[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 5, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1689-H1697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE 104TH CONGRESS PROMISES BRIGHT ECONOMIC FUTURE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
12, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FOX] is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I join with Congressman Foley
in his astute remarks regarding our need for prayer for the families of
those who were killed and those who were injured senselessly in Israel
in recent days and weeks at the hands of the Hamas. We certainly cannot
tolerate this kind of violence in this country or any other country,
including Israel, one of our greatest allies in this world.
I do hope, as Congressman Foley pointed out, our work will continue
with this country and with Israel to make sure the peace process moves
forward, and the senseless acts of a few fanatics will not deter us
from our mission to restore peace to the Middle East. And whatever we
can do as a country, working together with the White House and our
President, there is a resolve within this House and within this
Congress that we do everything and anything we can to make sure that
peace is brought to that region of the world and that we support Prime
Minister Peres in his efforts to continue the peace process.
I have today the opportunity also to introduce legislation which goes
to much of what the 104th Congress on a bipartisan fashion has been
working on, and that is to create jobs, have a pro-growth Congress
which will sustain not only the economic future of America but make
sure there are better chances for more jobs. That is why I have
introduced today legislation dealing with creating and providing tax
credits for investment and research and experimentation. These are pro-
business, pro-people measures which I think will help create the jobs
and the investment that is important.
Specifically H.R. 2984 will extend the research tax credit through
December 1997, expand the definition of start-up firms, allow taxpayers
to elect an alternative incremental credit process, and treat 80
percent of research as qualified instead of the 65 percent limit we now
have. In addition, the 10 percent investment tax credit will be
reinstated and have the effect of reducing the tax burden on new
investment, speeding up the growth of the economy, improving
competitiveness of the U.S. business firms, and laying the foundation
for a future rise in the United States' standard of living.
I would ask that the Congressman from Florida [Mr. Foley], and the
Congressman from California [Mr. Riggs], join me in this special order
with regard to the kinds of things that we have been trying to do in
this Congress, in this historic 104th House, to get our fiscal house in
order.
I am speaking of balancing the budget, having a line-item veto
passed, my legislation to sunset review Federal agencies that have
outlived their usefulness or should be privatized, downsized or
consolidated, the kinds of things we have done to help businesses by
having deductibility for health insurance, regulatory review so it is
easier for businesses to operate. And also our legislation has already
brought $190 billion in spending reductions and $190 billion in deficit
reduction.
So I would ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], to tell us
with regard to the interaction you have had with your constituents in
Florida, have they discussed with you the benefits they see of having a
balanced budget, one that would be bipartisan and one that would
embrace collectively what the White House and the Congress wants with
regard to our children's future and the country's future and a balanced
budget.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Fox] yielding. One of the things
[[Page H1690]]
that I hear from my constituents when I return home is the fact that
the balanced budget is first and foremost in their minds. They are not
necessarily interested in what party gets credit, but they want this
Government to learn to live by the same standards our society imposes
on the average citizen. Balancing your checkbook, that is normal. I
mean if you do not, as you know, Mr. Fox, if somebody issues a
worthless check, it is rejected by the bank.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Right.
Mr. FOLEY. If you overcharge on your credit card, they will cancel
your card. If you do not pay your home mortgage, they will foreclose
your home. But the Federal Government somehow spends $200 plus billion
a year that they do not have and they call that compassionate and good
Government.
Well, they are telling me, ``Mark, seek out a solution. The rhetoric
needs to stop. We don't want to hear anymore about during the Reagan
years and the Bush years, those Presidents ran up the budget because
you know the that Congress is the one with the checkbook, not the
Presidents.''
So it is our incumbent responsibility as legislators to focus on
where the spending is occurring and how we alleviate the spending, and
I think we have done a yeoman's job of attempting to portray that. You
know, the other outside influences try to paint us as noncaring,
wanting to destroy the fiber and safety net of this Nation. But to the
contrary, when you read some great editorials, I think Mr. Riggs
referred to one earlier, Mr. Glassman has been great in portraying the
fact that Republicans are not cutting near what is being accused, 7
percent growth rate in Medicare, 7.5. All of the programs grow in
excess of CPI.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, to expand
on that, people might be listening and saying, some of my colleagues,
what is the advantage of a balanced budget?
Well, the advantage, according to Alan Greenspan with the Federal
Reserve, is by having reduced interest costs it will be easier to
afford a mortgage, easier to pay for a college loan, easier to pay for
a car expense. Those kinds of things are in real dollars going to be
decreased in cost if we can in fact pass a balanced budget, and also
create about 300,000 new jobs a year. So the overall boost to our
economy will be terrific.
Mr. FOLEY. People do not realize the nexus. The Government is out
bidding for dollars like a private consumer. So while the Government
drives up interest costs with its ever-excessive appetite for credit,
it is driving up comparable mortgage costs.
A plain example by Mr. Greenspan is the fact that with current rates
at about 7\1/4\ to 7\5/8\ on a 30-year fixed home mortgage, we could
see those rates decline to 6 percent, maybe below. A 2-percent
difference in a $100,000 mortgage is $200 in savings in the consumer's
pockets from interest savings alone, $2,000 per annum, which is about
$180 per month in the homeowners' pockets to spend on their families,
vacations, children's savings account, and what have you. So clearly,
clearly the balanced budget will provide an economic windfall, not only
for the taxpayers of having to pay fewer dollars into the public
treasury, but more yield back home in their individual accounts.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it
is also important to note that frankly this can be done easily if we
put our heads and minds and hearts into working together. We have seen
since the beginning of this balanced budget debate that the majority
side of the aisle has added $440 billion more funding for Medicare, for
Medicaid, for the environment, for education, and for the earned income
tax credit.
