[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3463-H3469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    TAXES, EXPENDITURES, AND BUDGETS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. White). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to continue the discussion 
about taxes, let us talk about taxes and expenditures and budgets. But 
before we do that, there were some tributes by my colleagues to Ron 
Brown, and I would like to add my tribute to that number. And I think 
that the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Payne], is here for that purpose, too.
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne] for his statement 
on Ron Brown, and then I will follow with my statement on Ron Brown and 
then go on with the rest of the discussion.


                          tribute to ron brown

  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me at this time.
  Let me say to Mr. Owens from New York that following your time, we 
are going to have members of the caucus come and make expressions. And 
so what I will do at this time is to yield back until the gentleman 
completes his special order. And then I will return back to the podium.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me at this time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to the numerous 
voices that have been raised to pay tribute to Ron Brown. Ron Brown, 
the mentor for all public servants, he could teach us all a great deal.
  I will enter my statement in its entirety into the Record, but I 
would like to read the statement and comment on it.
  Ron Brown was a renaissance politician. He was a jack-of-all-trades 
who mastered all the trades in politics. He was a mentor for seasoned 
professional politicians, and he was qualified to tutor most of us.
  Ron used his considerable influence and charm to become an 
extraordinary fund raiser for the Democratic Party. From the complex 
job of raising money to the details of election day engineering, Ron 
performed with great enthusiasm.
  Ron Brown was the kind of person who could raise funds, and I admire 
him most for that. He probably had a problem like everybody else but he 
plunged into the process of raising funds and did a great job of that.
  There are some people who do fundraising very well, but they are not 
good at strategy. They are not good at tactics. They do not have 
certain other qualities. But in addition to being able to raise funds, 
which we all admired him for, Ron Brown had the talents that went 
across the entire spectrum in terms of skills that are needed in public 
life.
  I first met Ron Brown in Chicago while campaigning for Harold 
Washington for mayor of Chicago. Former majority whip Bill Gray, Ron, 
and I were in a car on a tour through the public housing projects on 
Chicago's south side. We had been assigned that area to campaign. At 
that time Ron was working with a well-known, prestigious, and powerful 
law firm in Washington.

                              {time}  1900

  However, on that day it was simply Ron, the lawyer, friend, 
campaigning for a fellow democrat. We went into huge, tall, cold, 
concrete buildings and walked on floors which seemed to be completely 
out of this world. The deterioration and the garbage inside the halls 
were unbelievable, even to a poor boy like me, whose father has never 
earned more than the minimum wage. I had lived in some of the poorest 
neighborhoods in Memphis, TN, and I had worked in some of the poorest 
neighborhoods in New York. but never had I seen such despair. The only 
glimmer of light I saw in those high-rise urban tunnels that day were 
the Harold Washington posters that the residents waved at us when they 
saw our familiar signs.
  We had connected at that point with the most depressed among us.
  As my eyes met Ron's eyes, he broke into his signature smile. This is 
what politics has got to be all about, he said, as we plunged into the 
crowd of outstretched hands and marched through the halls reminding 
folks that tomorrow was the day to go out and elect the first African-
American mayor of Chicago.
  Ron Brown was the unifying driving force behind the most successful 
and conflict-free convention the Democrats have had in nearly two 
decades. Ron was a star who kept his poise. He kept peace among the 
many party factions and made the Democratic National Committee an 
effective force to be reckoned with in politics.
  Ron Brown was a masterful strategist who began his tenure as party 
chairman with several special election victories despite great 
obstacles. He was a great communicator, and he was a great cheerleader 
who also understood the nuts and bolts of winning campaigns.
  Seldom in America does one man so gracefully transcend the racial 
chasm as Ron Brown did, and in his journey he deeply touched the heart 
and soul of a Nation.
  As our Secretary of Commerce, he was our corporate ambassador to the 
world. As the chairman of the splintered, fractured Democratic Party, 
he was the glue that held it together, and in so doing he delivered the 
White House and became the most beloved chairman in history.
  Ron Brown was undaunted and unfazed by challenges. Being a first was 
not unusual for him. He was the first African-American in his college 
fraternity, the first African-American counsel for the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, and the list goes on and on.
  Ron was a trailblazer and an eternal optimist. He saw no mountain 
that

[[Page H3464]]

could not be climbed or moved or conquered.
  The nation has lost a great leader and statesman. I join Ron's many 
colleagues and friends, not in mourning his death, but in celebrating 
his life, his accomplishments, his style and spirit. Ron Brown will be 
missed, but Ron Brown will never be forgotten.
  Ron Brown was an ambassador for corporate America. Ron Brown was 
about the business of expanding the markets of America across the 
globe. Ron Brown understood that a prosperous America was an America 
that would generate the revenues needed to do the things that had to be 
done in our country for all Americans.
  At this point in our year, April 16, it is a day after tax day. April 
15 is a dreaded day by most Americans. My colleagues who preceded me in 
this special order before talked about taxes and the need to lower 
taxes for American families, and although my colleagues who have spoken 
before were all Republicans, I want to go on record and have the whole 
world hear that I agree 100 percent with my Republican colleagues. We 
need to lower taxes for families and individuals in the United States. 
We need to lower taxes, and I have talked about that on many occasions 
here.

