Summary:

All articles in House section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997
(House of Representatives - May 15, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5104-H5133] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 14, 1996 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, House Concurrent Resolution 178. {time} 1609 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. 178) establishing the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with Mr. Camp in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 14, 1996, the concurrent resolution is considered read the first time. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will control 90 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, I yield 11 minutes to my friend and the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks]. Mr. SABO. Before my friend from New Jersey starts and lest I forget, I request unanimous consent that the last 30 minutes of debate on the minority side, which is allocated to the Joint Economic Committee, be controlled by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], and that he have the authority to yield time to other Members. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the measure before us is not simply about thousands of individual numbers. It is not about economic assumptions. It is not about green eyeshades and sharp leaded pencils. Budgets are about people. Budgets are about ideas. Mr. Chairman, the budget of the Federal Government speaks to who we are as a country. It looks at our hopes and our aspirations, our dreams. It looks at our challenges and our problems. It looks at our opportunities. But no budget, Mr. Chairman, exists in a vacuum. A budget is developed against the backdrop of the environment that we find today. As family across this country are looking at their own economic circumstances, they are saying very clearly that America can and must do better. While the economy may be showing signs of improvement for some, many families are still struggling. Tens of thousands of workers continue to lose their jobs, many the victims of corporate downsizing. In fact, between June of 1994 and June of 1995, fully half the major corporations in the United States eliminated jobs, less than a third of the workers who lost their full-time jobs found new jobs that paid as much money. On average, workers who lost their jobs had to settle for jobs that paid 8.2 percent less. And for dislocated workers between the ages of 45 and 55, their incomes declined by fully 14 percent. We have watched high-paying manufacturing jobs continue to disappear at an alarming rate. Between March of 1995 and March of this year, 326,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. In the past 2 years, there has been a 10.2 percent increase in the number of Americans who hold two or more jobs. Today more people are working two jobs than at any time in our Nation's history. {time} 1615 Yet, despite working longer and harder than ever before, too many families feel as if they are not moving ahead. They are working harder merely to stay in place, and it is no wonder. The American family has seen no increase in their wages over the past 3\1/2\ years. Meanwhile, taxes are taking a bigger and bigger bite out of the family's annual income. It is interesting to note that back in 1950, Federal taxes consumed just 5 percent of the average family's income. Today, 26 percent of a family's income goes just to pay for Federal taxes. Most families across the country, Mr. Chairman, remember that back in 1993, just 3 years ago, President Clinton raised their taxes, bringing the tax burden to its highest level in history. The Clinton tax package increased taxes on gasoline, increased taxes on individual incomes, increased taxes on married couples, increased taxes on Social Security benefits, increased taxes on inheritances. As a result, every family, every year, is seeing their tax bill escalate. Last year, the average family with a single wageearner took home $803 less in their paycheck than they did in 1992. What does all this mean to our children as we look to the future? If we stay on the current path and we do not stop our deficit spending, a child born today will face a very bleak future. Seventeen years from today, when that child is prepared to graduate from high school, every tax dollar sent to Washington, DC, will be consumed by just five programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal employee retirement benefits, and the interest obligation on the national debt. That means that when that child gets ready to graduate and go to college, there will be no money available in the Federal budget to help with his college education, no money to keep his neighborhood safe from crime, no more Federal aid to build new roads or mass transit systems, and no money available to protect and defend our country. Over his working lifetime, that child will be paying off a huge debt, a debt he inherited from all of us. That child's lifetime obligation as his share of the interest payment on the national debt will be $18,000. The fact is that America needs a budget that saves our children's future. Our children deserve a better and brighter future than this scenario. They deserve one filled with hope and opportunity and a chance to live out the American dream. Since the start of the Great Society programs in 1965, we have spent $5 trillion on a vast assortment of social spending programs. That is more than we spent to win World War II. What has that enormous investment produced? The number of children living in households dependent on welfare has tripled, from 3.3 million to 9.6 million. There has been an explosion in the number of mothers, many of them children themselves, who are having children out of wedlock, a 326 percent increase over the last 30 years. We need to make sure that Washington is there to lend a temporary hand in time of need, helping the people to get back on their feet again so they can lead independent, self-sufficient lives. As we look ahead to the vast changes that await us in the twenty- first century, just around the corner, we must empower individuals to take advantage of new opportunities, and to do that, America needs a budget that empowers people to be self-reliant. To accomplish that objective, we need a budget that reduces the power and influence of Washington over our everyday lives. In just 30 years, Government spending has exploded. The cost of running the Federal Government has moved from $134 billion a [[Page H5105]] year to $1.5 trillion a year, and along with all this spending, we have created a wasteful and bloated bureaucracy. Every year that bureaucracy churns out thousands of pages of new rules and regulations that affect all aspects of our lives, from the food we eat to the car we drive to the houses we live in. And it is not just businesses that pay the price for all this Government redtape. Families pay, and pay quite dearly. Government regulations cost the average family $6,800 every year. Just think about how time-consuming and confusing it is to fill out your own income tax form. That is because the IRS has 480 different tax forms, and another 280 forms to tell you how to fill them out. It is no wonder it takes the average taxpayer over 12 years just to figure out their own taxes. America needs a budget that lowers taxes and spends less of our hard- earned money. There is something fundamentally wrong when the average American family pays more on taxes, taxes to the Federal, the State and local governments, than they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined. The average worker spends 2 hours and 47 minutes out of his 8-hour workday just to pay his tax burden. Twenty years ago, that same worker was spending half that amount of time to meet his tax burden. Mr. Chairman, our budget plan will help America to do better. It will end 30 years of reckless deficit spending. It will shift power, money, and influence out of Washington, DC, and give it back to the American people. It trusts our neighbors and our communities to develop thoughtful and compassionate solutions to today's problems. This budget attacks waste and inefficiency, and by lowering taxes and reshaping our Federal Government, it will help American families to move ahead so they can earn more, keep more, and do more. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, here we are again, a repeat of 1995. I represent a party that in 1993 produced real deficit reduction. We did not simply talk about it. We produced it, and the deficit has fallen in half. We come today to face the question of how we continue to put our Federal fiscal house in order, but how to do it in a fashion that is fair and workable. One of the most important programs that America passed some 30 years ago was Medicare, to assure that elderly Americans had adequate health care. I congratulate my Republican friends on finally making one change in your proposal. You have accepted the President's position that the base premium for part B Medicare should not exceed 25 percent of total cost, and I congratulate you on that change. Unfortunately, as I look at the details of your program, however, I discover that while you appear to have been easing your Medicare cuts over the 6-year period before 2002, that in reality, at the end of that time, the provider cuts in the final year, 2002, will actually have to be deeper and make Medicare more vulnerable than was your program as it passed the Congress and was vetoed by the President. That is hardly progress, my friends. We find throughout this budget a variety of sugar coating to make it look a little bit better than the radical agenda of 1995. But when we look at its long-term impact, we find that in many cases, it is as bad or worse than what the President fortunately had to veto. And Medicare is one of those cases. The cuts, let me say again, to that program in 2002 under your program of today, they are going to have to be deeper than the cuts that you were proposing just a few months ago that the President, fortunately, vetoed. We will have some more to say on that subject, much more, as we discover that your budget of 1996 is just simply a repeat of the unfortunate program of 1995. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]. Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget resolution and in strong support of the Democratic substitute offered by the conservative Democratic coalition. The people back home who are listening to this debate will hear echoed many of the same themes we debated in last year's budget debate. But while the Republican budget resolution has come closer to the coalition substitute in terms of numbers, it still represents a political philosophy that does not reflect the views of the American people, and one that will hurt our economy and our citizens. Because the Republicans insist on borrowing $122 billion to pay for a tax cut, their resolution achieves $142 billion less in deficit reduction than does the coalition budget. As it did last year, the coalition substitute still represents an honest path to a balanced budget, that protects both the middle class and our most vulnerable, and nowhere is this more true than in the Medicare Program. Last year the Republicans proposed over $28 billion in Medicare spending reuctions. This year, they are down to $16 billion. Last year the President proposed $98 billion in spending reductions, and this year he proposes $124 billion. So both sides have made substantial and significant progress forward toward a centrist compromise toward the coalition's budget. But yet while the numbers are moving closer, serious and substantive differences remain. Republicans have backed away from their radical cuts, but they have not backed away entirely from their radical policies. The Republican plan turns Medicare managed care into a voucher program and forces seniors to pay the difference. The coalition plan prohibits from charging extra and protects seniors from unscrupulous and unfair billing. The Republican plan spends $4.6 billion, over $7,000 a person, on medical savings accounts, at a time when the trust fund's solvency is in jeopardy. The coalition plan handles MSA's in a prudent and thoughtful way by having a test program, a demonstration project. The Republicans spend $4.6 billion on medical savings accounts, but not one penny on preventive benefits. The coalition Medicare package spends $2 billion on benefits for prostate and colon cancer screening, mammographies and pap smears, and diabetes self-testing equipment, a preventive benefit that will save over $100 million a year for the Medicare Program when it is fully implemented. The Republican budget cuts $123 billion from hospitals, home health agencies, and skilled nursing facilities. Under this new baseline, these cuts are even larger than those proposed by the Republicans last year, and they will devastate health care in rural areas such as mine. The Republican Medicare plan represents the majority's misplaced priorities. It benefits some of those who manage the care, but it harms many of those who receive the care. In doing so, it cuts $22 billion more from Medicare than does the coalition's bill. {time} 1630 The coalition's Medicare policy represents sensible middle ground, without gimmicks, without surprises, or without reversals in policy. I urge my colleagues to support our Medicare reform package and to support the coalition's budget resolution and to vote against this Republican budget resolution. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from new Jersey for yielding the time. I listened with interest to the comments of the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget and to the comments of my good friend from Virginia. It is not my intent to indulge in venom or vitriol this afternoon, but, instead, I think it is a time for truth. The gentleman from Minnesota seems to be saying, ``Well, you have almost learned your lesson, new majority.'' Therein lies the most clear difference between the two overwhelming philosophies, for those who champion the Washington bureaucracy and the Washington approach as knowing all and knowing best put their faith in that bureaucracy instead of putting their faith in the people of America. [[Page H5106]] Those of us in the new majority put our faith in the American people, not the Washington bureaucracy. And this, Mr. Chairman, is what is truly radical, this fact, this piece of truth: That the average person pays more in taxes and the average family pays more in taxes today than it pays in food, clothing and shelter combined. That is a fact. It is time for truth, and the truth is the largest tax increase in American history, and this is a fact that my friend from Virginia, who champions deficit reduction, gets away from. The fact is the Clinton budget and the Clinton tax increase costs every household in America $2,600 in additional taxes. We can do better. My friend from New Jersey brought this check up. We do not need the fictional Baby Jane Doe. I can put a real name there, John Mica Hayworth, who is now 2 years of age. If we fail to resolve these problems, if we fail to live within our means, John Mica Hayworth will pay in interest on the debt over $185,000 in his lifetime. That is unconscionable. This budget dispute is not about numbers, it is about flesh and blood and the future, and despite the rhetoric and the playground taunts, the fact is we can do better for today's seniors, for the youngsters of today, for generations yet unborn. Say no to the Clinton crunch, yes to our new budget and yes to a new plan for the future. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say that was about the most inaccurate description of what has happened I have seen. The fact is the bulk of the new revenues last year applied to changes in the income Tax Code for people with taxable incomes of over $140,000, which means they have close to a gross income of $200,000. The surcharge applies to incomes over $250,000, probably gross taxable income over $250,000, gross income of $300,000 or more. I have to indicate also to the gentleman that the numbers he is using on this chart of average taxes assumes or averages in the Ross Perots with the rest of everyone. That is clearly inaccurate. It assumes that the cost of shelter is only 15 percent, and all of a sudden here a while ago, in the housing bill, the gentleman was trying to increase rents to over 30 percent of income for people in low-income housing. Grossly inaccurate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, for yielding me this time, and really congratulate Mr. Sabo for working with Members on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, people of different persuasions, to try to get us together on a budget that will balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. I thought we were making progress and I thought Mr. Sabo had done a great job in bringing us closer together as we ended 1995. Unfortunately, as I look at the Republican budget that is being brought up under this resolution, it seems like we are no further together than we were a year ago. That is very unfortunate. A missed opportunity. The budget should speak to the framework on which we want to see the priorities of this Nation, on raising revenues and on spending priorities. Let me just talk, if I might, in the few minutes I have, on Medicare, one part of that budget. The Medicare proposal in the Republican budget will cost my seniors more, they are going to receive less care, and it seriously jeopardizes the quality of our Medicare system. Last year the Republicans suggested cutting $270 billion from the Medicare system in order to finance $245 billion of tax breaks. Well, we are not dealing with a 6-year budget rather than a 7-year budget, so this year the cut in Medicare is $168 billion, the tax breaks of $122 billion going basically to wealthier people. That is not what our seniors want. That is wrong. Instead, we should be looking at ways of preserving the Medicare system, which the Republicans talk about, but by their own admission they do nothing on the long-term solvency of the Medicare system and a large part of their savings do not go into the Medicare Part A Program. We talk about giving our seniors more choice, and they do if a person happens to be wealthy or healthy, under the Republican program. But the vast majority of my seniors do not fall into that category. They will not be able to choose a health care plan that will cover their needs. The Republican proposal removes the protections in Medicare about the plans charging more or the doctors charging more. Sure, if an individual is wealthy they can afford that extra money, but if they are of modest income, as most seniors are, they cannot and they will be forced into a plan where they do not have choice. We talk about people going into a private plan and returning the Medicare but we offer no protection on their Medigap plans. Most seniors rely on Medigap, and yet the Republicans have removed that from their proposal. We do have a choice. We do have a choice in order to preserve the Medicare system. We can vote for the President's budget, we can vote for the Congressional Black Caucus' budget. I favor the coalition budget because it is a responsible way to bring down the cost of Medicare without robbing our seniors to pay for tax breaks for wealthy people. It also preserves the quality of our Medicare system. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican proposal and support the coalition budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and ask the gentleman if he will yield to me. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, for those folks that are watching this debate, what the last speaker said is just so far from being accurate it almost ought to be on the Tonight Show in the opening dialog. I think we ought to stop scaring our senior citizens, our most vulnerable people. We have massive increases in Medicare spending, the program will be enhanced, preserved and improved, and I just really wish that these scare tactics would come to an end. The President blamed it on the press. He said, ``The press made me do it,'' and I think he may be getting around to the point where he is going to stop, and maybe the rest of the people scaring the seniors ought to stop as well. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic. My colleague from Maryland speaks of a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity when we fail to allow the American people to hang on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it here to Washington, DC. That is tragic. It is a missed opportunity when a Medicare trust fund under this administration is already $4 billion in arrears, instead of moving to solve the problem by allowing seniors the chance and the opportunity they have at every other phase of life to make their own choices, somehow try to lock them into a government bureaucracy. Again, Mr. Chairman, it comes down to this question: Who should we trust? Should we place more trust in the hands of the Washington bureaucrats, who in the wake of that largest tax increase in American history have only delivered 49 percent of the revenues this tax increase was supposed to bring in, in our breakneck pace of spending; or do we trust the American people to make the right choices for their families and their futures? We can play scare games all day, but in the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, we must stand at the bar of history with the American people as our judge; and, as for me and the new majority, we stand firmly in the column of the American people. We reject the outmoded notions that Washington knows best. Join us, save this country. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDermott. Mr. Chairman, I listen to this and I think that anybody who is watching it or listening to it in their office would ask themselves, who should I believe? Now, the last Speaker got up here and said that we ought to stop scaring [[Page H5107]] the seniors. I agree with that. It was the Republican proposal that scared the seniors in the first instance. And for those individuals who know who Yogi Berra is, Yogi Berra once said, when asked about a particular event, it is kind of deja vu all over again. What we are seeing today is the same plan they rolled out here last year. They did not change anything. Oh, they have tinkered with it a little bit. They said they are not going to fool with the senior citizens premiums. They are not going to raise it up to 31 percent; they are going to hold it at 25 percent. Now, of course that is the House. Now, we all know it will pass out of the House and go over to the Senate. Is there any agreement with the Senate on that; does anybody know? No, there is no agreement. This is a House proposal, and we will get the same wrangle and, just watch, we will get the same jerking around. Now, instead of the part B premiums, the House GOP is going to cut hospitals because they do not want to cut doctors. The part B, as my colleagues know, pays for the doctor bills, and they do not want to cut doctors because they made a deal with them. They said, ``If you will support our plan, we will give you a couple of things, and one of them is balance billing.'' Now, remember the history of balance billing. Back in 1985 we said that doctors had to accept what Medicare paid when it paid a senior citizen's bill. The doctor could not balance bill. For almost 11 years they have not been able to balance bill. But the Republicans said to the doctors, ``Look, if you will support our plans to cut the daylights out of Medicare, we will let you balance bill.'' So whatever Medicare pays, senior citizens can expect that the doctors will pile on an additional balance bill on top of that. Now, in addition to that, we have to remember that the Speaker said, public statement, that he expects the traditional Medicare plan to wither on the vine. Now, how do they expect to cause this withering on the vine? The traditional plan that most people are in, they simply are not going to give the kind of increases that will make it possible for doctors to stay in that, so doctors will say, we do not want any seniors, and the only place a senior will be able to get their health care is to go into a managed care plan. Now, by doing that, that means they will have moved all senior citizens into managed care and they simply are going to squeeze people down. It is very clear the plan the laid out. It is going to cost seniors $1,000 more a year by the year 2002. