[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4144-H4163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2300
        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Pursuant to House Resolution 
455 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, H.Con. Res. 284.

                              {time}  2300


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H.Con. Res. 284) revising the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 1998, 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 1999, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels 
for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with Mr. Gilchrest in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 3 hours, with 2 hours confined to the 
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on the 
subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled 
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), or their designees.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 1 hour of debate on the 
congressional budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, begin by talking about the 
fact that last year we were as a Congress able to reach an historic 
agreement that is going to be able to achieve for the first time since 
we walked on the moon a balanced budget. We also anticipate that in the 
course of this year we will have a surplus. It will be generated 
primarily from the Social Security taxes as part of the budget. And 
next year, I am going to predict tonight, we will see a surplus in the 
general fund.
  I think it was a significant accomplishment that we were able to move 
to do something we have not done since we landed on the moon, but, 
frankly, maybe I need to let you in open a little secret: Our effort 
here was really never just to balance the budget. Our effort here was 
really to transfer power, money and influence from this city back to 
where people live, in every community and every family in America.
  Mr. Chairman, Teddy Roosevelt rode into this century with the idea 
that he should break the monopolies of the big corporations so that 
people could be set free to be successful. Well, I believe and the 
members of the Committee on the Budget believe that we ought to ride 
into the next century and break the monopolies and trusts of the 
Federal Government so that people can be set free and that we can begin 
to run America from the bottom up, rather than from the top down.
  Whether it is more choice for parents in education or whether it is 
to allow communities to set the rules and the standards in public 
housing and in job training or whether it is ultimately to set 
Americans free, to be able to invest payroll taxes, to be able to 
prepare for their retirement years, or whether it is beginning to break 
down that big money-raising machine called the Federal Tax Code that 
props up the monopolies of the Federal Government, our efforts are to 
make this city a lot less important, to make this city and government a 
lot more efficient and a lot more effective, and to make the budget of 
government a lot smaller and the budget of the family a heck of a lot 
bigger.
  Now, we reached this historic agreement last year. This budget 
agreement, historic only from the standpoint we have not achieved this 
in over 30 years, we viewed that agreement as a ceiling on government; 
not a floor of the growth of government, but a ceiling on government. 
The President, however, and many of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, viewed the agreement last year as a floor on government and 
not a ceiling.
  Now, can you imagine, with an American people, an American electorate 
that has very little confidence in the fact that we can get a balanced 
budget, that the President came up here to Capitol Hill and he 
announced a program that would increase fees and taxes by $130 billion? 
Think about that. The President of the United States, who declared the 
era of big government over, within a period of 6 months after we signed 
an agreement and he declared the end of the era of big government, 
comes to the House, comes to the House and proposes $130 billion worth 
of new tax increases. And that was not enough, because the tax 
increases were going to fund $150 billion worth of new spending.
  The President of the United States raises taxes by $130 billion and 
raises spending by $150 billion. He has 39 new entitlement programs. I 
hear so many of my friends talk about the need to control entitlement 
programs. He has 39 new ones.
  I never heard a peep, never heard a peep out of the minority when 
Franklin Raines came up here to present this President's budget. In 
fact, the budget resolution that the Democrats offer will provide for 
bigger government, breaking the spending caps, and having a philosophy 
that ``we like government.''
  At the same time that the President proposed $150 billion in new 
spending and $130 billion in new taxes and 39 new entitlement programs, 
we also developed 85 new spending schemes. This is the President that 
said the era of big

[[Page H4145]]

government was over. But, you know, he could not really stay with it, 
because too many people in his party believe in running America from 
the top down.
  There is nothing wrong with somebody that feels that way. I just 
think that we all know across this country, outside of this Beltway, in 
most communities, it does not work anymore. What we are really trying 
to do is to empower people and take power, take power from this city 
and give it back to people all across this country.
  Now, what are we asking to do in this budget resolution? I heard the 
whole litany, the whole litany of all these things we were going to do.
  Mr. Chairman, over the next 5 years, the Federal Government is slated 
to spend $9.1 trillion. Do you know what we are asking in our budget 
resolution for the government to strain under the yoke of? Instead of 
spending $9.1 trillion over the next 5 years, and, by the way, in the 
last 5 years we spent $7.8 trillion, we are going to go from $7.8 
trillion in the last 5 years to $9.1 trillion in the next 5 years, and 
we are suggesting that we really tighten our belt and we really 
restrain ourselves and we spend only $9 trillion to run this Federal 
Government.
  Do you know what that works out to? Talk about deja vu all over 
again. Tim Penny and I came to this floor in a bipartisan effort, the 
same way the President and I got together on the budget agreement last 
year, and we proposed that we save 1 penny on every dollar. Do you know 
why? Because the President raised taxes in 1993, and Tim Penny came to 
this floor and said we should have some cuts. One penny on every 
dollar.
  Now, I am going to ask a question: Do Members not think they can go 
home and tell people that the Federal Government cannot become more 
efficient and more effective and save one penny on every dollar in 
Federal spending over the next 5 years and cannot live within a budget 
of $9 trillion, rather than $9.1 trillion?
  Because you know what they know about back home? They know about the 
$800,000 outhouse. You know, the Park Service built an $800,000 
outhouse at the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. The Park 
Service built new employee homes in Yosemite at an average cost of 
$584,000. At the Grand Canyon, the average was $390,000. More than $8.5 
million was spent on planning, design and supervision at housing at 
both parks.
  Approximately 26,000 deceased persons in four States receive food 
stamps worth a total of $8.5 million, according to the GAO. The X-
Files, the Forest Service budgeted $500,000 for a motivational 
conference to help its employees explore alternative reality. I suppose 
they were studying Washington. How about $34 million so that the Jerry 
Springer Show and Baywatch can be close-captioned?
  We look at the reports on fraud and waste and so many of these big 
programs that we have not had the guts to dig in and begin to fix. And 
what we are asking is we cannot get all of this accomplished this year, 
to fix all of this, but what we are saying is, we can find a penny out 
of every dollar. We can live with only $9 trillion in spending. And out 
of those savings, those savings that every American knows is there, we 
can eliminate the marriage penalty for the 22 million Americans who get 
penalized because they decided to get married.
  You know, the wife goes out to get a job, and all of a sudden she is 
paying at the high marginal rate. She is paying at the higher tax rate. 
She is being punished because her husband may earn more than her.
  We want to fix that. Do you know why we want to fix that? We want to 
fix that because we know that the family is the incubator of everything 
good that happens in our society. And we look around at the tragedies 
that we have seen in this country over the period of the last couple of 
years, and we hold our breath, and you know what we all know? We need 
better families to provide more love, more hope, more discipline.
  But do Members know what? Families are hurting. Tax rates are going 
to be at the highest level and revenues are going to flow in at the 
highest level since World War II.
  Look, this is just an honest disagreement among some of us about the 
way we think America ought to work. I do not begrudge the fact that 50 
years ago in the middle of the Great Depression that it was necessary 
for us to send a lot of our power, money and influence to Washington to 
fix some of the biggest problems, including civil rights and some of 
the gaps in education.
  But do you know what I hear people saying? I hear people saying, I am 
tired of the country being run from the top down. I want to be involved 
in solutions that are located in my own community. I want to break the 
monopolies of government. I want to be set free. I want my power, 
influence and money back so that I can fix the problems in my family 
and my community and in the area where I live. And that is what we are 
trying to do.
  Are we getting there all at once? The fact is a penny on a dollar is 
something that is not very satisfying to me. I would like to do a lot 
more for people in this country. I would like to let them have a lot 
more in their pockets. So what we attempt to do with this budget 
resolution is to say people can get it right at home, that the 
government can become more efficient, that the government can become 
more effective, that we can squeeze a penny out of a dollar, that we 
can live with just $9 trillion in spending, that we can save $100 
billion, and we can give some of that money to the family.
  Because we believe that at every turn of the road the family budget 
needs to be bigger, the government budget needs to be smaller, and that 
we need to transfer power, money and influence from government back 
into the hands of the American people because we trust them and we 
believe in them. And we are going to work on this every single day.
  To my Republican colleagues, when you go home tonight, I want you to 
think about why we came to power. I want you to think about the fact 
that this party has always been committed to reducing the size and 
scope of the government budget, empowering people at the local level.

                              {time}  2315

  I want you to think about coming here tomorrow and supporting this. 
But I am going to tell you, every single day that I am involved in 
government and in community activities, I am going to fight the fight 
to give you the power, the American people the power to solve the 
problems that they know how to solve best.
  I urge support for the resolution and would look forward even to 
maybe a couple of my friends on the other side of the aisle supporting 
this resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), 
the chairman of our committee, is an effective speaker, so effective 
that, in listening to him, you would hardly perceive how far we have 
come in the 1990s and particularly since 1993 in coming to grips with 
what was the most compelling problem facing the Federal Government, a 
huge, swelling deficit that we seemed not to be able to get our hands 
around.
  Really, the first step we took was in 1990, when Mr. Bush was the 
President of the United States. He submitted to a budget summit. It was 
convened at Andrews Air Force Base, and it went on and on and on and 
finally came to a resolution that fall. We voted on it twice on the 
House floor.
  The first, it was voted down for lack of support on this side of the 
aisle. We finally mustered the votes to pass a modified version of it. 
It kept discretionary spending. It raised revenues. It cut 
entitlements. It was the first serious effort that we had made since we 
passed Gramm-Rudman, which was barely followed through on, to come to 
grips with this compelling problem. Its effects were eclipsed by a 
recession.
  But let me not get ahead of myself. When the votes were counted in 
support of that provision, that budget that Mr. Bush wholeheartedly 
endorsed, only 47 Republicans voted for it.
  In 1993, when Mr. Clinton came to Washington, the deficit the 
preceding September was $290 billion and headed upward. Indeed, if the 
President had read the economic report of Mr. Bush dated January 13, 
1993, he would have foreseen, and probably did if he looked at it, that 
the deficit projected by Mr. Bush for fiscal year 1993 was $332 
billion. That is where we were 5 years ago.

