[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2663-H2665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WHY THE CRITICS OF THE BUDGET AGREEMENT ARE WRONG
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Jenkins]. Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is
recognized for the remainder of the time as the designee of the
majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Boehner], the distinguished chairman of the Republican Conference,
for taking out this special order on this agreement. There is a lot
that has been said about this agreement. It is fascinating to me that
some people came out in opposition to the agreement before the
agreement was even announced by the President or by the House or by the
Senate. I think that is really unfortunate, that someone would be
against the agreement before they even knew the facts. I just really
appreciate my colleague's taking out this special order on the balanced
budget agreement.
In my view, any agreement that balances the budget and cuts taxes for
working families is good for the American people. This agreement does
both. How long have we dreamed about bringing fiscal responsibility to
this Federal Government and to Washington, DC.? We have dreamed it for
a long, long time. In my entire adult life I have dreamed that some day
we could balance the budget and actually start paying down the debt, so
that my daughters would not end up paying for my generation's fiscal
irresponsibility.
I am really pleased to support the budget agreement. It is amazing
that this agreement not only balances the budget and cuts taxes, but it
includes long-needed entitlement reforms that will preserve and protect
such programs as Medicare, and it is intended to weed out waste and
fraud from the Medicaid Program.
Is this a perfect agreement? Of course not. Frankly, if it were,
President Clinton would probably veto it. We need to face the fact that
Bill Clinton is the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker. Our
Republican candidate lost. If our Republican candidate, Mr. Dole, had
won the election, we would not have this problem. We would probably
have the perfect agreement. But Bill Clinton was reelected by the
American people. We have to recognize that fact, and we also recognize
that he is a President that loves to spend more money. That means that
we have to negotiate.
This agreement is the end result of those negotiations. Let me
correct that. It is not the end result, it is the beginning of a lot of
negotiations that will have to go on for the rest of this year, because
we start with the agreement on the budget resolution, and then after
the budget resolution we will have to pass the bills that implement the
policy set out by the budget resolution, and we will have to pass all
13 bills, all 13 of the appropriations bills, and all of that will have
to be in consultation not only with the President, but with the
Democrats in the House and in the Senate.
So this is just the beginning, and it is a work in process. In my
view, it reflects the principles, the agreement reflects the principles
that Republicans have long campaigned on. Several questions have been
raised about the agreement, good questions that I think need to be
answered. I will take just a moment to respond to these questions point
by point.
Does this agreement use phony numbers? Many people wondered about the
$225 billion that all of a sudden appeared when the Congressional
Budget Office revised their projected revenues to adjust for a growing
economy. They thought it was just another effort by Washington
politicians to avoid making those hard decisions. But the whole budget
is based on economic assumptions, many of which turn out to be wrong,
and we can go back almost 20 years and find out that in only one year
out of 20 years of budgets written by this House have the assumptions
[[Page H2664]]
been right. They have either been overestimated or underestimated.
Assumptions are just as the name implies, assumptions as to what we
think might happen to the economy in the future.
Indeed, since 1993 the Congressional Budget Office's 5-year deficit
projections have overstated the actual deficit by an average of $279
billion. This particular budget agreement is based not on rosy economic
assumptions, but on the best economic data available today. Given their
track record over the last 4 years, CBO's new projections are not only
defensible, they are a reasonable correction.
Another question that has been asked by some of our critics: Does
this agreement dramatically increase spending? Some have questioned, is
it the biggest spending increase in history? The answer is an emphatic
no. Spending for nondefense discretionary spending, money that keeps
the Government running outside of defense and entitlement programs,
will only increase at an average rate of 1 percent a year.
Let us put this in perspective. This is 8 times better than the
historical average of 8.1 percent per year stretching all the way back
to 1969, which is, by the way, the last year we had a balanced budget.
We have agreed to fund some of the President's spending priorities.
This President loves to spend money. He loves to grow the spending of
government. We had to give him some of his spending requests, but we
have also agreed to restrain the overall growth of spending. I think
this is a significant victory for fiscally responsible Republicans.
Particularly if we look at past history, past habits, past traditions
of Democrat-controlled Congresses, even with sometimes Republican
Presidents, this is a fiscally responsible budget.
Does this agreement fail to reform the entitlement programs? That is
another question that is being asked by our critics. Once again, the
answer is no. By far the greatest single threat to our Nation's fiscal
health is the growth of health care programs. Since 1969, Medicare and
Medicaid spending has increased at almost twice the rate of total
Federal revenues. Let me repeat that. Since 1969, Medicare and Medicaid
spending has increased at almost twice the rate of total Federal
revenues. If that trend were to continue, spending on these programs
would exceed Federal revenues in the next 30 years.
The budget agreement will reduce the projected growth of Medicare by
$115 billion, and of Medicaid by about $16 billion. It will achieve
these savings by giving more choices to seniors in Medicare savings,
and by enacting reforms of the Medicaid system to weed out waste and
fraud. Congress will write the implementing legislation for this
agreement, so Members can be assured that there will be real reforms of
entitlement programs in that legislation.
