[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H152-H153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COME TO THE TABLE, MR. PRESIDENT, AND BRING A BALANCED BUDGET WITH YOU

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that the American citizens are 
very disturbed about what they see happening in Washington. They are 
probably wondering, when are the leaders of Congress and the President 
of the United States going to get together? Is this not a negotiation 
just as a labor-management negotiation would be?
  The fact is, it is not such a negotiation, and that is unfortunate. 
It should be. The congressional leaders want it to be. The 
congressional leaders went in with a plan, a budget that had been 
overwhelmingly approved in both Chambers and had been sent to the 
President, and which he vetoed.
  The President has had no plan. The President, who has signed on the 
dotted line to say ``yes, I believe in a seven year budget,'' and 
``yes, I want that to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office,'' 
something he had advocated in this Chamber several years ago in a State 
of the Union Address. But when the President left town and went abroad, 
his agents came up with no plan.
  Finally they submitted a little plan. That little plan was $400 
billion in deficit. Now, if you have a $400 billion deficit every year, 
you are going to add $1 trillion to the national debt essentially in 
2\1/2\ years, and that will mean we add $4 trillion in a decade to what 
is already a $5 trillion national debt.
  Now, when the President came back, quite correctly, he got away from 
the aides having the discussion, and meetings were held at the White 
House. The President participated, the Speaker of the House 
participated, and the majority leader of the Senate participated. That 
was all very well. Some days they seemed to be making a little 
progress. But never has the President submitted a balanced budget. And 
he probably never will. He has not kept his end of the bargain. He has 
not kept his word.
  Now, in a labor negotiation with management, both sides would go in 
with their wish list, if you will, and there would be an honest 
discussion of those wish lists. There would be a discussion of the 
priorities, what is important to the workers, what is important to 
management. For the latter, it might be the loosening up of work rules. 
For labor, it might be additional benefits and an increase in wages.
  Unfortunately, this Congress-President negotiation has not been what 
every labor-management negotiation in America is like. It has been one 
side--the congressional leadership--coming to the table prepared to 
bargain with a plan about which they are willing to have an argument. 
But the other side--the President--has no plan. The other side has no 
real options, no real offering, to solve the problem.
  I think the American people, who are disturbed by gridlock between 
the executive branch and the legislative branch, want to see their 
leaders sit down and work it out. Yet that is not happening, and it 
will not happen until the President comes to the table with a plan.
  Unfortunately, on the President's side, some people are still saying, 
``Well, why do we need a balanced 

[[Page H153]]
budget?'' Well, we need a balanced budget because, as I said earlier, 
we have a $5 trillion national debt, and if we do not zero out that 
annual deficit in the next 7 years, we will add another $1 trillion to 
the national debt. The average child born today, as many have said, 
already owes $187,000 in their lifetime to pay the interest on the 
debt. That lifetime payment does not reduce the national debt!
  What does a balanced budget mean for the average citizen?
  Let us look at a few items just as a Californian might look at them. 
The holder of the average California home mortgage, which, believe it 
or not, is about $176,000, would save almost $4,800 per year through 
lower mortgage interest payments, because a balanced budget by the 
Federal Government would give confidence to bondholders, to the stock 
market, and to other financial entities in our country.
  How about students? I happen to be a former university president. 
Student loans are very important to provide educational opportunity for 
millions of Americans. A California student with an average California 
loan, which is roughly $4,300 repayable in 10 years, would save $858 in 
interest payments over the life of the loan. That is based on U.S. 
Department of Education figures.
  A balanced budget for the Nation would result in almost 500,000 jobs 
being provided in California. The cost of borrowing by local 
governments would be reduced. The 12 largest cities--including my own 
city of Long Beach--would save $1.38 billion which could be reinvested 
in these 12 cities for schools, law enforcement, and public health. In 
other words, the average citizen would benefit.
  Mr. President, get your financial plan--your budget--come to the 
table, and let us settle this dispute.

                          ____________________