[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4793-H4798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Kingston] is recognized for the balance of the time remaining 
before midnight as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Ohio over 
here that if the Washington Post is a conservative newspaper, then the 
Grateful Dead is a country and western band.
  I also, in fact, before he leaves, I was going to ask Mr. Pallone 
about one of these quotes that I had because I thought this was 
interesting, April 24, ``well, let me tell you, Members, that this 
trust fund is not broke.'' I cannot believe that a Member of the House 
would say that, contrary to all the evidence. But it is interesting.
  I want to make this point because I asked our Democrat colleagues 
three times if they would yield, three times was denied, and one reason 
that I think my good friends would not yield any time is they wanted to 
have free rein of one of their most specious mistruths that I hear them 
say. That is the quote that the Speaker said that Medicare was going to 
wither on the vine, when they know, because we have pointed out to them 
that that was in reference to HCFA, the Health Care Financing 
Administration in Washington, and that the Democrat Party has 
notoriously and maliciously misconstrued that quote.
  The reason why they would not yield time is because it is easy to run 
your mouth about something or talk about something when there is no one 
there to challenge you. If either one of them wanted to come to the 
floor right now and debate this, I control the time, I

[[Page H4794]]

will be happy to yield to them so that they can talk about it. But 
otherwise, Democrats can continue to throw softballs back and forth to 
each other. Then Republicans can come down here and throw softballs 
back and forth to each other. And do you know who loses? The American 
people.
  I think it is much better to have a truthful and honest dialogue than 
just this one-sided aren't we great, let's polish off our halos, let's 
convince the C-SPAN audience. As long as you are here, I will yield 
time to my friend, Mrs. Seastrand from California, and the gentleman 
from Maryland, Mr. Ehrlich. We are going to talk about this.
  Let me yield to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. I just wanted to say, you have the quote of our 
colleague who has just spoken and he mentioned that it was the 
Washington Post, that the Washington Post was favorable to Republicans. 
I just would say, I have some quotes here from the New York Times and 
also from the Santa Barbara News Press, which is owned by the New York 
Times.
  I would like to point out, the Santa Barbara News Press did not 
endorse my candidacy for Congress. The point is that new government 
data, this is February 5, 1996, New York Times, it says, new government 
data show Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund lost money last year 
for the first time since 1972, suggesting that the financial condition 
of the Medicare program was worse than assumed by either Congress or 
the Clinton administration.
  And I have here a clipping from the Santa Barbara News Press, owned 
by the New York Times, that says, big, bold letters, Medicare trust 
fund loses $4 billion, Clinton administration downplays apparent 
miscalculations, but new data certain to fuel high stakes political 
debate over the solvency.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I have two other sources that confirm the same thing. 
Here is the Washington Post, that great conservative newspaper which 
has endorsed every Democrat who has run for office for the President 
since the paper's existence, but it says here, Medicare is nearer to 
the red, that the Clinton trustee, who last April 3 predicted it was 
going to go bankrupt in 2 years, miscalculated. And then this other 
chart shows what the actual trust funds are for the fiscal year 1996, 
right now losing over $4 billion, $4.2 billion, year to date. This 
chart is actually as of April 23, 1996, this comes from the New York 
Times, which, again, is not any kind of a conservative propaganda sheet 
by anybody's stretch. But this is fact. And what is so amazing is we 
still have the Democrat party and leadership in absolute denial.