So those kinds of cooperative ventures by the Republican side
certainly have gone without notice in some quarters, but are certainly
not lost on those of us who are still speaking today in the well of the
House, because we believe that there can be, in fact in the not too
distant future, an actual agreement on the balanced budget. The
President has actually said, under different year points he has talked
about, we can have a balanced budget in any number of years. I think if
we can just get to the table and talk about removing gridlock, getting
away from finger pointing and not worrying about who gets the credit,
it is amazing how much we can get done.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. That is the sad part of the political debate, people need
credit for everything. We were sent here from around the country, 435
individuals, 100 Members in the Senate, and the President, Vice
President, elected by the people of America to lead, not to take
unnecessary advantage but to solve the people's problems.
So again, I think we have got to put beyond our debate who eventually
gets credit for the legislation. It is more important that the American
public sense a victory here, that the consumer senses a victory.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I agree.
Mr. FOLEY. That the public at large senses that Congress is acting
responsibly, that they are no longer going to send or return Members of
Congress to this great body just simply because they said, ``Look at
all that I have done for you, and look at all the bacon and pork that I
have brought home to our district. Isn't that reason enough to reelect
me?"
It is about saying, ``What have you done to reduce the burden on the
American consumer, reduce the burden on business? What have you done to
make it easier for us to educate our children?'' I think these are the
questions in the debate that is going to rage in November, not about
whose party is right or whose party is wrong. It is about what did you
personally do as an individual that we sent here to represent our great
district, to make a difference in America.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman
from California [Mr. Riggs] would join us in this discussion regarding
the balanced budget and its benefit to the country. From California, as
a favorite son, he might want to give us a little bit of his insights
into what his district believes and what he thinks is appropriate as we
move forward in this debate.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman
yielding, and taking the leadership initiative in organizing this
special order.
What I would really like to do is compare the Clinton crunch with the
balanced budget bonus; that is to say, the benefits to the average
American family that will result from putting our fiscal house in order
back here, eliminating deficit spending and balancing the Federal
budget, versus the present economic predicament that we as a nation
find ourselves in.
As both gentlemen will very well remember, the President back on
January 23 visited our Chamber and stood at this podium right behind me
to deliver his annual State of the Union Message, and in that speech
just less than 2 months ago he told us that our economy is the
healthiest it has been in three decades and he proclaimed the era of
big government over.
We have all learned to expect, particularly from this President, some
fairly outrageous statements. In fact, I think it was Jay Leno that
pointed that out the other night. I guess we can sort of plagiarize
from Jay Leno, because once he says it on The Tonight Show, it is out
there in the public realm.
Jay Leno said the other night, ``Republicans have the choice of eight
presidential candidates.'' But then he went on to say, ``But you know,
the Democrats have much more than eight when you think about it. They
have got the old Clinton, the new Clinton, the big-government-is-over
Clinton, the highest-tax-increase-in-history Clinton, and so on.''
Well, I think when we scrutinize the President's comments, we realize
that, No. 1, the economy is not by any stretch of the imagination the
healthiest it has been in three decades. And second, we realize that if
the President really ended or would join us in ending the era of big
government, and if he really helped us in turning over Washington power
to individuals and communities, the American people would not now be
experiencing the Clinton crunch: higher taxes and stagnant wages.
The reality behind the President's rhetoric is that in each and every
year of his presidency, the typical American family has had less income
than when
[[Page H1691]]
President Clinton took office. Last year alone, the typical family
earned $790 less than in 1992, according to the Census Bureau. But
while family incomes have fallen, the family tax burden has risen in
America and, that is a result obviously of policies adopted by this
body prior to the Republican Party becoming the majority in Congress,
and policies that were signed into law by the President during the
first 2 years of his administration.
So we have had this Clinton crunch, this double whammy of stagnant
wages and rising taxation, including payroll taxes rising on the backs
of American workers. We all remember that back in 1993 the President
and the liberal House Democrats or liberal congressional Democrats
enacted the largest tax increase in history, and the result is that the
typical family now spends 24.5 percent of its income in Federal taxes,
a greater share of its income than at any other time in America's
peacetime history. And we will remember, of course, that that Clinton
democratic tax increase passed the Congress without a single Republican
vote.
{time} 1330
When you add up Federal, State, and local taxes, families today are
paying more than 38 percent of their income in taxes, according to the
Tax Foundation, and in many families that ultimately means one spouse
has to work, not to support the family but simply to support the
government and the burden of taxation.
So I want to talk a little bit about here over the next few minutes
again those two factors, falling incomes and rising taxes, and how that
has created the Clinton crunch versus the bonus that every single
American family would receive from balancing the Federal budget.
I appreciate, again, the gentleman organizing this special order.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's remarks. I think that you have been one of the leaders,
along with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], in moving ahead in a
fiscally responsible balanced budget debate and one that embraces, I
think, what most Americans want, and that is more money in their pocket
and less money in the Government's pocket, and that makes a big
difference.
In addition to having a balanced budget and removing, you know,
fraud, waste, and abuse from the Government, we are talking about tax
reform, and that it is what the President campaigned on. He said he
wanted to give us three things in 1992; he wanted to have a middle-
class tax reform, balanced budget, and he wanted to end welfare as we
know it. We have sent him three bills, and he has vetoed three of them.
Hope springs eternal. I still believe in the long run he is going to
sign bills we in a bipartisan fashion can agree on.
Mr. RIGGS. There is a certain irony in a new Republican congressional
majority trying to help a Democratic President make good on his
fundamental campaign promises. That is exactly the case.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. It shows the cooperation we are giving.
Mr. RIGGS. That is right. Yet, as the gentleman points out, the
President campaigned on promises of balancing the Federal budget,
ending welfare as we know it, as you pointed out, cutting middle-class
taxes. The middle-class tax cut was the centerpiece of his economic
plan, which he called Putting People First. He certainly did not make
good on any of those promises during the first 2 years of his
administration, when he had a Democratic majority in the Congress to
work with.
He has turned around, of course, in this session of Congress, vetoed
legislation that would accomplish all three of those fundamental
promises to the American people that we, the Republican majority here
in the Congress, enacted with very little support from the other side
of the aisle. There is a certain irony, again, in a Republican majority
of Congress trying to help a Democratic President make good on his
fundamental campaign promises.
