[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2214-H2220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE NEW POPULISM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr.
[[Page H2215]]
Scarborough] is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed listening to the
last speaker that came to this floor, and I think there are a few
things that, despite the differences in opinion on many things, I think
there are a few things that we can agree on. I think we can agree on
the fact that more Americans do need to get involved in the political
system, and I do believe that a lot of people have tuned it out, and
that has been unfortunate, but that we have to do what we can to help
middle-class families expand that middle class and to contribute.
But I have got to say that is about where the similarities end,
because unlike the previous speaker, I do not believe the answers lie
in Washington, DC. In fact, I think most of the problems that afflict
middle-class Americans come from Washington, DC. Now that is not
demagoguery, it is not simple-mindedness. It is just reality.
He spoke for some time about what I would call class warfare, talking
about, oh, the big business men and women that make all that money,
that steal from the middle class, that steal from the working class.
And we have heard that type of class warfare come out of the White
House for the past few years, we have heard it on the floor of the
House here, and I just--it strikes me as being very interesting because
I look back over my background, look back over my history, and I
remember growing up in a very middle-class family. We certainly were
never wealthy by any stretch of the imagination growing up, and I
remember, in fact, my father, being one of the first people in his
family to graduate from college, and to go off and get a good job and
work for the first 7, 8 years of my life. But then, when there was a
recession, he lost his job, and I remember him driving around across
the southeast, small towns throughout Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi
looking for a job, and I was with him. We spent, in fact, a summer
doing that in the car, driving across the southeast looking for gainful
employment for my father.
But you know during that entire time, when we went through the
difficult times that we went through, I cannot remember one single time
when my parents said to me, ``Joey, look at that doctor's house over
there,'' or ``Look at that lawyer's house,'' or ``Look at that person
that started their own business. We should resent them. How dare they
actually go out and make money?''
I mean I just do not understand where this idea comes from that we
are somehow going to build up the middle class and working class and
blue-collar Americans by tearing down those who actually get up early
in the morning, like many of our blue-collar workers and working-class
families do that go to work all day, that have invested their time, and
their money, and their effort over 10, 20, 30 years, and built up a
business and have become successful. That to me is the American dream.
That is not something we should discourage. That is something we should
encourage and something that we should be excited about.
But let me tell you something, and let me just say, if the previous
speaker has been in Congress for the past 4 years, I will guarantee you
that he made more money over the past 4 years than I made and my family
made.
Now I understand what it is like to be in the working class, to
barely make enough money to get by every 2 weeks, to not have enough
money to put aside for health care, to not have enough money to put
aside for your children's college programs. I understand what that is
like, and it is extremely difficult and excruciating. But at the same
time I am not going to run around and try to whip up class warfare
simply for my own political purposes or agenda. It just does not make
good sense.
But if you want to talk about what Americans are really angry about
out there today, it is not the populism of old, it is not the populism
of William Jennings Bryant when he stormed across the country almost a
hundred years ago talking out against rich people, and people who dared
to be successful, and corporations. Now we have a new populism, and it
is a populism that helped elect me and others, and it is a populism
that focuses on big government more than big business, because for an
American family earning $30,000 or less, or $40,000 or less, that is
having trouble getting by week after week after week, and paying those
bills, and being able to afford health care, being able to afford to
take their children to the doctor, or to the hospital, or to get the
prescriptions filled, or to afford to put aside a few dollars for their
children's education fund, it is not big business that is taking away
all their money. It is big government.
And look at the historical trends. Back in the 1950's, the average
family spent 4 percent of their revenue, their take-home pay, on
Federal taxes, 4 percent.
{time} 2100
Four percent. Today the average family spends at least, on average,
26 percent to pay taxes to the Federal Government. Now, if you add up
the impact of taxes, fees, and regulations that the Federal Government
throws on the average American family, they work 50 percent of their
year paying off taxes, fees, and regulations placed on them by the
Government. They see it every 2 weeks in their paycheck. Look and see
how much the Federal Government takes out.
Yet, we still have people standing on the floor of the House of
Representatives in 1996 wondering why Americans are angry with the
Federal Government, wondering why a revolution that started in 1994 is
going to sweep through the turn of the this century and into the 21st
century, and why the American people are standing up and saying enough
of big government, enough of government telling me how to spend my
money, enough of government telling me how to educate my children,
enough of government telling me how to protect my family, how to
protect my streets.
