[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2343-H2348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BIPARTISAN BUDGET AGREEMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Gilchrest]. Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Kingston] is recognized for the remaining time before midnight as the
designee of the majority leader.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Michigan
that he still will see me in the gym bright and early in the morning,
and I hope I will see both of the gentlemen because they have been a
little sluggish lately.
Mr. Speaker, I have with me the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Pappas] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. We wanted to
talk about the budget agreement that took place on May 2, last Friday.
We think it is very important, very, very significant. Unlike other
budget agreements, this agreement was hammered out on a bipartisan
basis, and instead of having the promises now and the spending
reductions later, it has the promises now and the spending reductions
now.
The bill basically does five things which I think are truly
significant. First, it balances the budget by 2002. Second, it provides
tax relief for middle-class families now, not 5 years from now, not in
2002, but it does it now, in recognition that middle-class families
need a tax cut and that tax cuts can, in fact, promote growth, which is
one of the easiest ways to reduce the deficit. Third, this bill
addresses the Medicare problems and solves Medicare's immediate
concerns for the next 10 years. Fourth, it has major entitlement reform
which, as the Speaker knows, is about 51 percent of our entire annual
expenditures.
{time} 2315
Then No. 5, it includes funding for many, many of our important
domestic programs such as transportation, housing, and education.
I think if you look at this budget, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not
perfect, but it is a very significant step in the right direction. I
believe that we have a great opportunity, an opportunity which is at
hand in this Congress to get something done with it.
Mr. Speaker, with those introductory remarks, let me yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] who is a freshman and came here
with the idealism that all of us come here and, I think, most of us
never lose, but Mr. Pappas is from the private sector. He is a
businessman, he is a family man; he knows the importance of balancing
your budget and what it means to American middle-class families.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding. As he said, I come from the private sector in New Jersey, and
in New Jersey one of the things that is unique is the State government
is required to have a balanced budget, as are the 21 county
governments, as are the 567 municipal governments, as are the 610 or
611 school districts, and as are each of the businesses and families
within our great State.
While having come from the private sector, I also served as a county
government official for almost 13 years and was president of our State
Association of Counties, and for us that was something that was
commonplace, having to adopt a budget each year, and balance it and
live within our means, live within the means of the property taxpayers
that would pay the bill, and the programs that we would initiate, if
they were voluntary, were programs that we felt our taxpayers could
support both through their financial support as well as programs that
we felt that they felt were within the scope of our obligation to our
citizenry.
And I am very excited, too, with you and so many of us here on both
sides of the aisle to see a plan that will bring us to a balanced
budget.
You know, for those of us that are football players, the last time
that the New York Jets won their last Super Bowl was the same time that
the Federal Government last balanced its budget, and for any of you
here or any of you out there that may be watching us that may be Jets
fans, you will remember that that was 1969.
Mr. KINGSTON. Joe Willie Namath.
Mr. PAPPAS. That is right, and that is an awful long time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Fox.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague
taking this time to address very important issues to our colleagues
about balancing the budget and adopting a bipartisan budget which will
help American families and to make sure that those who are in the world
of work will get a break.
The balanced budget we all have been seeking, Alan Greenspan says if
we finally adopt it here, we are going to make sure we reduce our costs
for mortgages, we will reduce the cost of the interest for car payments
and also the interest of cost for college loans.
This legislation, the balanced budget, also calls for the CPI to be
in accordance with the Bureau of Labor Statistics so our seniors will
be protected by still having their COLA's and for pensions and for
Social Security.
It also calls for the kind of tax relief American families need. We
are talking about capital gains reduction for individuals and
businesses.
Last time we had significant reductions of capital gains was the
Reagan administration and the Kennedy administration, and in both cases
we saw an increase in savings and investment and growth, and the $500-
per-child tax credit, that would be a great assistance to American
families.
So I am very much buoyed up by the fact that this budget looks like
it is a step in the right direction, and I believe that because we are
working on both sides of the aisle to get it achieved. I think this is
certainly something that is a milestone that we have not had, as our
colleague from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] said, not since I graduated
college.
Mr. KINGSTON. I did not know you were that old. I was just in junior
high at the time.
Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by the gentleman, the only gentleman
on the floor who represents a district outside of the eastern time
zone, and so his folks are probably just finishing up dinner out in
Arizona. But we have with us the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]
who the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] may know is a former
football player himself and a sports newscaster.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia, and I
am pleased to join with my colleagues in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia is correct because in the
great State of Arizona it is only about 8:20 in the evening, and so
folks are getting home from work, and they have had a chance to sit
down and read the newspaper and watch television news and visit with
their families, maybe get the young ones to bed, and now they turn
their attention to matters that affect their lives. And indeed, Mr.
Speaker and colleagues, as I traveled around the Sixth District of
Arizona this past weekend, holding town halls in the Globe-Miami area,
the Cobra Valley,
[[Page H2344]]
great resource-laden area, copper mines, down to Florence, AZ, and
finally into the small town of Coolidge, AZ, we talked a great deal,
and I listened a great deal to Arizona families and their concerns, and
because those town halls occurred on Saturday, in the wake of Friday's
historic announcement, there was a great deal of interest and
excitement about the notion that finally in Washington, DC people quit
playing the blame game and looked for solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I heard time and again from residents of the Sixth
District of Arizona how pleased they were that Congress is getting down
to business and working to enact a balanced budget. As our colleague
from New Jersey pointed out, the last time that occurred was 1969, the
year that Americans landed a man on the Moon. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the
flag behind you was taken to the Moon and returned to this Chamber by
our astronauts of Apollo 11, and it begs the question, if we could put
a man on the Moon, then certainly, if we can reflect our national will
in that way, certainly we can move to save money and to allow our
citizens to hang onto their money because it is theirs, they earn it,
send less of it here to Washington and transfer money, power, and
influence out of Washington, DC and into the several States, and, most
importantly, keep money in the pockets of hard-working Americans for
them to save, spend, and invest on their families as they see fit.
So that is what I bring back from the Sixth District of Arizona. To
be certain, there is a lot of interest in working out the details, and
I welcome this time with my colleagues from Georgia, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker, as we talk more about tax relief for working
families, as we talk about the dynamics of trying to work out this
agreement, as we realize up front that challenges remain in the
formulation of all the plans; but as we also welcome, even as we
acknowledge, that no document crafted by man in this institution or any
other can be considered perfect. Perhaps now we have at long last a
meaningful start.
In fact if my colleague from Georgia will indulge me, let me simply
read, Mr. Speaker, into the Record the first couple of sentences in the
lead editorial in today's Washington Times. I think it sets the proper
historical perspective.
Quoting now:
Unlike the detailed spartan and loophole-laden deficit
reduction legislation passed by Congress in the 1980's
outlining paths toward reaching a balanced budget within
several years, the budget agreement struck last week between
President Clinton and the GOP-controlled Congress appears
sufficiently calibrated to reach its target. Most important,
that goal is being achieved while providing for substantial
tax cuts.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, I think what is
significant is that we are no longer talking in Washington about
whether or not we are going to balance the budget, but when, and now we
have an agreement on when: the year 2002.
Now as you say, the details, of course, are to be worked out, but
what I think is also exciting, Mr. Speaker, about this new budget is it
is going to offer some assistance to families who want to pass down a
business to the rest of the family that follows them, that they inherit
without the tax eating up all the hard-earned economic assistance that
went into the business or went into the family farm, and this budget is
going to have estate tax relief that families surely need out in
agricultural areas and certainly in small businesses. That is what
makes America great. By having this estate tax relief, I think this
budget becomes an even brighter one for American people.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, let me ask
the sportscaster here. The 1969 World Series, New York Mets?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the New York Mets lost in last place that
year.
Mr. KINGSTON. Was it 1970 that they came back?
Mr. HAYWORTH. They defeated the Baltimore Orioles.
Mr. Speaker, there are some denizens of this area. Indeed, as we look
at the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. Gilchrest, tonight and realize that he
hails from the great State of Maryland, that may be something that he
would rather forget, but knowing it was the year of the Miracle Mets
and sadly, ironically, the last year of what should be commonplace
instead of miraculous, and that is a balanced budget.
But the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is quite right, the
Mets defeated the Orioles in that World Series 1969 that led to a great
book, ``The Year The Mets Lost Last Place.''
Mr. KINGSTON. The distinguished Speaker pro tempore from Maryland
sitting there might not like it, but I think it is important for my
colleagues to realize how far back in time we are talking about.
