[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 107 (Wednesday, September 13, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7569-H7572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     ONGOING SAGA OF BUDGET SURPLUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham).


               Reasons for Economic Prosperity in America

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First of all, I agree with the gentleman that it is 
Congress that spends money. Congress is responsible for the budgets 
that go forward. The President and the Vice President make 
recommendations. My point is that those recommendations have not been 
wise. The recommendations that we have made have been fought, whether 
it is welfare reform, balanced budget and so on.
  Secondly, the defense, we spent the money. I believe that, without 
the 1993 defense cuts, without the additional cuts, without the 149 
deployments which has mostly come in, and the gentleman from Texas I 
think would agree, comes out of operation and maintenance for the 
military, those cuts have come deep.
  There is also, fraud, waste, and abuse within DOD. We need to 
eliminate that as well, and I will work with the gentleman on that. But 
when it says that we are responsible for the state of the military, I 
disagree in the fact that we have been unable, whether it was extension 
of Somalia or Haiti or Kosovo and Bosnia, all of those different 
things, that that has put an additional toll on our military that we 
would not have had if we had not been forced into those peacekeeping 
missions. That is all I wanted to make a statement for.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) for that comment. Again, in that area, he and I are going 
to find that we agree a heck of a lot more than we disagree. But I wish 
he could stick around for the remaining hour because I would love to 
have a good honest discussion about where we might differ on some of 
how we get to that point. But maybe next time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to arm wrestle with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) or even the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) in the future.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).


      Marketing of Violence to Children by Entertainment Industry

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the kind gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) for yielding me a few brief moments here. I will not encroach 
on his time. I know he has been waiting. No one has been a finer leader 
on the issue of balancing our budget and getting the long-term debt and 
the annual deficits down than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). 
He has been a leader for all of us. So for him to yield me a few 
moments of his time this evening is a great privilege for me, and I 
thank the gentleman so very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to enter some remarks in the Record here 
concerning the recent ruling by the Federal Trade Commission that was 
highlighted in the New York Times yesterday and in every major 
newspaper around the country with the headline: ``Violence in the Media 
is Aimed at the Young, Federal Trade Commission says. Report finds 
pervasive and aggressive marketing of films and video games to our 
youth.''
  I am so concerned about this I will be sending parts of my remarks 
tonight to the gentleman who represents the motion picture industry 
here in Washington, Mr. Jack Valenti, along with the heads of all of 
our three major commercial networks, along with the heads of those that 
sponsor MTV in our country, to say that we are the most affluent 
society in the world; and yet we witness constantly school shootings, 
teens committing murders, first graders carrying guns into our schools 
to shoot fellow students.
  We can all ask ourselves what is happening deep inside this society 
and why do we have to read about children committing crimes, violent 
crimes almost on a daily basis. With all the national reports 
indicating major crime is coming down in our country, why is it that 
parents in my neighborhood feel that they cannot allow their children 
to ride their bicycles more than two blocks away from the house because 
they fear for their lives and for their health?
  We live in a very, very working-class normal community in our country 
where people go to work every day, where seniors reside and so forth.
  Following the terrible events at Columbine High School last year, 
President Clinton ordered the Federal Trade Commission to investigate 
the role that the entertainment industry played in promoting youth 
violence. The report that came out by chairman Pitofsky of the 
Commission says, and I quote: ``For all three industry segments, the 
answer is yes. Targeted marketing to children of entertainment products 
with violent content is pervasive and aggressive. Whether we are 
talking about music recording, movies or computer games, companies in 
each entertainment segment routinely end run and thereby undermine 
parental warnings by target marketing their products to young 
audiences.''
  I bring this up also because we did a recent survey in our office of 
constituents in our district asking them about television.

                              {time}  1830

  Seventy-three percent of the respondents graded the impact of 
television on America's youth as unwholesome with a negative impact on 
youth development. Moreover, when asked to list three major concerns 
facing our country, constituents in Ohio's Ninth District responded 
television, radio, and movies contributed to the moral debasement of 
our youth.
  If that is not bad enough, and that is the reason I am down here 
tonight, I received this letter from the country of Ukraine this week 
from a religious leader in that country who says to me, 
``Congresswoman, you know, there is a deep economical crisis in our 
country today. Social wounds are opened like crimes, alcoholism, 
prostitution, drugs, and much of the humanitarian help coming from all 
over the world is in the form of clothing and food and medical goods. 
But, please, there is a lot of bad, immoral, wild nourishment,'' and he 
puts those words in quotes,'' that comes here as an ultra modern one.
  ``All this stinking mud that comes to Ukraine comes from America and 
from Europe. The cult of violence and pornography just fell as locusts 
onto our children's souls and their schools, their houses, and on the 
streets.
  ``The television today is working for hell, straight. Children are 
unprotected as no one else.''
  So I say to those in charge of the visual images put before the 
people of the world, when a Member of Congress receives a letter like 
this from a citizen in another country, I have to tell you, it is a 
heavy burden that we carry of true embarrassment.
  How do we defend this not just here at home, but abroad? It is 
defenseless. You cannot be happy about any of this.
  Do my colleagues know what he asks? And I am going to ask Mr. 
Valenti, I am going to ask the major media moguls of our country. He 
says, ``We need help with ethics in our schools. We need help with 
printing

