[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.

                          ____________________