I will give you an example. My dad was a tight-fisted college
professor and, raising 4 kids, did not want to spend a lot of money on
a car for the teenagers. He bought a 1971 Ford Maverick in 1971. The
sticker price on that car, as my colleagues may remember, was $1,995.
That is what you could get a Ford Maverick for in 1971.
That was a long, long time ago. Driving that Maverick down the road,
you could fill up the tank at 25 to 28 cents a gallon. I think it is
important for everyone to realize how far back in time we are going
since the budget was balanced. Neal Armstrong was walking on the Moon
that year.
But let me ask this, let us move ahead. We have had budget deals. We
had lots of them during the Reagan administration. We had the Bush
administration's budget deal. We had one with Clinton. This one is
different in that it has so much of the savings and tax cuts now. The
benefits are now.
I have said to the folks back home that New Year's Day, actually
January 2 every year, we promise we are going to lose weight. We say,
okay, now is the time and we make that New Year's resolution and we
feel real good about it. But then come February there is a wedding, and
come March there is something. March, of course, in Savannah we have
St. Patrick's Day. Everybody is going to resume festive activities
then. But as the year goes on, you get a little bit further away from
your New Year's resolution and you are not losing that weight.
I think that it is important for us to realize that, as significant
as that decision is, the resolution on May 2 to go on a diet once and
for all to balance the budget, it still is going to take discipline. We
do not just celebrate and go home. That is one thing the four of us
have learned as relative newcomers to Congress is that this is the
first step.
The Speaker and the leaders have all acknowledged that this budget
agreement is significant, but do not go home. You have to watch the
process and you have to push because there is going to be a lot of
discipline and there will be lot of times down the road where the
special interest groups come to us in June, in July, in August during
the appropriations cycle and say, just a little bit more here, another
billion here, another billion there, a new entitlement; and we are
going to have to have the discipline to say, no, we cannot do that.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, a point that
I think is important here, and we would be less than candid with the
American people, Mr. Speaker, if we did not take into account the
cynicism, yes, even the skepticism that greets this agreement.
Indeed, this morning in the lead editorial of the Arizona Republic in
my great State, there was voiced in the editorial some skepticism about
the plan. But Mr. Speaker, as the American people join us tonight, I
think it is important that they realize that the proof is in our most
recent history, that with this Congress and the change in majority
status here beginning in 1995 with the 104th Congress, the proof was in
the pudding, the proof was in the actions.
For example, the elimination of almost 300 wasteful and duplicative
government programs, in the process, a savings of some $53 to $54
billion. So my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Kingston, is correct; much
remains to be done.
{time} 2330
The other thing that makes this different, what was pointed out in
the lead editorial of the Washington Times this morning, is that the
loopholes are not there. Indeed, the challenge now becomes to craft a
document, the details of which will be worked out, of course in
consultation with the minority, but with the special philosophical
[[Page H2345]]
underpinnings of our new majority in the Congress of the United States
to adhere to a simple notion that is the following: This wealth does
not belong to the Government, it belongs to the American people who
voluntarily send their tax dollars to Washington.
It is our job to be a good steward of those tax dollars, and to make
sure that we have a government that operates within sound fiscal
bounds, and at the same time we do so on less of the people's money so
that money stays in their pockets.
As the first Arizonan in history to sit on the Committee on Ways and
Means, I look forward to a very busy time in the next several weeks as
we work out the details of tax reductions in capital gains, perhaps the
elimination, or certainly a drastically reduction in what we could more
accurately call the death tax that my colleague from Pennsylvania
talked about.
As we look at that $500 per child tax credit, so vital to American
families who need to save, spend and invest more of their hard-earned
money and send less of it here to Washington, that is the challenge
before us, even as we work out the details, not with legislative
loopholes or some sort of sleight of hand, but we get about the hard
work of the details of governance, which is why we were sent here in
the first place.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I gladly yield to my friend from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are very proud that the
gentleman is on the Committee on Ways and Means so that he can exert
his considerable leadership on some important reforms, not least of
which would be to reform the IRS. Of all of the districts, for that
matter Pennsylvania, my colleague knows the way the law is written
today, the burden is on the taxpayer, that says that the taxpayer is
presumed to be guilty that they did not file or that they did not remit
correctly. And instead I think, and I think many of us do and our
constituents back home think that burden of proof should be turned
around.