  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is a 
pleasure to participate in special orders with the gentleman from 
Georgia and the gentlewoman from California. We had a great special 
order last week.
  I have to tell you, just as observation as a freshman coming here 
from the State legislature, 8 years in Annapolis, where obviously C-
SPAN does not televise the proceedings and the parties do not fight 
like this and the PAC's are not there and the high stakes are not 
there, but I have to tell you, the debate in Annapolis was so honest. 
People dealt with facts.
  My best friends in the committee I sat on in the State legislature 
were people who did not agree with myself philosophically, but we would 
fight over facts and then would go out and have lunch.
  I come here and I watch episodes like we just observed and it is 
really interesting. I guess my question to you is a rhetorical 
question.
  Why cannot folks on the other side simply debate with respect to 
facts? Why can they not say, look, Ehrlich, look at you Republicans, 
Medicare should increase 10 percent a year. If it grows 7 percent a 
year, it is not good enough. At least they would be intellectually 
honest. We could have a real give and take.
  I suspect the fact you were not allowed into the conversation, no 
time was yielded to you, was they know that is the case. They know a 7-
percent increase per year, as the Republican budget proposal proposed, 
is no cut.
  But look at the terminology, look at the words they use. And you just 
saw a great example of it here. The half-truths, the innuendo, the term 
``extremist,'' one of my favorite terms these days. I guess an 
extremist is in this House these days those who come to Washington with 
a philosophical orientation who believe certain things, who have 
principles and who do not compromise those principles but actually 
believe that Members of Congress should bring those principles on this 
floor.
  Of course, compromise is part of the political game. We all know 
that. But you have fundamental beliefs and principles that should drive 
you as an adult politician and we are adult politicians. It is a great 
honor to stand here tonight and talk to the American people, but why do 
they have to turn to the rhetoric, the half-truths and the innuendo 
every time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. let us look at this, because here we have a trust fund 
that has lost $4.2 billion a year to date on Medicare. Here we have the 
Clinton appointed Medicare trustees last April saying that it would be 
broke in 6 years. Then what do we have? We have the minority Democrat 
leader, Dick Gephardt, saying, the Republicans are saying this because 
the report will have solvency problems that there is a great emergency, 
this is a hoax.
  That was said on Meet the Press, July 30, 1995. Another one, great 
Dick Gephardt again: It is a big lie to say that Medicare is in 
trouble.
  These are people who are paid $134,000 a year. They ought to know 
what the truth is.
  Mr. Speaker, on the time, I did not get that courtesy from our 
Democrats who just spoke, but I offered them some of our time to defend 
this statement.
  Let me tell Members that this trust fund is not broke.
  Well, let me tell the gentleman who just spoke, here is the chart. I 
do not know what you call it when you have more money going out than 
you do coming in. But back home on Main Street America, when that 
happens to American families, that is called going broke.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. I guess this is just proof that the Members from the 
other side of the aisle have been in control of this House for 40 
years, and we are now suffering the consequences of those 40 years with 
a $5 trillion debt. I guess it is just telling us that perhaps it is 
their misunderstanding of how you take money in and you only spend what 
you have, and I guess it is the old standby that that is why we are in 
trouble because they just do not get it. We were spending more than we 
were taking in. I think this is just a proof of it.
  If the gentleman does not understand that 4.2 billion is a trust fund 
in trouble, then that explains 40 years of recklessness in this House.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I really have a caveat to your observation 
because these folks are obviously very intelligent. I am not sure it is 
a misunderstanding. I think it is an understanding. What they 
understand is, if you go to this floor often enough and use quotes out 
of context and use words like extremist and use arguments that are not 
based in fact, but if you repeat those arguments time and time and time 
and time again, every night, on TV, on radio, on the floor of this 
House, some people will buy your argument. Some people will. They 
understand that. I really think that is a logical extension of your 
remarks.
  Mr. KINGSTON. On our truth meter here tonight I have three lies real 
quickly. Two we have dealt with. One is misconstruing the Speaker's 
quote, which was an outright deliberate misrepresentation, a lie, as we 
would say back home. No. 2, saying that a fund that is losing money 
does not have financial problems. Then No. 3, saying that the new 
Republican budget cuts Medicare, when the Republican budget that has 
just been introduced this year actually increases Medicare spending 
from, and I have the exact number with me, it goes up to $305 billion 
from $190 billion.
  So here the Republican budget increases Medicare spending from 190 to 
305 billion and we have heard people as recently as 20 minutes ago 
saying this is a cut.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. That is almost a 70 percent increase.
  Mr. KINGSTON. We are going from about $5,000 per individual.
  I notice that the gentlewoman from California has a beautiful picture 
of her mother there.

[[Page H4795]]

  Mrs. SEASTRAND. I decided to bring a picture of my mom because I 
sometimes think that people think that we on this side of the aisle 
were hatched. We have moms. We have dads. We have grandparents. We have 
children. And we are concerned.
  I just grabbed my mom's picture because I was listening to the 
working in my office and listening to the debate or I should say the 
discussion earlier this evening. I could not believe my ears. I just 
grabbed a picture of mom to say that this is my mom, and she 
desperately depends on Medicare. She is concerned about what is 
happening on the House floor and what is going to happen with the 
President. Are we going to save Medicare?