Americans have had enough of big Government. We have failed. The
Congress of the United States, over the past 40 years under liberal
rule, has failed to achieve its mandate. Back in 1965 LBJ started the
Great Society, the war on poverty. But it is a war not on poverty but
on families, on hard work, on discipline, on personal responsibility,
and a war against those very people that LBJ thought he was going to
help.
All you have to do is drive through the torn-out ghettoes in South
Central L.A., or in the South Bronx, or in Gary, IN, or in
Philadelphia, and ask yourself a basic question: Are those people today
better off than they were 30 years ago, before the Federal Government
started tampering with their lives and trying to micromanage every
social ill that was out there? The clear answer is no.
The Federal Government is ill-equipped. Our Founding Fathers knew
that. Thomas Jefferson knew that, when he said, ``The government that
governs least governs best.'' Jefferson did not say that because he was
anti-government, he said that because he was pro-freedom, and because
he believed in the goodness of the American people, because he believed
in the greatness of the American character, because he knew from his
experience with King George III in Great Britain that the answer did
not lie with a highly centralized monarchy, the answer was out in the
community, was out in the country, was out on the farms with the
goodness of the American people.
There was a debate earlier this evening on education. We had people
that have supported the liberal view for the past 40 years, the
centralization view for the past 40 years, come to the floor and say
what was causing the problems in this country was simple, that we were
not spending enough money on our Federal education bureaucracy; that
these bureaucratic programs needed to expand, that we needed to raise
taxes, send more education dollars to Washington, drain more education
dollars out of the community, drain more education dollars out of
schools, drain more education dollars out of teachers' paychecks, drain
more education dollars out of computers, send them to Washington, DC,
so Big Brother, a Federal bureaucracy, could decide what to do with
those education dollars.
Mr. Speaker, some of the people that were on the floor today were
condemning what we are trying to do, but what we are going to do is
empower the teacher, empower the parent, empower the local school
system. However, they
[[Page H2216]]
said that we ``* * * wanted to destroy public schools.''
Mr. Speaker, that is very disturbing to me. Of course, I have to
recognize who the source is, because these were the same people that
called us Nazis for wanting to balance the budget, for trying to only
spend as much money as we take in. They called us Nazis because we did
not want to rob from future generations, we did not want to rob from
our children or from our grandchildren. They called us Fascists because
we believe that Americans deserve to be able to control their destiny
more than a Federal bureaucracy in Washington does. But anyway, let us
fast forward it to tonight, they said that we wanted to destroy the
American public education system.
Let me tell the Members something, Mr. Speaker, I can give two good
reasons why we do not want to destroy the public school system in this
country, why I do not personally, two very personal reasons. One is
Joey, age 8, and another is Andrew, age 5, who are my two children, my
two boys who are in Pensacola, FL, this evening, and who tomorrow
morning will go to public school.
I have a vested interest in education. I have a vested interest in
public schools. I have a vested interest in trying to end the insanity
that this Federal Government has been pursuing for the past 15, 20
years on education. It is my two boys.
Mr. Speaker, there was a study from a report called ``Nation at
Risk.'' In that study, this was the conclusion that they came to on
what the Federal Government has been doing in education. It was this.
They said ``What has been done to America's educational system, had it
been done by a foreign power, would have constituted an act of war.''
Yet, this bizarre bureaucratic experiment with education that started
in 1979 continues, continues today unabated.
Back in 1979, when we started our Federal education bureaucracy, we
were spending $14 billion on education in the Federal bureaucracy, $14
billion. Fast forward to 1996. We are now spending $36 billion, and
soon it will explode to $50 billion, just on our education bureaucracy.
That is taking $50 billion out of the communities, out of the
educational budgets of the local school boards, out of teachers'
salaries, out of school upkeep, and bringing it to the Federal
education bureaucracy.
Of course, what has happened? The same thing that has happened when
we tried to micromanage these other social ills: We have fallen behind.
Our children have suffered, because we have people in Washington, DC,
today that still believe, despite the failures over the past 30 years,
that Washington has all the answers, and that Americans are either too
stupid or too lazy to teach their own children without Washington's
intervening.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the Members some basic facts to show
that is not true. We have spent all this money coming up to Washington,
DC, and yet, if you go through the State budgets for education
departments, the average State only receives 6 percent of their money
on education from Washington, DC. Yet, an Ohio study showed that they
get over 55 percent of their paperwork and their bureaucratic redtape
from Washington, DC, so they are not getting a return for their
investment.