Some of the abuses that have taken place to some of our constituents
have to be addressed. And I hope that the Committee on Ways and Means,
working on reforms to balance the budget and making sure we have
bipartisan initiatives that help the people, will also look into how we
can make that agency work more responsibly.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a point well taken, and I
would also add that let us give credit where credit is due. Indeed the
leadership on this issue comes from both sides of the aisle. Our good
friend from Ohio, [Mr. Traficant], has been insistent on this type of
legislation, and I do not think we can overstate this to the American
people too emphatically.
As we know, and my colleague from Pennsylvania being a distinguished
attorney, I do not hold that against him, but it has been a basic tenet
of Western jurisprudence that the burden of proof does not rest with
the accused; instead, with those who make the accusations. Yet, we have
turned that in tax law to where it is completely reversed, and some
would say that reverse indeed is a perversity of the system, for when
one is called in and questioned about one's returns, the burden of
proof falls not on the Internal Revenue Service, instead it falls on
the accused taxpayer. Indeed, there is not the presumption of
innocence; instead, there is a presumption of guilt.
So I salute my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], for being a leader on this issue.
And I champion the fact that here again is another example, despite the
tendencies and temptations of one-upsmanship and snappy rejoinders and
spinarama that emanates out of Washington, DC, there are people of
goodwill from both major political parties willing to put that aside
and work for what is best for the American people.
Rest assured, there will be differences, and indeed we should
champion those differences here in this, what one of our forebears
called this temple of democracy. But with that in mind, let us work
together to deal with reforming the IRS, changing the IRS as we know
it, working hard to put money and allow American taxpayers to keep that
money in their pocket and rein in the size and influence of this
behemoth we now call the Federal Government. I know our colleague from
New Jersey has thoughts on that as well.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the gentleman more.
Earlier I was here standing in the well and talking about Tax Freedom
Day. That is just a couple of days away, and each year it seems to go
later and later and later. In my State it is May 11, whereas nationwide
it is May 9. Some people in this Chamber and around the country feel
that we cannot cut taxes and balance the budget at the same time. I am
of the opinion that we can do both and I think that we do need to cut
taxes to spur economic growth, but also to force us here in the
Congress to reduce spending, and I think that that is the only way that
we are going to be able to do that.
A lot of people that may be watching may be saying, what does
balancing the budget do for me, and what does it do for my family? The
Concord Coalition, which is a very well-respected organization, had
done an analysis that I am sure in all congressional districts, but
they did one for the 12th District of New Jersey, which I represent.
Their research showed that the average home in the 12th District of
New Jersey, the central part of the State, costs approximately
$205,200. If that were borrowed, 100 percent mortgage, which is
unusual, if all of it were borrowed with 8 percent interest over a 30-
year mortgage, the mortgage holder would pay $1,505.68 a month. A 2-
percent reduction in interest rates on a 30-year mortgage, which Dr.
Greenspan and so many economists around the country have said would
result from a balanced budget, 2-percent reduction in interest rates
over that 30-year period of time would result in a $1,230.28 payment, a
savings of $275.40 a month. If that same mortgage holder, that same
homeowner, that same family put that savings into a bank account
earning 4.5 percent interest, a typical rate of return, over that same
period of time, that would turn into $209,134.95. That is enough to buy
another house, put a kid through college, put several kids through
college.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I just want, for purposes of emphasis, to ask my
colleague from New Jersey to read that total again, assuming the
savings with a 2-percent reduction in interest rates. This is for an
average family owning a home with a 30-year fixed mortgage in your
district in New Jersey, what would that savings be?
Mr. PAPPAS. On a monthly basis, $275.40, and over a 30-year period at
4.5 percent interest, $209,134.95, a significant amount of money.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, and I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker
as we are here, to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for giving us a
tangible answer of why balancing the budget is so vitally important.
This is not some sort of esoteric economic goal for its own sake. It is
not the notion of in the realm of cosmic reality trying to put our
house in order because of a love of symmetry.
The fact is, it can help families save more, invest more, plan for
their own futures, and that is why it is vital. Every family in this
Nation has an economic stake in seeing a balanced budget, not because
of some far-flung concept, but because of the glaring realities of the
challenges of life that they will confront as we prepare to move into
the next century.
