[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF THE 7-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bartlett of Maryland). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few observations. 
Observation No. 1 is that I believe that the struggle we are in is a 
very significant and fundamental one. This is not a testosterone test. 
It is not an ego test. It is a fundamental struggle.
  Mr. Speaker, if you look at the 7-year balanced budget plan offered 
by my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it 
contains three significant features.
  No. 1, they significantly change the function, nature, and role of 
the Federal Government in the lives of people in this country. Nothing 
can be more fundamental than redefining the nature and the role of the 
Federal Government. I would argue that when we put down the Articles of 
Confederation and moved to a constitutional government, that brilliant 
minds thought that it was an important function, the role of the 
Federal Government in people's lives. To redefine that is very 
fundamental.
  Second, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to 
significantly reduce the size of the Federal Government and, third, 
significantly reduce the revenues designed to carry out the business of 
Federal governance.
  Nothing can be more fundamental than that struggle. The give and take 
that is necessary to resolve those fundamental problems, in this 
gentleman's humble opinion, cannot be dealt with in the context of an 
artificial crisis that wreaks havoc and brings pain and creates peril 
in the lives of people who offer the services and people who receive 
the services of the Federal Government.
  We ought to dignify the significance of this fundamental struggle by 
moving beyond this crisis, and I would echo the sentiments of many of 
my colleagues who suggested we ought to pass a continuing resolution, 
and yet with all due respect, I think my colleagues are going in the 
wrong direction.
  The first factor that contributed to the deficit was the $260 some 
odd billion tax cut to the wealthy during the Reagan era. But rather 
than pass a simplified progressive tax based on the notion that the 
people most able to pay, pay the most, what we see here is a bill that 
passed the House that originally had a tax cut of $305 billion. Now we 
are talking about a tax cut of $245 billion to the wealthy. Been there. 
Done that. That is a mistake.
  No. 2, the rapid rise in the military budget during the Reagan era 
that took us from $170-some-odd-billion climbed up over $300 billion 
and leveled out for the 10 years of the decade of the 1980's. We find 
ourselves in the context of a post-cost war world where we ought to be 
downsizing the military budget, but what does this budget do? It added 
$7 billion over and above the President's request, and it adds to the 
military budget during a period when the United States and its allies 
outspend the rest of the world 4 to 1. It seems to me that that is 
going in the wrong direction.
  The third contributing factor to the deficit was the rapid rise in 
health care costs. But rather than us embrace a national health care 
policy based upon the principles of comprehensiveness and universality, 
what we see here is a challenge to Medicare, a challenge to Medicaid, 
and no effort to bring this country to the 21st century with a 
coherent, rational and comprehensive approach to national health care.

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, a major contributing factor to the deficit is 
high unemployment. Depending upon which economist we subscribe to, for 
each point we reduce the unemployment rate, we reduce the budget 
deficit by $25 to $55 billion each point we drop, but rather than 
embrace a policy of full employment, we embrace a policy of restricting 
employment, and I would suggest that jobs are not created in a vacuum, 
Mr. Speaker.
  A society generates employment to the extent to which we are prepared 
to come together to solve other social problems. We address the 
problems of transportation in this country; you generate employment in 
the field of transportation. We address the issue of education in this 
country; we generate employment. My point is that to the extent to 
which we are prepared to spend resources to solve the social problems 
of this country, we solve that problem and we generate employment. The 
7-year budget plan in my opinion goes in the wrong direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying the process is flawed. We have 
created an incredible crisis here and, No. 2, on substance we are going 
down the wrong road that does not take us toward reduction of the 
deficit. Ultimately, I think it is going to contribute to it.

                          ____________________