The money is sucked up to Washington, DC, out of the schools and the
communities, and as it comes up here, what do we get for it? What do
they send back out? All you have to do is look at last year's budget to
find some pretty strong anecdotal evidence on what the Department of
Education is doing with my money and your money. They have cut $100
million in upkeep to keep schools safe, to keep infrastructure safe, to
keep ceilings from falling down on children, cut $100 million out of
school upkeep budgets. Yet, last year they increased funding for their
own bureaucracy's upkeep, for their own single building down the
street, by $25 million. Basically, they take $100 million away from our
children and their schools and their safety to make their building a
little more plush, a little more inhabitable. Again, it is a classic
example of how we are not even robbing Peter to pay Paul, we are
robbing our children to pay off bureaucrat salaries. I think it has to
stop.
Compare what has happened since 1980, when we started this colossal
mistake with what is going on today. We have fallen behind on test
scores with industrialized Western nations. Dropout rates have gone up,
test scores continue to fall down, violence in schools continue to
rise. We are spinning rapidly out of control with our educational
system. All some people want to do is what we have been doing for the
past 25 years on education, spend more money on a bureaucracy and less
money on schools. To me, that is morally indefensible.
Mr. Speaker, I heard somebody talk also, talking about anecdotal
evidence, talking about the fact that one of the programs that the
Department of Education spends our money on is closed captioning. That
sounds great, right, closed captioning for the hearing-impaired. But it
is closed captioning for the hearing-impaired for the TV show Baywatch.
I do not know what Federal education dollars are doing for closed
captioning for Baywatch.
It seems to me we could spend our money better. We could spend our
money in our local communities better than in Washington, DC. We could
spend our money better on teachers' salaries and on improving students'
living conditions than on spending it on bureaucracies in Washington,
DC.
That is what this fight is about. We are trying to send power back to
the communities, back to the States, back to local governments, so we
can have what I called before, and what even Alice Rivlin has called,
``legislative laboratories,'' where we allow 50 States and hundreds of
communities and thousands of school boards to experiment with education
and to decide how they want to educate their children, instead of
having this cookie cutter approach.
Mr. Speaker, if you tell people that you want to do this, they throw
up their arms and they say what would we do without a Federal education
bureaucracy? What would we do without the Federal Department of
Education? We would do the same thing that we did for the first 204
years in this constitutional Republic. We would keep it out of
Washington, and we would empower the communities and the teachers and
the parents and the students. That makes good sense.
Our Founding Fathers knew that made good sense. James Madison said:
We have staked the entire future of the American
civilization not upon the power of government, but upon the
capacity of the individual to govern themselves, control
themselves, and sustain themselves according to the Ten
Commandments of God.
The 10th amendment to our Constitution that Madison helped draft said
``All powers not specifically given to the Federal Government are
reserved to the States and to the citizens.''
There is nothing in our Federal Constitution, the United States
Constitution, that Madison helped draft about an education bureaucracy
in Washington, DC., but if we look at all 50 State Constitutions, we
will see in all 50 State Constitutions mentioning of education, because
that is the way our Founding Fathers and those that wrote our State
Constitutions envisioned the American educational system being, an
educational system that would be a bottom-up system, where teachers and
parents and principals and school board members and community leaders
would get together and decide how they were going to educate their
children, instead of having an education bureaucracy in Washington,
DC., or to go back to what our Founding Fathers looked at it as,
instead of having King George III tell everybody how they were going to
teach their children.
It just makes good sense. We have to empower our schools once again.
We have to do that by getting it out of Washington, DC. That may be a
radical concept, I suppose as radical as James Madison was considered
to be radical or Thomas Jefferson was considered to be radical all
those years ago when they started what continue to be the greatest
living experiment in the history of government, and that is, the United
States experiment.
Last year there were 72, 73 freshmen that were elected who said
``Enough is enough. We are going to stop draining all the power out of
the communities, stop taking it all up to Washington, DC., stop
consolidating money and power and authority and prestige in Washington,
and start sending it back out to the States, back out to the
communities, back out to the parents, back out to the teachers.''
[[Page H2217]]
One of those people who is here tonight is the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Jon Fox. Jon has been an instrumental player not only in
these education issues, but in other issues on fighting to take our
country back and reclaim our heritage, and return this constitutional
Republic to what it was meant to be.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me. The gentleman has been a leader, and I would like to
extend my gratitude to you on behalf of the others in the Congress for
your leadership in speaking out on important issues.
Frankly, we are looking to the point that the status quo does not
live here anymore; how can we make the Congress more responsive, how
can we make sure that we in fact look forward to some substantive and
important changes.
