER. Let us balance this budget. that is what we are here for. 
We are not going to leave this Hill until the budget is balanced, and I 
thank the gentleman for his great leadership in this area.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would concur in that. I thank our friend from Georgia 
for organizing this special order, and I would simply say again to the 
President of the United States, you can try to attack us, but 
ultimately, the President should work with us, because the future of 
this Nation, nothing less than the future of this Nation, the future of 
our children and the future of all Americans is at stake. With that, I 
yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter] for being with me tonight.
  Balanced budget, what does it mean to you? Lower interest rates. 
Small businesses can expand, create more jobs. It means lower home 
mortgages, lower car payments, lower student loan rates. It means a 
better quality of life, and more importantly than anything, it means an 
honest American Government, one that can look forward to even greater 
heights.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. To sum it up, the only person standing 
between the balanced budget and the people of this country is the 
President of the 

[[Page H15315]]
United States, because he vetoed the balanced budget that the leader 
from the other body and the Speaker of this House were instrumental in 
passing and sent to his desk. He vetoed it. He stands between the 
people and the balanced budget, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________