  I just brought down a picture of Mom so that we can take a look at 
her while we will have this discussion.
  Mr. KINGSTON. For Mother's Day you can tell her that the Republican 
proposal for Medicare increases her benefits from $5,000 to $7,000 and 
saves the fund from going broke by giving her more options. Those 
options, as we all know, put more competition in there, give your 
mother a little bit more to choose from than a Blue Cross, Blue Shield 
policy.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, just one observation, I think, forms that 
background for this discussion. Short-term political calculations have 
ruled this House.
  By the way, it is a bipartisan. Republicans have made their share of 
mistakes, we all know that. But short-term political calculations have 
ruled this House for decades. By that I mean, let us not tell the 
American people the facts. Let us hide the deficit. Let us hide the 
problems of Medicare.
  If we just repeat what people want to hear rather than the truth, we 
will get reelected. Of course, traditionally that is the way you get 
reelected. It is so refreshing to be with folks who have come to 
Congress in the last year and a half, some on the other side of the 
aisle, relatively few, who are willing to tell the truth to the 
American people because in my view, that is what defines leaders.
  I do not think it takes any particular talent to be a politician. Any 
of us can go hire a pollster, read the poll results and tell people 
what they want to hear. There is no particular talent in doing that. 
But to have the courage of your convictions, to have principle, to have 
political guts to go tell the American people, look, folks, we have to 
do something, your mother depends on Medicare. Your mother wants to 
hear the truth. Your mother want to hear a party with ideas, a party 
with a plan to save Medicare.

                              {time}  2330

  They do not want to hear fear and fear and fear mixed with a little 
generational warfare, a little class welfare. ``Let's scare some of the 
seniors. Let's scare some of the folks at the lower end of the economic 
scale. Let's talk about the rich people.''
  I would love for them to define rich one day. That defines 
politicians. What defines leaders in my view are folks with principles 
and ideals, willing to bring their case to the American people. That is 
why it is fun to be with the Members here tonight.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, I first want to 
thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] for having this special 
order and taking the time to speak out on these important issues along 
with the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] and the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich]. Your points are well taken tonight that 
you have made about Medicare.
  The Republican Party has led the way in making sure that we roll back 
the 1993 unfair Social Security tax. The same party, the Republicans, 
also allow seniors to earn more than $11,280, actually up to $30,000 
over the next 5 years. The same Republican Party is also looking out 
for seniors on Medicare. We want to make sure that there is more money 
there for health care services.
  What we have done in our proposal which is not yet the law is going 
to make sure we remove $30 million in fraud, waste and abuse. It is 
also going to make sure that medical education for interns and 
residents, the indirect costs, is on a line item that is protected but 
not part of Medicare because we need health care for seniors, it just 
goes to seniors. Also reducing our paperwork costs from 12 percent to 2 
percent. All of those things that we have been working for will make 
sure that Medicare will be solvent, protected and expanded for this 
generation of seniors and the ones to follow.
  Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentleman will yield for a question, I agree with 
everything you said but you just took about a minute and a half to lay 
out principles, facts and bills and proposed statutes.
  Our problem is, though, that is a poor soundbite. You just talked 
about facts, about real bills. Is it not easier to scare the American 
people, to use fear as a political weapon? To say, ``Those people want 
to cut Medicare''? Boom. Three seconds. It is tough, is it not?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. That has been our problem up till now, but I 
think by having this special order that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston] has reserved for tonight and by bringing together I think 
some of the sharpest minds we have in Congress like yourself and the 
gentlewoman from California we are able to hopefully get the message 
out that we are trying to take the extra time, the extra effort to 
explain what is happening and the fact that we need the American 
people's support to make sure this proposal is in fact passed.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. If the gentleman will yield, you commented about you 
would hope that one day they would define rich. I served in the State 
assembly in California. When we talked about giving the working family, 
the taxpayer out there, Dad and Mom, a tax break, we would hear the 
same cries from the floor of the assembly. I just have a feeling that 
you probably heard it in your service to your State about the rich.
  I would like to quote the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the 
House minority leader, in a press statement made on May 7. I quote, and 
we heard it earlier from the colleagues that preceded us.
  ``But the Republicans thought it was better to lavish more tax cuts 
on their wealthy special interest supporters.''
  You had asked, can we define rich? I would like to run through some 
of those rich, wealthy special interest supporters that I voted for and 
that you voted for, some of the things that we want to see for them.
  How about taxpayers with income below $100,000? Eighty percent of the 
GOP tax cuts go to people making less than $100,000 while 61 percent to 
those earning between $30,000 and $75,000.
  How about the small business owner? That is what makes up the 
majority of jobs on the central coast of California. We have a pro-job, 
capital gains tax relief that will affect middle-class business owners.
  There was an IRS analysis of 1993 tax returns, and that analysis 
found that 77 percent of tax returns reporting capital gains were filed 
by taxpayers with incomes less than $75,000. Again, maybe that is rich 
to some people. Families with children. The $500 tax credit per child 
applies to families with incomes below $110,000, and that is joint 
return, or $75,000 single.
  Or how about married couples who claim the standard deduction, mostly 
those with incomes less than $50,000. Our tax package corrects the 
current problem of a married couple filing jointly who pay more in 
taxes than if they were unmarried and filing separately.
  We hear a lot about the destruction of the family and we want to help 
families. Again, maybe this is their definition of rich, married 
couples who are making less than $50,000.
  The other two, families who want to adopt a child. Families with 
incomes below $75,000 would qualify for the maximum credit of $5,000 to 
defray adoption expenses. Last, families who care for their elderly 
parent at home, they would receive a $1,000 elder care deduction. So I 
rest my case. Those are the rich that the other side of the aisle talk 
about all the time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think it is also important to note that just about 
everybody in working America buys gasoline and we have a President who 
has bragged about, ``I feel your pain.'' I believe he feels people's 
gas pain, too, because he caused it, with an additional 4 cents per 
gallon gas tax. Every time you fill up with 10 gallons, you pay 40 
cents more because of the 1993 Bill Clinton gas tax.
  I represent a rural area. Folks have to drive a long way to get 
places. It