[[Page H4146]]

  Today, today, there is a deficit no more. We are looking at a surplus 
of $43 billion to $63 billion in September of this year. That is 
considerable, phenomenal progress. It has been made on the watch of Mr. 
Clinton. It has been made because of the votes we cast in 1990 and the 
votes we cast in 1993 when only Democrats in the House and only 
Democrats in the Senate voted for the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993.
  They have had a phenomenal impact on the government of the United 
States. They have radically changed, fundamentally changed our fiscal 
situation. It is better than it has been in a generation. Those are not 
my words. They are Alan Greenspan's words. Better than it has been in a 
generation.
  We have got to go back to the 1960s to find numbers such as we have 
today with respect to unemployment, with respect to inflation, and 
certainly with respect to deficit reduction. Indeed, we will have the 
biggest surplus we have experienced in history this September. That is 
good news. That is good news.
  What we are concerned about here is that that discipline that has 
brought us this far from $300 billion deficits headed upwards to 
surpluses as far as the eye can now see, the discipline may be 
dissipated by the budget resolution that the Republicans have proposed, 
that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is pushing. Why is that?
  Back in 1990, one of the things we passed was something called a 
Budget Enforcement Act. This is really esoteric, but there were a 
couple of common-sense rules in that Budget Enforcement Act.
  We said, among other things, we are going to cap, numerically cap, 
put a dollar cap on discretionary spending for 5 fiscal years. We did 
it in 1990. We renewed it in 1993. We did it again in 1997. It has 
worked. We have adhered to those limits, and we have reduced 
discretionary spending, and we are seeing the results on the bottom 
line in the form of surpluses that will show up.
  In addition, we adopted a common-sense rule called a pay-as-you-go 
rule, which said simply that, before anybody undertakes to do another 
tax bill such as the one we did in 1981, they have to pay for it. They 
can cut taxes, but they have got to offset the revenue losses to the 
Treasury so it will be deficit neutral either by commensurate cut and 
entitlements, permanent spending, or by some other adjustments in the 
Tax Code that would increase revenues to offset the decrease in 
revenues occasioned by the tax cut. Common-sense rule, but it has 
worked. That discipline has worked.
  What the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) would propose is a budget 
that would unrealistically lower discretionary spending. He proposes it 
as though it were 1 percent cut, but we all know it is not a 1 percent 
cut. He is not cutting Social Security. He is not cutting national 
defense. He is not cutting interest on the national debt. It is 
obligatory. It has to be paid.
  About one-quarter of the budget in discretionary spending is left 
subject to cuts. Bob Reischauer has written a very compelling article 
in which he analyzes the different components of this account, called 
Discretionary Spending, and shows that really only about half of it is 
effectively cut.
  In last year's budget agreement, we effectively cut over 5 years' 
discretionary spending by 11 percent. This year, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) would take another 7 percent. If you consider that it 
only will actually affect half of discretionary spending, that means 
the cuts would have to be 35 percent. Does anybody realistically think 
that will happen? No.
  The Republicans have proposed a bill which backloads the cuts. They 
will not happen this year. We will adopt them now, and on the strength, 
the promise that they are going to be realized, we will do a big tax 
cut. That is the third piece of unraveling the discipline that has 
brought us to where we are. That is why this is a serious debate, and 
it is a travesty that we are having it at this time of night, at this 
point in the day, when this should be given the most serious attention 
we possibly could.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself whatever time I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about this discretionary spending that 
we have just heard about and how we are going to devastate it. Again, 
gang, do you know what? I appreciate the gentleman saying, you know, he 
is an effective speaker. You are not an effective speaker because you 
just say things. You are an effective speaker because you say things 
and people go, you know, that makes a lot of sense.
  We are going to go from $7.8 trillion to $9 trillion in spending, and 
somebody is making the argument that we are devastating programs. Are 
you kidding me?
  Let me tell you a little bit about the growth in discretionary 
spending. In 1990, we grew the discretionary budget by 17.7 percent. In 
1991, we grew it by 11 percent. In 1992, we grew it by 8.9 percent. In 
1993, we grew it by 6.7 percent. Last year, we grew it by 6.7 percent.
  I mean, to talk about how we have got to scrimp and how we have got 
to tighten and how we have got to starve ourselves when we are 
averaging 7 or 8 percent, the American family wishes they can get 7 or 
8 percent a year more in their pockets.

  Do you know what we are talking about in the area of entitlement 
savings? We are talking about saving approximately $50 billion out of 
$5 trillion in spending so that the families can have a little bit 
more.
  See, the problem is, if the American people had a vote, you would not 
get $9 trillion to spend. You would not get $9 trillion if we went in 
their homes tonight, at their dinner tables, and we said the Federal 
Government was going to go from $7.8 trillion to $9 trillion. Do you 
know what they would say? Why do you not keep it at $7.8 trillion? Why 
do you not freeze it, is what they would say.
  We are not talking about freezing it. We are talking about saving 
$100 billion. And we strain under that yoke, and we come here and 
congratulate ourselves.
  Let me just suggest another thing to you. I keep hearing about how 
the Clinton tax increase did so great for our country. Do you know what 
it did? Slowed the economy down. Drove up interest rates.
  Do you know what Alan Greenspan told us? Well, it is a fact. It is a 
fact. Let me just tell you what Alan Greenspan said. Alan Greenspan 
came before the Committee on the Budget, and he said, if in fact you 
can put a budget together that can balance, interest rates will come 
down.
  So what I would argue to the Committee is, it was in 1995, do you 
remember the President sent us a budget that had deficits as far as the 
eye could see? He sent us a budget in 1996 and in 1997 that had 
deficits as far as the eye could see, and we put the plan together to 
balance the budget and cut taxes, which you said we could not do.
  Do you know what happened? Interest rates came down two points. As a 
result of interest rates coming down two points and as a result of this 
Republican Congress having some discipline to not just cut spending but 
also to cut taxes, yeah, we have seen a great spurt of economic growth.
  Now to make the argument that if we save more money, that if somehow 
the Federal Government saves more money, that that is going to have a 
negative effect on the economy, I ask you to call the Chairman of the 
Fed tomorrow and ask him what would happen if we would cut Federal 
spending by $100 billion and live within the strain of only $9 
trillion.
  Do you know what I get told? Do you know what the Fed Chairman tells 
me? If we do not spend the surplus and we can learn to control 
government, interest rates can come down even further. Do you know what 
that will give us? More sustained economic growth and surpluses that 
will allow us to transform Social Security for three generations and, 
at the same time, to put us in a position to be able to have tax cuts 
out of the general fund surplus that I will anticipate we will have 
next year.
  The fact is what we are proposing in this is just a little bit of 
savings and a little bit more efficiency out of the way this government 
works. I believe that we can get it done. I believe that we can achieve 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate a chance to address the body.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for one 
second?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

[[Page H4147]]

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out for the record, 
after the President's 1993 tax bill, a year after the Clinton's 1993 
tax hike, long-term Treasury rates moved up from 5.75 percent to 8.25 
percent. The trend of real economic growth slowed from 3.3 percent to 
1.7 percent. That is what happened 1 year after the President's tax 
increase.
  It was soon after that that the Republicans became a majority in this 
Congress and put together a plan that balanced the budget that has 
resulted in lower interest rates for this country to the tune of two 
points. That is just a fact.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for 
this budget resolution. It is amazing just how far we have come over 
the past 4 years.
  Just prior to the new leadership taking over our Congress 4 years 
ago, we had the largest tax increase in our Nation's history of $270 
billion. I might mention to the gentleman from South Carolina that is 
why virtually no Republican voted for that bill.
  It also was an attempt, a Federal attempt, to take over the health 
care industry of our Nation, one-seventh of our entire economy. That is 
also why we did not support it. It had in it a deficit of $203 billion.
  In contrast, this last year with the new Congress, we passed a 
historic budget agreement which placed in law our present steadfast 
commitment to a balancing for the first time in 30 years the Federal 
budget. The Congressional Budget Office projects not a $203 billion 
deficit as it was under the last Congress but a $43 billion to $63 
billion surplus this year.

                              {time}  2330

  This Congress has also passed the largest tax decrease in 16 years of 
$95 billion.
  While much progress has been made, some still subscribe to the failed 
budget policies of the past. Mr. Chairman, the President's budget calls 
for $129 billion in tax increases over 5 years, more than $150 billion 
in new spending, and 85 new spending programs.
  We have a different vision. We know the Federal Government is still 
too big, too inefficient, and too intrusive in our lives. This budget 
reduces the rate of growth of government by only one penny out of $1 
over the next 5 years. Making the Federal Government tighten its belt 
for a change will allow us to completely eliminate the marriage 
penalty, and save 21 million American couples an average of $1,400 each 
year in taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to help build upon our progress, 
and vote for this budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to explain that 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) will explain from his vantage 
point, as the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a 
major discrepancy in this bill. Namely, it calls upon the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs to reconcile another $10 billion out of veterans' 
benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my strong objections to the 
budget recommended by the Committee on the Budget. This is an anti-
veterans budget. It represents a direct frontal assault on the benefits 
and programs which Congress has carefully considered and enacted into 
law.
  This budget proposal assumes the Committee on Veterans Affairs will 
achieve 5-year savings totaling $10.4 billion, of which $10 billion is 
to be achieved by prohibiting service-connected disability compensation 
for tobacco-related illnesses.
  Who are we kidding, here? As all of our colleagues know, and as the 
Committee on the Budget certainly knows, Congress has already spent the 
savings associated with this provision.
  Is there a single Member of this body who does not understand that 
shortly before the Memorial Day break, Congress included a provision to 
prohibit service-connected disability compensation for tobacco-related 
illnesses in H.R. 2400, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, and the savings associated with that provision have already 
been spent, to partially pay for the spending authorized by H.R. 2400?
  As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget knows, the 
transportation bill is now awaiting the President's signature. It will 
become law within a matter of days.
  My question to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget is simple 
and direct: Will he commit to crediting the Committee on Veterans 
Affairs with achieving this savings directed by House Concurrent 
Resolution 284, if it reports legislation to prohibit service-connected 
disability compensation for tobacco-related illnesses? If not, what 
other veterans' benefits does the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget, want this committee to reduce or 
eliminate?
  The Committee on Veterans Affairs has always fulfilled its duty to be 
responsible and meet the reconciliation targets established for it. 
Since 1986, in fact, reductions in veterans' programs and benefits have 
resulted in savings to the Federal Government of over $12 billion. That 
is $12 billion in veterans' benefits savings over 13 years. It is 
irresponsible to call on veterans to give up another $10.4 billion in 
benefits this year. America's veterans have already given enough.
  I cannot and I will not support this anti-veteran budget being 
proposed by the Committee on the Budget. I strongly urge the Members of 
the House to reject House Concurrent Resolution 284.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the program that the gentleman 
was referring to was recommended by the President and endorsed by this 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to straighten out the record. The highway 
bill visits a $10 billion hit on the Committee on Veterans Affairs. It 
extinguishes benefits for smoking-related illnesses that the general 
counsel's office had announced were the rights of veterans, if they 
were service-connected. The highway bill takes away that right.
  This bill still requires the Committee on Veterans Affairs to yield 
another $10 billion in reconciliation, give up another $10 billion. 
What the President recommended, that is, the extinguishment of those 
benefits, has already been done in the highway bill. Yet, this bill 
comes back and hits again for another $10 billion in veterans' 
benefits. It is a fact. It requires reconciliation of $10 billion in 
savings in veterans' benefits. After they have already paid once, they 
have to pay again.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have to hand it to some of our friends on 
the other side of the aisle. They are really something. They give their 
poll-driven speeches, they bring cliches and mantras to the floor. 
Regardless of subject or regardless of content, they utter them with 
the alacrity that we expect from political slogans in a campaign 
season.
  Their campaign slogans are what passes for thought at 11 o'clock at 
night in this place, I guess. Then they produce budgets which have 
virtually nothing whatsoever to do with the rhetoric that they have 
just expounded.
  They pretend they are bringing a 1 percent cut in the budget in 
discretionary spending to this floor, when in fact, in real dollar 
terms over the life of this budget resolution we are talking about at 
least a 18 percent across-the-board cut, and by the time we apply it 
only to the programs that they expect to cut, we are, as the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has told us, really talking about at 
least a 30 percent cut. So get off this 1 percent baloney. That is 
exactly what it is, it is baloney. It is a packaging gimmick that has 
nothing whatsoever to do with what happens to real, live people under 
the budget.
  I would also suggest that, again, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Evans) is absolutely right when he lays out that this budget has a 
double cut on veterans. It doubles the reduction in veterans' health 
care benefits that were mandated in the highway bill. For anyone to 
pretend otherwise in my view is to give hypocrisy a bad name.