  The problem is that we are taxing families and individuals too 
harshly. Families and individuals are paying too much because 
corporations are paying too little.
  In 1943, the corporations were paying almost 40 percent of the total 
income tax burden in this country, 27 percent by individuals and 
families, and almost 40 percent by corporations in 1943.
  By 1983, the amount of money being paid by corporations under Ronald 
Reagan's administration fell as low as 4 percent, 4 percent, while 
individual taxes went up to 48 percent. The share of income taxes paid 
by families and individuals went as high as 48 percent, while the share 
for corporations went down as low as 4 percent in 1983.
  Today we still have a gross inequity. The share of taxes paid by 
corporations, income taxes, is only 11.4 percent, while the share paid 
by individuals and families is four times that amount, 44 percent.
  So I agree with my Republican colleagues. I only regret that they 
spent so much time talking without confronting a few very basic truths.
  The basic truth that they refuse to come to grips with is that the 
corporations who represent the energies in America that are making the 
greatest amount of money; prosperity has been good to corporations 
because corporations have known how to take advantage of technological 
progress. They have taken advantage of all the research and development 
that has gone forth under the aegis of the taxpayers.
  Taxpayers are the ones who have paid for the research and development 
for computers for radar. Taxpayers are the ones who have led to many 
who finance transistor research and miniaturization, telecommunications 
of all kinds. Taxpayers of America have been the driving force behind 
this. Corporations have known how to organize, take advantage of this 
and produce products.
  So our economy is booming on Wall Street, and corporations are making 
a great deal of money. And nobody regrets that at all. We applaud that. 
The corporations should be paying a greater share of the taxes, and, as 
we move past income tax day, April 15, Americans should think very 
seriously about the inequities, the imbalance in the share of taxes 
paid by corporations verusus individuals.
  Yes, we need a tax cut.
  My colleagues before who were speaking said they spoke to crowds and 
asked people do you think you are paying enough taxes, and nobody 
raised their hands and said, yes, I am paying enough. I would agree. I 
do not--yes, I am paying too much. I mean do you think you pay too much 
tax? Everybody raise their hand and say, yes, I pay too much. I would 
agree I am paying too much. Most families and individuals are paying 
too much, in my opinion.
  In order to raise the revenue needed to run this country, we need to 
have a more equal balance in terms of corporations paying their fair 
share. We need to have some of the corporate welfare programs taken 
away. The other side of it is reducing the expenditures.
  You know, Federal taxes also, we must understand, spread the wealth 
in America, and I think my colleagues on the other side who talk at 
length about taxes did not bother to mention the fact that Federal 
taxation polices represent some of the greatest generosity in America. 
Some of the spirit of being my brother's keeper, especially in the case 
of the east coast, especially even more so in the case of New Yorkers 
on the east coast; you know, the tradition has been that the wealth 
first accumulated on the east coast, and Franklin Roosevelt and his tax 
policies were such that he increased the taxes of people who had the 
money, most of them residing on the east coast and the Rust Belt 
States, they call them now, industrialized States. The money was there, 
and by initiating Federal programs like the Social Security Program and 
other Federal programs, Rural Electrification Program and a number of 
other programs that had to be paid for, he can only pay for them with 
taxes raised on the east coast and in the industrial States where they 
had the money, and that tradition has continued until today.

  New York was one of the States that had to pay out large amounts of 
money in order to help take care of the needs of the rest of the 
country, and so it is even until now on many occasions I have stood 
here and talked about the fact that New York for the last 20 years, as 
a State, has paid into the Federal Treasury more money than it has 
received back from the Federal Government in terms of aid.
  Federal aid going to New York has always been lower than it has been, 
than the amount of money that New Yorkers have paid in taxes. New York 
State in 1994 paid $18.9 billion more into the Federal Treasury than 
they got back in terms of Federal aid. Before that, in 1993 New York 
paid $23 billion more in Federal taxes than New York State got back in 
Federal aid.
  Now, many people have asked me, well, you know, what are you talking 
about, where do you get these outrageous figures, where they come from, 
and I have quoted before, and I just brought back the booklet today, a 
study that is done every year. It is called ``The Federal Budget and 
the States,'' and this study is done every year. It documents 
everything that I have said in terms of some States are donor States 
and some States are recipient States. The Federal budgets in the fiscal 
year 1994 is what I am holding in my hand.
  Its introduction is by Daniel Patrick Moynihan because Senator Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan of the State of New York has pioneered and highlighted 
these great inequities for many years.
  This study, this report, was done by Monica E. Fryer and Herman B. 
Leonard, and it is published by the Taubman Center for State and Local 
Government at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
  So the study is available for anybody who wants to see it. There are 
many fascinating facts beyond the fact that New York State consistently 
has paid more in taxes than it has received back. They have looked at 
aid in terms of salaries of military personnel who live in a given 
State, they looked at aid in terms of Medicaid and Medicare, dollars 
that come from the Federal Government; they looked at aid in terms of 
programs for job training; title I; all the aid lumped together. And 
they can tell you how much each State received back from the Federal 
Government versus what the State paid in.
  So New York is a big donor State. It has been that way for a long 
time, and I think Franklin Roosevelt clearly understood that, that 
Federal taxes spread the wealth, and they have spread it across to 
places that most of the States in the South. Practically all of the 
States in the South are recipient States, they get more from the 
Federal Government than they give back to the Federal Government.
  Mississippi receives $6 billion more from the Federal Government than 
Mississippi pays in taxes to the Federal Government. And some of the 
gentleman who were speaking before had better beware; if you remove the 
role of the Federal Government in collecting taxes and you want to 
leave more of it to the States, the States who will lose the most are 
States in the South because the States in the South combined receive 
$65 billion more from the

[[Page H3465]]