[[Page H7570]]

books to try to teach the youth here about our ethics. We need at least 
10 copies of every book for every school library in our country. But, 
Congresswoman, publishing of these books on ethics cost money.
  ``Can you help us? In the current situation here, we do not have the 
ability to help ourselves yet.''
  He says, ``Please share our opinion and our longing and then we ask 
you to help us in this thing for the children's good.''
  So I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) allowing me 
these few moments this evening.
  I include this statement for the Record:

       Dear Congresswoman Kaptur: I ask you hoping your helping 
     for us in the very necessary and important thing. ``Not with 
     the bread alone lives a man''--these words might be the title 
     of it.
       There is a deep economical crisis in Ukraine now: a lot of 
     social wounds are opened like crimes, alcoholism, 
     prostitution, drugs etc. Much of the humanitarian help now 
     come here from all over the world. Most of it is clothes, 
     food, remedy, some goods. But, gentlemen, besides it there 
     are a lot of bad, immoral, wild ``spiritual'' nourishment 
     that comes here as an ultramodern one. All this ``stinking 
     mud'' comes to Ukraine from America and Europe. The cult of 
     violence and pornography just fell as locust onto children 
     souls in their schools, houses, on the streets. The 
     television today is working for hell, straight. Children are 
     unprotected. They, as none else, need the pure hopeful 
     spiritual nourishment. In the network of the secondary 
     schools is introduced such a subject as ethics--the very 
     important subject especially in the new democratic countries 
     of the Western and Middle Europe, as well as in the whole 
     world. But there is a lot of administrative formalism here. 
     We still don't have good books for pupils. Today we need at 
     least 10 copies of every book for every school library. We 
     work on this field a lot. But publishing of the thousands 
     books needs considerable cost.
       Please share our opinion and our longing, then we ask you 
     to help us in this thing, for the greater God's glory and for 
     the children good.
           With respect,
                                                              S.P.