That is why, from my perspective, and I think as well, from yours, we
need to look and make sure that the local school boards are making the
decisions. Yes, we want the Federal funds for textbooks and school
lunch and for transportation to go to our school districts, but we do
not need national policy to tell our local school districts how to in
fact make sure we are giving educational policy that our students need
and our parents want. Frankly, I think the teachers want that, too. We
want minimum standards, of course, but we can get maximum results by
empowering local governments.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman 100 percent.
I have to tell him, though, if we do go through a process where we
block grant some of these programs back to the States, I think the
important thing is that we do empower them and allow them to make the
decision, just like you said.
{time} 2115
Because Pennsylvania's issues on education, on transportation, on
school lunch programs are different, I can guarantee they are different
from Pensacola, FL.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. No question.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. We come from different parties. I lived in upstate
New York for a few years. I recognize that. Our society and our country
is huge. So I do not think Bill Clinton or any President should say
this is what our education agenda is going to be and we have got to
stick to it.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Sure.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. On the school lunch program, what I think is
exciting about the new Congress is that in the 104th Congress, in a
bipartisan fashion, we have seen the school lunch and the WIC programs,
how we have expanded the amount of money for those programs, and we
said in a block grant, we are going to make sure it meets National
Science Foundation standards for quality of the food.
Instead of spending 15 percent on administrative costs, as the
Federal Government has for many, many years, we told the States and the
governors who want the programs, ``You can only spend 5 percent on the
administrative costs. With the extra 10 percent we are giving you, you
have got to feed more kids more meals.''
That is a better way of doing it. Less bureaucracy, more direct
services. That is what I think is the kind of reform that is positive.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. That is right.
It is very interesting, you were talking about the school lunch
program, and we saw and actually I talked about how we had been
attacked as being extremist and Nazis and all these other things. Just
absolutely ridiculous attacks on our character, and it showed just how
desperate they were.
They even paraded little children around here in a shameless display.
Everybody was wearing their ties with children on them, and all they
talked, children, children, children, that is all they talked about. I
have got two children. I do not need anybody to tell me that I am more
or less compassionate than they are simply because they have more faith
in the Federal bureaucracy than in local communities.
I think what we need to do is, while the school lunch programs went
up, I think we need to reexamine if this is something that the Federal
Government should in the end, in the perfect world, even be involved
in. Because let us say, for instance, in my area, and we are talking
about getting to the ideal situation on school lunch programs, to make
sure that we feed the most disadvantaged and those students that need
to be fed.
In my area, let us say that you take, and I, of course, because I am
a working class type of guy, I probably do not even have a dollar so I
cannot even hold it up. But let us say you take a dollar and you pay
taxes coming up on April 15 in my area. Well, that dollar for school
lunch programs, for instance, that dollar first goes to Atlanta, GA, to
the regional IRS office, which is our regional southeastern IRS office.
That dollar that was for school lunch programs first gets channeled
through the IRS office in Atlanta. Of course they have got copying
machines. They have got to pay their people to work. They have got to
pay rent. They have got to do all these other things, so a little bit
of that dollar is gone, sort of a brokerage fee.
Then where does it go next? It comes up to Washington, DC, goes to
the IRS office in Washington, DC, and the Treasury Department. They
take off their little bit.
Then of course if gets funneled over to the next agency, I suppose
the Department of HHS. They take off their part of the dollar, and then
of course it goes to the subdivisions within the Department of HHS, and
then over to the Department of Education.
Everybody got their brokerage fee on it, so that dollar that started
out for school lunch programs continues to get cut up more and more.
The does it come back to the students and get put on the table in
Pensacola, FL? No. Then it goes to Tallahassee, FL, and they start
figuring out how they are going to cut up the money. Then it comes on
over to Escambia County and they have to cut it up.
Finally, by the time that dollar that got out of my pocket on April
15 and went through this maze of bureaucracy up to Washington, DC, and
back down to Tallahassee and back to Pensacola, and finally to pay to
put a lunch or a breakfast on the table for that disadvantaged child,
we have blown most of our money, instead of keeping the money in the
community and having the communities raise the revenue and pay for the
school lunch program. That is where we need to be. Not only does it
make sense, not only is it constitutionally correct, but it just makes
good basic sense.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I certainly will yield.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. The point is well taken. The fact is that
our local communities, local officials, schools, parents, teachers,
they know best what they need in their community. If it goes through
all the layers the gentleman from Florida described, what happens is,
as he well knows, all the pieces that are taken out is less for the
child.
After all, what it is about, we want to help more children, we want
to help more of our constituents get the services they need that cannot
be provided by the private sector. Where the private sector can handle
it best, they should. Where State government and local government can
handle it best, they should.