Mr. FOLEY. I am anxious if somebody can tell me what is right with
our welfare system today. For a President to veto what I believe is a
bipartisan effort to reform a tragic situation that perhaps people in a
welfare system, with no means of exit, how anybody can defend the
current status quo and not be seriously concerned about not only the
future of this Nation but those we pretend to care for is beyond me. I
go home to the district. I would be interested if the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs] or the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]
have any other indications. When I go home to the district, my
constituents resoundingly say, ``Mark, help people with the Association
for Retarded Citizens, help those mentally or physically challenged who
have not been given the full tools to do what they need to do to
function in society. But, by God, get healthy, capable, able-bodied
people out of the welfare rolls and out in the workplace.'' What is
good about the proposed legislation, not adopted by the President, but
certainly, hopefully, in the near future will be, under that
legislation you spoke of, there are some or many good points with it,
the able-bodied people to be in a job within 5 years, with the Federal
Government assisting with job training, job counseling, job placement,
day care, if necessary. That is certainly, in a sense, moving ahead,
still leaving a safety net for those who are unable to work, or have to
take care of a child, and increased enforcement by Governors to collect
child support.
I always love the example about the State of Maine, where they
threatened to take away the drivers licenses of those deadbeat dads who
have not paid child support, but all but 50 out of 21,000 paid within a
record period of time. This is legislation that is going to make sure
child support is paid, to make sure food, nutrition programs, frankly,
we feed more children, we also do so with quality standards that the
Federal Government is going to enumerate, so I think that, you know,
the welfare reform we discussed and proposed and passed in the House in
a bipartisan fashion certainly will, hopefully, come to life again in
this second session of the 104th Congress.
Perhaps the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] could shed some
light on why he feels this bill, the revitalized bill, would be
beneficial, what your take is from California.
Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. He just
described a version of welfare reform that received the unanimous
bipartisan endorsement of 45 of the 50 Governors, or Nation's
Governors, meeting back here in Washington in February.
You know, I think the President has revealed his true colors on the
question of welfare reform. Not only has he twice vetoed the welfare
reform legislation sent to him by the House and the Senate, but he is
now saying, after initially encouraging this bipartisan group of
Governors to help us craft a bipartisan compromise, he is now pulling
the rug out from underneath them. He has indicated through his Cabinet
Secretary, Secretary of Health and Human Services Shalala, last week
the administration's disapproval of the unanimous Governors' agreement.
I just want to again stress how rare unanimity is in American politics
today. We had 45 of the 50 Nation's Governors meeting back here in
February. Again, they unanimously supported and endorsed these welfare
reforms which the President is indicating that he opposes and will
veto.
So it is very clear to me that this President, who as a candidate
promised to end welfare as we know, is not sincere in that promise. He
would, furthermore, have a real political problem with the far left
wing of his party if he were to meet us somewhere in the middle in
trying to craft bipartisan welfare reform legislation.
So it is very disappointing again to see the President fail to make
good on one of his fundamental campaign promises from 1992.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I wanted to reclaim the time because one of
the other items I thought was very sensitive in the legislation dealing
with welfare reform, that is, making sure teenage moms who need health
care, formulas for their children, clothing, under the present program
they would get cash assistance. Unfortunately, some of those teenage
mothers frankly do not have the wherewithal to understand we cannot use
those funds for drugs or alcohol and have been doing so. Under our
legislation they would get vouchers instead, not for drugs or alcohol
but vouchers for formula, health care, clothing for the child and the
baby or child, and frankly this is a
[[Page H1692]]
much more humane way of making sure we take care of those truly in need
and not waste the money for what it was not intended.
So, while some may cast that this Congress is being tough, we are not
being fair in making sure the benefits that those who are in the safety
net must be saved, and we are going to save them. We do not want people
milking the system and taking the money, using it for purposes other
than what was intended.
Mr. RIGGS. Very clearly we have to reform the welfare system that
fails too many of our fellow citizens and too often subsidizes
illegitimacy, really, with our current welfare system, and this
political constituency of dependency that has been created back here in
Washington over the last three to four decades created a welfare state,
if you will, where too many families now find themselves also dependent
on welfare over several generations, and again that has led to soaring
rates of illegitimacy and family disintegration in America.
I think the American people know the welfare system is broke. They
certainly have every right to expect of us that we will acknowledge the
problem and attempt to fix it in a bipartisan manner. Again, that is
exactly what we have done. That is the legislation the President
vetoed. That is the legislation that is heartily recommended and
endorsed by 45 of the Governors meeting back here in February.
Mr. FOLEY. It is not just the public that is upset. I met with a
young girl, 22 years old, in Belle Glade, FL, in a course sponsored by
the Private Industry Council to learn to be a nurse. She came up to me
at a graduation reception, where she had gotten her degree for nursing
all on her own. She said, ``Mr. Foley, I am 22. I have five children. I
am not married. The welfare system has encouraged me to stay in the
welfare system and have babies.'' This is not a made-up story. This is
an absolute occurrence that happened in my district.
She said, ``For the first time, the Private Industry Council is
giving me some hope for my future and for my children. But I am telling
you it is a tragedy what we do as a Nation to encourage people to have
additional babies out of wedlock, that they will get additional food
stamps, AFDC and housing allowances if they simply add another child to
the roster.'' She said, ``This has got to stop.'' She said, ``I am a
sad example of what is wrong with the system. I am 22 years old, with
five kids.'' I was amazed. She said, ``You have got to do everything
you can to not hurt children, to make sure I or others like me are not
encouraged to proliferate additional children to the society, knowing
more money is coming your way.''
Mr. RIGGS. I think our fellow citizens know the American welfare
system today too often discourages the very things that we want to
promote as societal ideals. It is a system that is riddled with
perverse incentives that discourage working, marriage, savings,
investment, and that is why it is so important that we reform the
welfare system.