[[Page H4796]]

hurts them disproportionately. I know out west people are hurt 
disproportionately. Working people, the people with lower incomes, have 
a higher percentage hit. This is a 30 percent gas tax increase. The 
average gas tax right now per gallon is 38 cents. That is the 
combination of Federal and State. Are we saying now that only wealthy 
people buy gas?
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. If the gentleman will yield, George Stephanopoulos 
was in Santa Barbara this last weekend. He admitted that he really does 
not fully understand this situation because he only lives a few blocks 
from the office, the White House.
  Those that live here on Capitol Hill and work here in the 
administration obviously do not understand what our folks in our rural 
areas of the world have to do. They have to drive a distance, from work 
to their home, or to the grocery store, or to the gas station. In some 
instances they make a 100-mile round trip and maybe more. Yet that was 
quite an interesting comment because they just do not get it here in 
Washington, D.C. about how all the rest of us live.
  Mr. KINGSTON. It is a complex problem, buying gas. I could see why 
Mr. Stephanopoulos could not follow it. ``You mean people actually fill 
up the gas tank and drive to work?''
  That would be revolutionary over there on Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentleman would yield, this is coming from a man 
who said about this President, for this President, ``Words are 
actions,'' which is an interesting thing to say when you think about 
it. Because words are not actions. Words are cheap. Words are really 
cheap in this town.
  It is really nice and a pleasure to serve with people for whom words 
have meaning. Candidate Bill Clinton, 1992. ``I oppose Federal excise 
gas tax increases.''
  Words should have meanings. I want to debate those folks on the other 
side with respect to words and facts, because words should have 
meanings. The reason people are so skeptical and cynical about politics 
and about this floor and about this institution is that they see 
comments like, for this President, ``Words are actions.'' Words should 
have ramifications, words should have meanings, even in an election 
year, even in this town, even on this hill.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, just as a 
corollary or an adjunct to what you are saying, in 1992 when the 
President ran, he said he wanted a middle class tax cut, to end welfare 
as we know it and a balanced budget amendment. We sent him all 3, he 
vetoed all 3. That goes right back to what you are talking about.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Absolutely. Eloquent rhetoric. We all sat on this floor 
and watched the master politician. I hate being called a politician. I 
know you all hate it, too. Because politicians tell people what they 
want to hear. I know you three and I know a lot of people who sit in 
these chairs every day do not tell people what they want to hear, they 
tell people what they believe and what they think is best for the 
future of the country. As I have said earlier, that distinguishes 
politicians from leaders. Leaders lead. Politicians hire pollsters to 
tell them what they think the American people want to hear.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Another great example of this is the minimum wage. It 
sounds great. ``Let's give people 90 cents an hour more. It won't hurt 
them.''
  Yet if you look at what an increase in the minimum wage has done over 
the last increases, it decreases the number of jobs that are out there. 
This will cost Americans over 250,000 jobs. There are some interesting 
statistics on the minimum wage when we look at it.
  Only 2 percent of the people get minimum wage over 30 years old on an 
average. Thirty-nine percent of the people making minimum wage are 
teenagers. Sixty-six percent of the people making minimum wage are 
part-time workers. And on an average, an employee who starts at minimum 
wage today, in one year has a salary of $6.05 an hour.
  When you look at this and think that if you increase the minimum 
wage, you eliminate the number of jobs, you are going to increase the 
cost of groceries or services, goods and whatever it is that the retail 
stores sell, it is not a winner for the taxpayer, it is not good for 
the job seeker, it is not good for the teenager, it is not good for the 
employees, and it is not good for middle class America. Even though it 
is politically expedient to say, ``Yeah, let's give them a raise.''
  But the thing is, we have offered a gas tax cut, $500 per child tax 
credit, lower taxes on income taxes and things like this. You can put 
more real dollars in the pockets of American workers without expanding 
the size of government and government mandates.
  Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentleman would yield for a brief moment, words 
are cheap. Words mean nothing. Bill Clinton, February 6, 1993.