While there are some cynics who would say of economists, you could
lay all economists end to end and still never reach a conclusion, we
are compelled to take a look at the testimony of Dr. Greenspan when he
testified in the 104th Congress in front of the Committee on the Budget
and when he said he was absolutely convinced that a balanced budget
would lead to a genuine reduction of up to 2 full percentage points in
the prime interest rates.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we talk about this.
If we think about the interest that we are spending right now, as the
gentleman knows, the second largest expenditure in our national budget
each year is interest on the $5.1 trillion national debt.
Now, we are not paying down the principal, we are only paying the
interest. That interest costs a little over $600 per person. Middle
class families, a family of four, is paying about $2,400 a year in
taxes simply on the interest; $2400 a year would pay for several
[[Page H2346]]
months' mortgage payments. It would pay for lots and lots of groceries,
depending on how many kids one has. If one has teenagers one could
probably count on it getting through the week or something like that.
But it would pay for a nice vacation, it would pay for a secondhand
car, or at least a good portion of it, and that would just be if one
could get rid of that one item on the budget.
Now, what this is going to do is this is not going to pay off the
debt, but what it will do is say that the debt is not going to get
bigger so that interest portion will not get bigger and bigger every
single year.
We still have lots of unfinished work, but what this does is it gives
us a fighting chance, gives our children a fighting chance on that $5.1
trillion debt.
One of the definitions that I have read lately on $1 trillion is, if
we had $65 million in a boxcar, how long would the train have to be
with boxcars full of $65 million in order to equal to $1 trillion. If
my colleagues want to guess, 240 miles long to get to $1 trillion, and
our debt is $5 trillion. Every single school kid that gets on the steps
of the Capitol or that we see in the rotunda is going to have to pay
off that debt during their lifetime. It is the equivalent of taking our
children out to eat, having a big meal and passing them the tab on the
way out the door. It is not fair.
Mr. Speaker, this balanced budget agreement gives our children a
fighting chance against that massive debt. So I think it is a step in
the right direction, and it is the initial step.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, if I could just mention, 240 miles, that is
a little bit longer distance from my home in New Jersey to Washington,
D.C. And every time I travel back and forth I will have to think about
that and recognize that, when we look at the vast expense of our
Nation, 240 miles is a relatively short period of time, but I travel it
twice a week, and I will have to remember that. It is something very,
very tangible that people can understand.
Kids born today have a $200,000 debt that they are responsible for.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, it was $187,000 in the 104th Congress, the
other gentleman will know.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I
think it is important to also note about this budget, not only are we
going to have the tax reductions we talked about, a balanced budget
that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] has outlined which is
very important, but we are also going to have additional educational
assistance in this form of assistance with grants and loans so that
every student has a chance to go to college. I think that is certainly
the kind of bipartisan effort that this Congress has made with the
White House in order to bring about a meaningful budget.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a valuable note, but also
I think the challenge is for us to find those good ideas to enact into
law that can help empower educators on the local level, and I am glad
my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fox, brought this up.
It will be my honor on Saturday to offer the commencement address at
my alma mater. North Carolina State University was created in essence
by an act of Congress. The Federal Land Grant Act in the 1860's, the
Morrill land grant set aside federally controlled land to several
States for the establishment of institutions of higher learning so that
those citizens who, in the past had not had an opportunity for a
college education, could receive an education.
{time} 2345
I think it is vital, indeed, borne out of experience in the 104th
Congress, to take a look, commensurate with our conservative principles
of holding the line on spending, recognizing the power of the several
States, realizing that education cannot be micromanaged from
Washington, and mindful of that historic act I am going to present in
the commencement address, and indeed, I have spoken with majority
leadership both in the House and Senate, and the chairman of the
committee of jurisdiction here in the House, what I would call the
Federal Land Grant Act for Elementary and Secondary Schools here in the
United States.
Let me tell the Members, it is borne of a practical experience in the
104th Congress. The small town of Alpine, AZ, almost located on the
border of Arizona and New Mexico, was confronting a crisis because the
tax base in that area has essentially been eviscerated through the
actions of some Federal judges to stop timber harvests, and through
several other actions, the tax base has shrunk.
At the same time, there is the challenge of holding the line, or
perhaps even, candidly, a decrease in what we call in legislative
parlance PILTS, payment in lieu of taxes, in so many areas that have
vast Federal lands; that working with the people of Alpine, I was able
to enact legislation in the closing days of the 104th Congress, with
the help of my colleagues who were here at that point in time, to
convey 30 acres of federally controlled land to the Alpine school
district for a significant savings when it came to the construction of
new school facilities.