Federal Government than they pay into the Federal Government. And I 
will repeat that because I do not want the figure to get lost: $65 
billion more is received from the Federal Government than the States of 
the South collectively pay into the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1915

  Georgia receives $2 billion more from the Federal Government than 
Georgia pays into the Federal Government in taxes. The county in the 
United States which receives the highest amount of money per capita is 
the county represented by the Speaker of the House. That county 
receives more money per capita than any other county in the country in 
terms of Federal aid. So we should beware, and when we talk about taxes 
let us talk about all the facts. Let us talk about the most significant 
facts.
  Yes, individuals and families are paying too much in taxes. Yes, the 
corporate world is not paying their fair share. They are paying too 
little. They are making the money, but they are paying less.
  If we want a tax cut, I am all in favor of a tax cut. I stand here as 
an acknowledged, unashamed, proud liberal, and I agree with my 
Republican colleagues on the other side who said that families are 
being taxed too much. We need a tax cut. It may begin with where 
President Clinton has begun in terms of a tax cut for education, to aid 
with tuition, a tax cut for families in terms of creating a situation 
with families with direct benefits, so much per child, $500. There is 
agreement between Republicans and Democrats on that.
  I think as we do it, we should look at the situation. I would 
understand that a tax cut should not mean that we end up cutting aid to 
education or cutting Medicaid. A tax cut for individuals and families 
means we should balance off the situation and make certain that where 
the money is needed, it goes there.
  We cannot responsibility deal with tax cuts unless we deal with the 
expenditure side, what is happening with respect to the budget. The 
budget and the waste in the budget must be dealt with also, and I have 
a great disagreement with my colleagues on the other side about where 
you ought to begin dealing with the waste. The waste is not in aid to 
education, the waste is not in Medicaid, although there is waste and 
corruption in health care programs. The real waste is in other places. 
I have cited some of that waste before.
  I have gotten some questions over the recess, and people said, ``How 
dare you say that the CIA has $2 billion that they did not know they 
had and $2 billion that are just sitting there while the deficit grows 
and programs are being cut''? And my answer was, ``Yes, they probably 
have more than $2 billion, because the public figure that has been 
stated, not confirmed by the CIA but not denied by the CIA, has been $2 
billion. They probably have more. It was in the coffers over there, 
petty cash, slush fund, whatever you want to call it. Folks have 
challenged that. I have said I am only quoting from the New York Times 
and the Washington Post.

  There were several articles that appeared on the pages of the New 
York Times and the Washington Post. Many of my friends did not see 
them. Even some of my colleagues here in Congress, when I asked them to 
sign a letter to the President asking him to use that $2 billion to 
restore the funding for title I and for Head Start and for summer youth 
employment, they questioned me, ``Where did you get your figures 
from?'' I told them, off the front pages of the New York Times and the 
Washington Post.
  One article that appeared talked about the President firing two 
people who had been considered responsible for this. This was in 
February, on February 27, 1996:

       The top two managers of the National Reconnaissance Office, 
     a secret agency that builds satellites, were dismissed today 
     after losing track of more than $2 billion in classified 
     money.

  It goes on to talk about how no audit had been done for a long time, 
and this agency had accumulated these funds. And $2 billion, you know, 
if there is $2 billion there, then the question is how many other 
entities, sacred cows in the government, also are sitting on funds? 
That popped into my head, how many others.
  And then, lo and behold, just a few weeks ago a report came out which 
said that the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve that is responsible 
for our economy, who are responsible for advising us how to run the 
economy most effectively and efficiently, the Federal Reserve has $3.7 
billion, $3.7 billion in its slush fund.
  An audit by the GAO shows that the Federal Reserve has $3.7 billion 
in what they call the surplus account. A surplus account. Now, if that 
$3.7 billion was returned to the Treasury, think of how much interest 
we would not have to be paying on the debt. The interest on $3.7 
billion worth of money would be relieved and we would not have to pay 
that. It could reduce the deficit by $3.7 billion, but it is sitting in 
the Federal Reserve coffers. It is called a surplus account. The 
General Accounting Office makes this statement:

       Although the surplus account is intended to absorb possible 
     losses, the Federal Reserve has recorded substantial net 
     profits for 79 consecutive years.

  Do Members hear what I am saying? The surplus account is kept, the 
Federal Reserve says, because they may have losses in their operation. 
It is a self-sustaining operation. They loan money, they charge 
interest for that, they charge money for services. They might lose 
money 1 year, so they say they keep the $3.7 billion around because 
they might lose money and they need to make that up. It is a rainy day 
fund for the Federal Reserve.
  But they have not lost any money for 79 consecutive years. ``Even 
though the likelihood of the system's incurring losses, exceeding its 
revenues, appears remote,'' I am reading from the GAO report, ``the 
total surplus increased 79 percent in the 1988 to 1994 period, rising 
from $2.1 billion to $3.7 billion.''
  The Federal Reserve has $3.7 billion lying around, doing nothing, as 
a rainy day fund. So yes, you are paying too much taxes. You are paying 
too much taxes, because we do not have corporations that have carried 
their fair share. You also pay too much taxes because we have waste in 
government.
  When the President says and all of the leadership says, and I agree, 
that the era of big government is over, we have different meanings. The 
era of big government ought to be over. I think the government should 
be downsized, but the commitments of the government maybe should be 
increased in certain areas. But in the process of downsizing, how do 
you not see $3.7 billion in the Federal Reserve?
  Why is the search for funds only conducted in job training programs? 
They go looking for programs that do not operate effectively and 
efficiently. Why do they go looking there? Why do they go looking in 
the AFDC programs, Aid to Families with Dependent Children? Why do they 
go looking in the WIC programs? Why do they always go looking in the 
programs where the poorest people are served? Why do they go looking in 
the Medicaid program? Why do you not look first at the CIA? Why do you 
not look at the Federal Reserve?
  The head of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan, was up for 
reconfirmation. He has already been there for a long time, so he 
certainly would be derelict if he did not know about the $3.7 billion 
that the Federal Reserve has lying around. If he did know, then 
he ought to answer some questions about, ``Why is this sitting in your 
coffers as a rainy day fund when it could reduce the deficit?'' But I 
do not think he was asked those questions because he is an icon of some 
kind, and he is not a welfare mother. He is not on WIC. We do not treat 
all people equal in this Government.

