[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 107 (Wednesday, September 13, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7563-H7569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               REASONS FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my special order, I 
would like to address the remarks of one of my colleagues just 
previously on a 5-minute. He made a statement that Governor Bush would 
replace Medicare with insurance companies. I have never heard something 
so laughable. Are the Democrats so desperate that they have got to spin 
something that is absolutely not true?
  Mr. Speaker, I have never heard something so ridiculous. The 
gentleman may speak of his own opinion, but I would say that the 
gentleman is factually challenged. First, 70 percent of Americans have 
insurance, both for healthcare or for prescription drugs, and they want 
to keep that. Unfortunately, there is a large portion of the American 
population that has neither healthcare nor prescription drugs.
  Governor Bush wants to make sure that those people are taken care of. 
But if the Democrats can demagog insurance companies or biotech 
companies, then what is left to pick up the void? Only big government, 
Hillary Clinton-type of healthcare and prescription drugs, and that is 
exactly what Al Gore does.
  He has a one-size-fits-all, big government solution. Now, I have 
traveled all over the country with Governor Bush, and I know not only 
what he says, but I know what is in his heart. While the Democrats 
increased veterans healthcare by zero in the last budget, Republicans 
put in a $1.7 billion increase.
  Governor Bush not only wants to keep the promises to our veterans for 
healthcare that has been given for many, many years, but he wants to 
also make sure that that percentage of Americans who do not have 
healthcare have supplement to their Medicare. What does the Federal 
employee have? And that is FEHBP, the Federal Employees Health Benefit 
Plan, which is a supplement to Medicare. That is what he has said, that 
is what he talks about in every speech, nothing about replacing 
Medicare with insurance companies, at least do not demagog, at least do 
not make up stories that are absolutely not true.
  If my colleagues want to talk about facts in the Social Security 
Trust Fund and Medicare trust fund, do we remember the Clinton-Gore 
budget, they said well, we want to take 100 percent of the Social 
Security trust fund and put it for Social Security and all of the 
surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, weeks later, they came back and said oh, not so fast we 
want to take 62 percent and put it into Social Security, we want to 
take 15 percent of the surplus and put it into Medicare. What they did 
not tell us is that the Clinton-Gore budget took every dime out of the 
Social Security trust fund, put it up here for new spending. They 
increased taxes $241 billion for new spending, to justify their budget 
and their balanced budget.
  We said no, Mr. President, no, Mr. Vice President, that we are going 
to put the Social Security trust fund into a lockbox so that 
politicians cannot touch it, that you cannot keep increasing the debt 
and you cannot keep spending it. So if my colleagues want to talk about 
facts, that is a fact.
  Another fact is that Republicans brought that budget to the floor to 
show what a sham it was. Mr. Speaker, do we know how many Democrats 
voted for that budget, because we wanted them to vote for it, to show 
that they supported increase in taxes, to show that they supported 
raiding the Social Security trust fund, to show what a sham that the 
budget was. Do we know how many Democrats supported it? Only four.
  Yet, Al Gore uses that budget as the basis, and I quote Al Gore, I 
use this budget as the basis for my plan, which spends every cent and 
more of the surplus. It dips in and raids the Social Security trust 
fund. It increases the taxes on the American people. And when my 
colleagues want to talk about facts, that is a fact.
  The reason that I stepped up from my special order was that I was in 
Los Angeles for the Democrat convention. I was on television. I was on 
radio to see the spin, and it is probably the reason why there is an 
article in the Washington Post, which is not exactly a conservative 
paper, about, it is still the economy stupid, by David Broder. And it 
says that during the past 8 years Lieberman said in the convention, we 
have created more than 4 million new businesses, 22 million new jobs, 
the lowest inflation in a generation, the lowest African American, 
Hispanic unemployment rate in history, the strongest economy in a 224-
year history of the United States of America. He could have added that 
real incomes for even the poorest Americans began to improve and 
poverty rate declined.

                              {time}  1730

  But what David Broder goes on to say is, ``But it wasn't until the 
Republicans took over Congress in 1995 that the goal of a balanced 
budget came into view, that the economy increased at a much higher rate 
than under the 1993 tax increase.''
  The Democrats in their convention said, well, if you loved the last 8 
years of the economy, you need to put us back. That is what I want to 
talk about, Mr. Speaker.
  First of all, the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert), went to see the Vice President and the President last 
night. They asked if the President would set aside 90 percent of the 
surplus to reduce the debt. We pay nearly $1 billion a day on the 
national debt, Mr. Speaker. The President agreed.
  They walked away saying, hey, we will take the other 10 percent, we 
will debate in Congress, we will work back and forth as to how the 10 
percent of the surplus is spent, whether it is for tax relief or 
increased spending in other areas, like prescription drugs.
  But when he got away, and I will quote here, now when Republicans say 
we want to lock away 90 percent of the next year's surplus, according 
to today's edition of the New York Times, ``Mr. Clinton told 
Republicans he viewed paying down the debt as a priority, but said he 
was not sure it could be done in the 2001 fiscal year.''
  Does that sound like the balanced budget? It could be done in 12 
years, it