  Mr. Speaker, I say to the Federal Trade Commission, be strong in what 
you do. Please help our country lead each of us to a better world for 
ourselves and for our children here at home and abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman whose words of wisdom I know on 
our budget situation will also help lead us to a wiser course. He has 
been so responsible for the better situation in which we find 
ourselves.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, 
and I thank her for her remarks on another very important subject to a 
lot of us.
  Mr. Speaker, let me take just a few moments again and discuss the 
ever ongoing saga of the Federal budget. And again I repeat, as I did 
to my good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) a 
moment ago that, whenever it sounds like I am pointing a finger, I 
always acknowledge that there are three pointing back at me.
  But so often is the case that we tend to exaggerate the truth. I am 
often reminded of the infamous words of an Oklahoman, Will Rogers, who 
once observed, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much. 
It is them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.'' And we get 
an ample amount of statements on this floor that are just not so.
  It is great for our country that we are now running a theoretical 
surplus. But just as in the September 4 issue of U.S. News and World 
Report, Mortimer Zuckerman, the editor in chief, stated, ``the surplus 
is a mirage.'' He is correct.
  We have heard the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), and 
perhaps he will join us a little bit later again this evening, talking 
about the fact that there really is no surplus. Well, I think we have 
to adjust that statement a little.
  The Concorde Coalition's debt clock on Wall Street came down last 
week. Last week was the first week in which we did begin to run a small 
surplus. But to those that continue to talk about a $4.6 trillion 
surplus like it is real money, I would urge a little bit of concern and 
caution.
  We all acknowledge when we hear $4.6 trillion in surpluses that these 
are projected. Not a one of us in this body can predict tomorrow much 
less the next 10 years.
  All of us, both sides of the aisle, agree that of that $4.6, $2.3 
trillion is now Social Security trust fund. It is the amount working 
men and women are paying into the Social Security system over and 
before what is being paid out to those receiving their Social Security 
checks today.
  Now, that $2.8 trillion we are agreeing to set aside. It is in a 
lockbox. Call it what you want to. But the basic truth is we are paying 
down the debt with that amount of money, and that is the best lockbox 
we can put on it.
  But what is not mentioned on this floor is that $2.3 trillion over 
the next 10 years is not going to be enough to fully pay the guarantees 
under Social Security beginning in 2010, the year that the baby boomers 
begin to retire.
  Therefore, that is a concern and that is why some of us have been 
insisting that before we pass large tax cuts we should first decide how 
are we going to fix Social Security for the future so that our children 
and grandchildren will have the opportunity to receive the benefits 
that are promised to them under current law. And no one can come to 
this floor and say that that will happen unless we make some changes in 
the current system.
  But of the remaining $2.8 trillion, most of this is a mirage. Quoting 
again from Mortimer Zuckerman because he is right on target: ``The 
surplus forecast assumed that nonentitlement spending including defense 
spending will not exceed the rate of inflation.''
  Now, we have already heard from our colleague, one of the true 
experts on defense spending, that we must increase the amount of 
spending that we are now doing on defense because we are short of 
parts, we are short in the area of operations and management and 
maintenance, and we are drastically short changing the future by not 
making capital investments in our defense capabilities.
  That means that by assuming that we are going to only increase 
defense spending at the rate of inflation is a mirage.
  What is scary to me is that, if enough people believe this and we 
should pass a $1.6 trillion tax cut that we would find out there will 
be no money there for any increases and that our country cannot afford.
  Now, we hear about Social Security, another trust fund that I think 
needs to be locked up and taken off budget, and again I hear bipartisan 
agreement to this; and that is in the area of Medicare, $400 billion.
  If we take all of the needed increases, defense, military and 
veterans' programs, health care, this is one area that the majority of 
Members on both sides of the aisle agree that we are going to have to 
put some additional monies into the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement 
system or we are going to close tens if not hundreds of hospitals 
around the United States, 10 to 12 in my district alone. Therefore, 
this will require some additional investment of our taxpayer dollars.
  Let me be very clear. When I talk about dollars in spending, I 
readily concur and agree that Congress has no money to spend except 
that which we take from the American people through the tax system. So 
whenever we are talking about the expenditure of funds, expenditure of 
dollars, I readily agree it is your dollars, it is our dollars, but I 
think it is important when we add up all of these set-asides and 
lockboxes, increased defense needs, the true surplus projected is 
closer to $800 billion than $4.6 trillion.
  That is why the Blue Dogs on this side of the aisle have for the past 
year been advocating a simple formula as to how we deal with this 
year's budget.
  We have suggested that we ought to apply half of the projected on-
budget surplus to pay down the debt first and divide the remaining half 
equally in half and say devote half of it to tax cuts targeted toward 
the death tax relief, the marriage tax penalty relief, and many other 
muchly needed tax relief proposals, but do it in a conservative way; 
and then use the other one-fourth of this surplus, or half of the half, 
for those spending increases in defense, as I agree with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) that the need is there, for our 
veterans, for our military retirees, for health care, for our 
pharmaceutical benefit.
  Now, here is the problem: Today, once again, we had a veto override 
and the rhetoric flowed around this body about the need for that tax 
cut. Let me make it very clear. I totally agree, 100

[[Page H7571]]

percent, that we should eliminate the marriage tax penalty. But it does 
not require $292 billion of the projected surplus in order to eliminate 
the marriage tax penalty. It takes $82 billion. And that is where the 
problem comes in, because that extra $292 billion adds up to a total 
number of tax cuts that we do not have the money to do.
  Let me quickly run over those, because my colleagues are going to 
hear a lot now about the new budget. I would congratulate my friends on 
the other side of the aisle for coming around finally to the Blue Dog 
position on debt reduction, at least in their rhetoric. But, 
unfortunately, when we start talking about 90 percent of the surplus 
being applied to the debt, those numbers do not add up.
  I am surprised that the leadership of this body would continue to put 
out numbers that anyone that understands simple arithmetic knows do not 
add up.
  The unified surplus for this year, for example, 2001, is projected at 
$268 billion. If we take 10 percent of that, that is $28 billion 
available for tax cuts and appropriations this year. Debt service costs 
$1 billion.
  Already this year, we have voted the marriage penalty tax cut. That 
takes $15 billion in 2001 if it would have passed. But it did not. It 
was vetoed. I am saying if it would have passed, which I assume was the 
desire of my friends on the other side of the aisle or they would not 
have attempted to override the President.
  The small business minimum wage tax cuts would cost $3 billion. The 
Portman-Cardin pension and IRA tax cuts $1 billion. Telephone excise 
tax repeal $1 billion. Repeal of the 1993 tax on Social Security 
benefits $4 billion. Total tax cuts $25 billion. Medicare provider 
restorations, of which we are in agreement, $4 billion. That makes the 
total proposals $29 billion. That has a deficit of $2 billion.
  And we have not made any increases in defense spending. We have not 
dealt with the emergency conditions all over this country, the drought, 
the fires in the northwest, the lack of drinking water over much of 
Texas. None of these needs have been met as yet. But yet, we continue 
to talk about, or at least we did up until today, that the major 
emphasis this year must be on tax cuts.
  Now, the Blue Dogs believe very, very sincerely and very strongly 
that the best tax cut we could give the American people is to pay down 
the national debt first. And after we have agreed on paying down the 
debt, then let us discuss how we might in fact deal with fiscally 
responsible tax cuts just in case the projections are not accurate.