If the gentleman would just yield further, because unfortunately I am
going to have to leave and I want to kind of complete this idea of the
Clinton crunch versus the balanced budget bonus.
I want to stress, because I think the gentleman from Florida alluded
earlier, there is really nothing to be gained, going back and
revisiting the 1980's. I think if we look at economic policy, fiscal
policy in the 1980's, there is plenty of blame to go around. We have no
intention here, as the new Republican majority in Congress, of
repeating those same mistakes, and that again the perverse notion that
we could cut taxes and increase spending, which gave us these enormous
deficits that have ultimately left us with a staggering national debt
which our kids and grandkids are going to inherit.
Instead, when we passed the balanced budget, the balanced budget, the
first balanced budgets in 26 years, the balanced budget the President
vetoed, we had tax cuts for working families. We believe that it is
possible to cut Federal spending and cut taxes, and that the
combination of the two will give the American people a tremendous
economic dividend, what we call the balanced budget bonus.
So let me just tell you what every American family would have
realized had the President signed our balanced budget bill into law,
the same bill that he instead vetoed. Again, remember that we want
incomes to go up while taxes go down so that every American family can
earn more and keep more of what they earn. So here is the balanced
budget bonus, because I do not think that you will get much
disagreement here in Washington or across the land. Most economists,
and I recognize that economists can often be wrong, but I believe this
is one case where, as Mary Chapin Carpenter said, the stars might lie,
but the numbers never do, the economists widely agreed the balanced
budget would have led to a drop in interest rates by as much as 2
percentage points. That would save the typical American family between
$1,600 and $1,800 annually on an average home mortgage. It would save
the typical American family $174 on an average car loan, $216 on the
average student loan, and if you add to that the $500 per child tax
credit, a typical family of four, that is, two adult parents and two
children, that typical family of four would have received a balanced
budget bonus of $2,990, so let us call it $3,000.
If I ask you, my colleagues, when was the last time that an American
family got a $3,000 average bonus, 29 million American families would
have benefited from our $500 per child tax credit, and nearly 4 million
American families would have had their entire Federal tax burden
eliminated? And that is real relief from the Clinton crunch.
But the President stood in the way of this balanced budget bonus for
families. He vetoed the balanced budget and tax cuts for families and
economic growth. Far from feeling our pain, as again he promised back
in 1992, the President has become the cause of it.
So I wanted to just remind my colleagues that while President Clinton
promised a middle-class tax cut when he ran for President, again he
made that the centerpiece of his economic plan, Putting People First,
he raised taxes instead.
So, again, as I said earlier, there is a certain juxtaposition or
irony in the fact that President Clinton promised a middle-class tax
cut and Republicans want to deliver one.
What we got from President Clinton and congressional Democrats, we
all know now, was the largest tax increase in history. As I mentioned
earlier, it passed without a single Republican vote.
Later President Clinton himself admitted that tax increase was a big
mistake. He actually told an audience of major Democratic Party donors
in Houston that he realized in hindsight that he had made a mistake by
raising taxes so high, but then he went on to infer that somehow the
Republican minority in Congress had forced him to raise taxes. Nothing
could be further from the truth, because again not a single Republican
voted for that Clinton Democratic tax increase back in 1993.
{time} 1345
His tax increase not only raises taxes on the rich, but on the middle
class, the poor, senior citizens, and American small businesses, which
are the backbone of our economy. These are the very businesses which
create most new jobs in America. These are the small and very small
companies that give us most of our new job creation, most of our
economic growth in the private sector. These are companies typically
with 10 or fewer employees accounting for 70 percent of all American
businesses.
The President and congressional Democrats like to claim they only
raised taxes on the rich. But according to the Internal Revenue
Service, nearly 87 percent of tax returns showing $200,000 or more in
annual income were filed by small businesses and family businesses.
These are business owners. Many times these are family businesses, but
these are business owners who are organized as a partnership or sole
proprietorship or sole corporation. So when the President talks about
raising taxes on the rich, he is not talking about General Motors.
These business taxes most impact that hardware store owner on Main
Street.
Second, the President's tax and spend policies have turned a healthy
economy into an economy that is on the
[[Page H1693]]
verge of recession. More jobs were created in the last 6 months of the
Bush administration than in the last 6 months of the Clinton
administration. The economy was growing 3 times faster in President
Bush's last year in office than it did under President Clinton last
year. In fact, for the last quarter of 1995, the most recent economic
statistics, the economy grew barely at all, a growth rate of 0.9
percent annually, according to the Commerce Department.
So I go back to my original premise. The failing Clinton economy,
with its income stagnation and economic insecurity, is the direct
result of the Clinton-Democratic high tax, big-government policies. We
have record high taxes, record high spending, excessive regulatory
costs, and 25 consecutive years of deficit spending that have sucked
trillions of dollars out of the economy.
So it is really little wonder that wages are stagnant, because the
Government got your pay raise. So I believe that unless we reverse
these policies, the policies that President Clinton and the
congressional Democrats put in place, there will be no relief from the
Clinton crunch. They believe, the President and the liberal
congressional Democrats, believe higher taxes, increased Federal
spending, and more Federal programs will lead to more and better jobs
and higher pay.
We Republicans, on the other hand, believe that lower taxes, less
government, and a balanced budget are the surest way to more jobs and
more take-home pay for the average working American.
So we are working hard back here in Washington, and that is why we
wanted to take this time to present a special order on the House floor,
to emphasize we are working hard to reverse the economic effects of the
Clinton crunch on the average American family and the average American
worker. We believe again that the right approach is tax cuts for
families and for economic growth, an end to the excessive regulations
that stifle wages and increase prices and create a constant drag on
economic growth and job creation, and a balanced budget, which is just
terribly important, to make it easier ultimately for American families
to balance their own budgets.
So again I thank the gentleman for organizing the special order and
yielding the time to me.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Riggs, the gentleman from
California. Your comments were right on when it comes to the fact that
most citizens want to make sure the raise they get stays in their
pocket so they can spend it for their family, their community, in the
ways they have to, and not have big brother, so to speak, take their
funds and use it and waste it. We have seen a lot of waste.