[[Page H7564]]

could be done in 2 years, it could be done in 4 years, it could be done 
in 8 years, and now already the White House is reneging on putting the 
money in to pay off the national debt. I think it is ridiculous.
  The point is, when the Democrats claim that economic prosperity is 
due to their efforts, I reject that, Mr. Speaker; and I set out to show 
the reasons why from fact, from budget legislation, and the lack of 
budget legislation.
  First of all, not a single White House or Democrat budget since the 
Republicans took over the majority in 1994 has ever passed either the 
House or the Senate. As a matter of fact, we brought the Democratic 
White House budgets to the floor just to embarrass the Democrats, to 
show what a sham the Clinton-Gore budget was.
  In 1993, they did pass their budget, because they had control of the 
House, the Senate and the White House, and I will address that in just 
a minute. In 1994, the House voted 223 to 175 and the Senate 57 to 40 
to pass their budget. But in 1995, Republicans took over and talked 
about balancing the budget for the first time.
  In 1996, the budget from the White House failed 117 to 304. In 1997, 
in the Senate it failed 45 to 53. In 1998 there was no vote. There was 
a vote on the Democrat budget; and the Blue Dogs, and, by the way, I 
would say that the Blue Dogs, against the liberal leadership of the 
House, had some pretty good ideas and some ideas that we could accept 
unanimously; but the President would veto it, and the Democrat 
leadership would fight against it.
  In 1999 we brought the budget forward from the White House, and only 
two Democrats supported it, because, again, it raided the Social 
Security trust fund, it increased taxes, it broke the budget, and it 
increased the national debt.
  I would say that when the Democrats claim that they are responsible 
for the economy, and not a single one of their economic plans or 
budgets ever passed, I would say that that is a sham, Mr. Speaker. Yet 
the Democrats will go back and say, well, it was the 1993 tax increase. 
They refer to it as their 1993 economic package.
  But after I go through this, I will also show in this newspaper 
article and every newspaper article within the country, liberal and 
conservative, it says the Al Gore economic plan would spend all of the 
projected Federal surplus of more than $4 trillion and run up a deficit 
of $900 billion over 10 years, no cushion at all, $900 billion in the 
hole.
  Does that sound familiar? It sounds familiar to 40 years of Democrat 
control of the House, in which in 1993 the President's budget projected 
deficits of $200 billion every year throughout and beyond, and also 
increased taxes every single year and raided the Social Security trust 
fund every single year.
  I would say that the 1993 package that they claim, they say, well, 
Republicans, not a single Republican voted for the Democrat tax 
package. Again, they say ``economic plan.'' Why did we not, Mr. 
Speaker? I think the American people need to know.
  First of all, the 1993 Democrat tax increase was the largest tax 
increase in history, across the board. The first tax they promised a 
targeted tax relief plan, and does this not sound familiar with what 
they are doing today on the liberal leadership of the Democrats? They 
said, we want a targeted tax relief plan for middle-class Americans.
  First of all, this body should never use the term ``middle class,'' 
because there are no low class, there are no middle class, and there 
are no upper-class citizens in this country. There are low-income 
citizens, there are middle-income citizens, and high-income citizens; 
but the other side continually uses the term ``class warfare'' to get 
their point across. I think that is wrong.
  But they promised a middle-income tax cut, and they could not help 
themselves. In 1993 they increased the taxes on the middle class. Why? 
Because it means power, Mr. Speaker. It means power to rain down more 
and more money to their districts so they can come back here and get 
reelected and maintain the majority like they did for 40 years.
  But finally the American people had enough, and in 1994-1995 they 
said we are going to let the Republicans try and let them for the first 
time in 40 years control the House. Now we control the Senate as well.