[[Page H4148]]

  I would simply say, there is a very good reason why the Republican 
leaders in the Senate have already labeled this budget unworkable and 
extreme. That is because it is. If it were not, we would have the 
Republicans in the Senate rushing to endorse it, rather than running 
away from it in their acute embarrassment.
  Everyone knows that this is not a program designed to get through the 
Congress, it is designed to get the Republican Party through the night. 
They want to vote on this package. At least they want to debate it at 
11 o'clock at night when nobody is watching, because they are so 
embarrassed by it they would not bring it to us in the light of day. 
That is because the numbers do not work. The numbers clobber real, live 
Americans.
  This is not a 1 percent solution, this is a 35 percent hatchet job, 
so they can have a campaign slogan that once again involves their 
mantra of pretend that what they suggest is they are going to cut 
spending. But if we look at the Kasich budget, it does not cut anything 
this year. It saves all of the cuts until after the election, so they 
can package a tax cut before the election. That, too, is enough to give 
hypocrisy a bad name.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield six minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee 
on the Budget for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a little shocking how confused the majority is 
tonight, that they cannot even find speakers to speak up on this 
budget. I know that the Republican leadership told everyone they could 
go home because there would be no votes tonight. I know that they made 
it abundantly clear that there will be no opportunity to discuss the 
President's budget, or Democratic alternatives, so I would think they 
would have a lot of pride in the document that they have put together.
  Why in God's name, in a document, in a budget that is so important, 
would we wait until midnight to bring it up before the American people? 
Why would Members do that? Is there any shame that they would have, 
with something that is this important, that they would want Members to 
hear, they would want people to hear, and that we should discuss these 
things?
  I know this is an election year. I know tax cuts are popular. Why can 
we not talk about where the money comes from for the tax cut, who we 
have to hurt? If we have to hurt the veterans, stand up and say that 
they get enough. If the cuts are coming from education, and I think 
that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), he said the used-to-be days of the Roosevelt days, 
the days of the Depression, where we needed help, we needed Social 
Security, we needed pension funds, we needed Medicaid, we needed 
Medicare, we needed aid for education, but we do not need that now. 
Ronald Reagan brought us a surplus, or was it Bush? I forgot the 
rhetoric on the other side. Whatever it is, we got this surplus, so now 
we have to talk about cuts.
  Democrats want to talk about tax cuts, too. The only difference 
between us and these rascals is that we like to tell the Members where 
they come from, and they like to say they will tell us in 5 years.
  If Members really do not believe that the Federal Government should 
be involved in educating our young people, providing health care for 
our kids, for older people, day care for mothers who have to work, why 
do they not stand up in the daytime and say it?
  But no, they just cover things, saying, in the bye and bye we will 
tell you what we are going to do. It is shameful to have a document 
like this, with no alternatives allowed, restricting the debate that we 
have on the floor, and tell us that we can debate it at midnight. I 
said midnight, and someone says it is not midnight yet, and they look 
at their watches. That is no way to treat a budget that is going to 
really affect the lives of Americans.
  I know, with the coupon clippers, it just does not make any 
difference, but not all of America is going through the good times. 
Some want their kids to get an education, to get a decent job, to be 
productive, and they need the Federal Government there. Some people do 
not believe that the Social Security fund is going to to be there for 
them, but they did not discuss that. No, those are the olden days, the 
Roosevelt days. Everyone can take care of themselves without government 
today.
  Thank God they have done one thing. No one has to say that all of the 
Members of Congress are alike, that there is no difference between a 
Republican and a Democrat. I will tell the Members this, before this is 
over, a lot of Republicans are going to wake up, when the American 
people see what they are trying to sneak through in the middle of night 
on them. When they do, they will be calling on Members before November 
to ask them to stand up and be counted, and say, yes, we want a tax 
cut, but you owe it to us to say what you have to cut in order to give 
this to us.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the ranking member for his 
eloquent statement. I want to be very specific, I say to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), on what the Republicans are going to do 
regarding welfare reform.
  Any Republican who votes for this budget is voting to undercut 
welfare reform of 2 years ago. They had $10 billion in cuts in 
Medicare. They grew nervous, so what did they do? Last night they take 
$10 billion, instead, out of Function 600.
  The heart of that is TANF. They are going to say to us on the 
Committee on Ways and Means, cut Function 600, and therefore, cut 
welfare reform, TANF, by 10. It is going to take $20 billion.
  This is what State legislators say about this: ``This budget would 
disproportionately cut State programs, and abrogates a fundamental 
agreement reached among State legislators, Governors, and Congress in 
1996 regarding welfare reform.''
  If Members adopt the resolution, ``It will prove that the States 
cannot trust Congress,'' i.e., you, ``to abide by its word.''

                              {time}  2345

  Here is what the governors have to say: ``Your budget resolution is a 
serious violation of the welfare agreement reached in 1996, and would 
erode the Federal-State partnership and the future success of welfare 
reform.''
  And they go on to say, ``We urge you in the strongest possible terms 
to uphold the historic welfare agreement reached in 1996, and reject 
any cuts in TANF, Medicaid or other welfare-related programs as part of 
the budget resolution.'' Signed Tom Carper, John Engler, Tommy 
Thompson, Tom Ridge.
  Any Republican from Michigan, from Wisconsin, from Pennsylvania, who 
votes for this is going to be voting to undercut welfare reform. We are 
telling the majority this at midnight, and we are going to tell them 
this tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), who can address the entire Nation, even those in 
California where it is 15 of 9:00.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, what is disconcerting is that I 
think that side of the aisle, I think the Democrats after experiencing 
success 2 years ago in demagoguing what the Republicans were doing in 
trying to slow down the growth of the budget, when they realized some 
success at the polls suggesting that Republicans were taking health 
care away from the elderly for tax cuts for the rich and taking food 
out of the mouths of children for tax cuts for the rich, that 
demagoguery resulted in some Americans believing it.
  I think most Americans are now realizing that government is growing 
much faster than it should and the United States Congress, along with 
the President, is taking more and more money out of those taxpayers' 
pockets.
  Let me show the chart of what is happening in spending of the Federal 
Government in the 10 years from 1994 to 2003. In the first five bars of 
this chart representing the last 5 years of spending, it is going to be 
a $7.8 trillion expenditure over those 5 years. The last five bars of 
the chart representing what is in this budget is $9.1 trillion, going 
from $7.8 trillion to $9.1 trillion. And just imagine for a moment this 
budget that we are having grows faster than inflation, yet what we are 
seeing

[[Page H4149]]