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of scaring that has gone on. It ought to stop. This same plan is being rolled out here again, and this should be enough in itself to defeat this budget resolution. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], and ask if the gentlewoman will yield to me. Ms. DUNN of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, you can fool some of the seniors some of the time but not all of the seniors all of the time. This trust fund is on the road toward bankruptcy. Our program is designed to significantly increase the amount of dollars in Medicare and to guarantee that this fund will be solvent well into the next century so our senior citizens can have a very viable program. {time} 1645 Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to switch the discussion to welfare, because welfare reform is included in this balanced budget resolution. During the past 30 years, the Federal Government has spent more than $5 trillion on welfare programs intended to alleviate poverty, but the problem is getting worse, not better. The system is getting more and more cruel. Today one American child in seven is raised on welfare. That is what this budget debate is all about: the children and their families. The current welfare system encourages a life of dependency and weak families, and that has a devastatingly negative effect on a child's development. Every one of us feels sick when we read in the paper, we see on television the real life stories of how the current welfare system has failed. Think of this: 19 children found together in a cold, dark Chicago apartment. Police found them sharing a bone with the family dog for food. Or the Boston family that has 14 out of its 17 adult children now living on welfare, right now, and receiving close to $1 million a year from taxpayers. Our solutions are focused on promoting families and work, moving families into the work force and off welfare is the only way to break this cycle of dependency. Most Americans on welfare want to work, but, sadly, our Government offers them a better short-run deal to stay dependent. To make our approach work, the amount of time someone stays on welfare must be limited. Our bill does that. The President says he supports a 5-year time limit on cash welfare benefits, but he includes so many exemptions that the current welfare system would no be significantly changed. Furthermore, under the President's plan, recipients are guaranteed noncash benefits forever. We understand that families, especially mothers, need a helping hand in moving from welfare to work. That is why we provide over $6 billion in additional child care assistance over what is currently contained in the current welfare system. This gives parents the peace of mind to go off welfare into the work force. We also understand that children are hurt when our system fails so pitifully in enforcing court-ordered child support. Right now today, $34 billion are owed in court-ordered child support not being paid to custodial parents from these children's own parents. Our program finds a way to locate those dollars, especially those deadbeat parents who move out of the State to avoid supporting their flesh and blood children. Mr. Chairman, what is at stake is real welfare reform. Imagine what our country will look like in 5 years if we do not pass it. The system continues to hold millions of poor families in its grip. The problem is not the people who are involved. The problem is the failed process. The President recently asked for a welfare bill with personal responsibility, work and family. We give it to him. Sign this balanced budget proposal, Mr. President. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the hard-working gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], a real knowledgeable Member on health care. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say the seniors in this country are scared and they have reason to be because of these Republican proposals on Medicare. There is no question in my mind what is going on here again is the same thing that we saw last year. That is that senior citizens are being made to pay for the cuts that are being proposed in this budget and that Medicare is taking a bigger hit, almost as big a hit as it did last year, and all to pay for tax breaks essentially for wealthy Americans. Now why should a senior citizen be scared? They should be scared because when the Medicare program was established in 1963, they were basically told that they were going to have at least three things: One, they were told they were going to have an unlimited choice of doctors and hospitals. Medicare would reimburse for that. Second, they were told that they would have protection against having to pay a lot of money out of their pocket. Right now it is limited to 15 percent. And then they were told they would have guaranteed coverage of all Medicare benefits for the premium that was established by law. All these things are at risk in this Republican budget today. First of all, because of the reimbursement rate, the fact of the matter is that seniors will be pushed into HMO's or managed care. They will not have their choice of doctors and hospitals. Secondly, the protections against balanced billing are eliminated. The doctors, if you stay in the traditional Medicare program, can charge anything beyond the 15 percent that is provided under current law. So more money out of pocket means you do not have the health care if you cannot afford it. Lastly, with the MSA's, with the medical savings accounts, basically seniors are going to be encouraged to go into this two-tiered system where [[Page H5108]] they have only catastrophic coverage, and they have to pay out of pocket for anything short of a catastrophic health care. So why should not senior citizens be scared? All the basic tenets, if you will, of the Medicare program are at risk under the Republican budget. They do not know for sure if they can have their doctor anymore. They could very easily have to pay a lot more out of their pocket for going to a doctor or other Medicare or other health care expenses, and they do not even know if they choose an MSA that they will be able to have a lot of the services that Medicare now provides. I would be scared. They should be scared because of what the Republicans are doing here today. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds. Of course the gentleman obviously has not read our program because our program would give senior citizens more choice. In fact, most senior citizens would love to be in the Arizona plan which offers them prescription drugs, eyeglass coverage with no charge, no part B premium and no deductibles. We want to give senior citizens more choice. In that system they would not have more copayments and in fact get to choose whatever kind of system they want. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford]. Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that if one looks at the polls today, for the first time in American history when folks were asked: do you think your children will do better off or worse off than you did, they are answering ``worse off.'' That is the absolute opposite of the American dream, because the American dream is built on the idea that I did this well, my father did a little bit poorer than that, and my children are going to be doing better than that. One cannot build a civilization, one cannot build a country around the idea that my children are going to do worse off then I did. So I think at the core of this debate and the core of this budget, what we are really talking about is the American dream. Mr. Chairman, I would say second what those polls show is that Americans at the gut level understand what history has well documented over the course of time. Rome fell in 476 after controlling essentially the entire known world. The Byzantine empire, the Italian renaissance came to an end, the Spanish empire came to an end, the Dutch empire came to an end, the Ottomon empire came to an end. A host of civilizations came to an end because everyone of them reached a crossroads wherein they had to decide: Do we go back to what made us competitive and a world power in the first place, or we stay on this cozy but ultimately unsustainable cycle of upward government spending and upward government taxation? We are at that same crossroads today. A child born into America today will pay an 82-percent tax rate if we stay on the course we are on. That either means economic enslavement or it means a collapse of the financial system as we know it. It took every single personal income tax return filed west of the Mississippi River simply to pay for the interest on the national debt. A child born in America, as you saw by the check earlier, will pay $187,000 in taxes on their share of interest on the national debt if we stay on the course we are on. So we are at that crossroads. I think what this budget does is point us at the right fork in the road, because it begins to move decisions back to people in their local communities, in their local towns, and in so doing restores the American dream, and I think has a lot to do with saving the civilization. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution and to advise my colleagues to carefully consider the implications of this budget on domestic discretionary spending. My colleagues need to understand there is simply no growth in this budget for important programs. Defense is the only area where they have proposed real growth. It makes no investment in safe highways, airline traffic safety, safe streets, safe schools, education, health care, public safety, clean water, clean air, research and development, business development, and transportation. The tough choices we made in 1990 and 1993 controlled the growth in discretionary spending. The caps have worked and we have the discipline to control future discretionary spending. There is simply no justification for further assaults on critical domestic programs. It is also difficult to understand how my Republican colleagues could propose slowing the growth in domestic discretionary spending to such low levels that by the year 2002, the purchasing power of overall nondefense discretionary appropriations will be 26 percent below this year's level. At the same time that they plan on eliminating any real investment in our economic security, they are proposing $13 billion more for defense than requested by the Pentagon. Let me remind my colleagues again, that these cuts are in the most basic programs. Education, environmental protection, medical research, Head Start, civilian research and development, nutritional assistance, transportation, and criminal justice. All of these programs, regardless of what you may hear will be adversely affected if we enact the domestic discretionary level proposed in the Republican budget resolution. In addition to the funding levels proposed, my Republican colleagues are also proposing some significant changes and eliminations. Included in this budget resolution is an assumption that 25 important educational programs will be block granted; the Governors will get to decide how to spend this money. While I have yet to see the list of these 25 programs, I can tell you that in some cases, the States will not act to serve vulnerable populations of children. It was because of the refusal of the States to address the unique educational needs of homeless children that I worked to create the Homeless Education Program. States and local governments simply did not reach out to these children and I can assure my Republican friends that under the block grant proposal, homeless children will be denied basic educational services. Once again the Republicans are proposing to dismantle the one agency whose mission is job development and growth. Did we learn nothing from last year's budget battle. We need a strong and effective Department of Commerce. The late Secretary Brown accomplished this objective and I am fully confident that Secretary Kantor will meet the same challenge. This Republican budget resolution also proposes the elimination of the Legal Services Corporation. Guaranteeing the basic protection of a citizen's constitutional rights is one of our responsibilities as Members of Congress. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Shouldn't we be concerned about guaranteeing every citizen, regardless of their income, the right to due process and the right of fair and just representation? Apparently only those who have the ability to pay are allowed adequate legal counsel. I am gravely concerned about the direction of this country as we enter the next century and firmly believe that this budget will not guarantee that we are prepared to meet the challenges. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican budget resolution. We can balance the budget without jeopardizing our economic future. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Oklahoma [Mr. Watts]. Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, there was a cultist popular humanistic theme in the 1960's that said ``God is dead.'' I am afraid that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided that they were left in charge, and what they did was drive us into the ever- deepening quicksand of more and more Government spending without results. Our budget resolution offers more savings so that Americans can ultimately keep more of what they earn and they can decide what is best for them, not the Government. Bottom line, in our budget we trust the American people. In their budget, they do not, Do I hate my Government? No. I just believe that we can do better for this [[Page H5109]] country and for our kids, our grandkids, working families, and seniors. We can do better than $200 plus billion annual deficits, a $5 trillion national debt. I think we can do better than an anemic welfare system that penalizes mothers for saving money and penalizes them for wanting to marry the father of their children. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can do better by saving Medicare from bankruptcy. In this country, we expect the best from our high school, our college, and our professional athletic teams. Why should we not expect the same from our Government? We are the greatest, freest, wealthiest country in the world. I believe we can do better and we should as Americans. Red, yellow, black, and white, we should demand the best from our Government, and our budget starts us in that direction. Am I an optimist? I am reminded of the guy who defined an optimist as going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with him. Am I an optimist? You bet I am. I do believe we can do better by trusting the American people and figuring out the right answers for this time in our Government. I believe that our budget resolution starts us in that direction. Our budget gets us another year down the road of accomplishing a balanced budget in the next 6 years. If we balance the budget, it opens the gateway to the future for our kids and our grandkids. If we do not, we can only look forward to more financial despair and burdens on families, a bankrupt Medicare system and keeping the caged eagles in the poor community locked up just waiting to soar. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to open the gateway to the future for our kids and our grandkids by voting for this budget resolution. Trust the American people. {time} 1700 Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne]. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to point out the many deficiencies in the Republican budget resolution. The Republican budget is fundamentally flawed. It places the burden of deficit reduction on health care, education, environmental, infrastructure, and safety net programs while leaving defense spending and corporate welfare virtually untouched. It still provides a substantial tax cut at a time when the Federal Government is running a sizable deficit. Defense spending is actually increased in this budget while critical domestic needs are ignored. Finally, the Republican budget puts a whole new spin on redistribution by increasing the burden on low- and moderate-income Americans and reducing the burden on the well-to-do; the Republican budget, for example, provides a child tax credit for middle- and upper-class families while cutting earned income tax credit assistance to low- and moderate-income households. The Republican budget also resurrects a number of policies discussed last year. It eliminates the Commerce Department, the Energy Department, AmeriCorps, the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA], the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH], the Legal Services Corporation, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, just to name a few. These agencies provide valuable services to the people of this country. The proposals to eliminate them are short- sighted efforts to pander to the public perception that all government is bad. If you doubt that this is the case, then ask yourself why many of the functions, operations, and even the staff of the Departments of Energy and Commerce will merely be shifted to other agencies, much like the transfer of the Interstate Commerce Commission's responsibilities and staff to the Department of Transportation last year. In addition, the Republican budget would provide more than $2 billion less than the President's budget on crime-fighting programs. It is inconsistent to enact tough anticrime measures on the one hand and then deny law enforcement officials the resources that they need to carry out those measures on the other. One of the most important investments the Federal Government can make is its investment in its human capital. And yet, the Republican budget would freeze Federal funding for job training programs at roughly 60 percent of the 1995 appropriations level for these programs. It would reduce funding for the Job Corps by nearly 10 percent as well. And it would eliminate AmeriCorps and the Direct Student Loan Program. Despite the strong public reaction to the Republicans' antienvironment initiatives last year, the Republican budget resolution would once again undermine Federal efforts to protect the environment and improve public health. It would cut the EPA's operating budget by 11 percent for fiscal year 1997. Cuts of this magnitude would damage the agency's ability to enforce existing environmental statutes. It would also eliminate EPA programs to develop advanced environmental technologies. This budget would also phase out energy conservation programs, renewable energy research, and fossil energy research and development. Such policies are incredibly short-sighted. One of the functions most dramatically reduced under the Republican budget proposal is community development. Funding for programs like the Community Development Block Grant Program would be reduced from $11 billion in 1996 to $6 billion in 2002. The Economic Development Administration would be eliminated altogether. Such cuts would devastate communities like Pittsburgh. Federal community development funding leverages billions of State, local, and private sector dollars into important development and revitalization efforts. Without this Federal seed money, many communities across the country will be at a loss to address many critical community needs. American workers are also adversely affected. The Republican budget would reduce funding for programs like OSHA that ensure workplace safety. It would eliminate the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH], the only Government agency that conducts research on workplace injuries. It would repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act, legislation that guarantees that employees of Federal contractors are paid locally prevailing wages for their work. And it would extract another $9.4 billion in savings from Federal civilian and military retirees, the same people who have been called upon again and again in recent years to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of balancing the budget. The Republican budget assumes dramatic changes in Federal housing assistance programs as well. While these programs are in need of reform, current funding for these programs falls far short of meeting the need for affordable housing in this country. The Republicans would reduce spending on housing assistance from the current level of services by roughly $20 billion over the next six years. The Republican budget would also make dramatic changes in important Federal transportation programs as well. The local matching rate for transit capital grants would be increased to 50 percent. Transit operating assistance would be phased out. And mass transit new starts would be eliminated. Research and development of advanced high speed rail would be eliminated as well. In total, transit funding would be reduced below a freeze level by more than $6.5 billion over the next six years. This policy shift would have a devastating impact on congestion, energy consumption, economic growth, and air quality in many of our urban areas. The Republican budget would eliminate or dramatically reduce technology transfer programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, programs that provide valuable technical assistance to small manufacturers across the country and promote the development of advanced technology and innovative products. These programs help American businesses compete with foreign manufacturers. They produce an incredible return on the Federal Government's modest investment. The Republican budget still makes dramatic changes in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. The proposed savings are large enough to devastate [[Page H5110]] these critical health care programs. It is interesting to note that the difference in Medicare savings from last year's budget resolution to this year's is roughly the same size as the reduction in the size of the tax cut that the Republicans are proposing. That would suggest to me that the Medicare savings in this budget are motivated by the Republican tax cut package, and not by concern over the future of the Medicare Program. Regardless of the motivation, it should be clear to all Americans that attempting to save $168 billion from Medicare over the next 6 years is simply irresponsible, as is the plan's reliance on medical savings accounts to cut costs and impose fiscal discipline on Medicare beneficiaries and providers. The Republican plan would also adversely affect Medicaid beneficiaries as well. The Republican's budget resolution would garner substantial savings, $72 billion, from Medicaid by converting it to a block grant, and it would eliminate the current guarantee of health care coverage for 2.5 million low-income children between the ages of 13 and 18. Finally, the Republican budget would pull a number of additional threads from the already fraying Federal safety net. The Republican budget would make $53 billion in savings in programs like AFDC, food stamps, and SSI, primarily by eliminating the Federal guarantee of assistance for the needy and converting them to block grants. Where does that leave us? With a Republican budget resolution that is fundamentally flawed. I voted against this resolution when it was considered by the House Budget Committee, and I shall vote against it when it is considered by the full House. Any of the Democratic alternatives would be preferable. The President's budget is a responsible attempt to balance serious deficit reduction with important investments in our future and the need to preserve Federal safety net programs, although I believe that it would be better to balance the budget before we cut taxes substantially. The coalition budget also deserves credit for its commitment to deficit reduction, although I also have concerns about some of the provisions it contains. I believe, however, that the Progressive Caucus- Congressional Black Caucus budget proposal provides the Federal budget strategy that best addresses the needs of this Nation over the next 6 years. This budget substitute balances the budget, invests in our communities and our human capital, and even expands Federal safety net programs. It does so by reducing defense spending to a level commensurate with the reduced military threat we face with the end of the cold war, and by eliminating corporate subsidies and tax breaks that are wasteful and inefficient. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to reject this improvident budget resolution and to adopt the Progressive Caucus-Congressional Black Caucus budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the city of Cincinnati, OH [Mr. Portman]. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I support this budget without reservation. It is a great budget for all the reasons we have heard up here today. I have got three kids at home. It is about the kids, it is about the next generation. We do not want to leave them with this crushing debt, now $5 trillion. We do not want to increase their taxes to the extent we would have to in order to service that debt. We want them to have a shot at the American dream. So this budget is at least one important step toward getting that budget under control and to get it into balance in 6 years. But let me mention something else, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talks about it a lot. Forget the numbers. This is also about shifting power and responsibility and authority and money out of this city, out of Washington and back to our States, back to our local communities and back to people, and that is very important, and it is a big distinction between the way we have been going and the way we like to go. For 40 years we have increasingly aggregated that power and authority here in Washington. This budget is all about getting it out. Medicaid is a good example of that. Education is a good example of that. Welfare is a great example of that. Let me give my colleagues one example in Ohio. For years Ohio tried to get a waiver to be able to do something innovative and creative in the area of welfare to try to help people actually move from welfare rolls to payrolls. Finally we got some of the waivers. We were able, in the last 3 years, to reduce our welfare rolls in Ohio by 23 percent. We could do twice that well, maybe three times that well, if we could get real flexibility that is in this budget proposal in the area of welfare reform. Let us trust the people that sent us here. Let us do this budget because it is the right thing to do for our kids, to get our fiscal house in order, but also let us do it because it is time to start moving some of the power and authority out of Washington where it is increasingly aggregated and reverse that trend. This is one small step and an important step toward doing that. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, there are two budgets; no, there are four budgets being considered tomorrow. The one that I support borrows $137 billion less than the majority budget. I listened to a lot of speeches today, and I do not understand how anyone can propose that borrowing $137 billion more is going to make good economic sense. We are talking about spending cuts. I hope my colleagues from rural America take a good hard look at our colleagues' budget. Cutting 46 percent more out of the agriculture discretionary function over the next 6 years does not make good economic sense by anybody's standards. Cutting 13 percent from research extension this year, 1997, does not make good sense. Whoever proposed that, I do not understand how they could possibly come up with that. The idea that there is that much more overhead down at USDA completely ignores the fact that we have spent the last 3 years reorganizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We have cut $4.2 billion from that overhead. Now to come in and say we are going to take another $695 million because somebody keeps saying there is unnecessary bureaucratic overhead downtown, they are not looking at what has already been done over the last 3 years in the current administration, and they are truly going to do irreparable harm to agriculture, rural health. Eliminating the office of rural health in the block grant program that has allowed rural hospitals who have been struggling to just keep their doors open, the success of that program, to suggest that is going to be eliminated does not make sense. So, a lot of cuts. Yes, we need to cut; yes, we need to make decisions along these lines. But I would say take a good hard look at rural health, and that also includes urban health because what I say about rural health applies exactly the same way to the inner cities, and there are being many decisions made in this budget in the name of cutting the bureaucracy that are going to have the opposite effect. They are going to have a devastating effect on the food supply of this Nation some day. Mr. Chairman, as Representative for the very rural 17th District of Texas, as a founding member and former cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and as a 16-year veteran on the House Agriculture Committee, I find the degree to which this budget resolution assaults rural America truly stunning and enormously disturbing. In the past, rural Members, which of course can be found in both parties, have always managed to put aside partisanship in rural issues for one fundamental reason: An overriding worry about the potential loss of access to quality health care, loss of business, and ultimately, loss of economic viability in rural areas. The programs and offices which this budget targets for elimination in the health function are the very programs and offices originated by the bipartisan Rural Health Care Coalition. I realize that constituents of urban Members do not worry about whether there is going to be a doctor to deliver their babies, an emergency room to treat the tractor accidents, a nurse to treat daily illnesses. But these are things my constituents do worry about. The programs targeted by this budget certainly do not respond to all of those needs by themselves but the programs and their coordination play a vital role at the edges. [[Page H5111]] The assault on agriculture is even more remarkable, with total agricultural discretionary spending cut a staggering 46 percent from 1997 to 2002. I understand Republicans think that this nearly 50 percent reduction will come from overhead, which I find particularly interesting since the Agriculture Department has just completed a major reorganization and downsizing. Since most of those cuts are unspecified, it's hard to know whether they will be taken from the hide of research and extension programs, conservation programs, or nutrition and safety programs. What is clear, however, is that with the Ag discretionary budget virtually cut in half, the impact will be felt in each and every function of the USDA. And that means the impact will be felt in each and every rural community. I find it hard to believe that my many friends across the aisle who serve with me on the Agriculture Committee or on the Rural Health Care Coalition have focused on the aspect of the majority's budget. I have little doubt, though, that as these numbers are implemented into policies and as constituents across the country notify their Representatives of their concerns, my friends will become as alarmed about the impact of this budget on the future of rural America as I am today. Mr. Chairman, for this and other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget and a ``yea'' vote for the coalition substitute which approaches a balanced budget in a far more humane and reasonable manner. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I dearly love my colleague from Texas, but as my colleagues know, talk about a vain effort, I mean there is no one that I have yet met outside of the beltway who thinks that we have cut bureaucracy and redtape and travel expenses and supplies and equipment enough in any, virtually any, piece of this Federal Government. This Republican majority believes that there is tons of money available in the travel allowance, the supply allowance, the equipment allowance of virtually every single department, bureau and agency of this Government, and frankly, I do not even think we started to downsize and save money. So we are after the overhead accounts of everything in this Federal Government, and I have not yet gone home and had one taxpaying citizen say to me, ``You have really cut the bureaucratic overhead too much in Washington.'' Not one single person has told me, and I think we are absolutely on the right track. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, at the outset of this debate, the gentleman from New Jersey laid out the case very eloquently for this budget. A budget is not really about numbers. It is not about whether we spend $1,500 billion on the Federal Government or $1,600 billion. It is not even about whether we cut a program, whether we increase a program, whether we add a program, or whether we eliminate a program. No, Mr. Chairman, a budget is an opportunity for this body and for our political parties to make a philosophical statement about the direction we believe this country should be going. It is an opportunity for us to say something about where we think our future is. It is an opportunity for each party in Congress to set forth its vision, its vision for America, its hopes, its dreams for our future and for our children's future. Mr. Chairman, our budget makes such a statement. It says very clearly what we believe the National Government's priorities should be. It insists that we should decide what this Government can do, what it must do, and what it should do. It says that we should reduce the burden on our children, the burden that a new child born today in this country, assumes upon his or her birth. That burden is a burden of $188,000 just to pay the interest on the national debt. Our budget says we believe other levels of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations, can perform government functions better than Washington can. We say this about education, we say this about some aspects of welfare, about some aspects of health care, we say it about such things as economic development. And, yes, most importantly, it says that we believe the burden of taxes on American citizens should be reduced. Our budget would reduce the burden of taxes on American citizens. The gentleman from Texas talked about having to borrow more money. But we reach a balanced budget as soon as any of our other budgets that are proposed. What we do differently is leave some of the money in people's pockets, leave money in the pockets of American citizens so they can decide how to spend the money on their health care, on their education, on their schooling, on their housing, on all the needs that they have. We do this because we believe that Americans who work hard and earn it should keep it. That is what this budget is about; that is the statement this budget makes. I urge my colleagues to support it. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution before us and I would like to comment on the treatment of research and dev

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997
(House of Representatives - May 15, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5104-H5133] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 14, 1996 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, House Concurrent Resolution 178. {time} 1609 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. 178) establishing the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with Mr. Camp in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 14, 1996, the concurrent resolution is considered read the first time. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will control 90 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, I yield 11 minutes to my friend and the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks]. Mr. SABO. Before my friend from New Jersey starts and lest I forget, I request unanimous consent that the last 30 minutes of debate on the minority side, which is allocated to the Joint Economic Committee, be controlled by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], and that he have the authority to yield time to other Members. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the measure before us is not simply about thousands of individual numbers. It is not about economic assumptions. It is not about green eyeshades and sharp leaded pencils. Budgets are about people. Budgets are about ideas. Mr. Chairman, the budget of the Federal Government speaks to who we are as a country. It looks at our hopes and our aspirations, our dreams. It looks at our challenges and our problems. It looks at our opportunities. But no budget, Mr. Chairman, exists in a vacuum. A budget is developed against the backdrop of the environment that we find today. As family across this country are looking at their own economic circumstances, they are saying very clearly that America can and must do better. While the economy may be showing signs of improvement for some, many families are still struggling. Tens of thousands of workers continue to lose their jobs, many the victims of corporate downsizing. In fact, between June of 1994 and June of 1995, fully half the major corporations in the United States eliminated jobs, less than a third of the workers who lost their full-time jobs found new jobs that paid as much money. On average, workers who lost their jobs had to settle for jobs that paid 8.2 percent less. And for dislocated workers between the ages of 45 and 55, their incomes declined by fully 14 percent. We have watched high-paying manufacturing jobs continue to disappear at an alarming rate. Between March of 1995 and March of this year, 326,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. In the past 2 years, there has been a 10.2 percent increase in the number of Americans who hold two or more jobs. Today more people are working two jobs than at any time in our Nation's history. {time} 1615 Yet, despite working longer and harder than ever before, too many families feel as if they are not moving ahead. They are working harder merely to stay in place, and it is no wonder. The American family has seen no increase in their wages over the past 3\1/2\ years. Meanwhile, taxes are taking a bigger and bigger bite out of the family's annual income. It is interesting to note that back in 1950, Federal taxes consumed just 5 percent of the average family's income. Today, 26 percent of a family's income goes just to pay for Federal taxes. Most families across the country, Mr. Chairman, remember that back in 1993, just 3 years ago, President Clinton raised their taxes, bringing the tax burden to its highest level in history. The Clinton tax package increased taxes on gasoline, increased taxes on individual incomes, increased taxes on married couples, increased taxes on Social Security benefits, increased taxes on inheritances. As a result, every family, every year, is seeing their tax bill escalate. Last year, the average family with a single wageearner took home $803 less in their paycheck than they did in 1992. What does all this mean to our children as we look to the future? If we stay on the current path and we do not stop our deficit spending, a child born today will face a very bleak future. Seventeen years from today, when that child is prepared to graduate from high school, every tax dollar sent to Washington, DC, will be consumed by just five programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal employee retirement benefits, and the interest obligation on the national debt. That means that when that child gets ready to graduate and go to college, there will be no money available in the Federal budget to help with his college education, no money to keep his neighborhood safe from crime, no more Federal aid to build new roads or mass transit systems, and no money available to protect and defend our country. Over his working lifetime, that child will be paying off a huge debt, a debt he inherited from all of us. That child's lifetime obligation as his share of the interest payment on the national debt will be $18,000. The fact is that America needs a budget that saves our children's future. Our children deserve a better and brighter future than this scenario. They deserve one filled with hope and opportunity and a chance to live out the American dream. Since the start of the Great Society programs in 1965, we have spent $5 trillion on a vast assortment of social spending programs. That is more than we spent to win World War II. What has that enormous investment produced? The number of children living in households dependent on welfare has tripled, from 3.3 million to 9.6 million. There has been an explosion in the number of mothers, many of them children themselves, who are having children out of wedlock, a 326 percent increase over the last 30 years. We need to make sure that Washington is there to lend a temporary hand in time of need, helping the people to get back on their feet again so they can lead independent, self-sufficient lives. As we look ahead to the vast changes that await us in the twenty- first century, just around the corner, we must empower individuals to take advantage of new opportunities, and to do that, America needs a budget that empowers people to be self-reliant. To accomplish that objective, we need a budget that reduces the power and influence of Washington over our everyday lives. In just 30 years, Government spending has exploded. The cost of running the Federal Government has moved from $134 billion a [[Page H5105]] year to $1.5 trillion a year, and along with all this spending, we have created a wasteful and bloated bureaucracy. Every year that bureaucracy churns out thousands of pages of new rules and regulations that affect all aspects of our lives, from the food we eat to the car we drive to the houses we live in. And it is not just businesses that pay the price for all this Government redtape. Families pay, and pay quite dearly. Government regulations cost the average family $6,800 every year. Just think about how time-consuming and confusing it is to fill out your own income tax form. That is because the IRS has 480 different tax forms, and another 280 forms to tell you how to fill them out. It is no wonder it takes the average taxpayer over 12 years just to figure out their own taxes. America needs a budget that lowers taxes and spends less of our hard- earned money. There is something fundamentally wrong when the average American family pays more on taxes, taxes to the Federal, the State and local governments, than they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined. The average worker spends 2 hours and 47 minutes out of his 8-hour workday just to pay his tax burden. Twenty years ago, that same worker was spending half that amount of time to meet his tax burden. Mr. Chairman, our budget plan will help America to do better. It will end 30 years of reckless deficit spending. It will shift power, money, and influence out of Washington, DC, and give it back to the American people. It trusts our neighbors and our communities to develop thoughtful and compassionate solutions to today's problems. This budget attacks waste and inefficiency, and by lowering taxes and reshaping our Federal Government, it will help American families to move ahead so they can earn more, keep more, and do more. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, here we are again, a repeat of 1995. I represent a party that in 1993 produced real deficit reduction. We did not simply talk about it. We produced it, and the deficit has fallen in half. We come today to face the question of how we continue to put our Federal fiscal house in order, but how to do it in a fashion that is fair and workable. One of the most important programs that America passed some 30 years ago was Medicare, to assure that elderly Americans had adequate health care. I congratulate my Republican friends on finally making one change in your proposal. You have accepted the President's position that the base premium for part B Medicare should not exceed 25 percent of total cost, and I congratulate you on that change. Unfortunately, as I look at the details of your program, however, I discover that while you appear to have been easing your Medicare cuts over the 6-year period before 2002, that in reality, at the end of that time, the provider cuts in the final year, 2002, will actually have to be deeper and make Medicare more vulnerable than was your program as it passed the Congress and was vetoed by the President. That is hardly progress, my friends. We find throughout this budget a variety of sugar coating to make it look a little bit better than the radical agenda of 1995. But when we look at its long-term impact, we find that in many cases, it is as bad or worse than what the President fortunately had to veto. And Medicare is one of those cases. The cuts, let me say again, to that program in 2002 under your program of today, they are going to have to be deeper than the cuts that you were proposing just a few months ago that the President, fortunately, vetoed. We will have some more to say on that subject, much more, as we discover that your budget of 1996 is just simply a repeat of the unfortunate program of 1995. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]. Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget resolution and in strong support of the Democratic substitute offered by the conservative Democratic coalition. The people back home who are listening to this debate will hear echoed many of the same themes we debated in last year's budget debate. But while the Republican budget resolution has come closer to the coalition substitute in terms of numbers, it still represents a political philosophy that does not reflect the views of the American people, and one that will hurt our economy and our citizens. Because the Republicans insist on borrowing $122 billion to pay for a tax cut, their resolution achieves $142 billion less in deficit reduction than does the coalition budget. As it did last year, the coalition substitute still represents an honest path to a balanced budget, that protects both the middle class and our most vulnerable, and nowhere is this more true than in the Medicare Program. Last year the Republicans proposed over $28 billion in Medicare spending reuctions. This year, they are down to $16 billion. Last year the President proposed $98 billion in spending reductions, and this year he proposes $124 billion. So both sides have made substantial and significant progress forward toward a centrist compromise toward the coalition's budget. But yet while the numbers are moving closer, serious and substantive differences remain. Republicans have backed away from their radical cuts, but they have not backed away entirely from their radical policies. The Republican plan turns Medicare managed care into a voucher program and forces seniors to pay the difference. The coalition plan prohibits from charging extra and protects seniors from unscrupulous and unfair billing. The Republican plan spends $4.6 billion, over $7,000 a person, on medical savings accounts, at a time when the trust fund's solvency is in jeopardy. The coalition plan handles MSA's in a prudent and thoughtful way by having a test program, a demonstration project. The Republicans spend $4.6 billion on medical savings accounts, but not one penny on preventive benefits. The coalition Medicare package spends $2 billion on benefits for prostate and colon cancer screening, mammographies and pap smears, and diabetes self-testing equipment, a preventive benefit that will save over $100 million a year for the Medicare Program when it is fully implemented. The Republican budget cuts $123 billion from hospitals, home health agencies, and skilled nursing facilities. Under this new baseline, these cuts are even larger than those proposed by the Republicans last year, and they will devastate health care in rural areas such as mine. The Republican Medicare plan represents the majority's misplaced priorities. It benefits some of those who manage the care, but it harms many of those who receive the care. In doing so, it cuts $22 billion more from Medicare than does the coalition's bill. {time} 1630 The coalition's Medicare policy represents sensible middle ground, without gimmicks, without surprises, or without reversals in policy. I urge my colleagues to support our Medicare reform package and to support the coalition's budget resolution and to vote against this Republican budget resolution. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from new Jersey for yielding the time. I listened with interest to the comments of the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget and to the comments of my good friend from Virginia. It is not my intent to indulge in venom or vitriol this afternoon, but, instead, I think it is a time for truth. The gentleman from Minnesota seems to be saying, ``Well, you have almost learned your lesson, new majority.'' Therein lies the most clear difference between the two overwhelming philosophies, for those who champion the Washington bureaucracy and the Washington approach as knowing all and knowing best put their faith in that bureaucracy instead of putting their faith in the people of America. [[Page H5106]] Those of us in the new majority put our faith in the American people, not the Washington bureaucracy. And this, Mr. Chairman, is what is truly radical, this fact, this piece of truth: That the average person pays more in taxes and the average family pays more in taxes today than it pays in food, clothing and shelter combined. That is a fact. It is time for truth, and the truth is the largest tax increase in American history, and this is a fact that my friend from Virginia, who champions deficit reduction, gets away from. The fact is the Clinton budget and the Clinton tax increase costs every household in America $2,600 in additional taxes. We can do better. My friend from New Jersey brought this check up. We do not need the fictional Baby Jane Doe. I can put a real name there, John Mica Hayworth, who is now 2 years of age. If we fail to resolve these problems, if we fail to live within our means, John Mica Hayworth will pay in interest on the debt over $185,000 in his lifetime. That is unconscionable. This budget dispute is not about numbers, it is about flesh and blood and the future, and despite the rhetoric and the playground taunts, the fact is we can do better for today's seniors, for the youngsters of today, for generations yet unborn. Say no to the Clinton crunch, yes to our new budget and yes to a new plan for the future. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say that was about the most inaccurate description of what has happened I have seen. The fact is the bulk of the new revenues last year applied to changes in the income Tax Code for people with taxable incomes of over $140,000, which means they have close to a gross income of $200,000. The surcharge applies to incomes over $250,000, probably gross taxable income over $250,000, gross income of $300,000 or more. I have to indicate also to the gentleman that the numbers he is using on this chart of average taxes assumes or averages in the Ross Perots with the rest of everyone. That is clearly inaccurate. It assumes that the cost of shelter is only 15 percent, and all of a sudden here a while ago, in the housing bill, the gentleman was trying to increase rents to over 30 percent of income for people in low-income housing. Grossly inaccurate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, for yielding me this time, and really congratulate Mr. Sabo for working with Members on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, people of different persuasions, to try to get us together on a budget that will balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. I thought we were making progress and I thought Mr. Sabo had done a great job in bringing us closer together as we ended 1995. Unfortunately, as I look at the Republican budget that is being brought up under this resolution, it seems like we are no further together than we were a year ago. That is very unfortunate. A missed opportunity. The budget should speak to the framework on which we want to see the priorities of this Nation, on raising revenues and on spending priorities. Let me just talk, if I might, in the few minutes I have, on Medicare, one part of that budget. The Medicare proposal in the Republican budget will cost my seniors more, they are going to receive less care, and it seriously jeopardizes the quality of our Medicare system. Last year the Republicans suggested cutting $270 billion from the Medicare system in order to finance $245 billion of tax breaks. Well, we are not dealing with a 6-year budget rather than a 7-year budget, so this year the cut in Medicare is $168 billion, the tax breaks of $122 billion going basically to wealthier people. That is not what our seniors want. That is wrong. Instead, we should be looking at ways of preserving the Medicare system, which the Republicans talk about, but by their own admission they do nothing on the long-term solvency of the Medicare system and a large part of their savings do not go into the Medicare Part A Program. We talk about giving our seniors more choice, and they do if a person happens to be wealthy or healthy, under the Republican program. But the vast majority of my seniors do not fall into that category. They will not be able to choose a health care plan that will cover their needs. The Republican proposal removes the protections in Medicare about the plans charging more or the doctors charging more. Sure, if an individual is wealthy they can afford that extra money, but if they are of modest income, as most seniors are, they cannot and they will be forced into a plan where they do not have choice. We talk about people going into a private plan and returning the Medicare but we offer no protection on their Medigap plans. Most seniors rely on Medigap, and yet the Republicans have removed that from their proposal. We do have a choice. We do have a choice in order to preserve the Medicare system. We can vote for the President's budget, we can vote for the Congressional Black Caucus' budget. I favor the coalition budget because it is a responsible way to bring down the cost of Medicare without robbing our seniors to pay for tax breaks for wealthy people. It also preserves the quality of our Medicare system. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican proposal and support the coalition budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and ask the gentleman if he will yield to me. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, for those folks that are watching this debate, what the last speaker said is just so far from being accurate it almost ought to be on the Tonight Show in the opening dialog. I think we ought to stop scaring our senior citizens, our most vulnerable people. We have massive increases in Medicare spending, the program will be enhanced, preserved and improved, and I just really wish that these scare tactics would come to an end. The President blamed it on the press. He said, ``The press made me do it,'' and I think he may be getting around to the point where he is going to stop, and maybe the rest of the people scaring the seniors ought to stop as well. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic. My colleague from Maryland speaks of a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity when we fail to allow the American people to hang on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it here to Washington, DC. That is tragic. It is a missed opportunity when a Medicare trust fund under this administration is already $4 billion in arrears, instead of moving to solve the problem by allowing seniors the chance and the opportunity they have at every other phase of life to make their own choices, somehow try to lock them into a government bureaucracy. Again, Mr. Chairman, it comes down to this question: Who should we trust? Should we place more trust in the hands of the Washington bureaucrats, who in the wake of that largest tax increase in American history have only delivered 49 percent of the revenues this tax increase was supposed to bring in, in our breakneck pace of spending; or do we trust the American people to make the right choices for their families and their futures? We can play scare games all day, but in the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, we must stand at the bar of history with the American people as our judge; and, as for me and the new majority, we stand firmly in the column of the American people. We reject the outmoded notions that Washington knows best. Join us, save this country. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDermott. Mr. Chairman, I listen to this and I think that anybody who is watching it or listening to it in their office would ask themselves, who should I believe? Now, the last Speaker got up here and said that we ought to stop scaring [[Page H5107]] the seniors. I agree with that. It was the Republican proposal that scared the seniors in the first instance. And for those individuals who know who Yogi Berra is, Yogi Berra once said, when asked about a particular event, it is kind of deja vu all over again. What we are seeing today is the same plan they rolled out here last year. They did not change anything. Oh, they have tinkered with it a little bit. They said they are not going to fool with the senior citizens premiums. They are not going to raise it up to 31 percent; they are going to hold it at 25 percent. Now, of course that is the House. Now, we all know it will pass out of the House and go over to the Senate. Is there any agreement with the Senate on that; does anybody know? No, there is no agreement. This is a House proposal, and we will get the same wrangle and, just watch, we will get the same jerking around. Now, instead of the part B premiums, the House GOP is going to cut hospitals because they do not want to cut doctors. The part B, as my colleagues know, pays for the doctor bills, and they do not want to cut doctors because they made a deal with them. They said, ``If you will support our plan, we will give you a couple of things, and one of them is balance billing.'' Now, remember the history of balance billing. Back in 1985 we said that doctors had to accept what Medicare paid when it paid a senior citizen's bill. The doctor could not balance bill. For almost 11 years they have not been able to balance bill. But the Republicans said to the doctors, ``Look, if you will support our plans to cut the daylights out of Medicare, we will let you balance bill.'' So whatever Medicare pays, senior citizens can expect that the doctors will pile on an additional balance bill on top of that. Now, in addition to that, we have to remember that the Speaker said, public statement, that he expects the traditional Medicare plan to wither on the vine. Now, how do they expect to cause this withering on the vine? The traditional plan that most people are in, they simply are not going to give the kind of increases that will make it possible for doctors to stay in that, so doctors will say, we do not want any seniors, and the only place a senior will be able to get their health care is to go into a managed care plan. Now, by doing that, that means they will have moved all senior citizens into managed care and they simply are going to squeeze people down. It is very clear the plan the laid out. It is going to cost seniors $1,000 more a year by the year 2002. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of scaring that has gone on. It ought to stop. This same plan is being rolled out here again, and this should be enough in itself to defeat this budget resolution. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], and ask if the gentlewoman will yield to me. Ms. DUNN of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, you can fool some of the seniors some of the time but not all of the seniors all of the time. This trust fund is on the road toward bankruptcy. Our program is designed to significantly increase the amount of dollars in Medicare and to guarantee that this fund will be solvent well into the next century so our senior citizens can have a very viable program. {time} 1645 Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to switch the discussion to welfare, because welfare reform is included in this balanced budget resolution. During the past 30 years, the Federal Government has spent more than $5 trillion on welfare programs intended to alleviate poverty, but the problem is getting worse, not better. The system is getting more and more cruel. Today one American child in seven is raised on welfare. That is what this budget debate is all about: the children and their families. The current welfare system encourages a life of dependency and weak families, and that has a devastatingly negative effect on a child's development. Every one of us feels sick when we read in the paper, we see on television the real life stories of how the current welfare system has failed. Think of this: 19 children found together in a cold, dark Chicago apartment. Police found them sharing a bone with the family dog for food. Or the Boston family that has 14 out of its 17 adult children now living on welfare, right now, and receiving close to $1 million a year from taxpayers. Our solutions are focused on promoting families and work, moving families into the work force and off welfare is the only way to break this cycle of dependency. Most Americans on welfare want to work, but, sadly, our Government offers them a better short-run deal to stay dependent. To make our approach work, the amount of time someone stays on welfare must be limited. Our bill does that. The President says he supports a 5-year time limit on cash welfare benefits, but he includes so many exemptions that the current welfare system would no be significantly changed. Furthermore, under the President's plan, recipients are guaranteed noncash benefits forever. We understand that families, especially mothers, need a helping hand in moving from welfare to work. That is why we provide over $6 billion in additional child care assistance over what is currently contained in the current welfare system. This gives parents the peace of mind to go off welfare into the work force. We also understand that children are hurt when our system fails so pitifully in enforcing court-ordered child support. Right now today, $34 billion are owed in court-ordered child support not being paid to custodial parents from these children's own parents. Our program finds a way to locate those dollars, especially those deadbeat parents who move out of the State to avoid supporting their flesh and blood children. Mr. Chairman, what is at stake is real welfare reform. Imagine what our country will look like in 5 years if we do not pass it. The system continues to hold millions of poor families in its grip. The problem is not the people who are involved. The problem is the failed process. The President recently asked for a welfare bill with personal responsibility, work and family. We give it to him. Sign this balanced budget proposal, Mr. President. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the hard-working gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], a real knowledgeable Member on health care. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say the seniors in this country are scared and they have reason to be because of these Republican proposals on Medicare. There is no question in my mind what is going on here again is the same thing that we saw last year. That is that senior citizens are being made to pay for the cuts that are being proposed in this budget and that Medicare is taking a bigger hit, almost as big a hit as it did last year, and all to pay for tax breaks essentially for wealthy Americans. Now why should a senior citizen be scared? They should be scared because when the Medicare program was established in 1963, they were basically told that they were going to have at least three things: One, they were told they were going to have an unlimited choice of doctors and hospitals. Medicare would reimburse for that. Second, they were told that they would have protection against having to pay a lot of money out of their pocket. Right now it is limited to 15 percent. And then they were told they would have guaranteed coverage of all Medicare benefits for the premium that was established by law. All these things are at risk in this Republican budget today. First of all, because of the reimbursement rate, the fact of the matter is that seniors will be pushed into HMO's or managed care. They will not have their choice of doctors and hospitals. Secondly, the protections against balanced billing are eliminated. The doctors, if you stay in the traditional Medicare program, can charge anything beyond the 15 percent that is provided under current law. So more money out of pocket means you do not have the health care if you cannot afford it. Lastly, with the MSA's, with the medical savings accounts, basically seniors are going to be encouraged to go into this two-tiered system where [[Page H5108]] they have only catastrophic coverage, and they have to pay out of pocket for anything short of a catastrophic health care. So why should not senior citizens be scared? All the basic tenets, if you will, of the Medicare program are at risk under the Republican budget. They do not know for sure if they can have their doctor anymore. They could very easily have to pay a lot more out of their pocket for going to a doctor or other Medicare or other health care expenses, and they do not even know if they choose an MSA that they will be able to have a lot of the services that Medicare now provides. I would be scared. They should be scared because of what the Republicans are doing here today. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds. Of course the gentleman obviously has not read our program because our program would give senior citizens more choice. In fact, most senior citizens would love to be in the Arizona plan which offers them prescription drugs, eyeglass coverage with no charge, no part B premium and no deductibles. We want to give senior citizens more choice. In that system they would not have more copayments and in fact get to choose whatever kind of system they want. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford]. Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that if one looks at the polls today, for the first time in American history when folks were asked: do you think your children will do better off or worse off than you did, they are answering ``worse off.'' That is the absolute opposite of the American dream, because the American dream is built on the idea that I did this well, my father did a little bit poorer than that, and my children are going to be doing better than that. One cannot build a civilization, one cannot build a country around the idea that my children are going to do worse off then I did. So I think at the core of this debate and the core of this budget, what we are really talking about is the American dream. Mr. Chairman, I would say second what those polls show is that Americans at the gut level understand what history has well documented over the course of time. Rome fell in 476 after controlling essentially the entire known world. The Byzantine empire, the Italian renaissance came to an end, the Spanish empire came to an end, the Dutch empire came to an end, the Ottomon empire came to an end. A host of civilizations came to an end because everyone of them reached a crossroads wherein they had to decide: Do we go back to what made us competitive and a world power in the first place, or we stay on this cozy but ultimately unsustainable cycle of upward government spending and upward government taxation? We are at that same crossroads today. A child born into America today will pay an 82-percent tax rate if we stay on the course we are on. That either means economic enslavement or it means a collapse of the financial system as we know it. It took every single personal income tax return filed west of the Mississippi River simply to pay for the interest on the national debt. A child born in America, as you saw by the check earlier, will pay $187,000 in taxes on their share of interest on the national debt if we stay on the course we are on. So we are at that crossroads. I think what this budget does is point us at the right fork in the road, because it begins to move decisions back to people in their local communities, in their local towns, and in so doing restores the American dream, and I think has a lot to do with saving the civilization. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution and to advise my colleagues to carefully consider the implications of this budget on domestic discretionary spending. My colleagues need to understand there is simply no growth in this budget for important programs. Defense is the only area where they have proposed real growth. It makes no investment in safe highways, airline traffic safety, safe streets, safe schools, education, health care, public safety, clean water, clean air, research and development, business development, and transportation. The tough choices we made in 1990 and 1993 controlled the growth in discretionary spending. The caps have worked and we have the discipline to control future discretionary spending. There is simply no justification for further assaults on critical domestic programs. It is also difficult to understand how my Republican colleagues could propose slowing the growth in domestic discretionary spending to such low levels that by the year 2002, the purchasing power of overall nondefense discretionary appropriations will be 26 percent below this year's level. At the same time that they plan on eliminating any real investment in our economic security, they are proposing $13 billion more for defense than requested by the Pentagon. Let me remind my colleagues again, that these cuts are in the most basic programs. Education, environmental protection, medical research, Head Start, civilian research and development, nutritional assistance, transportation, and criminal justice. All of these programs, regardless of what you may hear will be adversely affected if we enact the domestic discretionary level proposed in the Republican budget resolution. In addition to the funding levels proposed, my Republican colleagues are also proposing some significant changes and eliminations. Included in this budget resolution is an assumption that 25 important educational programs will be block granted; the Governors will get to decide how to spend this money. While I have yet to see the list of these 25 programs, I can tell you that in some cases, the States will not act to serve vulnerable populations of children. It was because of the refusal of the States to address the unique educational needs of homeless children that I worked to create the Homeless Education Program. States and local governments simply did not reach out to these children and I can assure my Republican friends that under the block grant proposal, homeless children will be denied basic educational services. Once again the Republicans are proposing to dismantle the one agency whose mission is job development and growth. Did we learn nothing from last year's budget battle. We need a strong and effective Department of Commerce. The late Secretary Brown accomplished this objective and I am fully confident that Secretary Kantor will meet the same challenge. This Republican budget resolution also proposes the elimination of the Legal Services Corporation. Guaranteeing the basic protection of a citizen's constitutional rights is one of our responsibilities as Members of Congress. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Shouldn't we be concerned about guaranteeing every citizen, regardless of their income, the right to due process and the right of fair and just representation? Apparently only those who have the ability to pay are allowed adequate legal counsel. I am gravely concerned about the direction of this country as we enter the next century and firmly believe that this budget will not guarantee that we are prepared to meet the challenges. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican budget resolution. We can balance the budget without jeopardizing our economic future. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Oklahoma [Mr. Watts]. Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, there was a cultist popular humanistic theme in the 1960's that said ``God is dead.'' I am afraid that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided that they were left in charge, and what they did was drive us into the ever- deepening quicksand of more and more Government spending without results. Our budget resolution offers more savings so that Americans can ultimately keep more of what they earn and they can decide what is best for them, not the Government. Bottom line, in our budget we trust the American people. In their budget, they do not, Do I hate my Government? No. I just believe that we can do better for this [[Page H5109]] country and for our kids, our grandkids, working families, and seniors. We can do better than $200 plus billion annual deficits, a $5 trillion national debt. I think we can do better than an anemic welfare system that penalizes mothers for saving money and penalizes them for wanting to marry the father of their children. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can do better by saving Medicare from bankruptcy. In this country, we expect the best from our high school, our college, and our professional athletic teams. Why should we not expect the same from our Government? We are the greatest, freest, wealthiest country in the world. I believe we can do better and we should as Americans. Red, yellow, black, and white, we should demand the best from our Government, and our budget starts us in that direction. Am I an optimist? I am reminded of the guy who defined an optimist as going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with him. Am I an optimist? You bet I am. I do believe we can do better by trusting the American people and figuring out the right answers for this time in our Government. I believe that our budget resolution starts us in that direction. Our budget gets us another year down the road of accomplishing a balanced budget in the next 6 years. If we balance the budget, it opens the gateway to the future for our kids and our grandkids. If we do not, we can only look forward to more financial despair and burdens on families, a bankrupt Medicare system and keeping the caged eagles in the poor community locked up just waiting to soar. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to open the gateway to the future for our kids and our grandkids by voting for this budget resolution. Trust the American people. {time} 1700 Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne]. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to point out the many deficiencies in the Republican budget resolution. The Republican budget is fundamentally flawed. It places the burden of deficit reduction on health care, education, environmental, infrastructure, and safety net programs while leaving defense spending and corporate welfare virtually untouched. It still provides a substantial tax cut at a time when the Federal Government is running a sizable deficit. Defense spending is actually increased in this budget while critical domestic needs are ignored. Finally, the Republican budget puts a whole new spin on redistribution by increasing the burden on low- and moderate-income Americans and reducing the burden on the well-to-do; the Republican budget, for example, provides a child tax credit for middle- and upper-class families while cutting earned income tax credit assistance to low- and moderate-income households. The Republican budget also resurrects a number of policies discussed last year. It eliminates the Commerce Department, the Energy Department, AmeriCorps, the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA], the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH], the Legal Services Corporation, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, just to name a few. These agencies provide valuable services to the people of this country. The proposals to eliminate them are short- sighted efforts to pander to the public perception that all government is bad. If you doubt that this is the case, then ask yourself why many of the functions, operations, and even the staff of the Departments of Energy and Commerce will merely be shifted to other agencies, much like the transfer of the Interstate Commerce Commission's responsibilities and staff to the Department of Transportation last year. In addition, the Republican budget would provide more than $2 billion less than the President's budget on crime-fighting programs. It is inconsistent to enact tough anticrime measures on the one hand and then deny law enforcement officials the resources that they need to carry out those measures on the other. One of the most important investments the Federal Government can make is its investment in its human capital. And yet, the Republican budget would freeze Federal funding for job training programs at roughly 60 percent of the 1995 appropriations level for these programs. It would reduce funding for the Job Corps by nearly 10 percent as well. And it would eliminate AmeriCorps and the Direct Student Loan Program. Despite the strong public reaction to the Republicans' antienvironment initiatives last year, the Republican budget resolution would once again undermine Federal efforts to protect the environment and improve public health. It would cut the EPA's operating budget by 11 percent for fiscal year 1997. Cuts of this magnitude would damage the agency's ability to enforce existing environmental statutes. It would also eliminate EPA programs to develop advanced environmental technologies. This budget would also phase out energy conservation programs, renewable energy research, and fossil energy research and development. Such policies are incredibly short-sighted. One of the functions most dramatically reduced under the Republican budget proposal is community development. Funding for programs like the Community Development Block Grant Program would be reduced from $11 billion in 1996 to $6 billion in 2002. The Economic Development Administration would be eliminated altogether. Such cuts would devastate communities like Pittsburgh. Federal community development funding leverages billions of State, local, and private sector dollars into important development and revitalization efforts. Without this Federal seed money, many communities across the country will be at a loss to address many critical community needs. American workers are also adversely affected. The Republican budget would reduce funding for programs like OSHA that ensure workplace safety. It would eliminate the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH], the only Government agency that conducts research on workplace injuries. It would repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act, legislation that guarantees that employees of Federal contractors are paid locally prevailing wages for their work. And it would extract another $9.4 billion in savings from Federal civilian and military retirees, the same people who have been called upon again and again in recent years to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of balancing the budget. The Republican budget assumes dramatic changes in Federal housing assistance programs as well. While these programs are in need of reform, current funding for these programs falls far short of meeting the need for affordable housing in this country. The Republicans would reduce spending on housing assistance from the current level of services by roughly $20 billion over the next six years. The Republican budget would also make dramatic changes in important Federal transportation programs as well. The local matching rate for transit capital grants would be increased to 50 percent. Transit operating assistance would be phased out. And mass transit new starts would be eliminated. Research and development of advanced high speed rail would be eliminated as well. In total, transit funding would be reduced below a freeze level by more than $6.5 billion over the next six years. This policy shift would have a devastating impact on congestion, energy consumption, economic growth, and air quality in many of our urban areas. The Republican budget would eliminate or dramatically reduce technology transfer programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, programs that provide valuable technical assistance to small manufacturers across the country and promote the development of advanced technology and innovative products. These programs help American businesses compete with foreign manufacturers. They produce an incredible return on the Federal Government's modest investment. The Republican budget still makes dramatic changes in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. The proposed savings are large enough to devastate [[Page H5110]] these critical health care programs. It is interesting to note that the difference in Medicare savings from last year's budget resolution to this year's is roughly the same size as the reduction in the size of the tax cut that the Republicans are proposing. That would suggest to me that the Medicare savings in this budget are motivated by the Republican tax cut package, and not by concern over the future of the Medicare Program. Regardless of the motivation, it should be clear to all Americans that attempting to save $168 billion from Medicare over the next 6 years is simply irresponsible, as is the plan's reliance on medical savings accounts to cut costs and impose fiscal discipline on Medicare beneficiaries and providers. The Republican plan would also adversely affect Medicaid beneficiaries as well. The Republican's budget resolution would garner substantial savings, $72 billion, from Medicaid by converting it to a block grant, and it would eliminate the current guarantee of health care coverage for 2.5 million low-income children between the ages of 13 and 18. Finally, the Republican budget would pull a number of additional threads from the already fraying Federal safety net. The Republican budget would make $53 billion in savings in programs like AFDC, food stamps, and SSI, primarily by eliminating the Federal guarantee of assistance for the needy and converting them to block grants. Where does that leave us? With a Republican budget resolution that is fundamentally flawed. I voted against this resolution when it was considered by the House Budget Committee, and I shall vote against it when it is considered by the full House. Any of the Democratic alternatives would be preferable. The President's budget is a responsible attempt to balance serious deficit reduction with important investments in our future and the need to preserve Federal safety net programs, although I believe that it would be better to balance the budget before we cut taxes substantially. The coalition budget also deserves credit for its commitment to deficit reduction, although I also have concerns about some of the provisions it contains. I believe, however, that the Progressive Caucus- Congressional Black Caucus budget proposal provides the Federal budget strategy that best addresses the needs of this Nation over the next 6 years. This budget substitute balances the budget, invests in our communities and our human capital, and even expands Federal safety net programs. It does so by reducing defense spending to a level commensurate with the reduced military threat we face with the end of the cold war, and by eliminating corporate subsidies and tax breaks that are wasteful and inefficient. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to reject this improvident budget resolution and to adopt the Progressive Caucus-Congressional Black Caucus budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the city of Cincinnati, OH [Mr. Portman]. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I support this budget without reservation. It is a great budget for all the reasons we have heard up here today. I have got three kids at home. It is about the kids, it is about the next generation. We do not want to leave them with this crushing debt, now $5 trillion. We do not want to increase their taxes to the extent we would have to in order to service that debt. We want them to have a shot at the American dream. So this budget is at least one important step toward getting that budget under control and to get it into balance in 6 years. But let me mention something else, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talks about it a lot. Forget the numbers. This is also about shifting power and responsibility and authority and money out of this city, out of Washington and back to our States, back to our local communities and back to people, and that is very important, and it is a big distinction between the way we have been going and the way we like to go. For 40 years we have increasingly aggregated that power and authority here in Washington. This budget is all about getting it out. Medicaid is a good example of that. Education is a good example of that. Welfare is a great example of that. Let me give my colleagues one example in Ohio. For years Ohio tried to get a waiver to be able to do something innovative and creative in the area of welfare to try to help people actually move from welfare rolls to payrolls. Finally we got some of the waivers. We were able, in the last 3 years, to reduce our welfare rolls in Ohio by 23 percent. We could do twice that well, maybe three times that well, if we could get real flexibility that is in this budget proposal in the area of welfare reform. Let us trust the people that sent us here. Let us do this budget because it is the right thing to do for our kids, to get our fiscal house in order, but also let us do it because it is time to start moving some of the power and authority out of Washington where it is increasingly aggregated and reverse that trend. This is one small step and an important step toward doing that. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, there are two budgets; no, there are four budgets being considered tomorrow. The one that I support borrows $137 billion less than the majority budget. I listened to a lot of speeches today, and I do not understand how anyone can propose that borrowing $137 billion more is going to make good economic sense. We are talking about spending cuts. I hope my colleagues from rural America take a good hard look at our colleagues' budget. Cutting 46 percent more out of the agriculture discretionary function over the next 6 years does not make good economic sense by anybody's standards. Cutting 13 percent from research extension this year, 1997, does not make good sense. Whoever proposed that, I do not understand how they could possibly come up with that. The idea that there is that much more overhead down at USDA completely ignores the fact that we have spent the last 3 years reorganizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We have cut $4.2 billion from that overhead. Now to come in and say we are going to take another $695 million because somebody keeps saying there is unnecessary bureaucratic overhead downtown, they are not looking at what has already been done over the last 3 years in the current administration, and they are truly going to do irreparable harm to agriculture, rural health. Eliminating the office of rural health in the block grant program that has allowed rural hospitals who have been struggling to just keep their doors open, the success of that program, to suggest that is going to be eliminated does not make sense. So, a lot of cuts. Yes, we need to cut; yes, we need to make decisions along these lines. But I would say take a good hard look at rural health, and that also includes urban health because what I say about rural health applies exactly the same way to the inner cities, and there are being many decisions made in this budget in the name of cutting the bureaucracy that are going to have the opposite effect. They are going to have a devastating effect on the food supply of this Nation some day. Mr. Chairman, as Representative for the very rural 17th District of Texas, as a founding member and former cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and as a 16-year veteran on the House Agriculture Committee, I find the degree to which this budget resolution assaults rural America truly stunning and enormously disturbing. In the past, rural Members, which of course can be found in both parties, have always managed to put aside partisanship in rural issues for one fundamental reason: An overriding worry about the potential loss of access to quality health care, loss of business, and ultimately, loss of economic viability in rural areas. The programs and offices which this budget targets for elimination in the health function are the very programs and offices originated by the bipartisan Rural Health Care Coalition. I realize that constituents of urban Members do not worry about whether there is going to be a doctor to deliver their babies, an emergency room to treat the tractor accidents, a nurse to treat daily illnesses. But these are things my constituents do worry about. The programs targeted by this budget certainly do not respond to all of those needs by themselves but the programs and their coordination play a vital role at the edges. [[Page H5111]] The assault on agriculture is even more remarkable, with total agricultural discretionary spending cut a staggering 46 percent from 1997 to 2002. I understand Republicans think that this nearly 50 percent reduction will come from overhead, which I find particularly interesting since the Agriculture Department has just completed a major reorganization and downsizing. Since most of those cuts are unspecified, it's hard to know whether they will be taken from the hide of research and extension programs, conservation programs, or nutrition and safety programs. What is clear, however, is that with the Ag discretionary budget virtually cut in half, the impact will be felt in each and every function of the USDA. And that means the impact will be felt in each and every rural community. I find it hard to believe that my many friends across the aisle who serve with me on the Agriculture Committee or on the Rural Health Care Coalition have focused on the aspect of the majority's budget. I have little doubt, though, that as these numbers are implemented into policies and as constituents across the country notify their Representatives of their concerns, my friends will become as alarmed about the impact of this budget on the future of rural America as I am today. Mr. Chairman, for this and other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget and a ``yea'' vote for the coalition substitute which approaches a balanced budget in a far more humane and reasonable manner. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I dearly love my colleague from Texas, but as my colleagues know, talk about a vain effort, I mean there is no one that I have yet met outside of the beltway who thinks that we have cut bureaucracy and redtape and travel expenses and supplies and equipment enough in any, virtually any, piece of this Federal Government. This Republican majority believes that there is tons of money available in the travel allowance, the supply allowance, the equipment allowance of virtually every single department, bureau and agency of this Government, and frankly, I do not even think we started to downsize and save money. So we are after the overhead accounts of everything in this Federal Government, and I have not yet gone home and had one taxpaying citizen say to me, ``You have really cut the bureaucratic overhead too much in Washington.'' Not one single person has told me, and I think we are absolutely on the right track. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, at the outset of this debate, the gentleman from New Jersey laid out the case very eloquently for this budget. A budget is not really about numbers. It is not about whether we spend $1,500 billion on the Federal Government or $1,600 billion. It is not even about whether we cut a program, whether we increase a program, whether we add a program, or whether we eliminate a program. No, Mr. Chairman, a budget is an opportunity for this body and for our political parties to make a philosophical statement about the direction we believe this country should be going. It is an opportunity for us to say something about where we think our future is. It is an opportunity for each party in Congress to set forth its vision, its vision for America, its hopes, its dreams for our future and for our children's future. Mr. Chairman, our budget makes such a statement. It says very clearly what we believe the National Government's priorities should be. It insists that we should decide what this Government can do, what it must do, and what it should do. It says that we should reduce the burden on our children, the burden that a new child born today in this country, assumes upon his or her birth. That burden is a burden of $188,000 just to pay the interest on the national debt. Our budget says we believe other levels of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations, can perform government functions better than Washington can. We say this about education, we say this about some aspects of welfare, about some aspects of health care, we say it about such things as economic development. And, yes, most importantly, it says that we believe the burden of taxes on American citizens should be reduced. Our budget would reduce the burden of taxes on American citizens. The gentleman from Texas talked about having to borrow more money. But we reach a balanced budget as soon as any of our other budgets that are proposed. What we do differently is leave some of the money in people's pockets, leave money in the pockets of American citizens so they can decide how to spend the money on their health care, on their education, on their schooling, on their housing, on all the needs that they have. We do this because we believe that Americans who work hard and earn it should keep it. That is what this budget is about; that is the statement this budget makes. I urge my colleagues to support it. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution before us and I would like to comment on the treatment of resear