To get that done, we had to follow almost, I would not call it a
crazy quilt, but it was a path that is seldom followed to get this
done. So it will be my intent, as I will outline in the commencement
address on Saturday, to offer in this body the Federal Land Grant Act
for Elementary and Secondary Schools, so those rural school districts
from coast to coast will have an opportunity to save funds, to have
land conveyed voluntarily at no cost to the Federal Government for
those lands that are already held in trust by the United States for
these local school districts; not to micromanage the curriculum from
Washington, not to dictate the policies, what should go on in the
classroom, but simply as another tool, commensurate with our
constitutional authority, and also the examples of history, to empower
people to make local decisions in areas as important as education.
Indeed, I am indebted, I am indebted to the people of Alpine, AZ, who
stepped forward with a commonsense idea; and in so doing, yes, to help
their local community, offered a prototype for other school systems
around the country. I am indebted to my alma mater for an education
that gives us a sense of history that can be applied to the problems we
face today, and on into the next century.
So let us again call, mindful of our historical legacy, for this
Federal land grant program for elementary and secondary schools, so
that we can empower these local communities, who are desperately in
need of holding onto their own funds. And it is that type of thinking,
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, from people of good will of both sides of
the aisle that can make a difference as we prepare for the next
century.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the gentleman is correct in
that we are going to move in that direction. I think we are going to
find lots of ways to kind of creatively get out of the bureaucratic
entanglement that so many of our communities have gotten into, and so
many of these I would say disappointments which the government has
caused to local economies and people and so forth.
The gentleman had mentioned some of the savings to the middle class
through college education opportunities and so forth. One of the very
practical and I hope immediate measures is this $500 per child tax
credit that is in the budget. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]
mentioned it earlier. It is something that American middle-class
families need.
We talk so often about let us do something for the children. Why do
we not just let the parents keep more of the money that they are
earning and let them do that for the children? If you have a family of
two, that is $1,000 a year that you can spend for groceries, for
clothes, for textbooks, for whatever your child's needs are. That is
something for the American middle class that is overdue to them.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I would like to take off on the point that our good friend,
the gentleman from Arizona, just raised.
First of all, we appreciate the gentleman's leadership and creativity
on educational initiatives, but we also agree that it is left to the
States to determine when Federal money goes forward for transportation,
for books or school lunch; that is where the 501 school districts in my
own State of Pennsylvania would determine how that is used, and
[[Page H2347]]
as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] said earlier, the 600-
plus school districts from his own State.
One of the things we can do with higher ed is restore the
deductibility on higher education. When the employer provides an
educational assistance, that should be a tax benefit for the employer
and not make it a gift for the students, so there is a real incentive
to do that higher ed. And also make deductibility for parents who
provide the payments for college loans, to give them the tax credit,
because these kinds of ideas are not Republican or Democrat, they are
good for America.
So I think the gentleman's initiatives, the gentleman from Arizona
[Mr. Hayworth], are certainly a step in looking at the Government and
saying we do not have to do it the way we did yesterday, let us look at
it differently; what can we do for our secondary education and our
primary schools?
Mr. HAYWORTH. I am struck by the energy and the enthusiasm, the
creativity of those who join us in this 105th Congress: our colleague,
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas], and also one of your
colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts], who outlined I
think as a former school teacher really what I call the human equation
when it comes to Federal dollars involved in education, as they exist
today. Because our good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, has
come up with a notion of a resolution for dollars to the classroom,
saying that henceforth it should be our goal to be mindful of the human
equation; for the 6 to 8 percent of funding that the Federal Government
supplies to school districts around the Nation, 90 percent of that
money should get into the classroom to help teachers teach and help
students learn, and 10 percent should be reserved for bureaucrats and
buildings and the cost of administration, a 9 to 1 difference.
Because our initiative should be focused upon local control, upon
sending those resources to where those resources can make the most
difference, and, in the case of the proposed land grant legislation
that I hope to introduce shortly, even finding ways where money does
not have to be spent, per se, but we can use those historical examples
that have served us well educationally in the past to offer hope for
the future.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have not touched
upon, and I know our time is just about up, I just wanted to mention,
each of us have parents or grandparents who are dependent upon the
Medicare program, and so many of our constituents. Certainly in
portions of my district the senior citizen population is quite
significant, and their needs are something that I have always tried to
attend to.