                              {time}  1845

  It is amazing to me how businessmen and women who serve in this body, 
who would never, ever, think in terms of spending a projected surplus 
in their own business or in their own family situation, suddenly can 
come to this floor and suggest that that is what we ought to do with 
our country.
  I do not understand it. But then when you start being critical, it is 
important to then start talking about what you are for. To our 
leadership, I would suggest that one of the things that we have done 
over the last several years, and I give credit to the other side of the 
aisle for their share of this accomplishment, caps on spending have 
worked fairly well in reducing discretionary spending. In fact, let me 
again read to you some interesting numbers, because one would never 
believe, never believe, that discretionary spending is coming down when 
they listen to the charges that are made from the other side of the 
aisle.
  Discretionary spending as a percent of our gross domestic product in 
the Johnson years was 12 percent; in the Reagan years it dropped to 9.5 
percent; in the Bush years it dropped to 8.5 percent. In the last 8 
years, it has dropped to 6.8 percent. Nondefense discretionary spending 
has gone from 3.7 percent in the Johnson years to 3.5 in the Reagan 
years up to 3.7 in the Bush years and dropped to 3.4 percent in the 
last 8 years.
  These are the accurate and honest numbers.
  Now, what do we do? I am very disappointed that we have not been able 
to sit down now and put a new set of caps. We have to put some 
discipline on spending in this body, on my side of the aisle and, quite 
frankly, on the other side of the aisle, because it is interesting to 
me, when we hear that somehow we on this side of the aisle are still 
blamed for spending we have been in the minority for 6 years. Last time 
I checked, the minority party cannot spend money. We do not have 218 
votes, and, therefore, again, spending is bipartisan.
  I would like to see us put some discipline on us. I would like to see 
us argue for a change on this floor as to what the caps on 
discretionary spending ought to be in 2001, and then put some caps, 
realistic caps, in what we can do and must do in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 
2005. It would put some discipline on this body that, quite frankly, we 
need. It is healthy for the Congress and all of the committees to be 
giving realistic numbers, but also tight numbers that we must follow 
because that tends to help us avoid being wasteful, which we can do a 
pretty good job of.
  The Concord Coalition has recommended this. Spending caps should be 
retained but raised to realistic levels, and I think as we debate now 
what those spending levels shall be in this omnibus spending bill that 
it would make good sense for us to agree on that level. The Blue Dogs 
have suggested, and here the Republican budget calls for the 
expenditure in the discretionary, that is what Congress votes to spend, 
of $600 billion. The President is recommending $624 billion. The Blue 
Dogs have suggested all year that the number of $612 billion would be a 
reasonable compromise. It is a good target to shoot for and in a total 
budget of 1.8 or 900 billion, compromising somewhere around $612 
billion on discretionary spending would be a good place to start, but 
maybe there is a different number. Whatever it is, I would hope that we 
would not do a 1-year budget but that we would put in caps that are 
realistic that will meet the human needs of the defense of this 
country, the health of this country in Medicare and Medicaid, our much 
needed improvement in veterans, in military retirement programs, in the 
much needed investment in education in this country, and in 
agriculture, because in agriculture we are in the depths of a 
depression. Our prices are as low as they were during the Depression. 
We have drought. We have all kinds of problems in which we are going to 
need to make some kind of an investment there, or pay the price.
  One never has to do anything, but there are some needs here and these 
are the priorities.
  Fiscal discipline, it would be nice if every once in a while we did 
have a true bipartisan attempt to arrive at these numbers, but it seems 
like those are illusory; and I guess we are going to have to wait until 
the 107th Congress before we will get a chance to do some of what I am 
talking about tonight, but maybe not.
  Let me refresh all of our memories again because my friend from 
California was talking the blame game a moment ago, and I hate to talk 
about him, he is no longer on the floor; but as he and I agreed we are 
going to try to find another hour sometime in which we can have some of 
these discussions because I happen to agree with him on much of his 
defense positions.
  But it is interesting when we look at the economy and where it is 
today and who is taking the credit for what, from a pure budget 
standpoint, voted by the Congress, I happen to still believe very 
strongly the foundation of this economy that has given us the 
longest peacetime economic expansion in the history of our country 
these last 8 years, that the foundation was laid in 1991. It was the 
so-called Bush budget, President Bush. He paid dearly for it. He was 
unelected in 1992, but many of the tough decisions that were made in 
that budget, I believe, laid the foundation for the economy that we now 
enjoy. That is a personal opinion, and it is interesting when we look 
at who voted for that budget we will find that only 37 Republicans 
supported our President in 1991. It took bipartisan support to pass 
that budget, and many of us have been blamed for that ever since.