Summary:

All articles in House section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997
(House of Representatives - May 15, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5104-H5133] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 14, 1996 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, House Concurrent Resolution 178. {time} 1609 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. 178) establishing the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with Mr. Camp in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 14, 1996, the concurrent resolution is considered read the first time. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will control 90 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, I yield 11 minutes to my friend and the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks]. Mr. SABO. Before my friend from New Jersey starts and lest I forget, I request unanimous consent that the last 30 minutes of debate on the minority side, which is allocated to the Joint Economic Committee, be controlled by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], and that he have the authority to yield time to other Members. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the measure before us is not simply about thousands of individual numbers. It is not about economic assumptions. It is not about green eyeshades and sharp leaded pencils. Budgets are about people. Budgets are about ideas. Mr. Chairman, the budget of the Federal Government speaks to who we are as a country. It looks at our hopes and our aspirations, our dreams. It looks at our challenges and our problems. It looks at our opportunities. But no budget, Mr. Chairman, exists in a vacuum. A budget is developed against the backdrop of the environment that we find today. As family across this country are looking at their own economic circumstances, they are saying very clearly that America can and must do better. While the economy may be showing signs of improvement for some, many families are still struggling. Tens of thousands of workers continue to lose their jobs, many the victims of corporate downsizing. In fact, between June of 1994 and June of 1995, fully half the major corporations in the United States eliminated jobs, less than a third of the workers who lost their full-time jobs found new jobs that paid as much money. On average, workers who lost their jobs had to settle for jobs that paid 8.2 percent less. And for dislocated workers between the ages of 45 and 55, their incomes declined by fully 14 percent. We have watched high-paying manufacturing jobs continue to disappear at an alarming rate. Between March of 1995 and March of this year, 326,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. In the past 2 years, there has been a 10.2 percent increase in the number of Americans who hold two or more jobs. Today more people are working two jobs than at any time in our Nation's history. {time} 1615 Yet, despite working longer and harder than ever before, too many families feel as if they are not moving ahead. They are working harder merely to stay in place, and it is no wonder. The American family has seen no increase in their wages over the past 3\1/2\ years. Meanwhile, taxes are taking a bigger and bigger bite out of the family's annual income. It is interesting to note that back in 1950, Federal taxes consumed just 5 percent of the average family's income. Today, 26 percent of a family's income goes just to pay for Federal taxes. Most families across the country, Mr. Chairman, remember that back in 1993, just 3 years ago, President Clinton raised their taxes, bringing the tax burden to its highest level in history. The Clinton tax package increased taxes on gasoline, increased taxes on individual incomes, increased taxes on married couples, increased taxes on Social Security benefits, increased taxes on inheritances. As a result, every family, every year, is seeing their tax bill escalate. Last year, the average family with a single wageearner took home $803 less in their paycheck than they did in 1992. What does all this mean to our children as we look to the future? If we stay on the current path and we do not stop our deficit spending, a child born today will face a very bleak future. Seventeen years from today, when that child is prepared to graduate from high school, every tax dollar sent to Washington, DC, will be consumed by just five programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal employee retirement benefits, and the interest obligation on the national debt. That means that when that child gets ready to graduate and go to college, there will be no money available in the Federal budget to help with his college education, no money to keep his neighborhood safe from crime, no more Federal aid to build new roads or mass transit systems, and no money available to protect and defend our country. Over his working lifetime, that child will be paying off a huge debt, a debt he inherited from all of us. That child's lifetime obligation as his share of the interest payment on the national debt will be $18,000. The fact is that America needs a budget that saves our children's future. Our children deserve a better and brighter future than this scenario. They deserve one filled with hope and opportunity and a chance to live out the American dream. Since the start of the Great Society programs in 1965, we have spent $5 trillion on a vast assortment of social spending programs. That is more than we spent to win World War II. What has that enormous investment produced? The number of children living in households dependent on welfare has tripled, from 3.3 million to 9.6 million. There has been an explosion in the number of mothers, many of them children themselves, who are having children out of wedlock, a 326 percent increase over the last 30 years. We need to make sure that Washington is there to lend a temporary hand in time of need, helping the people to get back on their feet again so they can lead independent, self-sufficient lives. As we look ahead to the vast changes that await us in the twenty- first century, just around the corner, we must empower individuals to take advantage of new opportunities, and to do that, America needs a budget that empowers people to be self-reliant. To accomplish that objective, we need a budget that reduces the power and influence of Washington over our everyday lives. In just 30 years, Government spending has exploded. The cost of running the Federal Government has moved from $134 billion a [[Page H5105]] year to $1.5 trillion a year, and along with all this spending, we have created a wasteful and bloated bureaucracy. Every year that bureaucracy churns out thousands of pages of new rules and regulations that affect all aspects of our lives, from the food we eat to the car we drive to the houses we live in. And it is not just businesses that pay the price for all this Government redtape. Families pay, and pay quite dearly. Government regulations cost the average family $6,800 every year. Just think about how time-consuming and confusing it is to fill out your own income tax form. That is because the IRS has 480 different tax forms, and another 280 forms to tell you how to fill them out. It is no wonder it takes the average taxpayer over 12 years just to figure out their own taxes. America needs a budget that lowers taxes and spends less of our hard- earned money. There is something fundamentally wrong when the average American family pays more on taxes, taxes to the Federal, the State and local governments, than they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined. The average worker spends 2 hours and 47 minutes out of his 8-hour workday just to pay his tax burden. Twenty years ago, that same worker was spending half that amount of time to meet his tax burden. Mr. Chairman, our budget plan will help America to do better. It will end 30 years of reckless deficit spending. It will shift power, money, and influence out of Washington, DC, and give it back to the American people. It trusts our neighbors and our communities to develop thoughtful and compassionate solutions to today's problems. This budget attacks waste and inefficiency, and by lowering taxes and reshaping our Federal Government, it will help American families to move ahead so they can earn more, keep more, and do more. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, here we are again, a repeat of 1995. I represent a party that in 1993 produced real deficit reduction. We did not simply talk about it. We produced it, and the deficit has fallen in half. We come today to face the question of how we continue to put our Federal fiscal house in order, but how to do it in a fashion that is fair and workable. One of the most important programs that America passed some 30 years ago was Medicare, to assure that elderly Americans had adequate health care. I congratulate my Republican friends on finally making one change in your proposal. You have accepted the President's position that the base premium for part B Medicare should not exceed 25 percent of total cost, and I congratulate you on that change. Unfortunately, as I look at the details of your program, however, I discover that while you appear to have been easing your Medicare cuts over the 6-year period before 2002, that in reality, at the end of that time, the provider cuts in the final year, 2002, will actually have to be deeper and make Medicare more vulnerable than was your program as it passed the Congress and was vetoed by the President. That is hardly progress, my friends. We find throughout this budget a variety of sugar coating to make it look a little bit better than the radical agenda of 1995. But when we look at its long-term impact, we find that in many cases, it is as bad or worse than what the President fortunately had to veto. And Medicare is one of those cases. The cuts, let me say again, to that program in 2002 under your program of today, they are going to have to be deeper than the cuts that you were proposing just a few months ago that the President, fortunately, vetoed. We will have some more to say on that subject, much more, as we discover that your budget of 1996 is just simply a repeat of the unfortunate program of 1995. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]. Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget resolution and in strong support of the Democratic substitute offered by the conservative Democratic coalition. The people back home who are listening to this debate will hear echoed many of the same themes we debated in last year's budget debate. But while the Republican budget resolution has come closer to the coalition substitute in terms of numbers, it still represents a political philosophy that does not reflect the views of the American people, and one that will hurt our economy and our citizens. Because the Republicans insist on borrowing $122 billion to pay for a tax cut, their resolution achieves $142 billion less in deficit reduction than does the coalition budget. As it did last year, the coalition substitute still represents an honest path to a balanced budget, that protects both the middle class and our most vulnerable, and nowhere is this more true than in the Medicare Program. Last year the Republicans proposed over $28 billion in Medicare spending reuctions. This year, they are down to $16 billion. Last year the President proposed $98 billion in spending reductions, and this year he proposes $124 billion. So both sides have made substantial and significant progress forward toward a centrist compromise toward the coalition's budget. But yet while the numbers are moving closer, serious and substantive differences remain. Republicans have backed away from their radical cuts, but they have not backed away entirely from their radical policies. The Republican plan turns Medicare managed care into a voucher program and forces seniors to pay the difference. The coalition plan prohibits from charging extra and protects seniors from unscrupulous and unfair billing. The Republican plan spends $4.6 billion, over $7,000 a person, on medical savings accounts, at a time when the trust fund's solvency is in jeopardy. The coalition plan handles MSA's in a prudent and thoughtful way by having a test program, a demonstration project. The Republicans spend $4.6 billion on medical savings accounts, but not one penny on preventive benefits. The coalition Medicare package spends $2 billion on benefits for prostate and colon cancer screening, mammographies and pap smears, and diabetes self-testing equipment, a preventive benefit that will save over $100 million a year for the Medicare Program when it is fully implemented. The Republican budget cuts $123 billion from hospitals, home health agencies, and skilled nursing facilities. Under this new baseline, these cuts are even larger than those proposed by the Republicans last year, and they will devastate health care in rural areas such as mine. The Republican Medicare plan represents the majority's misplaced priorities. It benefits some of those who manage the care, but it harms many of those who receive the care. In doing so, it cuts $22 billion more from Medicare than does the coalition's bill. {time} 1630 The coalition's Medicare policy represents sensible middle ground, without gimmicks, without surprises, or without reversals in policy. I urge my colleagues to support our Medicare reform package and to support the coalition's budget resolution and to vote against this Republican budget resolution. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from new Jersey for yielding the time. I listened with interest to the comments of the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget and to the comments of my good friend from Virginia. It is not my intent to indulge in venom or vitriol this afternoon, but, instead, I think it is a time for truth. The gentleman from Minnesota seems to be saying, ``Well, you have almost learned your lesson, new majority.'' Therein lies the most clear difference between the two overwhelming philosophies, for those who champion the Washington bureaucracy and the Washington approach as knowing all and knowing best put their faith in that bureaucracy instead of putting their faith in the people of America. [[Page H5106]] Those of us in the new majority put our faith in the American people, not the Washington bureaucracy. And this, Mr. Chairman, is what is truly radical, this fact, this piece of truth: That the average person pays more in taxes and the average family pays more in taxes today than it pays in food, clothing and shelter combined. That is a fact. It is time for truth, and the truth is the largest tax increase in American history, and this is a fact that my friend from Virginia, who champions deficit reduction, gets away from. The fact is the Clinton budget and the Clinton tax increase costs every household in America $2,600 in additional taxes. We can do better. My friend from New Jersey brought this check up. We do not need the fictional Baby Jane Doe. I can put a real name there, John Mica Hayworth, who is now 2 years of age. If we fail to resolve these problems, if we fail to live within our means, John Mica Hayworth will pay in interest on the debt over $185,000 in his lifetime. That is unconscionable. This budget dispute is not about numbers, it is about flesh and blood and the future, and despite the rhetoric and the playground taunts, the fact is we can do better for today's seniors, for the youngsters of today, for generations yet unborn. Say no to the Clinton crunch, yes to our new budget and yes to a new plan for the future. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say that was about the most inaccurate description of what has happened I have seen. The fact is the bulk of the new revenues last year applied to changes in the income Tax Code for people with taxable incomes of over $140,000, which means they have close to a gross income of $200,000. The surcharge applies to incomes over $250,000, probably gross taxable income over $250,000, gross income of $300,000 or more. I have to indicate also to the gentleman that the numbers he is using on this chart of average taxes assumes or averages in the Ross Perots with the rest of everyone. That is clearly inaccurate. It assumes that the cost of shelter is only 15 percent, and all of a sudden here a while ago, in the housing bill, the gentleman was trying to increase rents to over 30 percent of income for people in low-income housing. Grossly inaccurate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, for yielding me this time, and really congratulate Mr. Sabo for working with Members on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, people of different persuasions, to try to get us together on a budget that will balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. I thought we were making progress and I thought Mr. Sabo had done a great job in bringing us closer together as we ended 1995. Unfortunately, as I look at the Republican budget that is being brought up under this resolution, it seems like we are no further together than we were a year ago. That is very unfortunate. A missed opportunity. The budget should speak to the framework on which we want to see the priorities of this Nation, on raising revenues and on spending priorities. Let me just talk, if I might, in the few minutes I have, on Medicare, one part of that budget. The Medicare proposal in the Republican budget will cost my seniors more, they are going to receive less care, and it seriously jeopardizes the quality of our Medicare system. Last year the Republicans suggested cutting $270 billion from the Medicare system in order to finance $245 billion of tax breaks. Well, we are not dealing with a 6-year budget rather than a 7-year budget, so this year the cut in Medicare is $168 billion, the tax breaks of $122 billion going basically to wealthier people. That is not what our seniors want. That is wrong. Instead, we should be looking at ways of preserving the Medicare system, which the Republicans talk about, but by their own admission they do nothing on the long-term solvency of the Medicare system and a large part of their savings do not go into the Medicare Part A Program. We talk about giving our seniors more choice, and they do if a person happens to be wealthy or healthy, under the Republican program. But the vast majority of my seniors do not fall into that category. They will not be able to choose a health care plan that will cover their needs. The Republican proposal removes the protections in Medicare about the plans charging more or the doctors charging more. Sure, if an individual is wealthy they can afford that extra money, but if they are of modest income, as most seniors are, they cannot and they will be forced into a plan where they do not have choice. We talk about people going into a private plan and returning the Medicare but we offer no protection on their Medigap plans. Most seniors rely on Medigap, and yet the Republicans have removed that from their proposal. We do have a choice. We do have a choice in order to preserve the Medicare system. We can vote for the President's budget, we can vote for the Congressional Black Caucus' budget. I favor the coalition budget because it is a responsible way to bring down the cost of Medicare without robbing our seniors to pay for tax breaks for wealthy people. It also preserves the quality of our Medicare system. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican proposal and support the coalition budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and ask the gentleman if he will yield to me. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, for those folks that are watching this debate, what the last speaker said is just so far from being accurate it almost ought to be on the Tonight Show in the opening dialog. I think we ought to stop scaring our senior citizens, our most vulnerable people. We have massive increases in Medicare spending, the program will be enhanced, preserved and improved, and I just really wish that these scare tactics would come to an end. The President blamed it on the press. He said, ``The press made me do it,'' and I think he may be getting around to the point where he is going to stop, and maybe the rest of the people scaring the seniors ought to stop as well. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic. My colleague from Maryland speaks of a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity when we fail to allow the American people to hang on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it here to Washington, DC. That is tragic. It is a missed opportunity when a Medicare trust fund under this administration is already $4 billion in arrears, instead of moving to solve the problem by allowing seniors the chance and the opportunity they have at every other phase of life to make their own choices, somehow try to lock them into a government bureaucracy. Again, Mr. Chairman, it comes down to this question: Who should we trust? Should we place more trust in the hands of the Washington bureaucrats, who in the wake of that largest tax increase in American history have only delivered 49 percent of the revenues this tax increase was supposed to bring in, in our breakneck pace of spending; or do we trust the American people to make the right choices for their families and their futures? We can play scare games all day, but in the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, we must stand at the bar of history with the American people as our judge; and, as for me and the new majority, we stand firmly in the column of the American people. We reject the outmoded notions that Washington knows best. Join us, save this country. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDermott. Mr. Chairman, I listen to this and I think that anybody who is watching it or listening to it in their office would ask themselves, who should I believe? Now, the last Speaker got up here and said that we ought to stop scaring [[Page H5107]] the seniors. I agree with that. It was the Republican proposal that scared the seniors in the first instance. And for those individuals who know who Yogi Berra is, Yogi Berra once said, when asked about a particular event, it is kind of deja vu all over again. What we are seeing today is the same plan they rolled out here last year. They did not change anything. Oh, they have tinkered with it a little bit. They said they are not going to fool with the senior citizens premiums. They are not going to raise it up to 31 percent; they are going to hold it at 25 percent. Now, of course that is the House. Now, we all know it will pass out of the House and go over to the Senate. Is there any agreement with the Senate on that; does anybody know? No, there is no agreement. This is a House proposal, and we will get the same wrangle and, just watch, we will get the same jerking around. Now, instead of the part B premiums, the House GOP is going to cut hospitals because they do not want to cut doctors. The part B, as my colleagues know, pays for the doctor bills, and they do not want to cut doctors because they made a deal with them. They said, ``If you will support our plan, we will give you a couple of things, and one of them is balance billing.'' Now, remember the history of balance billing. Back in 1985 we said that doctors had to accept what Medicare paid when it paid a senior citizen's bill. The doctor could not balance bill. For almost 11 years they have not been able to balance bill. But the Republicans said to the doctors, ``Look, if you will support our plans to cut the daylights out of Medicare, we will let you balance bill.'' So whatever Medicare pays, senior citizens can expect that the doctors will pile on an additional balance bill on top of that. Now, in addition to that, we have to remember that the Speaker said, public statement, that he expects the traditional Medicare plan to wither on the vine. Now, how do they expect to cause this withering on the vine? The traditional plan that most people are in, they simply are not going to give the kind of increases that will make it possible for doctors to stay in that, so doctors will say, we do not want any seniors, and the only place a senior will be able to get their health care is to go into a managed care plan. Now, by doing that, that means they will have moved all senior citizens into managed care and they simply are going to squeeze people down. It is very clear the plan the laid out. It is going to cost seniors $1,000 more a year by the year 2002. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of scaring that has gone on. It ought to stop. This same plan is being rolled out here again, and this should be enough in itself to defeat this budget resolution. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], and ask if the gentlewoman will yield to me. Ms. DUNN of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, you can fool some of the seniors some of the time but not all of the seniors all of the time. This trust fund is on the road toward bankruptcy. Our program is designed to significantly increase the amount of dollars in Medicare and to guarantee that this fund will be solvent well into the next century so our senior citizens can have a very viable program. {time} 1645 Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to switch the discussion to welfare, because welfare reform is included in this balanced budget resolution. During the past 30 years, the Federal Government has spent more than $5 trillion on welfare programs intended to alleviate poverty, but the problem is getting worse, not better. The system is getting more and more cruel. Today one American child in seven is raised on welfare. That is what this budget debate is all about: the children and their families. The current welfare system encourages a life of dependency and weak families, and that has a devastatingly negative effect on a child's development. Every one of us feels sick when we read in the paper, we see on television the real life stories of how the current welfare system has failed. Think of this: 19 children found together in a cold, dark Chicago apartment. Police found them sharing a bone with the family dog for food. Or the Boston family that has 14 out of its 17 adult children now living on welfare, right now, and receiving close to $1 million a year from taxpayers. Our solutions are focused on promoting families and work, moving families into the work force and off welfare is the only way to break this cycle of dependency. Most Americans on welfare want to work, but, sadly, our Government offers them a better short-run deal to stay dependent. To make our approach work, the amount of time someone stays on welfare must be limited. Our bill does that. The President says he supports a 5-year time limit on cash welfare benefits, but he includes so many exemptions that the current welfare system would no be significantly changed. Furthermore, under the President's plan, recipients are guaranteed noncash benefits forever. We understand that families, especially mothers, need a helping hand in moving from welfare to work. That is why we provide over $6 billion in additional child care assistance over what is currently contained in the current welfare system. This gives parents the peace of mind to go off welfare into the work force. We also understand that children are hurt when our system fails so pitifully in enforcing court-ordered child support. Right now today, $34 billion are owed in court-ordered child support not being paid to custodial parents from these children's own parents. Our program finds a way to locate those dollars, especially those deadbeat parents who move out of the State to avoid supporting their flesh and blood children. Mr. Chairman, what is at stake is real welfare reform. Imagine what our country will look like in 5 years if we do not pass it. The system continues to hold millions of poor families in its grip. The problem is not the people who are involved. The problem is the failed process. The President recently asked for a welfare bill with personal responsibility, work and family. We give it to him. Sign this balanced budget proposal, Mr. President. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the hard-working gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], a real knowledgeable Member on health care. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say the seniors in this country are scared and they have reason to be because of these Republican proposals on Medicare. There is no question in my mind what is going on here again is the same thing that we saw last year. That is that senior citizens are being made to pay for the cuts that are being proposed in this budget and that Medicare is taking a bigger hit, almost as big a hit as it did last year, and all to pay for tax breaks essentially for wealthy Americans. Now why should a senior citizen be scared? They should be scared because when the Medicare program was established in 1963, they were basically told that they were going to have at least three things: One, they were told they were going to have an unlimited choice of doctors and hospitals. Medicare would reimburse for that. Second, they were told that they would have protection against having to pay a lot of money out of their pocket. Right now it is limited to 15 percent. And then they were told they would have guaranteed coverage of all Medicare benefits for the premium that was established by law. All these things are at risk in this Republican budget today. First of all, because of the reimbursement rate, the fact of the matter is that seniors will be pushed into HMO's or managed care. They will not have their choice of doctors and hospitals. Secondly, the protections against balanced billing are eliminated. The doctors, if you stay in the traditional Medicare program, can charge anything beyond the 15 percent that is provided under current law. So more money out of pocket means you do not have the health care if you cannot afford it. Lastly, with the MSA's, with the medical savings accounts, basically seniors are going to be encouraged to go into this two-tiered system where [[Page H5108]] they have only catastrophic coverage, and they have to pay out of pocket for anything short of a catastrophic health care. So why should not senior citizens be scared? All the basic tenets, if you will, of the Medicare program are at risk under the Republican budget. They do not know for sure if they can have their doctor anymore. They could very easily have to pay a lot more out of their pocket for going to a doctor or other Medicare or other health care expenses, and they do not even know if they choose an MSA that they will be able to have a lot of the services that Medicare now provides. I would be scared. They should be scared because of what the Republicans are doing here today. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds. Of course the gentleman obviously has not read our program because our program would give senior citizens more choice. In fact, most senior citizens would love to be in the Arizona plan which offers them prescription drugs, eyeglass coverage with no charge, no part B premium and no deductibles. We want to give senior citizens more choice. In that system they would not have more copayments and in fact get to choose whatever kind of system they want. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford]. Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that if one looks at the polls today, for the first time in American history when folks were asked: do you think your children will do better off or worse off than you did, they are answering ``worse off.'' That is the absolute opposite of the American dream, because the American dream is built on the idea that I did this well, my father did a little bit poorer than that, and my children are going to be doing better than that. One cannot build a civilization, one cannot build a country around the idea that my children are going to do worse off then I did. So I think at the core of this debate and the core of this budget, what we are really talking about is the American dream. Mr. Chairman, I would say second what those polls show is that Americans at the gut level understand what history has well documented over the course of time. Rome fell in 476 after controlling essentially the entire known world. The Byzantine empire, the Italian renaissance came to an end, the Spanish empire came to an end, the Dutch empire came to an end, the Ottomon empire came to an end. A host of civilizations came to an end because everyone of them reached a crossroads wherein they had to decide: Do we go back to what made us competitive and a world power in the first place, or we stay on this cozy but ultimately unsustainable cycle of upward government spending and upward government taxation? We are at that same crossroads today. A child born into America today will pay an 82-percent tax rate if we stay on the course we are on. That either means economic enslavement or it means a collapse of the financial system as we know it. It took every single personal income tax return filed west of the Mississippi River simply to pay for the interest on the national debt. A child born in America, as you saw by the check earlier, will pay $187,000 in taxes on their share of interest on the national debt if we stay on the course we are on. So we are at that crossroads. I think what this budget does is point us at the right fork in the road, because it begins to move decisions back to people in their local communities, in their local towns, and in so doing restores the American dream, and I think has a lot to do with saving the civilization. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution and to advise my colleagues to carefully consider the implications of this budget on domestic discretionary spending. My colleagues need to understand there is simply no growth in this budget for important programs. Defense is the only area where they have proposed real growth. It makes no investment in safe highways, airline traffic safety, safe streets, safe schools, education, health care, public safety, clean water, clean air, research and development, business development, and transportation. The tough choices we made in 1990 and 1993 controlled the growth in discretionary spending. The caps have worked and we have the discipline to control future discretionary spending. There is simply no justification for further assaults on critical domestic programs. It is also difficult to understand how my Republican colleagues could propose slowing the growth in domestic discretionary spending to such low levels that by the year 2002, the purchasing power of overall nondefense discretionary appropriations will be 26 percent below this year's level. At the same time that they plan on eliminating any real investment in our economic security, they are proposing $13 billion more for defense than requested by the Pentagon. Let me remind my colleagues again, that these cuts are in the most basic programs. Education, environmental protection, medical research, Head Start, civilian research and development, nutritional assistance, transportation, and criminal justice. All of these programs, regardless of what you may hear will be adversely affected if we enact the domestic discretionary level proposed in the Republican budget resolution. In addition to the funding levels proposed, my Republican colleagues are also proposing some significant changes and eliminations. Included in this budget resolution is an assumption that 25 important educational programs will be block granted; the Governors will get to decide how to spend this money. While I have yet to see the list of these 25 programs, I can tell you that in some cases, the States will not act to serve vulnerable populations of children. It was because of the refusal of the States to address the unique educational needs of homeless children that I worked to create the Homeless Education Program. States and local governments simply did not reach out to these children and I can assure my Republican friends that under the block grant proposal, homeless children will be denied basic educational services. Once again the Republicans are proposing to dismantle the one agency whose mission is job development and growth. Did we learn nothing from last year's budget battle. We need a strong and effective Department of Commerce. The late Secretary Brown accomplished this objective and I am fully confident that Secretary Kantor will meet the same challenge. This Republican budget resolution also proposes the elimination of the Legal Services Corporation. Guaranteeing the basic protection of a citizen's constitutional rights is one of our responsibilities as Members of Congress. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Shouldn't we be concerned about guaranteeing every citizen, regardless of their income, the right to due process and the right of fair and just representation? Apparently only those who have the ability to pay are allowed adequate legal counsel. I am gravely concerned about the direction of this country as we enter the next century and firmly believe that this budget will not guarantee that we are prepared to meet the challenges. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican budget resolution. We can balance the budget without jeopardizing our economic future. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Oklahoma [Mr. Watts]. Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, there was a cultist popular humanistic theme in the 1960's that said ``God is dead.'' I am afraid that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided that they were left in charge, and what they did was drive us into the ever- deepening quicksand of more and more Government spending without results. Our budget resolution offers more savings so that Americans can ultimately keep more of what they earn and they can decide what is best for them, not the Government. Bottom line, in our budget we trust the American people. In their budget, they do not, Do I hate my Government? No. I just believe that we can do better for this [[Page H5109]] country and for our kids, our grandkids, working families, and seniors. We can do better than $200 plus billion annual deficits, a $5 trillion national debt. I think we can do better than an anemic welfare system that penalizes mothers for saving money and penalizes them for wanting to marry the father of their children. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can do better by saving Medicare from bankruptcy. In this country, we expect the best from our high school, our college, and our professional athletic teams. Why should we not expect the same from our Government? We are the greatest, freest, wealthiest country in the world. I believe we can do better and we should as Americans. Red, yellow, black, and white, we should demand the best from our Government, and our budget starts us in that direction. Am I an optimist? I am reminded of the guy who defined an optimist as going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with him. Am I an optimist? You bet I am. I do believe we can do better by trusting the American people and figuring out the right answers for this time in our Government. I believe that our budget resolution starts us in that direction. Our budget gets us another year down the road of accomplishing a balanced budget in the next 6 years. If we balance the budget, it opens the gateway to the future for our kids and our grandkids. If we do not, we can only look forward to more financial despair and burdens on families, a bankrupt Medicare system and keeping the caged eagles in the poor community locked up just waiting to soar. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to open the gateway to the future for our kids and our grandkids by voting for this budget resolution. Trust the American people. {time} 1700 Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne]. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to point out the many deficiencies in the Republican budget resolution. The Republican budget is fundamentally flawed. It places the burden of deficit reduction on health care, education, environmental, infrastructure, and safety net programs while leaving defense spending and corporate welfare virtually untouched. It still provides a substantial tax cut at a time when the Federal Government is running a sizable deficit. Defense spending is actually increased in this budget while critical domestic needs are ignored. Finally, the Republican budget puts a whole new spin on redistribution by increasing the burden on low- and moderate-income Americans and reducing the burden on the well-to-do; the Republican budget, for example, provides a child tax credit for middle- and upper-class families while cutting earned income tax credit assistance to low- and moderate-income households. The Republican budget also resurrects a number of policies discussed last year. It eliminates the Commerce Department, the Energy Department, AmeriCorps, the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA], the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH], the Legal Services Corporation, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, just to name a few. These agencies provide valuable services to the people of this country. The proposals to eliminate them are short- sighted efforts to pander to the public perception that all government is bad. If you doubt that this is the case, then ask yourself why many of the functions, operations, and even the staff of the Departments of Energy and Commerce will merely be shifted to other agencies, much like the transfer of the Interstate Commerce Commission's responsibilities and staff to the Department of Transportation last year. In addition, the Republican budget would provide more than $2 billion less than the President's budget on crime-fighting programs. It is inconsistent to enact tough anticrime measures on the one hand and then deny law enforcement officials the resources that they need to carry out those measures on the other. One of the most important investments the Federal Government can make is its investment in its human capital. And yet, the Republican budget would freeze Federal funding for job training programs at roughly 60 percent of the 1995 appropriations level for these programs. It would reduce funding for the Job Corps by nearly 10 percent as well. And it would eliminate AmeriCorps and the Direct Student Loan Program. Despite the strong public reaction to the Republicans' antienvironment initiatives last year, the Republican budget resolution would once again undermine Federal efforts to protect the environment and improve public health. It would cut the EPA's operating budget by 11 percent for fiscal year 1997. Cuts of this magnitude would damage the agency's ability to enforce existing environmental statutes. It would also eliminate EPA programs to develop advanced environmental technologies. This budget would also phase out energy conservation programs, renewable energy research, and fossil energy research and development. Such policies are incredibly short-sighted. One of the functions most dramatically reduced under the Republican budget proposal is community development. Funding for programs like the Community Development Block Grant Program would be reduced from $11 billion in 1996 to $6 billion in 2002. The Economic Development Administration would be eliminated altogether. Such cuts would devastate communities like Pittsburgh. Federal community development funding leverages billions of State, local, and private sector dollars into important development and revitalization efforts. Without this Federal seed money, many communities across the country will be at a loss to address many critical community needs. American workers are also adversely affected. The Republican budget would reduce funding for programs like OSHA that ensure workplace safety. It would eliminate the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH], the only Government agency that conducts research on workplace injuries. It would repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act, legislation that guarantees that employees of Federal contractors are paid locally prevailing wages for their work. And it would extract another $9.4 billion in savings from Federal civilian and military retirees, the same people who have been called upon again and again in recent years to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of balancing the budget. The Republican budget assumes dramatic changes in Federal housing assistance programs as well. While these programs are in need of reform, current funding for these programs falls far short of meeting the need for affordable housing in this country. The Republicans would reduce spending on housing assistance from the current level of services