  The tax increase in 1993, why did we not support it? Because it took 
every cent out of the Social Security trust fund, just like they had 
for 40 years prior, to use up here for additional spending. In all the 
budgets, even after Republicans took the majority, the Clinton-Gore 
budget raided the Social Security trust fund, put it up here for new 
spending, increased taxes for new spending, and then put a little bit 
back into the Social Security trust fund or put in an IOU.
  What did that do, Mr. Speaker? It increased the national debt, at the 
same time making the Social Security-Medicare trust fund insolvent. 
Republicans said, No, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President. We are going 
to put the Social Security trust fund into a lockbox, to where it 
accrues interest. Instead of increasing the debt, it is going to pay 
down the national debt by the year 2013.
  Now, Al Gore in his budget tries to take claim for this. They did in 
the Democrat convention. It is not true. They fought it tooth, hook and 
nail, every single part of the way, because they wanted to use that 
extra money for spending. I think that is wrong.
  Why did we not vote for the 1993 tax increase from Clinton-Gore? 
Because it cut the veterans' COLAs. You want to talk about priorities? 
Our veterans that served this country, in many cases departed from 
their families, not knowing if they are coming back, their families are 
penalized. They have to move several times during their career, they 
cannot invest, their children are ripped out of schools. But yet to 
balance the budget, or to put their budget plan into effect, they even 
cut the COLAs, which is a tax increase on our veterans.
  If that was not enough, they cut the military COLAs for our active 
duty military, the people that need it the most, that are getting 
shifted around all over this country. Then they cut defense, $127 
billion, after Colin Powell and Dick Cheney told the President that a 
$50 billion cut would put our military into a hollow force.
  Why did we not support the Clinton-Gore 1993 tax increase? Remember 
that it increased the gas tax? They even had a retroactive tax. Most 
people forget about that. Remember the First Lady changed their income 
tax form so she could benefit from the retroactive tax?
  Remember the gas tax went to a general fund? Why, instead of a 
transportation fund? So that they could take the Social Security trust 
fund, they could take the increase in taxes, including the 18 cents 
Federal tax into a general fund and use it for new spending. And we 
said, No, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President. We are going to take that 
gas tax, and we are going to put it into a transportation trust; and 
many Republicans and Democrats and States have benefited from that, 
because the money, instead of going to new social spending, failed 
social spending, has gone to improve our roads and highways in this 
country, including my own California, which is a donor State when it 
comes to taxes, and not the general fund.
  But remember in 1993 also the Clinton-Gore team tried to pass 
government controlled health care. It was rejected by all Americans. 
Remember the $16 billion pork-barrel package? I do. I was here. It had 
payback for people that had voted for the Clinton-Gore team. It put 
parking garages in Puerto Rico, swimming pools in Florida. I mean, it 
was ridiculous.
  In that, the deficits were projected at $200 billion and beyond 
forever. Did we vote for it? No.
  First of all, the Social Security tax increase, we rescinded that and 
did away with it. The tax for the middle class, we have given education 
IRAs, we have given education savings accounts, we have given R&D tax 
credits, we have given capital gains tax credits, which the Democrats 
said were all for the rich. They fought tooth, hook and nail. Yet at 
the convention I see the Vice President claiming credit for education 
IRAs, when they fought against them tooth, hook and nail. They said it 
was a tax only for the rich. The $500 deduction per child, remember 
that side, it is only a deduction for the rich, just like the death tax 
and the marriage penalty. It is only a tax break for the rich.
  Tax breaks they cannot stand. Why, Mr. Speaker? A tax break is a 
sense of