But if it cannot be handled in the local government, then the Federal
Government has to get involved, obviously in national defense and in
other areas like Medicare and Medicaid. Those things that cannot be
handled in the local government, certainly of course the Federal
Government needs to take care of it.
Under this new Congress, the new vision I like is we are trying to
eliminate the fraud, abuse and waste in the system, and that is where
the big differences are coming. For instance, if we want to save
Medicare for our seniors and make sure they get all the services they
need with the appropriate increases, so they are always covered for
health care, there is $30 billion a year right now in fraud, abuse and
waste just in Medicare, $14 billion in Medicaid.
Under the new legislation we passed, the new Health Care Fraud Act is
going to make sure we go after that fraud,
[[Page H2218]]
abuse and waste and the savings go back to health care for our people.
That is the difference in the new Congress, direct services, more for
the people, less waste, fraud and abuse. By going after these kinds of
problems in our Government, we are going to make sure we get some real
reform.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I go through the panhandle, hold town hall meetings
all the time. As I hold town hall meetings, I hold Medicare town hall
meetings, and I ask people what they think the problem is with
Medicare.
I cannot tell you how many people cite waste, fraud and abuse inside
the system. They will tell me that a medical provider will overcharge
them and that they will call up, they will say, ``You have overcharged
me here. You need to correct my bill.'' And the provider will say,
``Don't worry about it, it's not your money.''
The sad fact is, it is their money. I will tell you what, if I added
up all of the waste, fraud and abuse cases I heard in those town hall
meetings, I think it would be enough to take care of the Federal debt.
We cannot close our eyes to the fact that there is waste, fraud and
abuse in the system, and we also cannot close our eyes to the fact that
this system continues to lose money. I was shocked, like I know the
gentleman was, and quite frankly worried for my parents and for my 93-
year-old grandmother, shocked to find out that the Clinton
administration actually had knowledge that Medicare was losing money
this past fall and that, unlike what the President had told us in the
Medicare trustees' report back in April of 1995, that Medicare was
going to go broke much faster than the 7 years they had originally told
us. It was actually going to go broke a lot earlier.
That is what excites me about this problem, despite all the sound and
all the fury and all the demagoguery, and I can say demagoguery. That
is not coming from me. That is coming from the Washington Post. The
Post accused Bill Clinton and the Democrats of shamelessly demagoguing
on the issue.
Robert Samuelson, who wrote a Washington Post editorial, called the
President a liar, said he lied on Medicare and said he did not like
using that term, but that the President had so twisted the facts on
Medicare that he really felt like there was no other term that fit him.
I guess my last example of how the media has caught on to the
President, and they have already told us what they are going to do
there this fall, they are going to continue this shameless parade of
lies, trying to scare senior citizens, but my favorite was Nightline.
They had a program they called ``Medicare.'' The first clip, and I am
sure you know about this, Jon, but the first clip they showed in the
introduction of Nightline, they go, ``this is Nightline.'' The first
clip they show is Hillary Clinton testifying before Congress a few
years ago, a few short years ago, to Democrats in Congress, talking
about how to save Medicare. She said we must slow down the rate of
growth in Medicare to twice that of inflation, twice the rate of
inflation. I suggest 6.9 percent.
The next clip they showed was Speaker Gingrich saying we must slow
down the rate of growth in Medicare to twice that of inflation. I
suggest 7.2 percent. So already in these first two clips in 10 seconds
you see that we are actually suggesting a higher increase of growth in
Medicare than the President and Hillary did in 1993, the First Lady.
Then the next clip was Bill Clinton saying, ``I will not allow the
Republicans to destroy Medicare,'' when we were doing the exact thing
or even a little bit better than they were suggesting just 2 short
years ago.
I cannot tell you how many senior citizens have said, ``My gosh, am I
going to have Medicare next year? Are you guys abolishing Medicare?'' I
sit there and I go through the numbers. After I go through the numbers,
and I explain to my 93-year-old grandmother and to others that they are
going to go from getting $4,600 this year in benefits to an average of
$7,200 in benefits 7 years from now, I apologize to them. I apologize
to them because of the shameless demagoguery that we have heard from
this side by people who have admitted they are using this for political
leverage to try to scare senior citizens, to maintain power, to try to
get reelected.
Now, if that is not a signal of the end of a party, and if that does
not signal intellectual dishonesty and bankruptcy of the lowest order,
I do not know what does.