       Raising the minimum wage is the wrong way to raise the 
     incomes of low-wage earners.

  Should the American people not get to believe what politicians say at 
some time? Or are we just going to allow pollsters and poll-driven 
politicians to drive the agenda in this country so that short-term 
political calculations that get you elected contribute to the $5 
trillion in debt we suffer from in this country and the inability of 
this Congress to show the political guts to dive head-on into the real 
problems facing the society today. Is that not what leadership is all 
about?
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to quote 
also that famous quote at the fund-raising dinner that the President 
stated on October 17 where he said, ``I think I raised your taxes too 
much, also.''
  I want to remind the gentleman here that as of yesterday, working 
families across this Nation are going to be providing for their own 
needs. Prior to yesterday, they worked for government, whether it was 
the local entity of government, State government or the Federal 
Government. They now have the freedom to work for their home, to pay 
for their cars, to pay for their children's education, for their 
clothes and such.

  Words are cheap. Because here we have the President admitting that he 
taxed Americans too much and yet we have to fight the battle to reduce 
taxes in this town.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Wait a minute. I want to make sure I understand. You 
are saying that May 8 was Tax Freedom Day and you are saying from 
January 1 to May 8, that all the income earned in that period of time 
went to the government? Is that what you are saying?
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. One hundred twenty-eight days.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thought that day was back in April. April 15. Why are 
we in May?
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. The gentleman probably knows the answer to that. It 
is the fact that government is growing and taking more and more and 
with such increases, such as we saw in 1993 with the gas tax, and the 
other increases for many other programs here in Washington, DC.
  This place represents Washington values and not the values of 
American families. But that is right. One hundred twenty-eight days, 
the average working man and woman work to pay for taxes at all levels 
of government. It is pretty amazing.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman form Georgia will yield 
further, just to add to what the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. 
Seastrand] said, that is all the taxes that take it up to May 8. But 
adding up all the Federal, State and local regulations, you actually 
get into July before you start receiving a dollar you can keep.
  I think what this 104th Congress has done, we have really, with the 
Republican majority, been able to derive some things that the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] talked about earlier which will give us 
permanent change. We passed a balanced budget for the first time since 
1969; we passed the line-item veto which is now the law so we can cut 
out pork-barrel legislation just to get Congressmen or Senators 
reelected; we ended unfunded mandates where we tell local governments, 
``You have got to pay for this just because we passed a bill on to 
you''; and we passed regulatory reform. By doing that, we hope that 
Americans will be able to keep more of their paycheck instead of 
sending so much to Washington to go to more waste and programs that 
have already taken care of this.