Prior to my election to Congress I was a member of our county board
of freeholders. One of my areas of responsibility was our county office
on aging and the programs for our elderly citizens. That is a portion
of our population that is growing at a greater rate than younger folks.
This agreement that we are all here to talk about and to help educate
people in our country about, and I hope they are as excited about it as
we are, one of the important parts of this is entitlement reform, and
an effort to preserve Medicare beyond 2001 or 2002, when the trustees
of the Medicare program have said it is going to go broke. It adds
about 10 years to the life of that program.
I have a 94-year-old grandmother. We are going to be celebrating
Mothers Day in just a few days. I am very fortunate to have her here
and be able to celebrate that with her. People like her will benefit
from it, and if I know her and the kind of shape that she is in come 10
years from now, she will probably be saying, make sure you do something
about Medicare.
{time} 2355
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we have about a minute each to wrap up.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] for taking out this hour so we have a
chance to discuss with our colleagues about the importance of balancing
the budget, making sure that we move along in a bipartisan fashion. We
are no longer having Government shutdowns. We are making sure that the
country moves forward while still having fiscal responsibility, having
educational opportunity, continuing environmental protection, but
making sure that the American family has a chance to retain more and
more of the money they earn and less of it going to Washington by
regulation, less of it going to Washington in duplicative spending from
the State government or the local government.
I think this is certainly an idea whose time has arrived in
Washington, to balance our budget just like State governments do, just
like county governments do and school governments. The American people
have to balance their budget each week, and it is about time Congress
put that interest payment off the American people and make sure we keep
more money for them, for their own necessities of life, and not have
Washington dictate to them how their money is spent.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for
yielding to me and my colleagues from Pennsylvania and New Jersey for
joining us tonight.
It is obvious to the American people, while challenges confront us in
working out details and, indeed, some would say those details may from
time to time bedevil us, we do have a basic blueprint for changing the
culture in Washington, for taking a step, regardless of party label, to
transfer money, power, and influence out of this city and back into the
hands of the American people.
And with that and with the framework of this historic agreement, over
a 10-year period of time, one-quarter of a trillion dollars in tax
relief, in tax cuts for the American people, whether for job creation
and economic expansion or with a drastic change to the unfair death tax
or, importantly, early on now this $500 per child tax credit, governed
by this simple notion: The money does not belong to the government. It
belongs to the people, and the people should hang onto more of their
own money to save, spend, and invest and send less of it here to this
city.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
initiating this and for allowing us to participate. The American people
want us to balance the budget. That is why they sent the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Pappas], and I think that is why they sent each of my
colleagues as well.
What excites me about this, besides that, we have real numbers that
are going to bring this budget into balance by the year 2002, permanent
tax relief; the estate tax reform that will allow so many family owned
businesses and farms in districts such as mine to be able to be passed
down from one generation to the next. There are so many people, men and
women in our country and our districts that have worked all of their
lives to build a business or to maintain a farm, to be able to pass
that legacy on to their children.
Unfortunately, the existing Tax Code prevents many of those folks
from passing something on to their children and then for them to pass
it on to their grandchildren. I am excited and honored to be a part of
this Congress that is going to enact that kind of significant and
permanent tax relief for our citizens.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox],
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] and the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and I close with this, I want to submit it for
the Record also, an op-ed from the Washington Times by Tod Lindberg. He
says:
My rule of political progress goes something like this:
First you lock in everything you can get; then you denounce
it as grossly inadequate. If you get the order wrong, the
perfect becomes the enemy of the good, and in an unholy
alliance with the bad, the perfect crushes the good every
time. Therefore, I like the budget deal. Can I imagine a
better one? Very easily; but I have no particular reason to
think that my musings are going to be enacted by Congress and
signed by the President.
In short, the deal is the only game in town. What it leads us to, Mr.
Speaker, is a smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes and a
balanced budget and that, Mr. Speaker, is a very good start. Mr.