Under your proposals, the probusiness, projobs legislation you have
filed, I am hopeful that Congress will pass it, and not only will your
district benefit in California, but the whole country will. We
appreciate your leadership on continuing the dialog and getting the
legislation adopted.
I go back to the gentleman from Florida with regard to some issues
dealing with keeping jobs and making sure that Government is decreased
in responsible ways. We discussed jointly our interest in having sunset
review of Federal regulations, which has been introduced in the House,
and also sunset review of Federal agencies.
I know that in Pennsylvania we had legislation like that adopted, and
we were able to sunset agencies that were not doing their job, or
consolidate them, privatize them, eliminate them, because they were not
meeting their original mission from 50 to 100 years ago.
I wanted your thoughts on what you have heard from your Florida
constituents with regard to properly downsizing those programs which
have outlived their usefulness.
Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I think
it is important in every level, every walk of life, for a review. When
you create an agency or commission or a study or a rule, I do not think
it was ever meant to be perfected in its entirety throughout its
lifetime. I think in Florida we always would call back a commission or
authority or issue for a 5-year review, to find out if it is doing what
it was established to do. Is it operating within the guidelines? Is it
spending appropriately the public's funds? Obviously that is the No. 1
component. Are they spending the public resources correctly?
These are the things I think a sunset review would provide for us.
Think about it: the Department of Energy established in 1978 under the
Carter administration because of the fuel crisis, and we were to set
our thermostats to 78.
Look at what that agency has become. Now, are we indeed saving energy
in America? Consumption is up almost in every category. Has it
fulfilled its usefulness? I do not think there is anything wrong with
analyzing agency-by-agency on a frequent basis its need, its necessity,
and cost effectiveness for the consumer.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman would yield, that is
exactly what we do in private industry. When companies look each year
or each 5 years to where they are going and where they have been, they
analyze every department, every single activity, to see whether the
cost benefit is there, whether they have achieved their original goal,
and whether there is a way to change.
Frankly, we can take a page out of business and make Government more
responsive, giving the people their money's worth, and making sure that
tax dollars are being spent wisely. Because frankly, some programs are
best handled by of the private sector.
You only have to look at Habitat for Humanity and other good
organizations like that that are community-driven and people-driven
that do not depend on taxpayer dollars, but rather on sweat equity, and
the involvement and caring of clergy and community and citizens, in
making sure that they take abandoned houses and turn them into homes,
and they really make a difference.
So we need to be reaching out, applauding, supporting, and
buttressing the private sector everywhere we can, and making sure we
realize that not every need is answered by a Federal program, but maybe
sometimes through a private sector initiative.
Mr. FOLEY. If the gentleman will yield, you mentioned Habitat for
Humanity. That is a prime example. People say, when we go looking into
HUD, that we, the Republicans, are evil, mean-spirited, we do not want
to provide housing.
You just mentioned Habitat. In Okeechobee County, the McArthur Dairy
Foundation deeded over 35 former housing units, single-family homes, to
the Habitat for Humanity. About 2 weeks ago I went to the dedication of
a home that a woman and her four children were about to move into.
Through sweat equity, determination, perseverance, she was now in a
single-family home, the girls and boys had their own bedrooms, and they
had a home to call their own, pride of ownership. They worked on it. It
was their home. It was in the neighborhood. It was not something HUD
did for them.
It was not something they were trapped in. Here, this is your rental
quota and this is what you get every month and you can't move, and this
is not really your home, it is a rental home and subsidized. You feel
these constant strings attached by government.
Habitat has given people the willingness to succeed, to own, to be
proud of, and to prosper. That is the difference in what our
philosophies are when we start talking about where we want our Nation
to go.
Privatization in Florida: The Department of Commerce is becoming the
``Enterprise Florida,'' which is made up of large corporations. If
corporations think it is great to promote the State and its
opportunities, that is a role for corporations. Not the State or
Federal treasury to prop up organizations that do not really promote.
The Commerce Department, you are only lucky enough to get on a
Commerce trip if you have donated significantly to either a Democratic
or Republican President. You do not get to go because of a novel or
unique opportunity or invention.
So when we talk about downsizing, Mr. Fox, I think we have to be
very, very aggressive and outline what we hope for the outcomes, that
we are in fact liberating companies, businesses, individuals, to seek
their own opportunities, rather than stifling them.
[[Page H1694]]
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think that will come with our legislation
to have sunset review and also working with Congressman Mica in
regulatory review, because many times I have seen where we have had
Federal regulations introduced, there are already State agencies that
do that. So there is no reason to have duplicative legislation, which
puts a further burden on business, and we put a further burden on
business that is already being covered, the safety hazard has been
addressed. Why should we put the further burden on business to do more
forms that do not help safety, but add to the cost of a product and
therefore make it more difficult to hire.
Mr. FOLEY. Think with about your own family. When you are planning
something for your future, I am certain you and Judy sit down and go
over the pros and cons of a situation, you review where you are
currently, where you hope to be, but you do it through a deliberative
fashion. In Government it is we who have set it up, we have done our
job, let us leave it alone and forget it. And that I think is a
significant problem, because there is no oversight, no checking up on
the kind of initiatives that were proposed and whether they yield any
benefits.
So sunset review, your initiative to push and pursue this
legislation, it is vitally important for Congress to become more
efficient and effective.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I want to change gears if I could to go back
to something I heard you speak about on the House floor recently, and I
helped vote and work for the bill that you introduced to save the
Everglades. While the Everglades are not in my part of the country in
the sense it is not in Pennsylvania, we, who have to be stewards of the
environment and conservation for future generations, have to look at
the country as a totality and try to help and make sure we preserve
natural areas. So I have to applaud you for your leadership in having
your legislation adopted, which will in fact make sure the Everglades
are maintained in their present form.
You might tell me further illustratively what was due to happen with
regard to the Everglades for which we had the legislation come up to
begin with?