                              {time}  2345

  Mr. KINGSTON. Are those things passed into law or are they sitting 
over in the Senate?

[[Page H4797]]

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Well, the line-item veto was passed into 
law. The unfunded mandates, that is in the law. Regulatory reform is 
going to wait for the conference committee of the House and Senate. And 
balanced budget went to the President already twice, so I think the 
third time will be the charm and hopefully we will get the President to 
sign the balanced budget.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. If the gentleman would yield, we talk about taxes 
that we pay to May 8 and then talk about regulations that would cost us 
until July. The gentleman from Georgia was pointing out about the tax 
increase that all of us suffered as of 1993, and I just would say that 
if we repeal the gas tax and get that signed into law, we are going to 
save low- and middle-income families almost $70 a year. If we take a 
nationwide average, that is $48 in everyone's pocket by savings on what 
they are putting in the tank.
  Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentlewoman would yield, here we are talking 
about for the most part, with the exception of the gas tax repeal, 
intangible benefits. Five trillion dollars in debt, does anyone know 
what that looks like? The regulatory burden that our small business 
folks suffer from, we pay for a good at the market or at the store but 
we do not think about the regulatory burden. It adds to the consumer 
price of the good, but we do not think about it.
  Is it not always easier to run a 30-second attack ad? ``Those 
Republicans, the class warfare, they will not raise the minimum wage. 
They do not want to put a few more cents into your pocket.'' Never mind 
the folks, the marginal workers, minority workers, unskilled workers, 
disabled workers who will lose their jobs when we raise the minimum 
wage. They do not talk about that. Inconvenient. Bad sound bite.
  How about the class warfare? It is very frustrating, although I am 
really personally not as frustrated. As I go back to my district on 
weekends and some weeknights and talk to folks, they get it. People are 
not stupid.
  Seniors are not dumb. I refuse to believe that most seniors in this 
country buy what we just heard an hour ago. Seniors are the most 
sophisticated group in this population. Your mom is smart. My parents 
are smart. They know what is going on. They can read the newspaper. 
They can add the numbers up. They understand why we are in the fiscal 
crunch we are in.
  And to run a campaign based on fear and fear alone, the gentlewoman 
from California just whispered to me before we went on the floor here. 
She said, where is their idea? Where is their plan?
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Where is the plan?
  Mr. EHRLICH. There is no plan. It is fear. Fear wins elections. Class 
warfare wins elections. If they can get that woman making $18,000 a 
year to be jealous of that woman or that guy making $24,000 a year, 
guess what, they got a vote in the other column. Class warfare works.
  Remember the speeches during the 1992 campaign? Well, that trickle 
down speech, that trickle down speech is capitalism. We are a 
capitalist society. We want people to have a piece of the American pie. 
We want to grow the American pie, not turn class against class, 
grandchildren against grandparents.
  I cannot wake up every day and come to this House thinking that fear 
will dominate American politics and that class warfare will dominate 
American politics and that half truths will dominate American politics 
after the 1996 election.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. If the gentleman would yield, I do not know about 
you, but I get quite a few letters from seniors in the district, and 
they say, ``We know that there is a problem. Please fix it so that we 
can have something for our children and our grandchildren.'' You are 
right, our seniors are not dumb, and I think when they are presented 
with the facts, they understand.