is the other side of the aisle saying it is not growing fast enough.
  So imagine what would happen in the future if we projected this line 
out for the next 10, 20, 30 years, and imagine how much money is coming 
out of the pockets of the American taxpayer if we continue to expand 
Federal Government almost twice as fast as inflation. That is what we 
do here.
  1994, we have a budget of $1.4 trillion; 2003, we have a budget of 
$1.9 trillion. If we followed the President's recommendation, the 
President's recommendation was that we have $102 billion of tax 
increases, that we have $27 billion of fee increases for a total of 
$129 billion of fee and tax increases. So where would that have left us 
is with a much steeper rate of expenditures. And in the year 2003, in 
the year 2003 if the Democrats had their way with the President's 
budget, we would be spending $67 billion more that year than we are in 
this particular budget.
  Look, this budget goes up pretty steep; and if we project the next 
few years, one can see that it is going to go all the way to the 
ceiling. Does anybody here or in America think that this government, 
that this Congress, that this President cannot make government more 
efficient and save some of the money we are spending?
  I just want to mention briefly Social Security. Social Security in 
this budget, we do not spend any of the surpluses. That could be as 
high as 60 or $70 billion this year, could go up to 110, 115 billion 
next year. We do not spend that surplus. We are saving it for Social 
Security. This budget says from now on any money we borrow from the 
Social Security Trust Fund it is going to be in negotiable Treasury 
bills, not the blank IOUs that has been happening for the last 20 
years.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, there are 150 job training programs 
scattered across 15 Federal agencies; 340 programs in housing, 
including 18 involving community development, 49 concerning public 
housing, 8 concerning the homeless and 103 that are enacted. There are 
660 programs in education and training, spanning 39 Federal agencies, 
boards, and commissions.
  It is interesting because would it not be a great thing if the people 
who had the jobs had the power to train the people who needed the jobs, 
rather than having the job training occur from this town out to where 
we live?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Listen up, Democrats. Listen up, America.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of bureaucrats in America 
who do not know what the time zone is in Ohio, let alone what our job 
needs are.
  When I say we should break the monopoly of the Federal Government, 
would it not make sense if that computer company or high-tech company 
that needed that employee that they would have the incentive to train 
me rather than me marching into a Federal building for job training 
that has no relation to the jobs located in my community?
  Would it not make more sense that instead of dictating all the rules 
of the way we ought to run public housing in my district in Columbus, 
Ohio, that we ought to set the standards and the rules for the way in 
which we want to run public housing in our communities rather than 
dictate it from a bunch of people down here who do not even know what 
is going on out in my district?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, they are not dumb in Columbus, 
Ohio, or Jackson, Michigan.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, do you not think it is time that mothers 
and fathers have the power to be able to get their kids the best 
education they can possibly get and that most of the money ought to be 
put in the classroom?
  Those are the kind of things that I think most Americans want. I 
think they want to be in charge. I think they want to be in control. I 
think they want to have their job training run at home. I think they 
want local control of education. I think they want public housing at 
the local level to reflect local values.
  Now, that is the new way. The old way is we run it from here. We 
train a few people who really do not know what goes on in our 
community, then they tell us what to do. That makes some people happy, 
but it does not make most Americans happy. That is why we are winning.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, let my give some quick numbers. In the height of the 
Reagan years, the government was spending 23.3 percent of our GDP, our 
total economy. The bite of the government was 23 cents out of every 
dollar. Today it is 19.8 cents under Clinton, down 3.5 percentage 
points. That much decreased by.
  As for discretionary spending, in 1993, when Clinton came to office, 
in outlays it was $540 billion in 1993. In 1997, it was $548 billion. 
In 4 to 5 years, it grew $8 billion. I think that answers abundantly 
the effort, the argument that was just made.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, there are two issues I want to raise. I 
want to talk a little bit about the so-called 1 percent solution, but 
before I do that I want to speak to the issue that was just raised 
about decisions being made about eliminating programs.
  It is interesting when we were in committee in the Committee on the 
Budget when we asked repeatedly for the specifics of the proposal, what 
was going to be cut, what was going to be changed, it was very clear 
that we were not going to get that information. The argument that was 
put forward was that we really want to leave this to the committee 
chairs to make those decisions.
  Interestingly, tonight the committee chairman has a lot of arguments 
to make about programs that are not under his jurisdiction, about how 
many are too many. Now, why is that? Why could we not have some 
specificity about what we thought was going to be cut and what was bad 
in committee, but now we have arguments?
  Mr. Chairman, if in fact there are far too many training programs, 
far to many housing programs, far too many programs in general, why 
have the majority's appropriation people not come forward with those 
cuts in the 4 years that they have been controlling the procedure? Why 
did we have to wait until tonight for the chairman of the Committee on 
Budget to say in fact that the appropriation chairs have been making 
all of these bad decisions over the last few years? I do not 
understand.
  Now, I want to talk about the 1 percent solution, so-called. It was 
just said all these things that the public wants, all the things that 
families want. I can tell my colleagues what families do not want. They 
do not want to be misled, and the 1 percent proposal is being put out 
there to lead people into believing that in fact these cuts are going 
to be spread across all programs and that the burden will be an easy 
one for all to bear. That, of course, is not true.
  When we look at facts, we find that all programs will not share this 
burden; and that, in fact, more than two-thirds of the budget will not 
be available to be a part of this reduction.
  Let me go through what these are. These numbers are beyond the 
agreement that was made as part of the balanced budget agreement:
  International affairs, beyond the balanced budget agreement, would be 
cut 21.2 percent. 21.2 percent in an increasingly perilous world. 
Natural resources and the environment, 8.5 percent. Commerce and 
housing credit, the chairman just made comments about that, 30.5 
percent. That is Section 8 housing for low-income people.
  Rural housing, FHA, the Patent Office and the Census Bureau also 
within this function, 30 percent. A third of every dollar spent in that 
function would be eliminated. Transportation, we just as a Congress 
affirmed overwhelmingly increased spending in transportation. This 
budget says 22.7 percent reduction. Community and regional development, 
16.3 percent reduction. Not 1 percent, 16 percent.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) argued passionately for us 
to be responsive to the needs of our communities just a couple of hours 
ago. Apparently, this is not much of a concern to him.
  12.1 percent, not 1 percent, 12.1 percent reduction in administration 
of

[[Page H4150]]

justice. That is law enforcement. That is the judiciary. That is 
prisons. 12.1 percent. Not 1 percent.
  Even education programs take a 4 percent hit. Now this is argued that 
it is a penny on the dollar. Something that families can understand. 
Let us put it in terms that families can understand. Let us say that 
our families decide we have to make a 10 percent cut in our spending. 
Seems reasonable. But then they sit down and look at their budget and 
say, well, we cannot stop paying our mortgage. We cannot do that. 
Cannot stop paying our child care cost because we are going to keep 
working. Cannot put aside our credit card debt or paying our health 
insurance. We do not want to cut our contributions to our children's 
college fund. Okay, we are going to make a 10 percent cut, and it is 
all going to come out of our grocery money.
  It does not feel like 10 percent anymore when it is 1 percent of 
something you need. This is not a 1 percent cut. You know it, and the 
public will know it once the information gets out. And to say it is 1 
percent and it does not hurt is not right.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, we are headed down the same road we were 
in 1995: Cut services for the elderly and the poor and give tax breaks 
to the rich.
  Let me take one specific. When we went into the Committee on the 
Budget we said, give us the specifics. They would not. But if we look 
in the budget document they put out, there is $10 billion in cuts in 
Medicare.
  Now, we start talking about that. There is $12 billion cuts in 
Medicaid. That is $22 billion of the $100 billion in tax cuts coming 
right out of health care. That is out of the same place that we took 
$115 billion last year in Medicare and untold billions also out of 
Medicaid. So they are going right back to the same well.
  Now they got nervous about that and last night about 9:30 or 10 
o'clock up in the Committee on Rules they said, oh, my goodness, we 
better get this Medicare stuff out of here. Let us shift it all over 
into Medicaid or unspecified health care cuts.

                              {time}  2400

  What are the unspecified health care cuts? The children's plan we put 
in last year, $16 billion, most of it has not been spent yet, and they 
are now going to cut $10 billion out of the children's program that 
they will be on the campaign trail in about three months saying, ``We 
did this great program for children.'' Meanwhile they are going to gut 
it with this particular proposal.
  Why are they getting this money? Well, it is for the marriage tax 
penalty. I offered that amendment in the Committee on Ways and Means 
and in the Committee on the Budget and in the Committee on Rules, and 
every single one of those committees, every single Republican Member 
voted against it last year. I guess maybe a miracle has occurred or an 
epiphany, I do not know what it is.
  The problem is, mine was a little tax cut for families below $50,000 
who really need the benefit. But if you are going to use $100 billion 
in a tax cut for a marriage penalty, it is going to people above 
$50,000, most of it above. It is a bad, bad budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say that 
only in Washington when you spend more do people call it a cut. That is 
the line that the gentleman from Washington is getting into. We are 
going to spend $1.3 trillion on Medicare in the next five years. The 
last five years we spent about $900 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the last speaker said it is just like 
1995. It is just like 1995. We have, again, on the other side folks 
saying we are cutting spending to give tax cuts to the rich. Neither is 
true.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) may not like the idea 
of eliminating the marriage penalty but that is something that actually 
will benefit middle income families, and he may not like the idea of 
not spending as much as we would otherwise would have spent, but that 
does not make it a cut.
  The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) specifically talked about 
the Medicare numbers. Those numbers apply to the entire budget. We are 
talking about spending a little less than we would otherwise have 
spent. This is where we are.
  Last year we all got together and we passed a balanced budget 
agreement to balance the budget over five years. The American people, 
through their hard work and productivity, did it quicker than that, but 
there was a lot of pain, a lot of agony. We gave. The Democrats gave. 
The Clinton administration and the House Democrats and Senate Democrats 
gave, and we ended up with this common ground balanced budget 
agreement.
  It is only natural that this year we Republicans would come back and 
we would say, okay, we gave a little, now we are going to get back to 
our fundamentals. We are going to roll up our sleeves and we are going 
to spend a little bit less than the $9.1 trillion that was agreed to. 
We are going to spend 1 percent less, and we are going to give some of 
that back in terms of tax cuts because we are actually spending, as a 
percentage of GDP, more in taxes every year as Americans than we have 
historically in this country, so we have a relatively high tax burden 
right now even with the good economy.
  It is also natural Democrats would do the same thing. They are back 
this year saying they want to go beyond the balanced budget agreement 
that was agreed to last year also, but they are saying that they want 
to spend more. The President's budget, 85 new spending programs, 39 new 
entitlement programs, over $150 billion in new spending, over $150 
billion in new spending over five years. $129 billion in tax increases 
over 5 years is how it is paid for, largely, again, from the same 
President who in 1993 put in place the largest tax increase in our 
history.
  So that is where we are, and I would just say I would cast my lot 
with those who believe we can do more. I would cast my lot with those 
who think we can do a little better. Yes, the chairman gave some 
examples earlier in response to the gentlewoman from Michigan. She 
criticized the chairman.
  Today on a partisan basis in this House we voted to reform the SSDI 
program. We improved the program and we saved $40 million to the 
American taxpayer. There is darn good example. Yes, we can streamline. 
Yes, we can consolidate. Yes, it takes rolling up our sleeves and 
looking anew and thinking outside the box on some of these Federal 
programs, but sure we can do that. Instead of spending $9.1 trillion, 
we are going to spend $9 trillion over the next five years. And 
remember, we only spent $7.8 trillion over the last five years.
  So I thank the chairman for putting together this good budget, and 
the Committee on the Budget. I wholeheartedly endorse it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to remind him 
that the President's budget, which he misconstrued, is not on the 
floor. Our resolution is. It does not increase spending. It is in 
complete sync with the balanced budget agreement and it calls for $30 
billion in tax relief paid for within the Tax Code itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. 
Mink).
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, my constituents are listening to 
this debate, even though it is midnight, because it is only 6:00 p.m. 
in Hawaii. I thank the majority for the courtesy extended to my 
constituents.
  I think the whole matter of our legislating has at its kernel the 
idea of conveying confidence to the American people that they should be 
able to rely on the promises and the agreements that we make with 
respect to the programs that we enact.
  Less than 2 years ago this Congress enacted the welfare reform bill, 
and it was hard fought. And one of the ingredients in that welfare 
reform bill was an agreement that was struck with the governors. There 
was a commitment made to the States that there would be even funding 
over the length of that program, 5, 6 years. And the governors went and 
made this agreement with