[[Page H7565]]

power, money in the Federal Government. A surplus that is not given 
back to the American people is power to spend, power to spend for 
constituents, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, down to your 
district, so you can get reelected; and they will resist tax breaks in 
any single way. Even the promise of middle-class or middle-income tax 
workers and Americans, they rejected it. They increased the tax. They 
just cannot help themselves in that.
  The Social Security trust fund, we said no. Lockbox. Veterans' COLAs, 
we restored that, on a bipartisan basis, by the way, against Clinton's 
and Gore's wishes. The military COLAs, we reinstated that. We have 
replaced somewhat of the defense. The increase in taxes at the highest 
level in history, we have done away with much of that. The gas tax, as 
I mentioned, we put into a trust fund. We took the health care plan and 
we benefited many Americans, but we have still got a long ways to go.
  So, for the Democrats to say that they are responsible for the 
economy, first of all, when not a single one of their budgets or 
economic plans have ever cleared the House or the Senate, outside when 
they controlled this body, and the 1993 tax increase that most of it 
has been rescinded, it is a little bit ridiculous for them to claim 
credit for the economy.

                              {time}  1745

  It is impossible. It is illogical.
  Economic principles. We say well, what has not and what has, in my 
opinion, and 99 percent of the economists contributed to a better 
economy for all Americans.
  First of all, when we took the majority, in our 1995 budget, even 
before that, with the Contract With America, we said we are going to 
balance the budget. Do not listen to me or to the Democrats, or to any 
of the leadership; listen to what Alan Greenspan said. He said, and I 
quote, just by speaking about balancing the budget and the potential 
for the Congress of the United States to balance the budget will reduce 
interest rates across the board. And what do interest rates mean to the 
American people?
  I have a family, a young man that just got married. He is looking 
into homes. Here is a chart I pulled out of the Washington Post, and it 
is on home-buying, Mr. Speaker. Take a $140,000 house, and most people 
would like to find a $140,000 house today. But at 5 percent interest, 
one's payments are about $1,000. If one has 8.5 percent, which is about 
what the prime is today, one is paying $1,400 a month for one's 
payment. If it is 10 percent, one is paying almost $1,600 a month. That 
is real savings to the American people, when one is buying a home.
  I just sent my daughter off to Yale. I cannot tell my colleagues how 
expensive that is. She scored a perfect 1600 on her SAT, and she wants 
to be a doctor. But if interest rates are important to the American 
people, and the balanced budget is the primary cause of interest rates 
going lower, according to Alan Greenspan, the head of the Fed, then 
that is an economic principle that we want to adopt.
  Who fought against it, Mr. Speaker? The Clinton-Gore administration 
was here in this House fighting day by day to fight against the 
balanced budget because it limited the amount that they could spend and 
to regain a majority, and that is just wrong. But in 1997, after 2 
years of demagoguery, the President finally came to the table with 
Republicans, against the wishes of the liberal Democrat leadership on 
this side. They still fought it tooth, hook and nail, fought a balanced 
budget, because their leadership saw that, well, that will take away 
their ability to retake a majority, and that was more important to them 
than a balanced budget and the economy of this country. The President 
signed a budget agreement. I give him credit for that.
  A second principle is that the government should keep its books in 
order and cut wasteful spending. In the Washington Times today, it 
listed 4 government agencies responsible for $21 billion, actually 
$20.7, close enough, of fraud, and one-half of that fraud was in 
Medicare. I would say, whether it is the Education Department that only 
gets about 48 cents less than half of the dollars down to the classroom 
because of the bureaucracy, and that the IRS and GAO have been unable 
to audit; as a matter of fact, it is unauditable, that there is fraud, 
waste and abuse there. We look at food stamps or HUD, and yes, Mr. 
Speaker, Defense. I can go through and point out fraudulent and 
wasteful spending in Defense, which I am a hawk; well, maybe a dove 
that is fully armed. But there is wasteful spending, and that should be 
part of the principles of reducing and helping this country to economic 
prosperity.
  Tax relief for working people. Mr. Speaker, if someone has a $500 
deduction per child or they can have an IRA in which they can set aside 
$2,000 a year, which the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) set 
forth so that working families could set aside money. If one has a 
child, when he is born, by the year he is 10 years old, at $2,000 a 
year, well, we would say that would be $20,000, but with compound 
interest, it is almost $40,000 a year by the time that child is 10 
years old. One can use it for special education, for special needs, one 
can use it for books, for tutoring, or one can leave it in the trust 
fund for higher education.
  But yet, that was rejected by the Clinton-Gore administration, and 
now the Vice President is trying to say it was his idea, when they 
rejected it, and that is wrong. But tax relief for working families, 
they get a little more money in their pockets, and maybe they can go 
out and buy a car, and car dealers like that. Maybe they go out and buy 
a double cheeseburger, double fries, to spread the money around a 
little bit. It is called micro and macroeconomics, that one has more 
money and they will spend it or at least set it aside and save it.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side have never seen a 
tax increase they do not like, or will they ever support a tax 
decrease? No. At least some of my colleagues will, but the liberal 
Democrat leadership on that side fights it tooth, hook and nail every 
single day.
  Less government spending. If we have less bureaucracy; for example, 
about 4,000 workers in the Department of Education, and we only get 
less than half of that money down to the classroom because of the 
bureaucracy, Federal education spending. I used to be the chairman on 
the authorization committee. Only about 7 percent of funding from the 
Federal government gets down to the States for Federal education 
programs. But yet, in most States, it takes more than half of the 
States' administrative body to manage that 7 percent of Federal 
education dollars. And the other paperwork, by the time we go back and 
forth with all of the different requirements, then we have even less 
than that to spend on the classroom, whether it is for construction, 
whether it is for teacher pay, whether it is for technology, or 
whatever it is.
  So another principle should be not just to cut wasteful spending, but 
those items in which we have priorities for, Social Security, Medicare, 
prescription drugs, education, that the maximum amount of dollars 
should go to those groups that we are trying to help, not a bureaucracy 
in Washington. But the era of big government is not over. In Al Gore's 
budget plan we see government with 48 new government agencies in the 
Clinton-Gore budget last time. In the one prior to that, it was 115 new 
government agencies. They cannot bring themselves to cut the budget.
  When they say, look at the number of government officials that have 
been reduced, we know that 90 percent of those Federal employees are 
defense and defense-related industries, not the civilian workforce.
  Another principle should be to pay down the debt. Paying $1 billion a 
day, nearly $1 billion a day is robbing our children of their future 
and putting a debt burden on their backs that we as adults and Members 
of Congress should not do. We have paid down, in every single year, the 
debt when again, the Clinton-Gore budgets have increased the deficit by 
over $200 billion, including the present Gore plan. Just read all of 
the papers, look at all of the economists. He spends every bit of the 
Social Security trust; he spends every bit of the surplus and increases 
taxes at the same time, and guess what? The debt goes up again.
  Budgets for education. People say, look across the land. My wife was 
a teacher, a principal, and now she is a district administrator for the 
school