We are doing what we have to do, what the Washington Post recognizes
we have to do, what the New Republic has recognized in a cover story
that we have to do, what a lot of liberal publications even have
realized that we have had to do to save Medicare for senior citizens
and for those that are in the baby boom generation.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. The fact is the gentleman is absolutely
correct. It was we Republicans who led in this Congress for several
issues before we even got to Medicare. We are the ones that said we
want to roll back the 1993 unfair tax on Social Security when we passed
that bill in the House.
We are the ones that said that seniors under 70 should earn more than
$12,800 without having deductions from their Social Security. In fact,
that legislation will allow them to make up to $30,000 a year without
any deductions for Social Security.
Third, we are the ones who said we read the report from the
President's trustees saying that Medicare was going to run out of funds
in 7 years. So we came up with a proposal, which we hope the Congress
will eventually adopt and the President sign, which does several things
that you outlined:
No. 1, eliminate the $30 billion in fraud, abuse and waste by going
through the Attorney General's office and working with the HHS
Inspector General to make sure we root out that waste; give a 10-year
penalty for those who violate the law. No longer can you be a provider.
And put those savings back into health care for seniors.
No. 2, make sure that the minimum education for the indirect and
direct costs for interns and residents which is now part of Medicare be
a separate line item, fully funded but not part of taking dollars away
from seniors.
No. 3, let us reduce the cost of the paper work, 12 percent cost now
in Medicare, just on paper work. I want to see that down to 2 percent,
like you do, and use electronic billing, and give an extra 10 percent
back for seniors for health care.
We also have a provision in there for managed care for Medicare, as
well as Medisave accounts, which lets a senior determine how much money
they want to spend each year on their health care and they can pocket
the savings or roll it over the following year.
The fact is we are trying to be innovative and we are trying to make
sure that Medicare will be there for next year, the year after, and the
year after. Whatever it takes to make sure seniors have health care, we
are going to do it, because we are the ones who have been leading the
way to help make sure that seniors live longer, live better, live
independently and really can make sure that they have the quality of
life that we want for your grandmother, for my grandmother, for our and
for your parents.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. The gentleman brought up a good point, reclaiming my
time for a second here. I remember back to 1993, the largest tax
increase in this country, in fact in the history of mankind. I think
back to that night when the vote was taken that increased taxes on
Social Security up to 85 percent, where you had the Federal Government
reaching in and taking more money out of senior citizen's pockets.
I think back to that night. I think back to how they lowered the
earnings limit that you talked about from $34,000 to $14,000 and
basically told our senior citizens, ``Do not dare to be productive, my
friends, because if you do, we are going to take your money away from
you.''
{time} 2130
You know, I think back to that night when they raised taxes, estate
taxes. I think back to that night when they raised taxes that affected
seniors' incomes a million different other ways. And, you know, the
thing that is striking is that night it was this side of the aisle, the
Republican side of the aisle, that unanimously voted for the rights of
senior citizens. Not one single Republican cast a vote to raise taxes
on senior citizens and their social security benefits. Not one single
Republican
[[Page H2219]]
cast a vote under Bill Clinton's tax plan to lower the earnings limit,
to punish seniors for being productive. Not one single Republican
signed off on the largest tax increase in the history of this country.
It was an initiative that was rammed through the House, through the
Committee on Ways and Means, by liberal Democrats, signed on by
President Bill Clinton, the same man who had promised a middle-class
tax cut only a few months earlier when he was campaigning for
President.
Yet these people, a lot of these people, have the nerve to actually
stand up now and act as though they are the protectors of senior
citizens, when, in fact, when they were in power, they were the ones
that were taxing senior citizens, making it harder for them to get by
from Social Security check to Social Security check and who are now
pretending to be friends of senior citizens. All they are doing is
fiddling while Rome burns.
They know the system is going bankrupt. The Medicare trustees told
them the system is going bankrupt. The headlines this past month have
shown it is going bankrupt even faster than we were led to believe by
the President and by the liberal Democrats. And yet it is like they are
a doctor that opens up a patient, sees cancer in that patient, and
instead of operating, closes the patient back up, pats them on the head
and says, ``Go in peace. You are fine.''
We cannot turn a blind eye to the waste, fraud and abuse that is in
the system. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the system is
going bankrupt. We have got to protect it and preserve it and make it
stronger, and I ask you who cares for senior citizens more: those that
actually dare to make a difference and save Medicare or those who want
to be elected this coming November and that is all they care about? So
they are willing to just sort of let it go on for another 6 months or a
year or 2 years until we wake up one morning and Medicare is gone.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I will be glad to answer your question, if
you will yield. The fact is the Republican majority has led the way to
protect seniors, not only having in that legislation all the things we
discussed previously, but also a clause to return in case there has to
be a further increase if we have not been able to save as much as we
hoped to through the fraud, abuse and waste.