[[Page H4151]]

the Congress in the assumption that we would keep our word, that we 
would not go back on this deal.
  Sometime around 9:00 last night the majority decided that they would 
breach that agreement that was struck with the governors. Today we have 
a letter sent to us by the National Governors Association, signed by 10 
governors, expressing their dismay that the Congress is being asked by 
the Republican Party to renege on their agreement.
  What they did in the Committee on Rules was to take $10 billion 
additional from the TANF program, the welfare program that we just 
enacted. They said cut the function 600 program, which is the income 
security item. But if we look in it, all that is vulnerable for a cut, 
for a raid, is the TANF program, and it completely decimates the 
agreement that the governors are relying on. So they have asked this 
Congress to reject this resolution, and so have the National Conference 
of the State Legislators.
  I ask my colleagues here tonight, is our word good or are we going to 
go back on it?
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Kasich Budget 
Resolution, which sets this nation on a budgetary course that will end 
in disaster.
  At a time when our nation is experiencing its greatest economic boom 
in decades we should be asking ourselves what can we do for the people 
of America, not what can we take away from them. This budget resolution 
proposes to take away $100 billion from programs critical to the 
overall health and well-being of this nation. The American public will 
not stand for cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, health care, 
health research, and social services. Even programs that have strong 
bi-partisan support, like Head Start and WIC will not receive enough 
funds to maintain current services under this budget.
  Hasn't the Majority learned by now that we can balance the budget, 
and still address the most pressing needs of our people. The budget 
before us today is a shift back to the draconian cuts and radical 
proposals that forced a budget showdown and government shut down.
  Bringing forth this proposal, which even Senate Republicans agree is 
too radical, only proves that the Majority can't keep a promise. They 
can't keep the promise made in last year's balanced budget agreement 
and they can't keep the promise made in the 1996 welfare law.
  I am outraged to find out that at the last minute in the wee hours of 
the night this resolution was changed to cut $10 billion of the welfare 
program (TANF). This cut is on top of cuts already in the bill which 
totally eliminate programs to move families from welfare-to-work.
  Some may argue that the $10 billion is not specified to come from 
TANF, but it is a cut required in the Income Security Function which 
includes TANF. Well, let's look at some of the other programs in the 
Income Security Function that would have to take the cut--unemployment 
compensation, SSI, Child Support, Child Care, the EITC, and Foster 
Care. I don't think anyone is willing to take a $10 billion chunk out 
of any of these programs.
  Certainly, states cannot live up to the mandate of moving welfare 
recipients to work, if their funds are cut by $10 billion.
  During the debate on welfare reform in 1995 and 1996, the Majority 
constantly preached the ethic of work and championed the idea that 
welfare mothers must work. Now, they seek to eliminate the very 
programs that help these disadvantaged women find jobs.
  The Resolution eliminates $1.5 billion dedicated for welfare-to-work 
programs. The elimination of these funds would result in direct loss of 
funds to 44 states and jeopardize the job training and job placement of 
300,000 welfare recipients.
  And with an additional cut of $10 billion from the TANF program, 
there will be virtually no federal training funds dedicated to moving 
families from welfare to work. The 1996 Welfare law becomes an unfunded 
mandate under this Resolution.
  The Resolution compounds the problem by eliminating the employment 
and training money under the Food Stamp program. The 1996 welfare 
reform law limits Food Stamp benefits to able-bodied adults with no 
children between the ages of 18 to 50 to 3 months unless they are 
working or in a training program. The Resolution eliminates funding 
states use to help train and employ these individuals so that they can 
achieve self-sufficiency or meet the work rule under the Food Stamp 
program.
  This Budget Resolution unfairly targets the most vulnerable in our 
nation--families that are struggling to make ends meet and striving for 
self-sufficiency.
  The Democrats in great contrast seek to lift up those who are 
struggling in our society, by helping to ease their every day burdens. 
Nothing signifies this more than the huge investment the Clinton 
Administration and the Democrats have proposed in expanding the 
availability of child care in this nation.
  Currently the federal government spends about $9.4 billion (FY 1998) 
on child care programs including after-school and child care nutrition 
programs. We propose the President's child care initiative unveiled 
earlier this year, which adds a $16 billion investment over five years 
in child care and early childhood education programs. This includes the 
expansion of existing programs such as the Child Care Development Block 
Grant and Head Start.
  In 1996, we passed a Welfare Law which requires welfare mothers to 
work, but it fell short $1.4 billion short of the funding necessary to 
provide child care for those welfare parents. The President's child 
care initiative would allow us to take care of the working welfare 
families as well as low-income working parents who are not receiving 
public assistance.
  It also includes $3 billion over five years for a new Early Learning 
Fund to improve the quality and safety of services to children ages 0 
to 5 years. In the past year we have all heard about the ground 
breaking research which revealed the significant capacity for learning 
in the first three years of a child's life. Assuring quality child care 
and early childhood education is critical in those early learning years 
and important to the future success of our nation's children, and 
indeed our entire nation.
  $800 million over five years would go to expand after-school 
programs. This funding would support an estimated 4,000 programs 
serving half a million children. After-school activities are a way to 
keep children in a safe place, to provide additional learning 
experiences and tutoring and most importantly, it keep children off the 
streets and involved in productive activities rather than destructive 
or delinquent activities.
  Unfortunately, the Majority not only rejects these much needed child 
care programs, but freezes the current child care programs so that they 
won't be able to keep up with inflation. The Child Care Development 
Block grant will lose $107 million over five years, the Head Start 
program will lose $536 million over five years, and the Title X Social 
Service Block Grant will be cut by $3.1 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this Resolution also because it is clearly an 
attempt to undermine federal education programs in the Budget 
Resolution. The Chairman's May 12th draft clearly stated the intention 
to turn the Title I program for disadvantaged students into a voucher 
program, and to block grant other education programs.
  During the Committee debate, the Chairman was unclear about his 
intentions but made specific references to block granting Title I and 
other education programs.
  Whether it is a block grant proposal or a voucher proposal, it is 
clear that the Majority is once again attacking federal education 
programs that send billions of dollars to our states and local school 
districts.
  I am deeply concerned about any effort which would virtually 
eliminate the Title I program and replace it with a voucher program. 
Title I was enacted in 1965 to assist low income communities in 
educating their most educationally disadvantaged. It was an attempt to 
equalize educational opportunities for our most needy students.
  Based on current funding levels, individual Title I vouchers are 
likely to be about $700 dollars per student, hardly enough for parents 
to pay for private education as intended by the proponents of this 
proposal.
  Title I dollars helps to raise the individual achievement of 
disadvantaged children, but also, it helps the overall educational 
opportunities within the school. Taking the dollars away from these 
most needy schools through a voucher system, will do nothing but leave 
the school with less resources and at a greater disadvantage.
  Criticism about Title I during Committee debate focused on the 
ineffectiveness of some programs and how the federal bureaucracy was to 
blame. This criticism is really not about the federal government, but a 
complaint against state and local school districts which manages the 
Title I program. Only .1% of the Title I funds stay at the federal 
level, for evaluation and administrative costs. That means that states 
and locals have responsibility for $99.9% of the money. So when the 
Republicans complain about how that money is being spent, they are 
criticizing the states and local school districts.
  What is ironic is that Majority's criticizes the state and local 
management of the Title I, yet at the same time they propose to block 
grant even more federal programs, with less accountability to the very 
same people they contend are running ineffective Title I programs.
  While there is always room for improvement, the reality is that in 
the vast majority of school districts throughout the nation Title I is 
making a significant difference in the lives of

[[Page H4152]]

disadvantaged students. To eliminate the Title I program as we know it 
today is a terrible mistake that would have serious consequences in 
many low-income communities throughout the country.
  In my estimation, education should be this nation's highest priority, 
and the Majority's budget, block grant and voucher programs fall far 
short of what is necessary to improve education in this nation.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I need to mention the elimination of the 
Native Hawaiian Health Care program, assumed under this budget. It is 
clear that the Majority lacks the understanding of special relationship 
between the Native Hawaiian people and the federal government, much 
like the relationships forged between Native American Tribes and the 
federal government. Programs like the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act 
were specifically enacted to acknowledge the federal government's 
responsibility and relationship with the Native Hawaiian people. 
Elimination of this program would mean the end of valuable services 
which address the significant health needs of the Native Hawaiian 
population and it abrogates the federal government's responsibility to 
assist in improving the overall well-being of the Native Hawaiian 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget fails the American people. It fails to set 
forth a vision for our nation worthy of our economic prosperity; it 
fails to invest in our most precious resource--our human capital; and 
it fails to address the needs of the most disadvantaged in our society.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this radical budget, which turns away 
from the balance budget agreement and the welfare law of 1996. We can 
do better, we must do better.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
budget resolution we are debating here tonight of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich). This is my sixth year on the Committee on the 
Budget. The first 2 years was as we were part of the minority and then 
4 years as majority now.
  In our budget, in each of the budgets we have had the same philosophy 
of reducing the size and scope of the government and shifting power, 
money and responsibility back to the States, and this budget continues 
that philosophy. It shows the real difference with the Democratic 
philosophy.
  Back in 1993 when the President proposed a budget to increase taxes, 
the largest tax increase ever, more spending programs and more new 
programs that we had to take responsibility for here in Washington, the 
Republicans had cut spending first, and we showed how we really can 
reduce the size and scope of the government. And the voters back in 
1994 said, ``That is what we want to do,'' and so starting in 1995 we 
have had great success in moving this country to fiscal responsibility.
  This year we are going to have the first balanced budget since 1969, 
a tremendous accomplishment. We are going to have a surplus for the 
first time. One of the most important things is the issue that we have 
reformed entitlements. The previous speaker talked about, oh, my gosh, 
we are hurting the entitlement programs. We have had major change in 
the welfare program.
  Let me tell my colleagues what happened. Welfare case loads have 
declined by 30 percent nationally since 1994. In 1997, States spent 
only 72 percent of their available welfare funds because case loads 
have declined and more welfare families have entered the work force.
  Six States have turned down welfare-to-work grants enacted by the 
balanced budget agreement because they did not need the money and they 
objected to the red tape required to get the grants. Welfare reform has 
worked. It is saving money. But more important, it is helping those 
people that have been trapped in a cycle of poverty.
  On the discretionary spending side we have had great success. While 
defense spending has been kept fairly level for the past decade, the 
Democrats kept increasing discretionary nondefense spending, the 
domestic spending side.