  It is tax time, Mr. Speaker. It is tax time. We ought to all be 
concerned with taxes. I hope that the result of our concern with taxes 
will mean that we will insist on an overhaul and a total reform of our 
tax system. In the past I have talked about the fact that progressives 
and liberals have ignored the revenue side too much. We have dealt with 
expenditures, meeting the needs of people, meeting the needs of the 
environment, doing what has to be done to make certain that all 
Americans share in the prosperity of America. All of that is highly 
desirable, but we have not looked at taxation enough. We have not 
looked at revenue enough. Revenue is everybody's business.
  I propose a Commission on revenue reforms. We ought to take a look at

[[Page H3466]]

the proposals for flat taxes. We ought to take a look at other 
proposals that have been offered; a consumption tax, a value-added tax. 
We ought to take a look at tax possibilities that exist in terms of 
taxing the sale of the spectrum, taxing the air above us that belongs 
to all the people. All of these things should be examined.
  This past weekend at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, a conference is being 
held called a Summit on the Politics of Meaning. I spent a few hours of 
the last 3 days at this summit. I want to congratulate the organizers 
of that summit, particularly Michael Lerner, who is the editor of 
Tikkun magazine.
  I would like to congratulate him for being the guiding light and the 
spearhead for this organization of this summit, because it brings 
together people from a lot of different areas who are concerned about 
values, and they are concerned about values and how those values and 
how love, compassion, can be applied to public policies.
  They are concerned about public policies without being necessarily 
concerned about which person implements those policies. They do not 
want to get into the dirty business, in quotas, they call it a dirty 
business, of electoral politics, endorsing candidates, et cetera. I do 
not think politics is dirty. I think electoral politics is very 
necessary. I think more good people need to get into electoral 
politics.
  But I agree that it is very useful to have groups and individuals who 
are concerned primarily about issues, and this particular summit on the 
politics of meaning, which was called by Michael Lerner, the editor of 
Tikkun, focused on how do you apply a concern for your brother, for 
your neighbors, in an effective manner in the present situation, when 
marketplace values dominate, and people talk about family values, but 
they really do not come to grips with the fact that too many times, the 
market values dominate our thinking.
  How do you apply compassion, how do you apply love, how do you apply 
concern for your fellow human being if there is a health care 
industrial complex taking over health care services, and if private 
health care providers, drug companies and insurance companies, are 
buying up health maintenance organizations, and health maintenance 
organizations are set up to make a profit, in addition to providing a 
service? It has been hard enough for health care providers to just 
provide a service, but now, in addition to delivering a service, they 
have to make a profit.
  It may be good, it may be an improvement, but we are moving so 
rapidly in this area that it is clear that a government health care 
industrial complex is about to take over, and it is not moving in a way 
which gives anybody else an opportunity to have developed this new 
emerging health care system for all the people. So how do we apply love 
and compassion to the problem that is confronting us?
  I want to just read part of Michael Lerner's call for people to come 
and join this summit on the politics of meaning. They brought together 
people from all walks of life, they brought together people from all 
religions. It is very interesting to see people of the Jewish religion 
with people who are in every denomination of the Christian religion: 
Unitarian Universalists, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics. I heard all 
kinds of people speak. I heard a lesbian minister speak.
  They were all there asserting the fact that human beings have hearts, 
and human beings, at their very best, are capable of great compassion, 
and human beings need to return from the values of the marketplace and 
assert those values of love and compassion in their daily lives and in 
public policy development. It was quite a summit. It is closing out 
tonight.
  I just want to read a few sections from the call for the summit, in 
tribute to what Michael Lerner and his colleagues have done. I am 
quoting Michael Lerner:

       Like many people, I am distressed at the deep ethical and 
     spiritual crisis facing this country. The attempts to 
     dismantle social support for the poor without setting up 
     anything else in its place is only the latest stage of the 
     continued erosion of fundamental human values.
       It is not clear that the Democrats have adequately grasped 
     why people have turned to the right. In addition to my normal 
     job as editor of Tikkun Magazine, I am a psychotherapist, and 
     for 10 years I did extensive research leading 12-week groups 
     for middle-income working class people, focused in part on 
     why they were turning to the Right. What I found was this. 
     People turn to the Right because it speaks, although in a 
     distorted way, to the hunger people have for meaning and 
     higher purpose.
       The fundamental problem with liberal and progressive forces 
     is that they don't understand this hunger for meaning, and so 
     they come up with programs and policies which are narrowly 
     technocratic and don't speak to the soul.