Mr. FOLEY. As everyone knows that follows the environment and
particularly the Everglades, because of growth, 5 million population in
south Florida, 41 million visitors to our State last year from
Pennsylvania, New York, and all throughout the great 50 States and
throughout the entire continent and the globe, visited our State, and
obviously that impact has greatly affected the water quantity and
quality going into the Everglades.
The Everglades is one of the motion unique National Forest Park water
systems, and one we are all immensely proud of. What we are doing with
the $210 million appropriated last week is acquiring additional lands
to buffer the Everglades, almost acting like a kidney in a body, to
filter the water as it comes through these areas, and then taking the
nutrients or phosphorus contents away and allowing cleaner water to
flow into the Everglades and the Florida Bay.
It is vitally important for the sustaining of life. No human life, no
plant life, no animal, can survive without water. So basically this is
a step in the right direction of helping the Everglades.
But what I wanted to fundamentally point out, and you mentioned Mr.
Mica from Florida. Mr. Mica stated very clearly in a press account that
the Republicans are not against the environment. Clearly by their vote
for this $210 million, we have stepped up to the plate of committing
Federal resources to a vital, national interest park.
But what we are tired of spending our money on is study after study,
report after report, consultants, lawyers and others, giving us ideas
that are never carried out. Here we have for the first time dollars
allocated to the project for actual construction and work, for
something we can go back and talk about tangibly, as a result of
Federal action rather than inaction.
So one of the things that I want to stress when we talk about the
environment is that we are not antienvironment. The Speaker of the
House came to the floor and spoke of the Everglades, announced we had
to do this, the time had arrived for us to work together collectively
for the Everglades. It is about making certain that the monies we are
appropriating actually end up in the critical areas that need our
attention.
So that is why I was proud. You marshalled the troops from
Pennsylvania and your northeast corridor, because, again, as you
clearly stated, this is not a Pennsylvania issue, but it is a national
issue. It proves for all that enjoy the vast wonders of our continent,
the Grand Canyon, you name the desert, the parks, the Allegheny
Forests, all of the things we enjoy together as a nation, our pursuit
of the preservation of those national resources should be first and
foremost on our minds. Not whether we are getting rated on a vote, this
is a good environmental vote or what have you. It is about are the
dollars we are spending as a nation being applied effectively to
solving problems.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. With regard to Florida generally, is there a
conservation board within the State with which you work?
Mr. FOLEY. Actually there are a number of things. We have a number of
initiatives. We have the Preservation 2,000 fund, the Carl Land
programs, we have obviously the Audubon, Everglades National Park, a
number of different groups that are very intricately involved in the
process. South Florida Water Management, Corps of Engineers, Fish and
Wildlife, all are looking for solutions.
That is another thing that I think is important, is to look at the
broad opportunities we have as a nation to solicit input from a variety
of groups. Not any one individual or group has the right answer for any
given question of the day. It is seeking compromise, seeking consensus,
and getting the agencies all together in the same room and saying we
have a common mission, we have a common problem. Let us solve it with a
common solution, rather than 100 different solutions that end up not
getting the problem addressed.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I am sure your colleagues would want to have
updates on a regular basis of what is happening with the Everglades,
and it will be important to the body.
Mr. FOLEY. It is essential they be forthcoming, because after I have
asked for that commitment of resources, that is the largest single
appropriation ever in our Federal history toward the Everglades, the
dollar amount. Two hundred was allocated by the Senate, Mr. Dole
specifically, and Senators Mack and Graham, both Florida members
Democrat and Republican, led the initiative in the Senate. Of course,
we had a bipartisan coalition in the House. I think they deserve the
followup to that expenditure, to see that the dollars they spend in
fact are working. I know they will.
{time} 1400
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. You know when we talk about the environment;
you know Earth Day is coming up in April; it occurs to me that for us
to continue the environmental movement started some years ago and to
carry on the issues that Major Carson, an environmental leader, started
in the years before that by other conservationists, I am wondering
whether we are doing enough to inform, educate, and inspire youth to go
into fields that deal with conservation, that deal with community
participation, even if it is not going to be a profession, in those
areas of environmental preservation, and whether you had thought about
programs in your district and for the country which would accentuate
that and would promote it.
Mr. FOLEY. Yes, I spoke to Forestdale High School yesterday, and they
have a class, an actual magnet program, on environmental studies. It is
the youth of the community working in a classroom setting, learning
about the environment.
Again, one of the things that I want to stress, too, is the fact that
one of my concerns with the government is the fact that we do have so
many agencies doing similar functions with different agendas and
different mandates. I think the young people need to get involved and
look at the practical applications of environmental sciences because
there is a cause and effect. I have always suggested that farming and
the environment can coexist with the right guidelines and the right
tools. I think it is important that we train our young people to
understand, yes, recycling is a viable method of
[[Page H1695]]
preserving our Earth and also to consider all of the other aspects of
how can a business coexist with an environmental movement and not look
at them as enemies. And ofttimes you try to draw lines, if you are for
business, you are against the environment; if you are for the
environment, you are against business; and I think we have clearly
indicated with our cooperation with the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert] and others to try and make that connection that we can make
it happen.
The EPA has a tremendous program in Louisiana, which is a fast-track
approach to permitting. They are doing a good job, and I will commend
them for that. It is a leadership environmental movement within the
EPA, but they actually work hand and hand with business, they get
together with them and get their executives on board early so they can
streamline the permitting process and in fact encourage that dialog so,
No. 1, the company's resources are not expended unnecessarily. It is a
cooperative effort, so you got both sides working for harmonious
relationships, and the reports from both the corporation and from the
EPA were a resounding success.