  Then we come to the 1993 budget. Remember that one? That was the 
Clinton budget. That was one that we Democrats paid dearly for. We got 
unelected and we got in the minority for the first time in 40 years. 
Zero Republicans voted for that budget that

[[Page H7572]]

year, but I think that put the walls up on the economy. It was a tough 
budget. Admittedly, I did not support all of that budget. I had my 
differences, particularly on the spending side, but it passed.
  Then we go on to the 1997 balanced budget agreement, and that budget 
also took bipartisan support. One would think from the rhetoric on the 
other side of the aisle that this was all done with Republican support, 
but only 187 Republicans supported it. I should not say only. I give 
them tremendous credit for being 187 to pass that budget, but it took 
31 Democrats to stand up for that one, too; and not everybody has been 
happy with that budget, but that is the history.
  When we start talking about the budget for this year, the Blue Dogs 
have been suggesting the 50/25/25 solution all year long. Take all of 
Social Security off budget. Take the remaining surplus projected and 
half of it pay down the debt and divide the other half equally between 
spending and tax cuts. We have 177 votes for our budget. That is not 
enough. 140 Democrats support it. Only 37 Republicans support it, but I 
appreciate the 37 and the 140.
  That brings us to where we are today. It is interesting today, 
because, again, one listens to the rhetoric, I am reading from the 
Congressional Daily today. Senator Lott said we know the fiscal year 
2001 surplus will be $240 billion to $250 billion. We do not know what 
the surplus will be in 6 years. Exactly. That is the point some of us 
have been trying to make. That is why some of us have cast some very 
difficult votes regarding the death tax, regarding the marriage tax 
penalty.
  We have said let us fix those two problems the best we can. In the 
case of the death tax, let us make sure that no estate of $4 million 
and less will ever have to deal with the confiscatory, sometimes 
downright, what I would consider, almost criminal confiscation of 
property of small businesses. We can do that, and the President will 
sign that. It does not take $105 billion, and it does not take leaving 
a black hole in 2010 for Social Security, which is my primary objection 
to that bill that is no longer on the table.
  The Concord Coalition has some good ideas. In deciding the future of 
discretionary spending caps, policymakers must balance four major 
objectives: adequate funding for national priorities. We can find some 
bipartisan support for determining that number, and we can put some new 
caps into place that we can certainly live with for the next 5 years. 
They have to have some political reality. We cannot come on the one 
hand and spend all of it on a tax cut before we get into the priority 
spending and we have to get honesty in budgeting. I think the Concord 
Coalition is on to something, as they usually are, because they are 
bipartisan in nature. They avoid the partisan rhetoric that often flows 
around this body, particularly in those years divisible by two.
  Let me just say kind of in conclusion, I believe the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Ganske) is here and I do not want to take the entire hour 
today. I was expecting some other colleagues to join me, but they are 
not here. Let me just say that let us not get too carried away with 
this new budget that has been offered by the leadership of this body to 
suggest that 90 percent solution.
  Mr. Speaker, it does not add up. It just does not add up, and it is 
time for us to realize that we cannot go an entire year on a game plan 
of saying that the most important thing we need in this country is a 
tax cut and then find out we cannot pass it because we should not pass 
it, and then all of a sudden flip to a new budget that does not add up. 
Neither one has added up, but there is still support on this side of 
the aisle, and we would be surprised how much bipartisan cooperation we 
could get if we just acknowledged that the $4.6 trillion surplus that 
is projected is not real and should not be spent as real money.

                          ____________________