We are coming back with our promise. Remember, 2 years ago we
promised to protect and preserve and strengthen Medicare by giving
senior citizens more choices in the kind of health care plans that are
important to them, so that they are empowered, rather than the
Government telling them what kind of health care is good for them.
Through competition in those programs we will be able to save money.
It is not a theory, it is not a pipe dream, it has happened in the
private sector, because health care has been reformed in the private
sector for over 10 years. The way it has been reformed in the private
sector is empowering the consumer. That is how they have been able to
reform the private health care industry, empowering consumers, and
people competing for that health care dollar drove down the cost of
health care.
We just want to take what we learned in the private sector and apply
it to Medicare and Medicaid in the public sector. That is all we are
doing. Through that we are able to save the system, preserve the system
for seniors, and strengthen it by giving seniors more choice.
{time} 1800
Another question that is asked by our critics, does this agreement
give insignificant tax relief? Some people have pooh-poohed the idea
that we actually are giving tax cuts. I think it is the first tax cuts
since 1981, first tax cuts for the American family in 16 years. In a
perfect world, we could cut more taxes for America's working families.
In fact, if our candidate had won the election, we probably would
have a bigger tax cuts bill. But we do not have that option in this
agreement. We have a President that is reluctant to give up his ability
to spend money through a tax cut.
People talk about the fact that we ought to balance the budget before
we cut taxes. Well, those people do not understand it. Those people
that want to balance the budget before cutting taxes are telling you
that they want to spend more of America's families' money.
Today, the American family is spending over 50 percent of its income
on Government. If you add up local, State and Federal taxes and the
cost of regulation and paperwork, over 50 cents of every dollar that
the American family makes today, every hard-earned dollar goes to the
Government of one level or another.
We think that is immoral. We think the Government is too big, it
spends too much, it takes too much out of the American families'
pockets. We want to reform Government. We want to cut it down to size
and make it work smarter. By doing that, we can allow the American
family to hold on to more of its hard-earned money to be spent the way
they think is important, rather than some Washington bureaucrat
spending that money on what they think is important.
So that is why we are for a tax cut. It has nothing to do with
anything else other than giving some tax relief to the American family.
But a tax cut signed into law is better than 2 tax cuts that are
vetoed. And this agreement provides working families with gross tax
cuts of $135 billion, with a net tax cut of $85 billion.
Keep in mind that in the last Congress, the President vetoed net tax
cuts of $155 billion, while in this Congress he proposed net tax cuts
of only $14 billion. Keep in mind what happened in 1995, when the
Republicans first took over this Congress, this House, for the first
time in 40 years. People said we could not do it, but we put together a
budget that balances, that shrinks the size of Government, that forces
Government to work smarter, that saved Medicare and Medicaid and
provided $155 billion in tax cuts, wrapped it up in a package, sent it
to this President of the United States. He vetoed it and shut down the
Government, and we got the blame for it.
We proved to the American people that we can bring good commonsense
policies to the Federal Government. We proved to the American people
that we could balance the budget, that we could bring fiscal sanity and
give tax relief to the American family. Unfortunately, this President
did not believe it, or he did believe it but he did not agree with it
and vetoed our package.
The $85 billion net tax cuts represents a real victory for
Republicans. The best part of this agreement is that the Republicans on
the tax writing committees of the Congress get to design those tax
cuts. So American families will get a child tax credit, a capital gains
tax reduction and relief from that pernicious death tax. I call this a
real victory for the American people.
So in summary, Mr. Speaker, I again appreciate the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Boehner] taking out this special order. It is so vitally
important that the American people understand what is in this agreement
and they understand the spin artists out there trying to negate what we
have agreed to or misrepresent what we have agreed to or just be
outright against it.
The American people need to understand that this is a grand
opportunity that we present to them, and we hope to get it. This
agreement is good for the American people. We must not let the perfect
be the enemy of the good. We must let this good agreement start the
process of balancing the budget, giving tax relief to the American
family, and some day pay down the debt.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, as the
gentleman was saying, there are critics of this plan on both the left
and right. Liberals believe that this cuts too much spending, ruins
their vision of what the role of the Federal Government should be.
Some on the right are criticizing this plan, and I am yet confused as
to why.
[[Page H2665]]
You can argue that this plan does not go far enough. You could argue
that it could have been better. But I do not think that anybody can
argue that this plan moves us in the direction that we have been going
over the last two and a half years, that this plan does in fact balance
the budget over 5 years honestly, no gimmicks, no smoke and mirrors,
that it does provide permanent tax relief, and over the next 5 years
will reduce the growth of spending in entitlement programs by some $200
billion, some $600 billion of entitlement reductions over the next 10
years.
Without this plan, the Federal Government over the next 10 years
would spend $1.1 trillion more than what will be spent once this plan
is enacted into law. So I do not think there is any question that this
is a good plan.