We will not let seniors go without the proper Medicare and senior
health care services they deserve and need, but we are not going to
tolerate a system that will lose money and have the waste go out the
door when the services those dollars could have brought the seniors
should go to our people. We are going to be vigilant that way.
What is also important is to note, and the people, our colleagues
should also know, Social Security is off the table. That is not part of
our budget. We are not going to let that be touched by anybody, not
anybody anyhow.
The fact is Social Security deserves to have funds brought back to it
prior Congress borrowed from the Social Security. The Social Security
trust fund is owed about $358 billion. Hopefully, through things like
the line item veto, other savings we are going to have reducing
agencies, the sunset review legislation I have, other ways to reduce
the cost of programs that have outlived usefulness, we can restore
those funds to the Social Security fund, the Social Security trust
fund.
The Social Security trust fund is solvent, doing well. We want to
make sure it is going to be solvent for many years to come. Many on the
other side of the aisle try to take things from it to balance the
budget for seniors and those who have given their whole life to train
us, to give us the right to be here. We have to protect them.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I agree. Exactly.
I want to try to bring this together, in closing, and just say this,
that we have been talking about Medicare, we have been talking about
education, but you know, the Democrats, some of the leadership, some of
the liberals have tried to say, tried to tie some things together for a
campaign slogan. And I guess it sounds great as a campaign slogan.
Unfortunately, it is just not true.
What have they said time and time again, the Republicans are cutting
taxes for the rich to pay for Medicare and have said that we are
actually cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich. And we
cannot talk about Medicare until--
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. First of all, nothing could be further from
the truth.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Exactly. Exactly. We cannot end this discussion on
Medicare without discussing these tax cuts, I think, just to totally
blow it out of the water, because nothing could be further from the
truth. Not only are we strengthening and preserving Medicare, not only
are we allowing Medicare to grow at a rate that is sustainable, not
only are we going to be giving senior citizens more options than they
have ever had and going to be allowing the Medicare benefits to
continue to increase, and that shows that we are telling the truth on
Medicare.
On the tax cuts for the rich, you and I both know those are not tax
cuts for the rich. You take the $500 per child tax credit, let me tell
you something, that is a tax credit to help the struggling middle-class
family that is having trouble getting by from paycheck to paycheck.
And here is an interesting fact for you on it: They call it tax cut
for the rich; the fact is 89 percent of those tax cuts, 89 percent of
that tax relief goes to working families earning less than $75,000. So
what does that tell us? It tells us one or two things about the
liberals calling them tax cuts for the rich. It tells us that, first of
all, either they are not telling the truth on tax cuts either, on tax
relief for working-class Americans, it tells us that. Or the second
thing it tells us is that they truly believe that a working-class
family of four earning $35,000, $40,000, is rich in their book.
Now, whether they are lying about it or whether they truly believe
that working-class Americans making $40,000, a family of four is now
rich in America, either way, I do not think they are fit to govern this
country anymore.
I think it is a sad commentary when people would actually stand up
and say those are tax cuts for the rich and try to scare senior
citizens. This is about empowering senior citizens if we are talking
about Medicare. it is about empowering working class Americans if we
are talking about working-class family tax relief. And it is about
empowering parents, teachers, principals, and school boards if we talk
about educating our children in the classroom and not in a bureaucracy
in Washington, DC. And that is what this whole, they have called it, a
revolution, we have barely taken the first step.
That is what this whole movement is about, getting power out of
Washington, DC, and once again relying on the goodness of the American
people and the greatness of the American civilization, which I believe
today truly is the last great hope.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I agree with you. You are absolutely right.
The fact is that when it comes to the tax reform, it is going to help
most Americans. And we have done it after we have already taken the
spending cuts, $190 billion, deficit reduction of $90 billion. It is
only when we start looking to the tax reform to help us create jobs,
over 300,000 a year, to help encourage savings to help encourage
investment, and that is what America is all about. If we can create
more jobs, not Government jobs per se, but real private sector jobs, we
will have more people paying taxes and more, a more stable tax
structure for everybody. Everybody can pay less toward the Government
and get more in their pocket so they can help this economy drive
forward.
We have the elder care tax credit, the new IRA's are part of that
program. We have the new adoption tax credit. All of those tax reform
packages will help seniors, help working families, will help children.