[[Page H7566]]

district. My sister-in-law, Carolyn Nunes, is the district 
administrator for all of San Diego city schools for special education. 
Allen Buerson, who was a Clinton employee before, is now the 
superintendent of San Diego city schools. Guess what? He is in the real 
world and now he is fighting for Republican principles of getting the 
dollars down to him so that he can make the decisions, so that the 
teachers, the parents and the administrators can make a decision on 
what happens to their dollars.
  We passed a bill on the House Floor called Ed Flex. The liberals over 
here fought against it, because again, they want government control of 
health care, they want government control of education, they want 
government control of private property; they want the highest taxes 
possible so that they can keep that power and have bigger 
bureaucracies. But yet, Allen Buerson says, we need the money more down 
to the classroom, and I support Allen Buerson who is a Democrat and 
also the superintendent of schools for San Diego city schools, and I 
think he is doing a good job.
  But let me give my colleagues an idea, Mr. Speaker, of the sham that 
the Democrats run and why it is so difficult for the American people to 
see the differences.
  First of all, we have talked about the President's budget. Democrats 
did not vote for it. But yet, they will use the President's budget 
number of $1.1 billion for special education. When the Democrats had 
control of the House, the most money ever spent on the authorized 
amount was 6 percent for special education. If one includes the money 
for Medicaid, that has gone up to about 18 percent for special 
education. In this budget, the Republican budget, we increase special 
education by $550 million. But yet, the budget that none of the 
Democrats voted for because it increased taxes, stole Social Security 
trust, and the only way they got up to the $1.1 figure was to use that, 
those gimmicks, and say that Republicans are cutting special education, 
when we have actually increased it more than they ever did and 
increased it by $550 million over the amount. I think that is wrong, to 
use that kind of smoke and mirrors.
  In education, for many, many years they put trillions of dollars into 
education programs. When I was subcommittee chairman on the 
authorization committee, I had 16 groups come in before me and testify. 
Every one of the 16 had the absolute best program that could be 
envisioned for their district. It worked. It was helping children to 
learn or it was helping special needs children or even at-risk 
children. Even Bishop McKinney, who has a Catholic school for abused 
children and at-risk children, came in and testified.
  After the hearing, I asked each of them which one of the other 15 had 
any one of the other programs in their district. They looked at each 
other, and not a single one. We said, that is the whole idea. We are 
trying to get in a block grant the money to you so that you, if you 
live in Wisconsin, this program may work best for you, but yet, the 
teachers, the parents, the principals and the community can make the 
decision of how that money is spent. We believe that with all of our 
hearts, that those dollars are best served by not a bureaucrat here, 
not a union boss telling them how they have to spend those dollars, but 
that it gets to them in the classroom.
  The second thing was the education flex bill, the President wanted 
100,000 teachers. We said 100,000 teachers, but the first half of that, 
there was not the quality, because many of those teachers were not even 
certified. As a matter of fact, in the State of California, many of 
them, after they were hired, have to be fired, because they could not 
teach in the subject that they were supposed to be trained in. We said 
no. To hire new teachers, first of all, with Federal dollars, there has 
to be quality associated with it. We think that is right too. That 
decision again should be made at a local level in how to do that.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, the principles of a balanced budget, lower interest 
rates, lower inflation, making sure that the Federal government puts 
its house in order and its books in order, making sure that if a 
government is wasteful, that it is eliminated, or at least fixed, they 
are important.
  A good example is Head Start. Just like those 16 programs, many of my 
liberal friends would say, let us do all 16 programs, let us do them; 
not mean, not malicious. But in doing that, they would put all of those 
programs under the Department of Education. Each one would have a 
bureaucracy. Like Head Start and Easy Start and many of the programs, 
there was underfunding. They were doomed to fail.
  We think that the best decisions should be made at the local level. 
We think that is right, too. Under a balanced budget, if Alan Greenspan 
says that interest rates are largely the reason for economic 
advancements in this country, that low inflation is important, that 
capital gains reductions have stimulated the economy and created jobs, 
then I think that is good.
  But if we have liberal leadership on the other side that fights those 
issues in both their budgets and in the 1993 tax bill, then I think 
that we need to make the analysis of who is responsible for the 
economy.
  Again, I would say that the Blue Dogs, and my colleague here on the 
budget has worked. I want to go through this. I have fought for 2 weeks 
on this. But I would say, my colleague on the other side has some real 
good ideas, and ones that I personally accepted. The overall budget I 
thought was bad, but I would say that many of those issues that the 
gentleman brought forward were very valuable.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, would my friend yield for a minute? Any 
minute that I take from the gentleman, any minute I take I will be 
happy to give to the gentleman afterwards.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for his compliments. I do not 
want to interrupt the gentleman now, but I would sincerely say, 
whatever time I take, I hope the gentleman would stick around and use a 
part of my hour, because I think a little dialogue between the two of 
us might be helpful.
  I know the gentleman does not mean to misrepresent. He believes what 
he is saying, just as I would believe what we are saying. I think we 
could clear up the record a little bit if we have a dialogue. I will 
yield some time to the gentleman when my hour comes in a moment, and 
hope the gentleman will stick around.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, we have the 
Sportsman's Caucus dinner tonight that I am going to hustle over to, 
but I will stick around maybe the first 5 minutes.
  I would say again, many of my colleagues on the other side, 
especially the Blue Dog budgets most of us on this side could adopt, 
but we could not go along with the liberal leadership from the 
gentleman's party or the White House. As a matter of fact, most of the 
gentleman's people could not vote for them when they were brought 
forward on the House floor by Republicans.
  The President, as I mentioned, in 1997 signed the balanced budget 
agreement, but each one of those budgets following they increased 
taxes, they took money out of the social security trust fund, and they 
increased the debt by using false assumptions.
  I would be the first one to say that there were many of the 
assumptions in the Republican budgets that we disagreed with. That is 
the way it worked.
  But I think the overall factors of a balanced budget, tax relief for 
working families, social security, tax reduction so people could have 
their own money, not taking the money out of the social security trust, 
education IRAs, a $500 deduction per child, capital gains reductions, 
and even my own 21st century bill that allowed businesses to donate 
their computers to a nonprofit, that company then took that computer, 
which is still in effect, by the way, they take that computer to a 
military brig or a prison system, they work on it, they hand that 
computer over to the school as a full-up round. It is a win-win for the 
budget, it is a win-win for education, it is a win-win for our penal 
system, and it sure is for our businesses, because they get to write 
off the tax and invest in new computers and then cycle those computers 
back into the education process.