  Many of those seniors lived during the depression, my mom did, and 
went through some very hard times, and they do not want to really see 
those hard times for their grandchildren. They want to have the hopes 
and dreams, and you are right, we want to expand opportunities for 
everyone. We do not want to expand those bureaucracies, and we want to 
be honest with people to find honest solutions to problems that are 
facing us. But you are right, fear does sell for that quick fix before 
an election.
  I am glad to stand here with gentlemen that want to face some hard 
polls sometimes. The figures do not always come out, but we have a job 
here to try and tell people why something may be bad policy, like the 
minimum wage, and how it is going to destroy jobs for the very people 
that we want to help.
  The gentleman is right, fear does sell things, but in the long run, I 
am going to be able to face myself and look myself in the mirror if I 
can be honest and true with the American voters, honest and true with 
my mom and honest and true with the voters across America.
  Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentlewoman would yield for just a second, I ask 
that the gentleman from Georgia throw that ``medigoguery'' article back 
up. I think too often as Republicans we get skittish and defensive 
about big-city newspapers who in a very real philosophical sense do not 
support us most of the time.
  So when big-city newspapers, like the Washington Post and the 
Baltimore Sun papers and other major papers, the New York Times, around 
the country have the courage of their convictions to tell the American 
people the truth, like this editorial, I would ask the gentleman to 
read some of the pertinent parts of this editorial.
  This is what those folks you heard an hour ago do not want the 
American people to hear, and I would yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, what this editorial had to do with was when we 
introduced our plan to save and protect Medicare and the Democrats 
started demagoguing it through fear because, as Mrs. Seastrand said, 
they had no plan of their own. So what this does is says the Democrats, 
what they are doing is pretty crummy stuff. They are engaged in 
demagoguery big time and it is wrong, and it goes on to say that the 
Republicans have a plan, the Democrats do not. The Republican plan is 
gutsy and the Democratic TV ads are just scare tactics.
  I think the sad thing here is that we are in a debate right now 
where, frankly, neither side is gaining because neither side has 
credibility, because the American people hear us, they think well, they 
have a good point. Then they hear the Democrats, they say, well, I did 
not know that. After a while they do not know who to believe. That is 
why I was so disappointed tonight when the Democrats would not yield us 
time to have a dialogue, and I was further disappointed when we tried 
to yield time to them.
  But we have to have a dialogue back and forth that puts America 
center stage, not Republicans and not Democrats but America, what is 
good for your mother, what is good for mine, and also what is good for 
my children and your children.
  Let me yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], and I know 
we have to wrap it up.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. One of the things we are also doing for 
seniors is to make sure with Social Security--we are the ones leading 
the charge, the Republican majority--to make sure that $358 billion 
owed to the Social Security Trust fund, through our line-item veto and 
other cost-cutting measures from real waste in the government, goes 
back and we make sure those funds are restored.
  Prior congresses have taken money from the Social Security Trust 
Fund. We want to make sure it gets restored so the Social Security 
Trust Fund will forever be solvent and be working. We are also working 
to make sure there are in-home services for our seniors so they live 
longer, independent and at home before they have to go to any other 
skilled care. We are also working on that.
  Seniors have done so much to make sure we have the opportunity to be 
here, and we appreciate their getting back to us about suggestions on 
making sure that we save some important programs but eliminate the 
waste and making sure the country truly gets its money's worth.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think we need to wrap it up.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Well, I just would say it is a pleasure talking, and 
I guess we will have to be down here every evening trying to make the 
points and trying to tell the American people that

[[Page H4798]]

we sincerely want to preserve Medicare, to save it for our moms, our 
dads, our grandparents, and for our children who are depending on us to 
do so for the future.

                              {time}  2353

  It is a pleasure being with you this evening.
  Mr. EHRLICH. It is a pleasure being with everybody. Demagogues hate 
facts, but truth usually wins out.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I heard a similar quote that said 
ignorance and bliss is easy. Let me just say that I think it is 
important for all of our constituents to call us, to write us, to get 
involved, to come to town meetings and so forth. We are in a huge 
national debate. We have a budget that has a deficit of about $140 
billion to $150 billion. We have a $5 trillion debt. We cannot pass 
this legacy on to our children, and we will not even be able to do, 
because the day of reckoning is coming sooner than that.
  I will close with one story I tell many, many times, you have all 
heard it, a story about a guy crossing the road. He gets into the 
middle of the road, and a car comes whizzing around the corner. All of 
a sudden, the man jumps out of the way, the car swerves to the same 
direction. The man jumps to the right, the car swerves to the right; 
the man jumps to the left, the car swerves to the left. Back and forth. 
At the last possible minute, the man jumps out of the way, and the car 
pulls up next to him. The driver rolls down the window, and it is a 
squirrel, and he says, ``It ain't as easy as it looks, is it?''
  I think that is the situation we are in in the United States of 
America right now. We have got a lot of problems, and it is not going 
to be easy, and it is not going to be something where you can just stay 
at home and say this is what ought to happen. We all need to be 
involved in this. But we are America, and Americans have always risen 
to the challenge, and we will get through these problems today.
  Thanks for being with us.

                          ____________________