There are things in our Government that I think we need to work on to
exemplify and highlight so the public says, you know, these people are
serious about helping the environment, but they are not just going to
sit there and throw billions of dollars at it and say now we feel good
in our conscience because we have spent money and that should solve
everyone's problems.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman would yield, what you say
about fast tracking we see in Pennsylvania under the leadership of our
new Governor, Tom Ridge, who was a former member of this body, where he
has taken a leadership role on restructuring our State Department of
Environmental Resources such that fast tracking for permitting and
working with industry and the environmentalists is taking place. That
cooperative role where government is becoming user friendly is what
Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania is all about, and I think that is going
to go a long way, hopefully, toward getting government more responsive
to people's needs.
Speaking of being responsive, I wanted to highlight one of the
legislative initiatives that you and the gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
Crapo, have worked on, and that is the lockbox for savings deficit
reduction, and remember there is an interesting story you had in
committee where you were able to reduce a budget item that you felt was
wasteful only to find that the funds taken from one wasteful item was
given to another pet project for someone else's district, and I believe
that your lockbox legislation with Congressman Crapo will in fact
ameliorate that problem, and if you can outline that further for our
colleagues, I would appreciate it.
Mr. FOLEY. Just a quick summary for those listening:
I went to an authorizing committee of the Committee on Science and
withdrew an amendment for 25 million of spending. I had not a
unanimous, but a majority support for the cancellation of this wasteful
spending, 25 million. It turns out a day later one of my colleagues
found the 25 million that I cut and immediately inserted it into
another program.
Now, I would work very, very hard in order to save the taxpayers 25
million. In this process everybody says, ``Oh, Mark, 25 million, that's
no money. You're not talking serious dollars. That's a nickel and
dime.'' And I thought to myself never let me think that 25 million is
not significant money. But they went and put the 25 million on another
project.
Well, at that time I heard about Mr. Crapo's lockbox, which is a
phenomenal technique meaning I could cut that 25 million, but before it
goes anywhere I designate it to the lockbox. That means just like a
Christmas club account, or a savings account, or a travel account that
a family sets up. That money is earmarked for deficit reduction only.
So basically the mechanism would take the 25 million, put it in the
expense account but, more importantly reduce the appropriations
authorized for that committee by a like amount so no longer would they
have the wherewithal to bump up other projects since you save money,
and that is critical in order to bring the deficit down.
If we do not establish some mechanism for savings where a Member can
actually not only take credit for wasteful spending, but can take
credit for deficit reduction, then all of our work and efforts is for
naught because you start competing against regions and areas.
The 25 million was important to certain districts, they were upset,
but bottom line: everybody recognized it for what it was, a wasteful
spending. But if we do not have a mechanism by which to save those
dollars, to put them aside and to reduce the Federal deficit, this
Nation will never achieve any fiscal sanity.
So the lockbox is critical. We are working to get it into House
legislation overall and to get the Senate to adopt it, and thereby, if
a Fox amendment is offered to reduce spending in a unwarranted project,
if it reaches the majority consensus that the spending is unwarranted
and that it should be in a lockbox, we can achieve those victories one
at a time. With a $1.6 trillion budget we have got a long way to go
based on $1.4 trillion of income and the rest excess spending, we have
got a long way to go to reduce our Federal dependency on dollars and to
wean us off of a natural addiction toward spending.
Lockbox is the only answer that I have found in all of my budgetary
pursuits that works, and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] is to be
commended, as are other Members, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Largent], yourself, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick],
a number of people that stood up and fought for this initiative, and we
do not want to see that initiative lost in this Congress.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I appreciate your leadership in that and
others in moving forward on it. I know that we can achieve, as far as I
am concerned, the balanced budget that we talked about at the top of
this hour if we continue making sure that we find the common ground,
that we work overtime in making sure that the issues that we hold so
dear, whether it be Medicare, Medicaid, environment, education; those
are not just one party's issues or one branch of the Government's
issues. They are everyone's issues, and we are working on them as well
as anyone else is, and on Medicare I might say I think we have made
some real progress. When the original debate started out on Medicare,
we only learned this past April that in fact the President's trustees
told us there was going to be a shortfall, Medicare would be out of
business in 7 years.
So I think we have done the bipartisan, correct thing in advancing
legislation which will in fact make sure that Medicare is preserved,
protected, and extended, but doing it; the way we take care of the
problem I think is legislation that is going to eliminate the fraud,
abuse and waste. I was amazed to find; I do not know if you were; that
there is $30 billion a year now wasted in fraudulent, inflated claims
and billing for services not rendered by providers, and I do not know
if you have researched that as well and found that to be the case.
Mr. FOLEY. Well, that is what we know about. I mean the problem with
Medicare, the fraud and abuse that is being perpetrated on the
taxpayers is so pervasive and so difficult to track that I think in my
heart if we merely went after that with the full force and weight of
the Federal Government and put the resources behind it we would
probably save enough to hopefully balance not only Medicare, but lead
us to a balanced budget in our Nation. There is a lot of waste and
fraud. But I will tell you one thing about Medicare because there is a
hue and a cry by the other side of shame on you, and GOP stands for get
old people, and you are destroying Medicare.
When I went to the district, and I am the first among freshmen
Congressmen with the largest number of Medicare recipients I am No. 7
in the Nation of all Members of Congress with the most Medicare
recipients, we would have often 150 to 200 people attend the hearings,
and when I explain the program, stay in traditional Medicare, do not
change premiums, stay the same, no different than they would have been,
they become more comfortable, they find that they can go to a managed
care physician, care network or a medical savings account more and more
comforted. The fact is if they choose a
[[Page H1696]]
product that they do not like, the following year they can disenroll in
that and reenroll in something else or go back to traditional Medicare,
and the options and ranges of options created in the plan do not deny
benefits, in fact encourage opportunities for seniors.
One person at a town hall meeting said, ``You know, I like
chiropractic care and it is not covered under Medicare; why not?'' I
said, well, in the medical savings account you could make that
discretionary choice with the moneys we provide in your account to
spend on the health care you think best suits your appropriate
condition, 7.5-percent increase. I mean, everything, when I finished
the hearings I did not get but one or two persons still disapproving,
and often that was more of a partisan than it was a practical
disagreement.