  I am quoting from Michael Lerner, the convener of the summit on the 
politics of meaning.
  I continue to quote:

       Faced with a society whose dominant ethos is selfishness 
     and cynicism, many people conclude that the best way to 
     protect themselves is to narrow their ``circles of caring'' 
     to themselves and their immediate families and narrowly-
     defined communities. My research suggested that many people 
     actually wish for a very different kind of society, one based 
     on Biblical values of love, justice, and mutual recognition, 
     the ability to see others, and be seen oneself, as an 
     embodiment of the image of God. Yet everyday in the world of 
     work people are rewarded for precisely the opposite, the 
     ability to see others as objects, the supposed commonsense 
     that ``looking out for No. 1'' is the only reasonably way to 
     live, and the ethos of selfishness, materialism, and 
     cynicism.

  Continuing to quote Michael Lerner:

       Ironically, it is this very ethos, learned in the world of 
     work, which becomes the central source of people's 
     unhappiness in personal life. Surrounded by others who live 
     by that very same ethos, people increasingly come to feel 
     that everyone is only out for themselves, and that they had 
     better do the same. A ``rip-off mentality'' begins to pervade 
     the social order, and people increasingly come to feel 
     frightened, alone, and cynical about others. No wonder that 
     it becomes hard to hear those who call upon them to ``love 
     thy neighbor,'' when doing so seems so counterintuitive to 
     the ``real world.''
       There is no way to change this without a frontal assault on 
     the ethos of selfishness, materialism, and cynicism in our 
     society, and that is precisely what the politics of meaning 
     advocated by the Foundation for Ethics and Meaning attempts 
     to do. The goal of the politics of meaning is to ``switch the 
     bottom line'' in American society away from measuring 
     productivity or efficiency primarily in terms of the degree 
     to which institutions maximize wealth or power to a new 
     criteria: the degree to which an institution helps to foster 
     ethically, spiritually, and ecologically sensitive human 
     beings capable of sustaining long-term committed loving 
     relationships.

  I continue to quote Michael Lerner:

       This may all sound very visionary and far-off, but in fact 
     it is actually far more practical short-term politics than 
     the various attempts to protect this or that item in the 
     budget at a time when the dominant climate is calling for 
     dramatic budget and tax reductions. It is far more likely 
     that large sections of the American public will respond to an 
     alternative vision to the conservative one that is 
     increasingly dominating both parties than to a nit-picking 
     approach that accepts the dominant assumptions and seeks to 
     minimanage how it is implemented.
       It is not that these details are totally unimportant, and 
     the response of many Americans to Clinton's willingness to 
     stand up to the Republicans gives us some indication of the 
     power his presidency might have had had he been willing to 
     fight for something at other points along the way. But the 
     basic problem is that Clinton is not putting forward a 
     different set of principles, and eventually most people get 
     weary of staying tuned to the details of implementation of 
     assumptions that both sides seem to share.
       ``The first stage'' of a strategy to change this ``is to 
     convene a gathering of people who may be interested in 
     becoming the core group for a politics of meaning strategy. 
     This is the `ground floor' meeting. We are calling it the 
     national Summit on Ethics and Meaning at the Omni Shoreham 
     Hotel in Washington, D.C. April 14-16, 1996. This summit will 
     bring together a wide variety of people who wish to challenge 
     the materialism and selfishness in American society, but who 
     have previously not thought of themselves as part of a 
     political movement to do so. The Summit will serve a dual 
     function. On the one hand, it will be an opportunity to 
     explore the ideas of a politics of meaning in some detail,'' 
     to refine the politics of meaning ideas,'' and to refine the 
     strategy around them.

  I end the quotation from the call put out by Michael Lerner for the 
Politics of Meaning Summit, and I mentioned that because I found the 
summit very inspiring. They expected 600 people to show up, to turn out 
for the summit and they got 1800 instead of 600. There is a hunger for 
meaning and there is a hunger for values. There is a hunger for ways to 
express compassion and love in the making of public policies, and I 
think that the summit on the Politics of Meaning is a great beginning 
in the movement in this direction.
  I say all of this because in the present budget battles, we talk 
about

[[Page H3467]]

taxes and I said before when you talk about taxes and the need for 
taxes, taxes are kind of a necessary evil. If you are going to deal 
with a fairer taxation system, then we should get on with the business 
of trying to make certain that corporations pay their fair share, 
because corporations are entities that are now making large amounts of 
money and they can afford to pay that share.
  In the absence of fairness, in the absence of an approach which 
reaches out to those who can afford to produce the revenue and get the 
adequate amounts of revenue, we have a situation where an attempt is 
being made to make up for what the corporations are not paying, their 
fair share, by cutting the expenditures for programs that help the 
people who need the most help. This has produced a crisis in this 
country. There is a crisis in neighborhoods like the neighborhoods that 
I represent because people are very much concerned and they are very 
much appropriately alarmed by the speed at which certain programs that 
have existed for the last 30 years or 40 years are being taken away. 
Medicare and Medicaid are merely 30 years old. Medicaid and Medicare 
are now being threatened. The entitlement for Medicaid is under a great 
threat because the governors of all the States, both Democratic 
governors and Republican governors met and they decided that the 
entitlement for Medicaid should be removed, that the Federal Government 
should no longer assume the responsibility for providing health care to 
everybody who is poor enough to meet a means test which says that they 
are eligible to have the health care that they need when they meet it. 
The States will not assume that responsibility of providing health care 
to everybody who needs it when they need it. The States will only spend 
as much as they have. They want a block grant. They want the Federal 
Government to give them the money in a block grant and they will decide 
how to spend the money, they will decide who is eligible for it, and 
when the money runs out, they have no vehicle. Most States operate on 
balanced budgets. They must not spend any more than their revenues take 
in. When they run out of money, then if there are any sick people or 
any people who need to go into nursing homes because two-thirds of the 
money that Medicaid spends provides nursing homes for people who cannot 
afford their own nursing home expenses. Many people who are middle 
class and they are on Medicare, when they get very ill and they are 
forced to spend large amounts of money beyond what their insurance 
provides, they end up being poor by the time they are required to go 
into a nursing home because their health has degenerated. When they are 
required to go into nursing homes, they have no more funds, so it is 
Medicaid that picks up the cost. Two-thirds of the money spent by 
Medicaid goes to pay for nursing homes for elderly people.