Speaker, I include for the Record the editorial to which I referred:
[[Page H2348]]
[From the Washington Times, May 7, 1997]
The Art of the Balanced Budget Deal
(By Tod Lindberg)
My rule of political progress (which is not original to me)
goes something like this: First, you lock in everything you
can get; then you denounce it as grossly inadequate. If you
get the order wrong, the perfect becomes the enemy of the
good--and in an unholy alliance with the bad, the perfect
crushes the good every time.
Therefore, I like the budget deal. Can I imagine a better
one? Very easily; but I have no particular reason to think my
musings are going to be enacted by Congress and signed by the
president into law any time soon. The deal is the only game
in town.
The budget deal before us would: 1) balance the budget by
2002; 2) do so while cutting taxes. The past four years have
seen a huge shift in the terms of the fiscal debate in this
country: from whether to increase taxes or not in order to
reduce the deficit en route to a balanced budget (the
animating principle of the disastrous 1990 budget deal and
President Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction package, which
passed Congress without a single Republican vote), to whether
to cut taxes or not while balancing the budget--two points
the president is now prepared to support. This deal codifies
the latter two in law; to me, this is progress.
I'll leave the liberal arguments against the deal to the
other side. But here are some notes on some of the
conservative arguments against it.
It allows discretionary spending to grow. So it does, and
that is not desirable. But there are now caps, and the caps
prevent domestic spending growth from even keeping pace with
inflation. That means real declines over time.
The spending caps become floors. They may; the task of
fiscally conservative members of Congress will be to keep
making the case that these caps are too high--against
liberals who will say they are too low. But the conservatives
would have had to make exactly the same case in the absence
of this deal, too.
The reforms in Medicare are just price controls. Actually,
so's the current system; nothing new there. We still need
Medical Savings Accounts in Medicare and elsewhere. But
surely there are some savings that can be extracted from the
current system short of MSAs. Now we will see.
The deal doesn't reform Medicaid significantly. True; but
this is a GOP problem as well as a Democratic problem.
Governors from both parties hated the per-head caps that were
under discussion. Medicaid needs reform no less (but no more)
than it did before the deal.
The tax cut is small. Yep. But it's a tax cut, one that
will apparently include a reduction in the capital gains rate
from its current level (which is where it was when Jimmy
Carter left office). The per-child tax credit, though not
meaningful in terms of promoting economic growth, will
mean a lot to the middle-income families who qualify for
it. As for Mr. Clinton's favored college tuition tax
credits, they are merely foolish, not dangerous. And none
of the other tax cuts happens without his signature.
It enshrines government in its current bloated size and
scope. Some folks seem to think that this is the end of
politics for the duration of the agreement. That's simply
wrong. The problem is that Republicans weren't able to
articulate their thoughts on the size and scope of government
in a fashion that voters found so compelling they were
willing to turn over both the legislative and executive
branches to the GOP. Conservatives will not be hindered in
making that case by an agreement that says government will
live within its means while cutting taxes.
It's ``balanced-budget liberalism.'' I don't think there is
such a thing as balanced-budget liberalism. If the budget is
balanced, liberalism has mutated into a less virulent
species--by moving to the right. I think that merely shifts
the center to the right, which is to the advantage of
conservatives.
It relied on a $225 billion cash infusion thanks to new
revenue estimates. Less than people think. Of that $225,
about $108 billion went toward inserting (tougher) CBO
revenue projections. That's not spending. About $20 billion
of it went toward avoiding a legislative fix of the consumer
price index, leaving a smaller fix possible under current law
in the hands of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (I'd like to
see CPI fixed altogether, but in the context of tax relief).
About $10 billion went to keep from fixing Medicaid, and
(yippee) we get $7 billion more in transportation. Bike paths
for everybody! That leaves $80 billion--a nice insurance
policy.
Defense is getting cut too much. Yes. But the sentiment to
increase it is not yet there. Proponents will need to make
the case more urgently.
Mr. Clinton will be weaker, and the deal terms will be
better, as the scandals unfold in the summer. Oh, promise me.
Anyway, if that's true, Republicans ought to take the
occasion then to stuff something down his throat he hasn't
swallowed here. MSAs, maybe?
Birth of an entitlement: KiddieCare. Yes, that's quite bad.
No point in pretending otherwise. Question: If there is no
deal, can it be stopped? And does it really trump a balanced
budget with tax cuts?
Perfect? Hardly. Progress? Definitely. After all, Rome
wasn't burned in a day.
____________________