                              {time}  0010

  Our first time in control of the House of Representatives in 1995 and 
1996, we actually had in real dollars a reduction in domestic 
discretionary spending. That was our promise to the American people. We 
got rid of 300 programs in the Federal Government. But then important 
programs that we thought were important, for example, like National 
Institutes of Health, have gotten larger increases under a Republican 
Congress than they received under the Democratic Congress. In fact, 
last year they got a 7.1 percent increase whereas President Clinton 
only asked for a 2.6 percent increase.
  We have established priorities, programs that are important, like 
biomedical research, and we have said we do not need some programs and 
we have cut out many programs. This budget that we have this year is a 
continuation of that philosophy and a clear contrast with what 
President Clinton has proposed. President Clinton's budget proposed 85 
new programs, $150 billion in more spending over 5 years, $129 billion 
in more taxes. What does this budget have? No new spending programs, 
$100 billion of tax cuts, and just a 1 percent cut in spending. Support 
this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I find it so curious that the majority 
refuses to discuss their budget tonight and instead want to discuss a 
budget that is not even on the floor. I have been on the Committee on 
the Budget for 6 years and I have never seen such a fiasco in all my 
life. Usually the budget is when a party lays forward their plan, their 
vision of government.
  What have you done tonight? Brought this to the floor after midnight, 
not that the press who is not here, the American people who are long 
asleep are missing much, because you have not had the integrity, the 
courage, to tell the American people what your plan is. You do not 
specify the cuts. You get up here and make lofty language, and you do 
not specify the cuts. What is more, this plan changes all the time.
  Take Social Security, what I think is the most vital function of 
government. In the Committee on the Budget we debated, one of the 
highlights of the chairman's bill, a plan to take all the surplus out 
of Social Security, embark on a new venture, no more Social Security, a 
new venture of private accounts. We debated. Every one of you voted for 
it. Your colleagues would not stand for it apparently.
  You go to the Committee on Rules, the bill comes out, and there is no 
aspect of that dimension of this budget. Where did it go? We have all 
this debate, you are going to end Social Security as we know it and it 
comes out of the Committee on Rules and we are just supposed to be left 
with an ``oops, never mind''? This is ridiculous.
  I would feel comfortable if Social Security was secure. But of course 
it is not secure. Because you take revenue out of the Federal 
Government without telling us how we are going to match in spending 
reductions.
  You have done this before. This was a David Stockman technique in the 
early 1980s. It produced deficits then. Now it will produce spending 
the surplus. That is why the Washington Post called this a triple 
fraud, and I quote, an election year tax cut on the strength of 
unlikely spending cuts to be named later, all the while preaching 
fiscal responsibility.
  What happens when you do not come up with the spending cuts you are 
so afraid to talk about tonight is that they do not get made, and this 
surplus that we so need to reform Social Security is dissipated. And 
you do not even lay out the plan to the American people.
  This budget is a failure. One of the things about the chairman, like 
him or not, like his ideas, do not like his ideas, he would always tell 
you where he was going, he would always be square with you about the 
details. This plan tonight is such a disappointment in that respect.
  You fail to lay out the details of your plan. You fail to advance a 
budget that makes sense. Most important to me, you fail to 
fundamentally protect the Social Security surplus until we can come up 
with a comprehensive overhaul plan for Social Security. You have failed 
with this budget, and that is why I think there is a fighting chance 
your own colleagues will reject it with us in the vote tomorrow.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for 
yielding me this time.

[[Page H4153]]

  Mr. Chairman, I will begin by emphasizing that the colleague who just 
spoke was correct in one regard, and that is a simple point that the 
President's budget is not on the floor tonight. It is not on the floor 
tonight because nobody on the other side had the guts to bring it to 
the floor tonight. Even the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget refused to bring the President's budget to the floor, because it 
raises taxes $130 billion, it raises spending $150 billion, it creates 
new entitlements, it creates new programs, and not a single Member on 
the other side was willing to bring that sham to the floor. Instead we 
are talking about a Republican budget plan.
  Perhaps the problem is that it is too simple a vision for some on the 
other side to understand. It does three principal things. It pays down 
public debt. It reduces the amount of debt held by the public by taking 
surpluses and using it for that important cause. It shrinks the rate of 
growth of government by 1 percent. And it uses that controlling the 
size of government to eliminate the marriage penalty.
  I do not know what the other side is opposed to. Maybe they are 
opposed to paying down the debt. Maybe they are opposed to eliminating 
the marriage penalty. And we have heard that they certainly may be 
opposed to reducing the size of the government from $9.1 trillion to $9 
trillion. Maybe $9 trillion just is not enough. Maybe they need $10 
trillion or $11 or $12 or $15 trillion. But the fact is we have spent 
$7.8 trillion over the past 5 years and under this budget we spend $9 
trillion.
  Government will grow at greater than the rate of inflation. Maybe it 
is not enough for some on this side of the aisle. Maybe government has 
to get bigger and bigger and bigger. But what we are trying to do is 
just control the rate of growth. Three goals, pay down the debt, 
control the rate of growth of government, and eliminate the marriage 
penalty.
  Paying down debt, why is it important? It is important because it 
brings down interest rates. We reduce public borrowing, we let the 
private sector borrow more and we reduce interest rates, lower cost of 
home mortgages, lower student loans, lower cost of auto loans.
  We heard what happened with the President's tax increase in 1993. 
Interest rates shot up. Over the next year they shot up 2 percent, from 
6 percent all the way up to 8 percent. That is tens of thousands of 
dollars more in home mortgage costs, thousands of dollars more in 
student loan costs or automobile loan costs, right out of the pockets 
of the American consumer.

  Today interest rates are low. If we continue to pay down debt with 
these surpluses, they will go even lower; 1, 2 percent less if you talk 
to Alan Greenspan. Paying down debt keeps money in the pockets of the 
average American family.
  Second, controlling the rate of growth of government. We talked about 
that. From $9.1 trillion to $9 trillion. Earlier this evening, much 
earlier this evening, not at midnight or 11 o'clock or 10 o'clock, but 
around 9 o'clock or 8 o'clock, we saw a nine foot belt out here and 
said, can we not just take a nine foot belt and bring it in one notch, 
from $9.1 trillion to $9 trillion. We can reduce the rate of growth.
  And finally, eliminate the marriage penalty. Bring tax relief to the 
American people, more money in their pockets, take a little bit of 
power away from Washington, and give it back to the American people. I 
think any time we take power away from Washington and give it back to 
Americans, we are doing right thing. I urge my colleagues to support 
this resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, in last year's balanced budget, we had a 
bipartisan agreement to protect the environment. But this year the 
Republicans in their budget proposal throw away that commitment, out 
the window.
  The Democratic alternative, however, does restore the vital 
environmental funding that we know as Members of Congress we have a 
responsibility to fund. We must fund projects to ensure clean air and 
clean water, to ensure that our public lands are preserved, and that 
our toxic and hazardous sites are cleaned up.
  The Democratic budget provides funding for water quality improvement, 
because 40 percent of our Nation's waterways are too polluted to swim 
or fish in. The Democratic budget provides assistance to States and 
communities to reduce non-point pollution, clean up streams and improve 
coastal water quality.
  The Democratic budget provides vital funding for our Superfund 
cleanup sites. One in four children under the age of 12 live within 
four miles of a Superfund site. It is time, time for Republicans to 
join us and clean up the toxic waste dumps near our schools, our parks 
and in our neighborhoods.

                              {time}  0020

  The Democratic budget includes funding to enhance national parks, 
national forests and other public lands.
  The final and crucial environmental area addressed by the Democratic 
budget provides funding for water infrastructure improvements. These 
improvements give localities greater ability for compliance and 
construction of much needed wastewater and other facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, as we consider this budget resolution this year, we 
must also protect our environment. But as usual, when it comes to our 
children's future, the Republican budget is way off course. By 
supporting the Democratic alternative we create a budget that moves 
this country forward without leaving our environment and our children 
behind. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic budget 
alternative.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Republican resolution and in support of the Democratic alternative. The 
Republican plan unravels last year's budget deal by cutting over $100 
billion from important programs like education, veterans' benefits and 
crime prevention. The Democratic alternative, however, builds on the 
balanced budget agreement, and it invests in the future of our country 
and in the priorities of our people by protecting Social Security, 
allowing for a reasonable tax cut to end the marriage penalty, and by 
making a real investment in the education of our children.
  An example of this commitment to education is the school construction 
initiative in the Democratic budget. This initiative is critical 
because our schools are in worse shape today than any part of our 
nation's infrastructure. As a result, millions of our children in 
urban, suburban and rural districts are forced to attend schools in 
desperate need of repair. Also, thousands of our schools are tragically 
overcrowded. It is estimated that we need to build 6,000 new schools 
over the next 10 years just to maintain our current class size.
  These appalling conditions are not merely annoyances and 
inconveniences, they are barriers to learning, and sadly these 
conditions serve to diminish the self-esteem of children who must 
attend these run-down and overcrowded schools.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget ignores this crisis. The 
Democratic budget, however, creates a tax credit to help States and 
localities build new schools and to make desperately needed repairs. 
The Democratic plan sends a clear message that the education of our 
children is a top priority vital to our Nation's future.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the failed Republican budget and to 
vote in favor of the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this 
time to me.
  For the last 18 months we have had the opportunity to go around 
America and we have had hearings in 17 States about what works and what 
does not work in education. We have also had an opportunity to take a 
look at education and what education means in Washington, and we have 
found that in Washington education means hundreds of programs, and we 
say ``Hallelujah, at least they're all in the Education Department,'' 
and it is kind of like, no, they are spread over 39 agencies, and we 
say, ``Well, at least they're effective