  So we have a situation where people are alarmed because that is 
threatened. Medicaid has been here now for 30 years. Medicaid is the 
only step we have taken in this country toward universal health care. 
All of the other industrialized nations except South Africa have some 
form of universal health care, health care for every citizen who needs 
it. But we do not have it. Medicaid represented a step in that 
direction. If they take away the entitlement for Medicaid, which is 
very much a possibility, right now here in Washington, if they take 
away that entitlement, we are in serious trouble. We have not only lost 
a service that is a vital need for the survival of many Americans, we 
have also taken an ideological step backwards. We will never have 
universal health care if we allow that retreat to take place. So people 
are concerned that this crisis has been created and we are acting as if 
the country is going to go broke if we do not have drastic cuts in 
public housing money, drastic cuts in education, drastic cuts in 
Medicaid, Medicare, drastic cuts in job training programs.
  That is what the Republican majority has done in the last 15 months. 
They have generated an atmosphere of crisis. That atmosphere of crisis 
is being used as an excuse to cut the safety net programs that have 
been built up since World War II and really started before that with 
President Roosevelt's New Deal. They are going to take all that away. 
At the same time they are going to spend large amounts of money on new 
fighter plane systems, on a new antimissile system and continue to 
spend large amounts of money on the defense budget. All of this is a 
crisis that they have created and it is very interesting to note some 
of the effects of that crisis. Some of the effects is that the people 
in our communities instead of understanding the need to rise up and 
fight this kind of artificially created crisis and to fight the people 
who have created the crisis, they are turning on themselves. In health 
care we have situations where hospitals in New York City are being 
proposed to be sold. Some are being proposed for leasing. One hospital 
that is a State institution primarily, Kings Borough Hospital in my 
district, has been told they will shut down by August. They are going 
to shut the hospital down, which is primarily a hospital for the 
mentally ill. In this process, we find some other hospitals in the area 
nearby willing to speed up the process of closing their fellow 
institution by agreeing to take over various parts of their activities, 
even when it is not feasible.

  Brooklyn is a community with 2.5 million people. Brooklyn if it were 
a city would be the sixth or seventh largest city in the country. But 
in Brooklyn there is one mental hospital of this kind. So 2.5 million 
people need that hospital. We do not need to be told we can travel 
somewhere else. We have the population concentration. We need it. The 
institution should not help the Republican governor balance his budget 
on the backs of the mentally ill by taking parts of the functions of 
this hospital.
  So I have asked all the hospitals to take an anticannibalism pledge, 
don't cannibalize the institution, and I have asked other hospitals in 
other parts of the city, as we fight to maintain decent health care in 
the communities that need health care most, let us not cooperate with 
the mayor, the Republican mayor who wants to sell hospitals and lease 
hospitals, let us not cooperate by cannibalizing each other. Hospitals 
should not cannibalize each other. They should take a pledge that New 
York City, with 8 million people, needs all of its hospitals. If it 
does not need all of the beds, then we do not have to have all the 
beds. We can restructure health care in various ways. But we basically 
need all the hospitals. And we can provide health care for people who 
are from outside the city. An accumulation of the best experts in the 
medical fields has taken place in that city and health care should be 
seen as an industry as well as a service, and that industry can serve 
areas from outside the city as well as inside the city. So the 
cannibalism should not take place. I caution every American who is wary 
and concerned and even panicked by the budget cuts that have been 
generated by the Republican majority not to participate in 
cannibalization. I have seen examples of it in the area of education 
recently.
  There are people who want to see special education programs closed 
down or drastically reduced because they want more money for the 
regular education program. Well, the regular education programs and the 
people who advocate them, as we all do, the regular education programs 
should confront the people who have created the crisis. We do not need 
cuts in title I. We do not need cuts in the teacher training programs. 
We do not need those cuts. We need instead the kinds of increases for 
education that President Clinton has proposed.
  Education is ranked very high in the polls by Americans every time 
polls are taken. So why are we cutting back on the education budget and 
why are people in the education community willing to engage in 
cannibalism? Don't try to eat the special education programs. Let us 
fight for more funds, both for special education programs and for title 
I programs and for any other programs that are needed. Let us fight the 
State governments, let us fight the city governments, let us fight the 
Federal Government to get the fair share of the allocated dollars for 
education.
  The cannibalization of special education is under way now. There is a 
bill that is being introduced by the Republican majority in the 
community that I serve on, and they are trying to take advantage of the 
fact that shortsighted people out there are moving to try to

[[Page H3468]]

rush into a shutdown of special education programs because they cost 
more than other education programs do and my answer to them is let us 
all put our heads together with reason and some hard examination and 
scrutiny, and let us try to come up with the best possible program we 
can come up with. Let us make cuts of waste where it exists.