[[Page H7567]]

  I think the Republican budget strategy has been clearly successful: 
balancing the budget, tax relief, cutting wasteful spending.
  If Members will look at the economist, Lawrence Kudlow, he says, 
``Declining inflation has been a pervasive tax cut for all Americans. 
The effect throughout the economy is in boosting real incomes.''
  Alan Greenspan said that long-term interest rates have declined 
drastically since the balanced budget and have enabled us to stimulate 
the economy. ``It has been the first decline in long-term interest 
rates which, perhaps more than anything else in our economy, has been a 
factor which has been driving this reality quite extraordinarily, 
economic expansion.''

  That is a direct quote by Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Alan Greenspan also credited 
this decline largely to Congress's determined effort to balance the 
Federal budget. He often advised Congress that financial markets would 
respond favorably to credible deficit reduction.
  Greenspan said, ``A substantial part of the very considerable decline 
in long-term interest rates has been a function of the decline of 
budget deficits, because it has removed pressures on the Federal 
government borrowing from the marketplace.'' That is where our debt 
goes up, as well; the reverse of what has happened with President 
Clinton's 1993 tax bill. A year after his tax increase was enacted, 
interest rates have moved up about 2\1/2\ percent, percentage points. 
The trend for real economic growth slowed.
  Interest rates peaked November 7, 1994. The next day, the national 
board set a new direction. They said that they wanted to stop the raid 
on the social security trust fund, they wanted to stop increased 
deficits and an increase in the debt.
  If we look at Vice President Gore's budget proposal, that is exactly 
what he goes back to. Look at the newspapers, look at the budget 
analysts. He spends every single penny of the surplus. We think that is 
wrong, Mr. Speaker.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had predicted that credible 
spending restraint would be rewarded with falling interest rates. I 
have already showed in the real estate market what that means to a 
young family that wants to buy a new home.
  Real wages actually declined after the 1993 tax increase, and I think 
quite often we speak too much of numbers, but 0.5 percent. Is a 
balanced budget just numbers?
  We speak that a lot here on the House floor: deficits, budgets, 
numbers, increases. But what it is is for real families. If a family 
has more in their pockets to spend, then they are going to set that 
money aside for their children. Unfortunately, in this country there 
are many of those families that are not responsible.
  When we have someone that is irresponsible, and let me give the 
Members an idea, in welfare reform, I had a doctor come into my office. 
He said, Duke, I had a lady come into my doctor's office. She had a 12-
year-old daughter. She wanted to know what was wrong with her 12-year-
old daughter, that she could not have a child. The mother had a 13-
year-old and a 14-year-old each with children. She wanted the extra 
welfare money.
  My father and my mother, I lost my dad about 5 years ago, the best 
dad in the whole world, but I never got a nickel allowance. I had to 
work for it. My father and my mother never missed an academic or an 
athletic event that either my brother or I attended, either at home or 
away. I had to go to church, like a lot of us, when I was young. I 
would have a lot rather been on some Sundays out with my buddies riding 
around, having a good time, but I had to go to church.
  I had to do my homework before I got to go out and play or be with my 
buddies when I got older. My mother and father that never had a chance 
to go to college said, you and your brother are going to college. You 
have no choice. Because my father said, his small definition of the 
American dream was that ``If we teach you the value of a dollar, that 
you have to earn it, we do not just give it to you, like government 
gives to many people in welfare; if we teach you a sense of the family, 
that we are there for your education, we are there for your events, 
that we care; if we force you to do your homework so that you can 
qualify for college and you get a college education,'' my father's 
small definition of the American dream is that, ``With those tools, you 
can make tomorrow better most days than it is today; not every day, but 
most days.''
  I would ask the Members, what chance at the American dream does that 
12-year-old, that 13-year-old, or that 14-year-old or their children, 
what chance would they have because the mother wanted more welfare 
money?
  The Clinton-Gore administration fought tooth, hook, and nail welfare 
reform. Governor Engler from Michigan, Tommy Thompson, from Wisconsin, 
had models. They brought them to us, on the Republican side. They said, 
this will work.
  Can Members imagine a parent coming home with a paycheck instead of a 
welfare check, what that means to a child in school? Guess what, those 
families, and the President takes credit now for welfare reform, and 
half of the people off of welfare rolls. But guess what, instead of 
welfare money being spent out of the government or unemployment, those 
people are working.
  Guess what, those tax rolls, they are paying money into the 
government by paying taxes instead of drawing from that. We think that 
is good. Has there been enough in that area? No. Is there enough 
training? No. There needs to be additional training. We agree on some 
of those issues on both sides.