[[Page H4154]]

and efficient which means that we're going to get those dollars down to 
kids,'' and it is like, no, that is not true either because for every 
time we take a dollar out of a local community and send it to 
Washington, we only get about 65 cents back to a child and back to a 
classroom.
  That is not very good, and that is not helping kids.
  Going around and spending time at local school districts, we find out 
what has worked. What works is when we leave control at the local 
level, when we leave the money at a local school district and do not 
take it to Washington and siphon off 30 to 40 cents, when we leave 
control at the local level, and we do not get people at the local level 
begging for money from Washington and getting the money back with a 
whole lot of rules and regulations. What works is when we focus on 
basic academics, and what works is when we empower parents.
  Now is not the time to come up with a whole new range of education 
programs in Washington that move control away from parents and away 
from the local level and move it to Washington.
  What is the mantra in Washington? Where have we gotten to today?
  Where we are moving to in Washington is we say, ``We want to build 
your schools, we want to put in your technology, we want to hire your 
teachers, we want to determine your class size, we want to teach your 
kids about sex, we want to teach your kids about drugs, we want to feed 
them breakfast, we want to feed them lunch, we want to feed them 
snacks, and other than that they are your local schools.''
  Let us keep control with parents.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I will take just a brief amount of time to 
point out that in the committee meeting I did put forward a proposal to 
do what several of the Republicans on the committee as well as other 
members of the party have suggested, which is to send back 40 percent 
of all special education dollars to the States, to local school 
districts. Made a very strong case for that.
  The majority declined to do that, and instead substituted for my 
motion a motion to make it a sense of the Congress. So the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), along with others on the committee who 
were given an opportunity to make a very clear and concrete statement 
to send dollars back to schools, declined to do so.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, it is really kind of a joke that we are 
here at 12:30 in the morning Eastern time debating this. We heard about 
families sitting around the dining room table and what they could end 
up cutting. None of the traditional families in my district in Texas, I 
believe, are sitting around the dining room table at this time, and I 
doubt they are in Columbus, Ohio either, but I do not know a lot about 
Columbus. And if this is the best my colleague can do, he probably 
ought to try and keep the job he has got.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this is not a blueprint for the Nation's fiscal 
policy. This is a testament to the continuing inability of the 
Republicans to govern the House.
  The truth be known, the budget process has already been hijacked by 
the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. Last week, 2 weeks ago, we were racing to get out of 
here so we could pass a highway bill that everybody could pave up their 
State, that busted the budget by $22 billion. We forgot all about the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Democrats and Republicans were in a real 
big hurry to spend as much money as possible. We gutted the veterans' 
program by somewhere between $11 billion to $17 billion, depending on 
what committee and whose numbers are used, and then we found out that 
it was not done properly. So we race back in here quietly on Tuesday, 
and when no one was looking we passed by voice vote a correction of 
that.
  That is what Republican control has been all about. They stuck it to 
the veterans, they stuck it to the budget process, and now at 12:30 in 
the morning we are going to debate this grand budget resolution. They 
cannot even get the senior team down here to debate the bill.

                              {time}  0030

  This is just ridiculous. And then you think that after the fact we 
are going to have to, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, have to 
continue to make reductions in discretionary spending, both defense and 
non-defense, we are going to continue to make reductions in that, and 
then you want to go in and make another $100 billion of reduction, $50 
billion approximately in non-defense. And you talk about waste. You 
could not find one dollar, not one dollar of waste in defense. What 
happened to those ashtrays and the toilet seats that we were paying all 
that extra money for?
  But you really think those cuts are going to be made, and then you 
are going to go spend the money on the tax cut. What you are going to 
do is end up spending the surplus, just like you are trying to do with 
the transportation bill, and running up the debt.
  You know what that is going to do in the end? It is going to make the 
Social Security problem worse, and then you are going to come around 
and try to privatize it and do away with the safety net. That is why 
you are doing it at 12:30 in the morning, because you know this is a 
joke.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution is both hollow and 
meaningless because it doesn't recognize reality and responsible fiscal 
policy. Rather than provide a blueprint for the nation's fiscal policy, 
this is a testament to the continuing inability of the Republicans to 
govern. Truth be known, the budget process has already been hijacked by 
the Appropriations Committee and the Transportation Committee.
  This budget resolution is a sham. It proposes $100 billion in budget 
cuts beyond the Balanced Budget Agreement we approved last July, but it 
doesn't tell us where to cut and postpones the tough choices for a 
future Congress. It ignores the reality that Congress just approved a 
highway bill that exceeds the budget agreement by $22 billion. And in 
its latest incarnation, it plays games with the projected budget 
surplus to hide the fact that the majority would rather use the surplus 
to pay for tax cuts than to buy down the $5.4 trillion federal debt and 
strengthen Social Security.
  Not only does this budget resolution renege on the good faith, 
bipartisan agreement reached last year to balance the budget, but it 
goes even further by destroying our hard work to achieve that 
agreement. Last year's hard work has given way to magic asterisks, 
false hopes, and irresponsible promises. It's only now that we are 
finally balancing the budget and escaping the pit of red ink that has 
quadrupled our national debt and made interest payments the third 
largest federal program. It's the height of irresponsibility that the 
majority would now propose that we go down that road again.
  The ``one percent plan'' is a pithy slogan, but it's the biggest sham 
of all. The truth is that this budget doesn't cut just one percent. By 
exempting three-fifths of the budget and failing to take the highway 
bill into account, this bill would actually cut some domestic programs 
by as much as 19 percent below a freeze. That means deep cuts in 
education, social services, environmental protection and other vital 
programs, and leave our nation unable to increase vital investments 
such as medical research. Despite what the majority may say today, it 
also means draconian cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and even in the 
newly enacted Children's Health Insurance Program that we worked so 
hard to create just nine months ago.
  Most prominently, the budget resolution neglects that fact that we 
have a $5.4 trillion debt and that we spend $250 billion on interest 
annually. that's about three percent of GDP. By sticking to the 1998 
Balanced Budget Agreement, interest payments on the debt would fall to 
just one and a half percent of GDP by 2008. Paying down the debt yields 
ample rewards because interest payments on the debt would fall. This 
would free up private and public investment. Long term interest rates 
would fall further as well. Then, a responsible tax cut or even greater 
investment in education, children's health care, and research become 
possible. These productive investments help keep our economy growing.
  If we abandon fiscal discipline, by the early 2040s, CBO projects 
that federal debt will exceed 100 percent of GDP. That is nearly twice 
as high as the current ratio and is a level previously reached only at 
the end of World War II.
  Included in the $5.4 trillion debt is $600 billion of Treasury bonds 
owned by the Social

[[Page H4155]]

Security trust fund that will have to be retired after 2013. The budget 
resolution should give serious attention to paying down the debt to 
reduce interest and principal costs to ultimately strengthen the Social 
Security Trust Fund. Raiding the surplus to pay for tax cuts will put 
us in worse shape. In fact, if only half the surplus was spent, 
interest payments would rise $12 billion over the next five years. 
According to the CBO, spending the annual surplus would cause the 
fiscal gap, which is the size of the permanent tax increase or spending 
cut needed to keep the ratio of federal debt to GDP at or below its 
current level, to increase to 2.3 percent of GDP from 1.6 percent of 
GDP. This translates into an estimated $200 billion tax increase or 
spending cut.
  Additionally, some on the other side of the aisle might argue that 
the surplus is scandalous because it's expected to grow to $1.34 
trillion over the next five years and that money should be returned to 
the American people in the form of a tax cut. But, that money is 
essentially today's profit that needs to repay yesterday's debt. No 
business would carry such a debt much less make no effort to repay it. 
Enacting a tax cut this year would like a business that carries 
significant debt, has a great year, and then pays out its new profits 
in dividends instead of paying down its debt. Companies know that 
paying down debt is the only way to increase its value in the long 
term, which would make more money for investors. So both tax cuts and 
personal savings accounts are irresponsible before paying down the 
debt.
  So before we start tinkering with half-baked notions of 
privatization, it is important that we begin a debate on Social 
Security with a clear understanding of what Social Security is and why 
it was created before we begin proposing radical solutions. And we must 
not confuse problems while trying to solve them.
  First and foremost, we must remember that Social Security is a safety 
net below which no American will fall. It is a retirement security 
program, it is a disability insurance program and it is a survivor 
insurance program. It is not a 401(k) or an individual retirement 
account. It is also an income transfer program whereby higher income 
workers support lower and moderate income workers through the 
establishment of the safety net. Without the cross-subsidy the net is 
pierced. Any reform must not destroy the safety net, or it will destroy 
the essence of the program.
  If we squander the surplus without beginning to retire the national 
debt to a more manageable level, in the long run, we may have to borrow 
more to pay off bonds as they come due, including the Social Security, 
and we will be shortchanging the American people. Without maintaining a 
course of fiscal discipline, the Congress' hard work since 1990 will be 
compromised. Federal budget surpluses will be short lived and we will 
return to deficit spending. Given the impending retirement boom and the 
economic and political uncertainty brought on by the Asian economic 
debacle, that's not a direction we want to move.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich).
  Mr. ERHLICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I guess there are some first-teamers still around here. I see some 
first-teamers behind me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich budget. There are four 
relatively easy planks that the American public does understand. Pay 
down debt. Forty percent of public debt is Social Security debt. You 
pay that down, you save Social Security. It makes sense. You shrink the 
government by 1 percent, and you relieve families of the marriage 
penalty.
  Under the balanced budget agreement, and that is really the crux of 
the problem here tonight, some viewed it as a ceiling, some viewed it 
as a floor. It is not a ceiling. We can do better. We get paid to do 
better. The American public expects us to do better.
  Last year was not a stopping point. They still feel overtaxed, feel 
that the government does too much in this country. $9.1 trillion to $9 
trillion. That is not a whole lot to ask in most cities in this 
country. Maybe not in this town.
  We talk about marriage tax relief. We had an interesting comment from 
the other side earlier on. The rhetorical question was, where do the 
tax cuts come from? Where do the tax cuts come from?
  Tax money is our money. We send it here, hopefully to be used 
appropriately, and we ask for some of it back. That is where the money 
comes from. We know where the money comes from, from the people who 
work.
  Last January we saw the old Bill Clinton, the post-election-year Bill 
Clinton, the nanny state Bill Clinton came back. You heard the numbers, 
85 new programs, $150 billion in new spending, new tax increases, the 
whole nine yards.
  What led to this? What do we hear tonight and every day on this 
floor? The politics of yes, because the politics of yes is real easy. 
The politics of no means leadership. It is not easy to say no. It is 
not easy to say maybe a cent from every Federal dollar over 5 years.
  It is easy to get votes when you say yes, because the politics of yes 
is easy, and the politics of yes ruled this town for 40 years, and a 
bunch of us came here a couple of years ago to exhibit some leadership 
and say no for a change. And sometimes no is not pleasant and sometimes 
no leads to negative ads against you on TV, and that is the way it goes 
in the United States in the 1990s.
  I rise in support of the Kasich budget for this reason: We should 
reject the politics of the old and the politics of yes, as the American 
people have done, and give the American family a break for a change, 
because they deserve it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the proposed Republican 
budget resolution. This resolution is very similar to the very one we 
discussed last year, proposing spending cuts to pay for tax cuts. 
However, the difference in the last time and this time is we are not 
certain where they propose to cut the $100 billion. We know it is 
supposed be in domestic, but we do not know where. We only know they 
intend to cut $55 billion from entitlement programs, including some $10 
billion from Medicare, until last night. Then that became too 
political. We said we do not want to be political, but that became too 
political and risky to do.
  Guess what you did? You decided to cut that from the most vulnerable 
people in America, the poorest of the poor. Yes, your Welfare Reform 
Act that you wanted to keep there, you reneged on your commitment to 
the States that you would provide welfare reform, but made sure that 
your objective had $10 billion now that will be taken from there. $12 
billion from Medicaid. You are not fair to the poor, you are certainly 
not fair to seniors, and, in fact, you are really cruel to the most 
vulnerable people in the community.
  Yes, this may sound like rhetoric, but it is the basic truth. You are 
also cruel to veterans. It is cruel that you would treat veterans, 
those who protect this country, in the way they have.
  Mr. Chairman, I support fair cuts, and most Americans do. In the 
Spratt substitute that will be offered tomorrow, there will be $30 
billion in fair tax cuts. Fair tax cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I will also tell you, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) tells you where those offsets will be. It is paid for. 
There is no ambiguity around it, no mirrors and smoke.
  I suppose fairness is to be for certain citizens and not for others. 
We should have a budget resolution that speaks to the needs of all 
America, including all citizens, not just some of the citizens. And 
this program does not do that, because in addition to the $10 billion 
coming from welfare, what we call assistance to the dependent children, 
in addition to that, food stamps will be cut, training, welfare-to-work 
will be cut, WIC will be cut, LIHEAP will be cut, Title I education 
will also be cut.
  By repealing our vital education programs, the Republican plan just 
fails to understand that the American people put education first as 
their main priority.
  The Spratt commitment, yes, it does have a new initiative. The new 
initiative says 75,000 new teachers. Again, you say that is spending 
more. Yes, but he tells you how that will be paid for. $10 billion over 
5 years, $2 billion a year, and it is paid for. That is not spending 
more money. It is simply changing the priorities to speak to the needs 
of the people.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, much of our debate tonight