Yes, I would have like to have balanced the budget sooner. I would
like to have lower taxes. But the fact is that we have learned over the
last 2 years that there are two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Republicans control one here on Capitol Hill, but Bill Clinton is in
the White House. If we are going to do anything on behalf of the
American people, we have got to get both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to
work together and talk to one another.
Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] is absolutely right.
I sort of describe it as the Republicans in the House and the Senate
are like a sailboat and we are sailing against the wind and we are
sailing down Pennsylvania Avenue and the wind is coming from the White
House, a very strong wind is blowing in our direction.
In a sailboat, you can either turn it around and go with the wind,
and that is something we absolutely refuse to do, or you can tack
toward the wind, always moving forward, but in some cases you have to
make an agreement with the wind. Sometimes you have to make an
agreement with someone else, but always keeping your eye on the future
and the forward. And that is where we are moving.
If you put it in perspective, this is an incredible budget compared
to, say, the big budget of 1990, when George Bush was President. There
were huge tax cuts, huge spending increases.
Mr. BOEHNER. Tax increases.
Mr. DeLAY. Tax increases. I thank the gentleman very much for the
correction, tax increases. Tax increases is not even in the jargon of
this place anymore. It is hard to even say.
But tax increases, spending increases. Look at the budget that the
President passed with the Democrat Congress in 1993 that they are so
proud of, huge tax increases, once more taking more money out of the
middle-income America's pocket and spending it on Government programs
that we all know 9 times out of 10 are very wasteful.
That is the kind of thing that we have been going for. Even when we
did not get the President signing our balanced budget in 1995, the
things we are able to do in tacking back and forth, moving forward, in
eliminating over 270 programs, in cutting over $53 billion in real
Washington spending, in moving forward and making sure that we are
bringing this country into fiscal responsibility is very, very
important that the people realize that, sure, if the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Boehner], and I were writing this legislation, it would
appear to be much different. But on balance, we are getting more than
we are giving up, and I am very proud of that.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, there has
been a lot of discussion about who wins and who loses in this. I really
do not think there are any losers in this, but the real winners in this
agreement are not Republicans or Democrats, it is the American people
who are the big winners.
We all know that we have accumulated some $5\1/2\ trillion worth of
national debt. I went to the fifth grade class of Liberty Elementary
School in my district on Monday and explained to each of these fifth-
graders and asked them, how much do you think your share of the
national debt is? How much do you think you owe Washington? Some
thought it was a dollar. Some thought it was $10. One even thought it
was $300. I had to explain to them that their share of the national
debt was $22,000 that every man, woman and child today owes to those
who have lent this money to the Federal Government.
If we do not do something about stopping any additional debt from
growing, we are imprisoning our children and theirs. We know that a
child born today will pay almost $200,000 in taxes over the course of
their lifetime just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is
no money for education or the environment or roads or anything else
that the Federal Government does.
So the American people win with this agreement. Do we have to do
more? I think we all understand we do. We have got to balance the
Federal budget so we are not adding any more debt there. In the year
2002, or hopefully sooner, we ought to begin to pay off the national
debt.
If we want to give our children and theirs the shot at the American
dream that all of us grew up having, we need to make sure that they do
not have this debt on their back, or their chances of succeeding, their
chances of having the American dream available to them just is not
going to be there.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] is so
right. I just want to expand on what he is talking about, what the
children of tomorrow will owe.
It is really interesting, when the President was running for
reelection, he made in his State of the Union that famous statement,
``The Arabic government is over.'' And then when he came back and got
reelected this year and made his State of the Union Message, his
penchant for big spending was back, because in his State of the Union,
he talked about all these new spending programs; and he said something
at the end of that speech that I do not think I will ever forget. Not
many people picked up on it. Certainly the press did not pick up on it.
But the President said, ``You know, a child born tonight will not long
remember this century.''
Once again, the President was wrong, because a child born that night
will never forget this century because that child, as the gentleman has
said owes so much money, not just in paying off the debt but in paying
off the interest on the debt, that it is immoral. We are committed,
with this President or without this President, to bring fiscal sanity
to this Government for those children that were born that night.
I would be glad to yield to the distinguished leader of the freshman
class from North Dakota, who has been working very, very hard on seeing
that the supplemental appropriations bill becomes law so that his
disaster relief, much needed disaster relief, goes to North Dakota. I
appreciate the gentleman for showing up.
Mr. THUNE. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, but will remind
him that it is South Dakota.
Mr. DeLAY. South Dakota, I apologize.
Mr. THUNE. And in Dakota territory, that is an important distinction
to make because we have had our share throughout this last year, the
most disastrous winter in our State's history and in North Dakota's
history, as well, and we are in the process now of trying to come up
with the assistance that we need. Hopefully, in very short order,
tomorrow, we will have that bill on the floor, in hopes that we can get
the assistance to those who are in such desperate need of it in my
State, in North Dakota, and Minnesota and many other States like it.
But I do want to comment this evening, if I might, on the subject at
hand, and that is the discussion that you and our friend from Ohio [Mr.
Boehner] were having about the budget agreement that has been reached.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman gets started, if I
could, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be
given my time.
____________________