  Yet, Clinton and Gore fought welfare reform tooth, hook, and nail. 
The liberal leadership on that side of the aisle fought welfare reform 
tooth, hook, and nail. Why? Trillions of dollars they put into welfare. 
The average for a welfare recipient was 16 years. In my opinion, many 
of our inner cities with the drug problems we have, the no hope in the 
inner cities, is from generations of people trapped in a welfare system 
with no hope on where to go.
  Yes, it is better to give a person a pole and teach them how to fish 
instead of giving them the fish. Yet, we are looking at an election 
where a contrast of a Governor that has balanced these budgets, working 
with Democrats on both sides of the aisle, to where in education he 
went into the school systems and said, ``What is wrong? Do you not have 
the technology? Are your teachers not trained? Why are my Hispanic and 
African-American children dropping out at high rates?''
  I think it was fair for him to go into the schools and say, ``Why? 
Whatever it is, our administration in Texas is going to fix it.''
  If we take a look at all the press accounts, the education, the 
educational system for minorities, is going up the highest of any 
State. I do not think it is fair, where the Democrats had control of 
Texas for 100 years, and looking across-the-board in the State of 
Texas. But I think it is fair to look at the differences between the 
time Governor Bush took over the education systems in Texas and what he 
has done for the State of Texas.
  I was on Heraldo with Al Sharpton, that was fun. I told Heraldo, I 
said, Mr. Heraldo, you spent your whole life reaching out, making sure 
that minorities have equality. Where you have someone like Governor 
Bush in Texas that has gone into the education system, and in my 
opinion education is the savior for a lot of things, for anticrime, for 
the economy, and for a child's benefit and a family's benefit. But I 
said, you have got someone that has proven in Texas what they have 
done, and they want to do the same thing for this great country. At 
least I would expect you to reach out and embrace that. Cut the cards, 
doublecheck what he says, but I have traveled with Governor Bush and I 
know he means it from his heart, and he has not only talked the talk 
but he has walked the walk.
  I would challenge all of the Members to reach out, especially in 
education, and get the bucks down to the classroom.
  Since we have had a balanced budget and Republicans took over, we had 
the second largest stock market boom in this century; we had 39 million 
new jobs, 11 million new business start-ups; the creation of $25.7 
trillion in new household wealth.
  I reject the Democrat convention where they say that the last 8 years 
they are responsible for the economy. The Greenspan policy of 
disinflation

[[Page H7568]]

has neutralized the Clinton tax increases. Low inflation has lowered 
capital gains, has led to an information technology explosion, fueling 
even more productivity, growth, and wealth creation.
  Nearly half of all Americans own at least $5,000 worth of stocks, 
bonds, or mutual funds. We should not tax those annuities.