[[Page H4156]]

has focused on the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican majority's 
budget, on its failure to reserve the surplus, its failure to ensure 
the future of Social Security and to reduce the national debt, its 
failure to take account of the huge transportation bill we just passed, 
its failure in double counting the savings from veterans health care 
and Social Service accounts.
  But the Republican budget is not only fiscally unrealistic and 
irresponsible, it also gets the priorities wrong, and that is what I 
want to address in the few minutes that I have tonight.
  It gets the priorities wrong. I want to stress one priority, 
education, which is number one in my district and number one to me 
personally and which represents an investment in the future of our 
children and our country.
  The Republican budget would cut the education and training portion of 
our budget by some $4.4 billion below, below, the balanced budget 
agreement.
  Details are few and far between, but the Republicans claim to find 
savings by consolidating higher education programs. While the budget 
promises to increase Pell grants, there is no way of telling what might 
be cut in order to achieve that. Will work study be cut? Will State 
student incentive grants be eliminated? Will the Republican budget 
limit the access to higher education that is the key to a higher 
standard of living, that is the key to equipping people to meet their 
goals and better serve their families and serve their communities?

                              {time}  0040

  The House has just passed a Higher Education Act which promises to 
open up opportunities, and yet this budget takes little or no account 
of that.
  In the area of elementary and secondary education, the Republicans 
propose to repeal the current Title I program and create a voucher 
program in its place. Title I provides opportunities for disadvantaged 
young children who are the most vulnerable in our society. The 
Republican budget will put Federal efforts to meet the needs of these 
at-risk children in jeopardy. Education is the key to equal 
opportunity.
  The House Republican budget would do more damage to the goal of 
expanding opportunity than any budget in recent memory. The Democratic 
budget, by contrast, is fiscally responsible, and it recognizes the 
priority we place on education.
  It includes the provision to reduce the classroom size in this 
country in grades one through three with the hiring of 75,000 new 
teachers. It provides tax credits to enable working parents to afford 
good child care. It provides a tax break so that school districts can 
more easily finance the bonds necessary to modernize and build schools. 
These modest initiatives are all paid for, and not a penny, not a penny 
comes from the surplus.
  The Democratic budget is consistent with the balanced budget 
agreement and observes the budgetary rules that have produced surpluses 
and a booming economy. It gets our country's priorities straight, 
including the education of our children. I urge support for the 
Democratic alternative.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, there has been some talk about whether or 
not we are defending the Republican budget and whether we are proud of 
it. I am very proud of this budget. This budget does set the right 
priorities and takes this country in the right direction. If there were 
a little more truth on this floor and a little less rhetoric, perhaps 
we would see that.
  We have heard our colleagues on the other side say time after time 
after time that this budget cuts spending. Let me make it very clear. 
Nowhere outside of this beltway that surrounds this city is an increase 
in spending from $7.8 trillion over 5 years up to $9.0 trillion a cut. 
It is simply not a cut. We cannot go from $7.8 up to $9.0 and call it a 
cut. So let us get that point of truth on the record to begin with.
  Then let us go to what this debate is really about, because it really 
is a very simple debate. It is a simple debate between their belief in 
bigger government and higher taxes because they do not trust people; 
our belief in a slightly smaller, more efficient government with lower 
taxes because we do trust people.
  That is the fundamental debate going on here tonight. They want to 
reach deeper into the pockets of the American people and take more 
money out so that they can spend it because they do not trust Americans 
to spend their own money.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) talks about a $30 
billion tax cut in his budget. Unfortunately, that just is not true. 
There is not a $30 billion tax cut in the Spratt budget because there 
is not a $1 billion cut in the Spratt budget, because there is not a 
one penny tax cut in the Spratt budget.
  Because do you know what the Spratt budget does? It raises taxes on 
some Americans by $30 billion and includes a sense of the Congress that 
we ought to give that $30 billion back. Do you know what? The American 
people are going to figure that out. If we raise taxes on some by $30 
billion and we lower it on others by $30 billion, that is a net tax cut 
of zero, not a net tax cut of $30 billion.
  So how does that fit into the scheme? That fits into the scheme that 
they want more of the American people's money, and we want to leave 
more of the American people's money with them.
  The President, the President told us in 1994, right after I got 
elected, that we could not balance America's budget in 7 years; and we 
shut down the government over that fight. Three years later, I am proud 
to be standing here, and we did not balance it in 7 years, we balanced 
it in 3 years. They brag about the surplus, the surplus their President 
fought us tooth and nail over.
  Let us talk about the President and his record. He says the era of 
big government is over. Do you know why? Because for him the era of 
bigger government had just begun. In his budget, which they do not have 
the guts to propose, taxes go up by $130 billion. New spending goes up 
by $150 billion.
  There are 39 new entitlement programs. They talk about controlling 
entitlement spending, but their President proposes 39 new entitlement 
programs. Do you want to burden the American people? That is the way to 
do it. And 85 new additional programs.
  Let us talk about the other issue that has really gotten to them 
tonight, and that is the fact that this is a 1 percent cut in spending. 
That has really bugged them all night long. They have come to the floor 
and said, by, gosh, this is a fraud to call it a 1 percent cut. Do you 
know what? In a technical sense, they are right, because it is not a 
cut in spending.
  Spending is going up. In our budget, it goes up at about the rate of 
inflation. In their budget, it goes up dramatically above the rate of 
inflation. They want bigger. They want more. They want deeper into the 
people's pockets because they think only government is the answer. But 
do you know what? Our budget is a 1 percent reduction in the planned 
increase in spending.
  My friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) just said it: 
Well, take a 1-inch notch out of a belt that is 9 feet 1 inch long. I 
think the American people understand we can do that, and they are darn 
proud of us for trying and darn proud of this budget for doing it. It 
is a 1 percent cut. Deal with it.
  Now, details. They say, oh, we lack all the details. There is a 
process for details. It is damned if we do and damned if we do not. 
They want to see the details because they want to ridicule the details.
  Then they do not want to deal with the fact that the process here 
says the budget resolution is supposed to set numbers. The details are 
supposed to come from the appropriators and the authorizers. In this 
case, that is the process we are going to follow, and it is the process 
the American Constitution and the laws and the rules that govern this 
Congress are arranged to deal with and are designed to deal with.
  They believe in government. We believe in people. Do you know what? 
The American people sent us here to do that.
  The Spratt budget says one more thing. It says that in the balanced 
budget agreement of last year we set a spending floor. Do not go below 
it by a dime. Do not try to save another penny.

[[Page H4157]]

  Do you know, I have a family that I run. In my family, in the Shadegg 
family, because we built a budget last year, we do not quit trying to 
save money next year. Do you know what? In every family budget in 
America, if they can figure out a way to save a little bit more money 
next year, they try to do it.
  In every business in America, the entire rubric is efficiency. 
Produce more with less. That is what the genius of America is about. 
But inside the beltway, inside the Congress, inside this highway, 
inside this House, the only thing we can do is more means more means 
more means spend more. It means reach into the pockets of the American 
people deeper, and it is wrong.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me respond with respect to the tax cuts. We 
see a code replete with deductions and credits and exemptions and 
preferences and concessions, and most of them work to the advantage of 
well-heeled taxpayers. We are saying in this resolution to the 
Committee on Ways and Means, can you not give the code a scrub and see 
if you cannot tilt the code a little bit more in favor of working 
families so we can increase the child tax credit, and, yes, mitigate 
the marital penalty? Can we not do that within the code?
  Let me say something about the growth of government. I am reading 
from a CBO report, the Economic and Budget Outlook of the Government. 
Discretionary spending once again. When President Clinton came to 
office in 1993 it was $540 billion. Last year it was $548 billion, 
1997. In 4 years it grew by $8 billion.
  Let me remind my colleagues again, the middle of the Reagan years, 
1986, the government was taking 23 cents out of every dollar made in 
this economy. Today it is down, under the Clinton administration, to 
19.9 cents, down three full percentage points.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.