                              {time}  1945

  Let us not cannibalize education programs. Let us not destroy good 
special education programs. Across the country, I hope that the people 
in the community of people with disabilities understand the kind of 
hostility that has been generated by this Republican majority here in 
the House of Representatives toward all programs for people with 
disabilities. What is happening to the special education programs right 
now and the legislation is indicative of the kind of hostility that is 
shown by the Republican majority. We have to meet that hostility with a 
demand that adequate amounts of money be made available for all 
education.
  Let us celebrate today, the fact that according to reports that have 
appeared in a number of places, it has not been voted on, on the floor 
yet, but the cuts in title I are no more. Title I will not be cut in 
this budget, I am told. This year's budget will be at the same level as 
last year's budget. Let us celebrate, all of the people out there who 
have been so anguished by the assault on education programs, know that 
we have fought the good fight.
  We have kept our promise and stopped the extremists from rolling over 
us and the extremists have decided to retreat. There will be no cut in 
title I. Title I will be kept at the same level as last year. There 
will be no cut in Head Start. Let us celebrate. Let us celebrate the 
fact that we have kept the faith. We have stopped the extremists.
  There will be no cut in Head Start in this annual budget. Let us 
celebrate the fact that the money is now almost assured for the Summer 
Youth Employment Program. It is less than it should be, but it is about 
almost at the same level as last year, last summer. Let us celebrate, a 
few weeks ago, there was zero in the budget and no talk of remedying 
that problem. So let us celebrate what the great fight has proposed. 
Let us celebrate the fact that by fighting, by standing up, Democrats 
have kept their promise of stopping the extremism.
  Extremism, the manufactured crisis, the artificial crisis, the unreal 
crisis created by an extreme majority in this Congress, has not 
prevailed in the area of education. So let there be no more 
cannibalization. Let all the people in the education world, the 
superintendents, the State education commissioners, the principals, let 
us stop sharpening our knives for the funds that may be available 
if drastic cuts are made in special education programs. We do not need 
to do things which we would be ashamed of in a few years. We do not 
need the atrocities of throwing children out of classes because of the 
fact that they are disruptive, we have not been able to deal with it. 
But we mainly want to use that as an excuse to cut down on the number 
of children in special education programs.

  We do not want to abandon the free-education doctrine that has 
prevailed for so many years. We do not want to abandon the right of 
parents to follow a due process procedure and to have legal assistance 
in doing that in going through that process. We do not want to 
cannibalize special education programs any more than we want to watch 
health care programs cannibalized also.
  On May 19, in New York City, we have declared that it is Hospital 
Support Sunday, Sunday, May 19. On that Sunday, we are trying to bring 
out as many people as possible to show that everybody cares about 
health care. It is not just the unions who have people who work in the 
hospitals. It is not only the doctors and the professional staff who 
have a vested interest in the hospitals. But it is everybody. It is the 
patients, it is the community, the people surrounding the hospital. It 
is everybody who cares about hospitals in New York City. They want to 
come out.
  Mr. Speaker, we want to have a set of demands established. The No. 1 
demand is that every process of change in the hospital system in New 
York, whether it involves HMO's or hospitals or clinics, all of those 
things should be frozen and let the people come forward to participate. 
We want a citizens' committee instead of cannibalization to make up for 
what is being cut. We want the people to participate in the 
restructuring and in the fight to get additional funds where they are 
needed.
  New York is often criticized for spending more money on Medicare and 
Medicaid than other States. But that same New York, as said before, 
gives to the Federal Government $1.9 billion more than it gets back. In 
1994, we gave $1.9 billion more than we got back. In 1993, we gave $23 
billion more in taxes to the Federal Government than we got back.
  If we were to let New York have its own money, leave the taxes that 
we pay to the Federal Government in New York, we could have decent 
health care. We could have lots of other programs. We could 
have adequate funding for our colleges and our universities, adequate 
funding for our schools. We can do a lot with $1.9 billion that does 
not go somewhere else across the Nation.

  That generosity once was a proud gesture for New Yorkers. But we have 
been spat upon so much and criticized so much, there is so much 
ingratitude throughout the Nation, especially in the recipient States, 
that we do not want to continue that any longer. We would like to find 
a way to have revenue justice.
  Let the revenues come back. Let us have some kind of formula where 
States that year after year pay more into the Federal coffers in taxes 
than they get back would receive some kind of rebate to go back into 
their own treasury to meet the needs of their own people. We will not 
have people so distressed and so distraught that they are stampeded 
into cannibalizing institutions and taking valuable resources from one 
much-needed institution in order to put it over here to another.
  Mr. Speaker, teachers, principals, commissioners, administrators 
should not indulge in that in education. Doctors, hospital 
administrators should not indulge in that kind of practice in the area 
of health care. We do not need to eat each other. Instead we should 
fight for a fair share of the resources that are available, and we 
should fight to make more resources available by having the 
corporations pay their fair share of the taxes.
  We started the discussion with taxes. Let us close it out with a 
discussion of taxes. I have an article here, April 15, 1996, Mr. Robert 
D. Novak. I do not usually quote Mr. Novak. The article is entitled GOP 
Deficit Trap. In this article, Mr. Novak says that it appears from 
reports from the Congressional Budget Office that we will have a 
balanced budget by the year 2002, without all of these drastic cuts 
that are being made and proposed by the Republican majority. It appears 
that the deficit can be erased without one dime from entitlements. 
Members do not have to take one dime from social security, Medicare and 
Medicaid alike.
  That is what Mr. Robert D. Novak said, who is not a proud liberal on 
my end of the spectrum. He is on the other end of the spectrum. And Mr. 
Novak goes on to talk about what he calls a GOP deficit trap. He says 
the GOP has been, unfortunately, obsessed with ending the deficit and 
balancing the budget. They made a great mistake. We are going to be 
able to balance the budget and have funds for everybody on a reasonable 
basis without having to make the Herculean, drastic kind of cuts being 
proposed.
  So I end by saying yesterday was tax day. Today every American should 
take it very seriously. Take a harsh look at your Government. Examine 
how we are being taxed, how unjust the tax system is, how uneven the 
tax system is, how the corporations are paying only 11 percent while 
individuals are paying 44 percent, four times as much as the 
corporations are paying.
  That is part of the answer. The other part of the answer is; where is 
the waste? Where do these expenditures need to be cut? Go look in the 
coffers of the CIA. They have $2 billion in a slush fund, a petty cash 
fund. Go look in the coffers of the Federal Reserve. They have $3.7 
billion. Then they are jamming some of these other agencies. We better 
take a look at a lot of the