                              {time}  1815

  We should reward work. We should reward savings, Mr. Speaker, unlike 
the Gore budget.
  American families treasure their ability to improve their condition 
throughout their own efforts. I think in our history there is no 
country in the world that has out-produced our workers if we give them 
a chance.
  On a sense of equal opportunity, is there in this country? Absolutely 
not. Has it gotten better? Yes, it has. Do we need to work in that 
direction? Yes, we do. Economic growth is not just about numbers; it is 
about the values on which America and its people thrive.
  Let me go through some of the things that I think have hurt our 
chances for the economy: first of all, by spending the Social Security 
trust fund; secondly, 149 deployments for our military in which our 
military was at a pretty sad state.
  We put $3 billion into Haiti. Go to Haiti. I challenge any Republican 
or Democrat to go there. Look between the airport and the embassy. 
There is an average of three murders a day on that highway, and 
carjackings. One can drive a semitruck into the holes; but yet we put 
money into Haiti. Do my colleagues know where the money is? Take a look 
at Arastide's bank account. But yet we have not done a thing in Haiti. 
But, yes, we lost some people there. We got kicked out of there.
  In Somalia, the same thing. We cannot fight a Kosovo and fly 86 
percent of all the missions just because the U.N. and NATO do not have 
the aircraft and the technology. Either they need to upgrade their 
aircraft and technology for standoff weapons or they need to pay the 
United States those billions of dollars that it costs us: $16 billion 
for Bosnia, the four times going into Iraq, bombing an asprin factory. 
At the same time, General Ryan told me we put a year's life on every 
one of our aircraft, a year's life, and which we have parts.
  What is happening today? We are only keeping in 22 percent of our 
enlisted into the military. I talked to the SEAL team commander 
yesterday. He has right the opposite. Those kids are motivated. They 
have increased their recruiting and retention; but yet they have 
problems in research and development and procurement. But when we only 
keep 22 percent of our enlisted, think about our experience level in 
maintenance.
  The average fighter in the Air Force is 18 years. Our bombers are 39 
years average age. I have got Marines carrying World War II radios. 
Yet, Mr. Lieberman says that our military is the best in the world.
  If we tell these kids to go somewhere, they are going to do it; and 
they are going to try and achieve. But that is not the point. A, they 
need the training.
  Do my colleagues know that, in Kosovo, the two helicopters that 
crashed, and one helicopter crew was killed, all of them, that those 
helicopter crews had never had a flight in a combat-loaded helicopter 
because they did not have the money to train with a combat loaded? They 
had never trained with night goggles because they could not get the 
goggles into the squadron. Both those helicopters crashed.
  Do my colleagues know Captain O'Grady that was shot down was not air 
combat qualified when he was shot down over Bosnia because they did not 
have the money for the training?
  Do my colleagues know that in the Navy and the Air Force we have no 
more adversary aircraft? The reason that I am alive today is because, 
when I fought against the MiGs in Vietnam, I had better training and 
better equipment. But the training today is substandard. We do not have 
those adversary aircraft.
  I just spoke to the COs in the fighter weapons schools in both 
services. The FMC rate, the full mission capable rate of our aircraft 
and our equipment has gone down. If we had to meet the minimums of a 
quadrennial review or bottoms-up review, we could not do it today. I 
think that is wrong.
  I think for the Clinton-Gore White House to drag our military through 
149 deployments, depreciate our men and our women and our equipment, 
cut their military and then the veterans' COLAs I think is wrong.
  I stand before my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, tonight. Are we perfect on 
the Republican side? Absolutely not. We have got a long way to go, I 
think, with our own budgets and everything else.
  But I do think the principles of Ronald Reagan of less taxes and 
smaller government, of making sure that government that is wasteful is 
eliminated, those principles are sound and go forward a long way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like first to associate myself with the 
gentleman's remarks as he has discussed the defense needs of this 
country and the needs that we need to follow through. I certainly want 
to join with him.
  But by the same token, I think it is important, and I say this now, 
anytime one starts pointing fingers, I was reminded that anytime one 
points one's finger, there are always three pointing back at one.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has been doing a lot 
of finger pointing at this side of the aisle, talking about liberal 
leadership.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in talking about the 
liberal leadership, many of my colleagues support some of the same 
things we want to do, including defense. But the leadership along with 
Clinton-Gore has fought welfare reform, they fought a balanced budget, 
they fought a lot of the initiatives we think are responsible for the 
economy.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, Presidents do 
not spend money. Congress appropriates.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. True.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the shortages that we allowed to happen in 
the defense needs of this country have originated in this House of 
Representatives, not the President. We both agree to that.
  Therefore, my concern about the current budget implications today is 
that, when my colleagues base their entire budget on a tax cut, and the 
newest one now that they have proposed, the gentleman's leadership has 
proposed, not the gentleman, there is no money left. If we take 90 
percent of the total unified budget and apply it to the debt, there is 
no money left this year to increase defense spending in those areas 
where the gentleman from California and I would agree. That is my 
problem. If my colleagues take it out 10 years, there is no money.
  Let me go back. The gentleman from California mentioned the Reagan 
years. I happen to be a Member that served here during that period of 
time. I happen to be a Democrat on this side of the aisle that helped 
pass much of the Reagan revolution.
  But I think it is important that we set in proper perspective, when 
we start comparing total outlays in spending as a percent of gross 
domestic product during the Reagan years was 21\1/2\ percent. It 
increased to 22 percent in the Bush years. It has dropped to 20 percent 
in the Clinton years, which the gentleman's side of the aisle had 
deserved some credit for bringing down the spending.
  But when one counts administrations, it is not correct to say that 
government has grown in the last 8 years. It has not. Federal 
employment has dropped from 2.1 million Federal employees during the 
Reagan years, went up to 2.2 million in the Bush years, and dropped to 
1.8 million in the Clinton years.
  I do not say that in defense, because I am much more interested in 
the future than I am in the past. I rejoice in the fact that we now 
have a surplus, that we are, in fact, discussing how we shall spend the 
surplus. During my hour, we are going to talk about this surplus is 
fictional. We cannot spend it like it is real money. It is projected.
  But discretionary spending, defense, defense spending, let me make 
this point to bear out what the gentleman has been saying as regards to 
defense. The Johnson years, oh, how we have

[[Page H7569]]

heard about those. Discretionary spending as a percent of gross 
domestic product was 12 percent. The Reagan years, it dropped to 9.5. 
The Bush years, it dropped to 8.5. The Clinton years, 6.8. Nondefense, 
though, 3.7. Johnson. Reagan, 3.5.

                          ____________________