What they were saying was you know you have comforted me knowing,
first of all, it is not going out of business if you get your bill
enacted. Second, choices. Third, competition. Fourth, we are not
creating a new commission for fraud, waste and abuse; it stays with
Donna Shalala, it stays with HHS. We are getting a hotline and
increased enforcement in penalties, but the Medicare bill for the first
time provides a road map for our system to make certain that seniors,
ourselves included some day when we make that golden year, are in fact
provided for, not a Band-aid, not a political let us ignore it until it
really becomes a crisis. Let us look at it now strategically and make
certain Medicare is something we can all be proud of in the year 2010,
2020, and beyond.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. What is interesting is the President and the
First Lady a couple a years ago said the way to solve the Medicare
crisis is to make sure we control the rate of growth, and that is
exactly what the majority proposal was and is, so hopefully we can work
together with the White House, and both sides of the aisle and both
Chambers, the House and Senate, to make sure we save Medicare for our
seniors. We want that quality health care to be there for them and to
make sure it is a system that is not just going to stop in the year
2002.
Mr. FOLEY. One other item, line-item veto. That seems to be a
significant legislative initiative passed by this body. I hope we are
going to be able to flush that out and get it passed by the Senate and
onto the President for his signature.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Well, we passed a version early on in the
104th Congress, first session. The Senate passed a slightly different
version. But I am hopeful that this bill will get to the President and
a compromise version after the conferees have met because line-item
veto like 43 Governors have in the country, the chance to eliminate
waste, fraud, and abuse, that exists. My own Governor, Governor Ridge,
has a chance in Pennsylvania to eliminate those programs that are just
pork barrel, just in there for one Representative or Senator and not
really there to have permanent, long-term value for our Nation. And the
line-item veto is an idea whose time has certainly arrived.
Mr. FOLEY. Well, if you think about the debate that can occur, and
when people say line-item veto, what power does that give the
President? Well, just like you mentioned with your Governor, they can
strike through the appropriation as wasteful pork spending without
having to veto an entire bill. But the safeguard for Congress is if a
President, and a lot of people say, well, they can take retribution
against a Member. If the President does not like Congressman Foley, he
can strike out all of his projects. Well, if my projects are so good, I
can go back to the floor after the veto and defend them among my
colleagues and get an override within the next couple of days to
restore the project.
So I do not sense this disastrous consequence of a line-item veto. In
fact, I sense that there could be a bigger opportunity for us to really
tighten the rein of Government, and give the President an active hand
in budgetary negotiations, and in fact strike through some of these
things you read about, these studies, asparagus studies, or, you know,
this and that study, none of which lead to any better prosperity for
anyone that has a response to the study. It is just another give-back
to communities, a little pork barrel spending that I think has to stop.
Line-item veto is the only mechanism in which to do that.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. And with two other programs which have been
adopted, that one is soon to be signed by the President hopefully, as
soon as the compromise version is agreed to, but two other bills I
think of note that this 104th Congress has passed and the President has
signed, one would be the accountability law which says all the laws we
pass are now also applied to the Congress. Prior Congresses said, well,
the fair labor standards, civil rights law, family leave does not apply
to our employees.
Now, how can we in heavens understand the bills if they do not affect
us too? Well, now those laws do apply to us, and we, as well, passed
legislation dealing with unfunded mandates, local government, State
government. We are all told by prior Congresses, well, look, we are
going to send you this bill, you are going to have to do it. If it
costs money? That is too bad, we are not sending you any.
Well, this new Congress has said, and the President agreed and signed
the bill, saying no more unfunded mandates. If we think it is such a
good idea, then we are going to send the money back to local districts
so we do not bankrupt townships and towns and burroughs and villages
just because we think here in Congress it is such a good idea.
Mr. FOLEY. If the gentleman would yield, if you can imagine how in
name the process is that allows the memberships to pass bills onto
other people and not have them impact their own lives or their own
offices.
When I first toured the Capitol complex after being elected, I go to
many offices looking for which one I may potentially select in the
draw, and in front of every door that had, you know, the exits out into
the hallways were books and computers and desks blocking the exists.
There was generally in most offices one exit remaining open.
Now in a business, OSHA, the fire marshall, everyone would have cited
that facility for not having a proper escape for an employee.
{time} 1415
Here in Congress they can do whatever they want, clog up the offices,
junk everywhere, and they consider that fair.
Civil rights laws, fair labor standards, all the things that we
impose on small businesses, Members of Congress sat back and said,
``Oh, no, but I am holier than thou. I do not need to enforce those
laws on ourselves, because we are in fact the Congress. We are the
superior body of mankind.'' I think it was that attitude that got this
Congress into such trouble.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] would be glad to know that we will now have a
change in that, as the person who started the firefighters' caucus in
the Capitol. I am sure he will take the initiative to work with the
appropriate authority to change that.
It is also interesting to note that we have taken not only reform
measures when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but we have changed
how we run the institution. We have one-third less committee staff. We
have in fact also made sure that the pensions that Members receive are
now not special, they are the same as any other Federal employee. We
have eliminated the right of lobbyists to give us gifts. Our
constituents do not get gifts, except at holiday time and birthdays.
Why should we have anything special as well? We also have passed
lobbying disclosure, and campaign reform is in the offing, very shortly
to be passed. There are several good bills out there, I think, to make
campaign reform a reality.
So this Congress is different. We are getting our fiscal house in
order with a line item veto, with a balanced budget, stopping the
unfunded mandates. But the reforms of the Congress itself have also
come about when it comes to how we operate the institution. Hopefully
that will continue as we move forward.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield a
final moment, I want to thank him very much. I thank him for this
excellent opportunity to portray the things we are trying to do, to
balance the budget, and for his leadership on a number of issues.
[[Page H1697]]
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I
appreciate the opportunity to address the House and my colleagues.
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Rogers). Pursuant to clause 12 of rule
I, the Chair declares the House in recess until approximately 3 p.m.
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until approximately 3 p.m.
____________________