[[Page H3469]]

others, the space agency, the nuclear commission. All of these icons of 
Government need to be closely examined to see where is our money. The 
Department of Agriculture, which gives away money, has forgiven $12 
billion in debts to farmers, for Farmers Home Loan mortgages.
  Mr. Speaker, it is tax time. It is a time we take seriously where the 
revenues come from and where the expenditures go. Every American ought 
to get involved. They ought to get involved with compassion and love 
and concern for their fellow man.
  Mr. Speaker, I include Mr. Novak's article of April 15, 1996, for the 
Record:

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 15, 1996]

                            GOP Deficit Trap

                          (By Robert D. Novak)

       As Republican congressional leaders on March 28 were poised 
     to flee Washington for a two-week Easter break, they failed 
     to notice a ``preliminary report'' on the government's long-
     term fiscal outlook prepared by their own Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO). But President Clinton's eagle-eyed 
     number crunchers quickly perused it and could scarcely 
     contain their delight.
       The report estimated the federal budget deficit for the 
     year 2002 down to $107 billion--miraculously, $37 billion 
     lower than the CBO number just three months earlier. Thus, 
     the president and the Republicans are but a short, easy hop 
     away from balancing the budget in seven years as measured by 
     the CBO, as they each have agreed to attempt.
       Good news? for Clinton, yes. For the Republicans, no. The 
     hop to budget balance is too short and too easy. By this 
     route, the deficit can be erased without one dime from 
     entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the 
     like--whose immense growth could eventually ruin the economy. 
     What's more, the deficit would be eliminated without 
     downsizing the present massive structure of the federal 
     government or relieving the onerous tax burden.
       The Republicans are in a deficit trap. In their first 
     experience controlling Congress in 40 years, they have 
     gradually lost emphasis on revolutionary change in government 
     by obsessing on the deficit. The president is on the brink of 
     a major victory--achieving a zero deficit without 
     significantly altering the federal leviathan and without 
     providing real tax relief.
       This became clear to Clinton's budget experts when they 
     read the CBO's March 28 report forecasting the effects of a 
     freeze at 1996 dollar levels of ``discretionary'' spending--
     amounts affected by the congressional appropriations process, 
     as contrasted with entitlements.
       The 2002 deficit estimate of $107 billion was reduced from 
     the $144 billion in CBO's December 1995 update. Its reason: 
     ``largely'' the piecemeal reductions in appropriations 
     painstakingly passed by Congress that were not vetoed by 
     Clinton. Assumed lower interest rates that would result from 
     a balanced budget also were factored in.
       The president's aides immediately telephoned their 
     Republican counterparts in Congress, pointing out the new 
     numbers and proposing: Let's get together now and make a 
     seven-year budget deal!
       The components of such a deal are not hard to envision: the 
     small reductions in Medicare and Medicaid growth already 
     proposed by Clinton, plus a few more cuts in discretionary 
     spending. The package might also include a modest tax 
     reduction (with some capital gains cuts) drafted by the Joint 
     Tax Committee and tentatively endorsed by administration 
     officials.
       But Capitol Hill was empty of Republican policy-makers for 
     the last two weeks, and what the White House was proposing 
     was above the pay grade of GOP staffers still there. Such a 
     budget deal would have far-reaching effects on the 
     presidential election. Deficit reduction, budget-balancing 
     and even tax reduction would be neutralized as issues for 
     Republicans.
       Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, campaigning 
     for reelection in New Mexico, has been informed. So has 
     Sheila Burke, chief of staff for Senate Majority Leader 
     Robert J. Dole. House and Senate GOP budget staffers met last 
     week.
       But as Congress reconvenes this week, it is safe to say 
     that there is no Republican policy for dealing with these 
     numbers. In fact, only Bob Dole is in a position to make this 
     decision now that he is the party's prospective presidential 
     nominee.
       In his long-accustomed role as a self-described ``doer'' 
     rather than a ``talker,'' the decision would be easy for 
     Dole: Make the deal and accept the congratulatory signing pen 
     from Bill Clinton at the Rose Garden.
       It is more difficult now that he must confront Clinton in a 
     broader arena. He must determine whether he will rule out a 
     quick budget agreement and insist that the deficit is not 
     everything and that it is essential to reduce entitlements 
     and taxes for the sake of the economy.
       He might even propose a package that adjusts the Consumer 
     Price Index in a way that would cut entitlement payments but 
     also increase tax payments, so that it would have to be 
     accompanied by significant tax reductions. This course might 
     rescue the Republicans from the deficit trap constructed by 
     congressional leaders, including Bob Dole.

                          ____________________