So, frankly, when you talk about it here in this Congress, we have
had bipartisan support for that program, but the President
unfortunately vetoed the bill, and I am hopeful the next time when
welfare reform comes before the President, tax reform comes before the
President, and a balanced budget, we can make a difference, because
with that balanced budget we are going to reduce the costs for working
families, college education interest expense, car expense, and on the
mortgage expense.
[[Page H2220]]
And that is basic to the country. And by doing that, we are going to
have a stronger country. The last time we balanced the budget was 1969.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. That is right. For the first time in a generation,
this Congress actually dared to say enough is enough, we are going to
balance the budget, we are going to only spend as much money as we take
in.
A lot of people do not realize how much $5 trillion is. I heard
somebody on this floor say one time, in explaining how much $5 trillion
debt is, if you earned a million dollars every day from the day Jesus
was born, Jesus Christ was born, to today, you would not make enough
money, making a million dollars a day, you would not make enough money
to pay off that debt. And yet we still have people telling us we do not
have to do it in 7 years.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. What is interesting is we can still balance
the budget and still have the safety net for those who are in need.
This is a compassionate country, and this Congress does care but it
does not mean we need to spend money on every program. Frankly, we have
a private sector doing a great job, whether Habitat for Humanity,
community service block grant where we take existing Federal funds and
raise three times as much in the private sector to serve the community,
we can do it all. We do not have to bankrupt the country or the next
generation in doing that.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I will tell you what we have done in Pensacola, FL.
What we have started up, we started a community service network. I got
together 3 or 4 months ago with community leaders. One is a doctor,
Reed Bell, who has just been instrumental. He has cared. He is a
pediatrician. He has done great work in the community for years, caring
for disadvantaged children, caring for those in need. I talked to Dr.
Bell, and he had come up with an idea, a private sector welfare reform,
where when people come off of welfare, we create a community service
network of all of these different community service organizations that
would work together, that would draw in churches and synagogues, and
get these people when they come off of welfare and help them get on
their feet and do everything they can to empower those people without
going back on the welfare rolls a month or two later.
You know, at the time I came up with the idea, Dr. Bell had already
come up with the idea, had been doing it for some time before me. I
thought, hey, I have got a great idea. He had already been thinking
about it, and we got together, and, with Dr. Bell's leadership, we have
launched this community service network. And it is going to make a big
difference. But that is something that is spreading throughout this
country.
I saw on the front page of the New York Times a few Sundays ago that
there has been an explosive growth of these groups, that people are no
longer waiting for the Federal Government to come in and help them out.
Communities are now sort of digging in and doing their part and saying,
``Forget the Federal Government, we have got this American can-do
spirit. We are going to do it ourselves.'' That is what we are doing in
Pensacola. That is what Dr. Bell is doing. That is what the New York
Times is talking about.
Again, this is not a political revolution that is sweeping the
country. It is a revolution of thought, again, that Americans are once
again reclaiming their country and saying we are not going to just
depend on the Federal Government for everything.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I will say, in summation, the spirit of
voluntarism also is alive and well in Montgomery County, PA, where we
have hundreds of organizations working to help with shelters for the
homeless, food cupboards, you name it, health care. They are involved.
But with our welfare reform legislation, in the Congress, I think that
is also very sensitive. We are going to have a safety net for those in
need, when they are taking care of children at home, those who are
able-bodied, in 5 years we are looking to help them get a job, job
counseling, job placement, day care, if they need it. We want to make
sure it is those who are able-bodied get in the world of work if that
is what they are able to do and we can train them for it.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Of course, that debate will continue. I personally
think our welfare bill that ended the Federal Government's oppressive
mandates on States for the first time in 62 years is a great bill.
Obviously, 88 Senators out of 100 Republican and Democrat alike thought
it was a great idea.
The President unfortunately vetoed that bill. Obviously, the 50
Governors, when they came to town, all 50 endorsed our welfare reform
bill, thought we had a pretty good idea. Again they thought we had a
good idea, because it keeps going back to the ideals of Jefferson and
Madison and our Founding Fathers that we are in the end a Nation of
communities and not a Nation of bureaucracies.
We have got to rely on the goodness of Americans as we go into the
21st century, because we have seen the Federal Government only goes so
far.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I want to thank you for taking this hour so
we have a chance to discuss some of the basic achievements we have had
in the 104th Congress, so we can continue the enthusiasm to make sure
we continue our reform goals. I thank you for your leadership.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank you for your leadership.
____________________