[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.

                          ____________________