[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 10, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
                       DISCUSSION ON THE SURPLUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). Under a 
previous order of the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion on 
the surplus, not just how to spend it but how we got here. Different 
people can take a different view of both, but I would like to point out 
some actual facts.
  First of all, in 1993, the White House under President Clinton, they 
had the House, the Senate and the White House. They gave us in 1993 
what the Democrats called an economic stimulus package, which raised 
taxes to the highest level ever on the American people, and they state 
that that brought us the surplus.
  I would claim that that is inaccurate. Because in 1995, when the 
Republicans took over the House and Senate, we rejected over 90 percent 
of that economic stimulus package. We are not even operating under that 
stimulus package.
  And what did that stimulus package do? It increased the tax on Social 
Security. It increased the tax on middle-income working families. I do 
not use the term ``middle-class.'' I do not think there is any such 
thing as a middle-class citizen. There are middle-income citizens. And 
for the first time, in 1995 we decreased the amount of tax on Social 
Security that the 1993 bill did. And when people fill out their tax 
forms this April, for the first time, they will receive a $400 
deduction per child. Next year that will go to $500 per child.
  They can also receive tax credits. But we repealed the 1993 bill to 
actually give more dollars back to working Americans instead of the 
Government itself.
  Take a look at welfare reform, when the Democrats said they were 
responsible for the deficit. First of all, the President vetoed the 
balanced budget. And I think we can all remember he said, well, it will 
take two years. It will take four years. It will take six. It will take 
eight. And finally, after the third time, he came around and signed it 
and gave us the same Medicare program that they put over $100 million 
in ads demonizing the Republicans for and he signed that. But for 40 
years they took money out of the Social Security account and paid for 
welfare.
  The President just said in his State of the Union, look, we have less 
than one half of the welfare rolls that we did before. Now, instead of 
government having to pay people on welfare and take out of the budget, 
now the Welfare to Work program, we have people actually working and 
contributing to the budget and adding to that. That is more money.
  The billions of dollars that we gave to welfare recipients, the 
average, Mr. Speaker, was 16 years, the average, on welfare. That is 
wrong. All of those savings and the quality of life for those families 
and for those children that were on welfare is better.
  Are there people that need welfare money? Absolutely. And we do not 
mind giving our tax dollars to that. But 16 years is too much. But yet 
many of the progressive caucus would just give more money and more 
money and more money without managing the program. That is what led a 
lot to the deficits that we had in the different budgets.
  If we take a look at the balanced budget, the balanced budget, 
according to Alan Greenspan, has lowered interest rates between 2 and 8 
percent. Look at what that has done to the markets and the increase in 
the markets, in the economy. Capital gains reductions paid for itself.
  If we take a look at the other tax breaks that we gave to American 
people so that they spent the dollars, not the government, the 
surpluses are due because the Republicans gave money back to working 
people instead of taking it away.

                          ____________________