by roughly $20 billion over the next six years. The Republican budget would also make dramatic changes in important Federal transportation programs as well. The local matching rate for transit capital grants would be increased to 50 percent. Transit operating assistance would be phased out. And mass transit new starts would be eliminated. Research and development of advanced high speed rail would be eliminated as well. In total, transit funding would be reduced below a freeze level by more than $6.5 billion over the next six years. This policy shift would have a devastating impact on congestion, energy consumption, economic growth, and air quality in many of our urban areas. The Republican budget would eliminate or dramatically reduce technology transfer programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, programs that provide valuable technical assistance to small manufacturers across the country and promote the development of advanced technology and innovative products. These programs help American businesses compete with foreign manufacturers. They produce an incredible return on the Federal Government's modest investment. The Republican budget still makes dramatic changes in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. The proposed savings are large enough to devastate [[Page H5110]] these critical health care programs. It is interesting to note that the difference in Medicare savings from last year's budget resolution to this year's is roughly the same size as the reduction in the size of the tax cut that the Republicans are proposing. That would suggest to me that the Medicare savings in this budget are motivated by the Republican tax cut package, and not by concern over the future of the Medicare Program. Regardless of the motivation, it should be clear to all Americans that attempting to save $168 billion from Medicare over the next 6 years is simply irresponsible, as is the plan's reliance on medical savings accounts to cut costs and impose fiscal discipline on Medicare beneficiaries and providers. The Republican plan would also adversely affect Medicaid beneficiaries as well. The Republican's budget resolution would garner substantial savings, $72 billion, from Medicaid by converting it to a block grant, and it would eliminate the current guarantee of health care coverage for 2.5 million low-income children between the ages of 13 and 18. Finally, the Republican budget would pull a number of additional threads from the already fraying Federal safety net. The Republican budget would make $53 billion in savings in programs like AFDC, food stamps, and SSI, primarily by eliminating the Federal guarantee of assistance for the needy and converting them to block grants. Where does that leave us? With a Republican budget resolution that is fundamentally flawed. I voted against this resolution when it was considered by the House Budget Committee, and I shall vote against it when it is considered by the full House. Any of the Democratic alternatives would be preferable. The President's budget is a responsible attempt to balance serious deficit reduction with important investments in our future and the need to preserve Federal safety net programs, although I believe that it would be better to balance the budget before we cut taxes substantially. The coalition budget also deserves credit for its commitment to deficit reduction, although I also have concerns about some of the provisions it contains. I believe, however, that the Progressive Caucus- Congressional Black Caucus budget proposal provides the Federal budget strategy that best addresses the needs of this Nation over the next 6 years. This budget substitute balances the budget, invests in our communities and our human capital, and even expands Federal safety net programs. It does so by reducing defense spending to a level commensurate with the reduced military threat we face with the end of the cold war, and by eliminating corporate subsidies and tax breaks that are wasteful and inefficient. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to reject this improvident budget resolution and to adopt the Progressive Caucus-Congressional Black Caucus budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the city of Cincinnati, OH [Mr. Portman]. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I support this budget without reservation. It is a great budget for all the reasons we have heard up here today. I have got three kids at home. It is about the kids, it is about the next generation. We do not want to leave them with this crushing debt, now $5 trillion. We do not want to increase their taxes to the extent we would have to in order to service that debt. We want them to have a shot at the American dream. So this budget is at least one important step toward getting that budget under control and to get it into balance in 6 years. But let me mention something else, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talks about it a lot. Forget the numbers. This is also about shifting power and responsibility and authority and money out of this city, out of Washington and back to our States, back to our local communities and back to people, and that is very important, and it is a big distinction between the way we have been going and the way we like to go. For 40 years we have increasingly aggregated that power and authority here in Washington. This budget is all about getting it out. Medicaid is a good example of that. Education is a good example of that. Welfare is a great example of that. Let me give my colleagues one example in Ohio. For years Ohio tried to get a waiver to be able to do something innovative and creative in the area of welfare to try to help people actually move from welfare rolls to payrolls. Finally we got some of the waivers. We were able, in the last 3 years, to reduce our welfare rolls in Ohio by 23 percent. We could do twice that well, maybe three times that well, if we could get real flexibility that is in this budget proposal in the area of welfare reform. Let us trust the people that sent us here. Let us do this budget because it is the right thing to do for our kids, to get our fiscal house in order, but also let us do it because it is time to start moving some of the power and authority out of Washington where it is increasingly aggregated and reverse that trend. This is one small step and an important step toward doing that. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, there are two budgets; no, there are four budgets being considered tomorrow. The one that I support borrows $137 billion less than the majority budget. I listened to a lot of speeches today, and I do not understand how anyone can propose that borrowing $137 billion more is going to make good economic sense. We are talking about spending cuts. I hope my colleagues from rural America take a good hard look at our colleagues' budget. Cutting 46 percent more out of the agriculture discretionary function over the next 6 years does not make good economic sense by anybody's standards. Cutting 13 percent from research extension this year, 1997, does not make good sense. Whoever proposed that, I do not understand how they could possibly come up with that. The idea that there is that much more overhead down at USDA completely ignores the fact that we have spent the last 3 years reorganizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We have cut $4.2 billion from that overhead. Now to come in and say we are going to take another $695 million because somebody keeps saying there is unnecessary bureaucratic overhead downtown, they are not looking at what has already been done over the last 3 years in the current administration, and they are truly going to do irreparable harm to agriculture, rural health. Eliminating the office of rural health in the block grant program that has allowed rural hospitals who have been struggling to just keep their doors open, the success of that program, to suggest that is going to be eliminated does not make sense. So, a lot of cuts. Yes, we need to cut; yes, we need to make decisions along these lines. But I would say take a good hard look at rural health, and that also includes urban health because what I say about rural health applies exactly the same way to the inner cities, and there are being many decisions made in this budget in the name of cutting the bureaucracy that are going to have the opposite effect. They are going to have a devastating effect on the food supply of this Nation some day. Mr. Chairman, as Representative for the very rural 17th District of Texas, as a founding member and former cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and as a 16-year veteran on the House Agriculture Committee, I find the degree to which this budget resolution assaults rural America truly stunning and enormously disturbing. In the past, rural Members, which of course can be found in both parties, have always managed to put aside partisanship in rural issues for one fundamental reason: An overriding worry about the potential loss of access to quality health care, loss of business, and ultimately, loss of economic viability in rural areas. The programs and offices which this budget targets for elimination in the health function are the very programs and offices originated by the bipartisan Rural Health Care Coalition. I realize that constituents of urban Members do not worry about whether there is going to be a doctor to deliver their babies, an emergency room to treat the tractor accidents, a nurse to treat daily illnesses. But these are things my constituents do worry about. The programs targeted by this budget certainly do not respond to all of those needs by themselves but the programs and their coordination play a vital role at the edges. [[Page H5111]] The assault on agriculture is even more remarkable, with total agricultural discretionary spending cut a staggering 46 percent from 1997 to 2002. I understand Republicans think that this nearly 50 percent reduction will come from overhead, which I find particularly interesting since the Agriculture Department has just completed a major reorganization and downsizing. Since most of those cuts are unspecified, it's hard to know whether they will be taken from the hide of research and extension programs, conservation programs, or nutrition and safety programs. What is clear, however, is that with the Ag discretionary budget virtually cut in half, the impact will be felt in each and every function of the USDA. And that means the impact will be felt in each and every rural community. I find it hard to believe that my many friends across the aisle who serve with me on the Agriculture Committee or on the Rural Health Care Coalition have focused on the aspect of the majority's budget. I have little doubt, though, that as these numbers are implemented into policies and as constituents across the country notify their Representatives of their concerns, my friends will become as alarmed about the impact of this budget on the future of rural America as I am today. Mr. Chairman, for this and other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget and a ``yea'' vote for the coalition substitute which approaches a balanced budget in a far more humane and reasonable manner. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I dearly love my colleague from Texas, but as my colleagues know, talk about a vain effort, I mean there is no one that I have yet met outside of the beltway who thinks that we have cut bureaucracy and redtape and travel expenses and supplies and equipment enough in any, virtually any, piece of this Federal Government. This Republican majority believes that there is tons of money available in the travel allowance, the supply allowance, the equipment allowance of virtually every single department, bureau and agency of this Government, and frankly, I do not even think we started to downsize and save money. So we are after the overhead accounts of everything in this Federal Government, and I have not yet gone home and had one taxpaying citizen say to me, ``You have really cut the bureaucratic overhead too much in Washington.'' Not one single person has told me, and I think we are absolutely on the right track. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, at the outset of this debate, the gentleman from New Jersey laid out the case very eloquently for this budget. A budget is not really about numbers. It is not about whether we spend $1,500 billion on the Federal Government or $1,600 billion. It is not even about whether we cut a program, whether we increase a program, whether we add a program, or whether we eliminate a program. No, Mr. Chairman, a budget is an opportunity for this body and for our political parties to make a philosophical statement about the direction we believe this country should be going. It is an opportunity for us to say something about where we think our future is. It is an opportunity for each party in Congress to set forth its vision, its vision for America, its hopes, its dreams for our future and for our children's future. Mr. Chairman, our budget makes such a statement. It says very clearly what we believe the National Government's priorities should be. It insists that we should decide what this Government can do, what it must do, and what it should do. It says that we should reduce the burden on our children, the burden that a new child born today in this country, assumes upon his or her birth. That burden is a burden of $188,000 just to pay the interest on the national debt. Our budget says we believe other levels of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations, can perform government functions better than Washington can. We say this about education, we say this about some aspects of welfare, about some aspects of health care, we say it about such things as economic development. And, yes, most importantly, it says that we believe the burden of taxes on American citizens should be reduced. Our budget would reduce the burden of taxes on American citizens. The gentleman from Texas talked about having to borrow more money. But we reach a balanced budget as soon as any of our other budgets that are proposed. What we do differently is leave some of the money in people's pockets, leave money in the pockets of American citizens so they can decide how to spend the money on their health care, on their education, on their schooling, on their housing, on all the needs that they have. We do this because we believe that Americans who work hard and earn it should keep it. That is what this budget is about; that is the statement this budget makes. I urge my colleagues to support it. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution before us and I would like to comment on the treatment of research and dev

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997
(House of Representatives - May 15, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5104-H5133] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 14, 1996 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, House Concurrent Resolution 178. {time} 1609 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. 178) establishing the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with Mr. Camp in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 14, 1996, the concurrent resolution is considered read the first time. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will control 90 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, I yield 11 minutes to my friend and the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks]. Mr. SABO. Before my friend from New Jersey starts and lest I forget, I request unanimous consent that the last 30 minutes of debate on the minority side, which is allocated to the Joint Economic Committee, be controlled by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], and that he have the authority to yield time to other Members. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the measure before us is not simply about thousands of individual numbers. It is not about economic assumptions. It is not about green eyeshades and sharp leaded pencils. Budgets are about people. Budgets are about ideas. Mr. Chairman, the budget of the Federal Government speaks to who we are as a country. It looks at our hopes and our aspirations, our dreams. It looks at our challenges and our problems. It looks at our opportunities. But no budget, Mr. Chairman, exists in a vacuum. A budget is developed against the backdrop of the environment that we find today. As family across this country are looking at their own economic circumstances, they are saying very clearly that America can and must do better. While the economy may be showing signs of improvement for some, many families are still struggling. Tens of thousands of workers continue to lose their jobs, many the victims of corporate downsizing. In fact, between June of 1994 and June of 1995, fully half the major corporations in the United States eliminated jobs, less than a third of the workers who lost their full-time jobs found new jobs that paid as much money. On average, workers who lost their jobs had to settle for jobs that paid 8.2 percent less. And for dislocated workers between the ages of 45 and 55, their incomes declined by fully 14 percent. We have watched high-paying manufacturing jobs continue to disappear at an alarming rate. Between March of 1995 and March of this year, 326,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. In the past 2 years, there has been a 10.2 percent increase in the number of Americans who hold two or more jobs. Today more people are working two jobs than at any time in our Nation's history. {time} 1615 Yet, despite working longer and harder than ever before, too many families feel as if they are not moving ahead. They are working harder merely to stay in place, and it is no wonder. The American family has seen no increase in their wages over the past 3\1/2\ years. Meanwhile, taxes are taking a bigger and bigger bite out of the family's annual income. It is interesting to note that back in 1950, Federal taxes consumed just 5 percent of the average family's income. Today, 26 percent of a family's income goes just to pay for Federal taxes. Most families across the country, Mr. Chairman, remember that back in 1993, just 3 years ago, President Clinton raised their taxes, bringing the tax burden to its highest level in history. The Clinton tax package increased taxes on gasoline, increased taxes on individual incomes, increased taxes on married couples, increased taxes on Social Security benefits, increased taxes on inheritances. As a result, every family, every year, is seeing their tax bill escalate. Last year, the average family with a single wageearner took home $803 less in their paycheck than they did in 1992. What does all this mean to our children as we look to the future? If we stay on the current path and we do not stop our deficit spending, a child born today will face a very bleak future. Seventeen years from today, when that child is prepared to graduate from high school, every tax dollar sent to Washington, DC, will be consumed by just five programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal employee retirement benefits, and the interest obligation on the national debt. That means that when that child gets ready to graduate and go to college, there will be no money available in the Federal budget to help with his college education, no money to keep his neighborhood safe from crime, no more Federal aid to build new roads or mass transit systems, and no money available to protect and defend our country. Over his working lifetime, that child will be paying off a huge debt, a debt he inherited from all of us. That child's lifetime obligation as his share of the interest payment on the national debt will be $18,000. The fact is that America needs a budget that saves our children's future. Our children deserve a better and brighter future than this scenario. They deserve one filled with hope and opportunity and a chance to live out the American dream. Since the start of the Great Society programs in 1965, we have spent $5 trillion on a vast assortment of social spending programs. That is more than we spent to win World War II. What has that enormous investment produced? The number of children living in households dependent on welfare has tripled, from 3.3 million to 9.6 million. There has been an explosion in the number of mothers, many of them children themselves, who are having children out of wedlock, a 326 percent increase over the last 30 years. We need to make sure that Washington is there to lend a temporary hand in time of need, helping the people to get back on their feet again so they can lead independent, self-sufficient lives. As we look ahead to the vast changes that await us in the twenty- first century, just around the corner, we must empower individuals to take advantage of new opportunities, and to do that, America needs a budget that empowers people to be self-reliant. To accomplish that objective, we need a budget that reduces the power and influence of Washington over our everyday lives. In just 30 years, Government spending has exploded. The cost of running the Federal Government has moved from $134 billion a [[Page H5105]] year to $1.5 trillion a year, and along with all this spending, we have created a wasteful and bloated bureaucracy. Every year that bureaucracy churns out thousands of pages of new rules and regulations that affect all aspects of our lives, from the food we eat to the car we drive to the houses we live in. And it is not just businesses that pay the price for all this Government redtape. Families pay, and pay quite dearly. Government regulations cost the average family $6,800 every year. Just think about how time-consuming and confusing it is to fill out your own income tax form. That is because the IRS has 480 different tax forms, and another 280 forms to tell you how to fill them out. It is no wonder it takes the average taxpayer over 12 years just to figure out their own taxes. America needs a budget that lowers taxes and spends less of our hard- earned money. There is something fundamentally wrong when the average American family pays more on taxes, taxes to the Federal, the State and local governments, than they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined. The average worker spends 2 hours and 47 minutes out of his 8-hour workday just to pay his tax burden. Twenty years ago, that same worker was spending half that amount of time to meet his tax burden. Mr. Chairman, our budget plan will help America to do better. It will end 30 years of reckless deficit spending. It will shift power, money, and influence out of Washington, DC, and give it back to the American people. It trusts our neighbors and our communities to develop thoughtful and compassionate solutions to today's problems. This budget attacks waste and inefficiency, and by lowering taxes and reshaping our Federal Government, it will help American families to move ahead so they can earn more, keep more, and do more. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, here we are again, a repeat of 1995. I represent a party that in 1993 produced real deficit reduction. We did not simply talk about it. We produced it, and the deficit has fallen in half. We come today to face the question of how we continue to put our Federal fiscal house in order, but how to do it in a fashion that is fair and workable. One of the most important programs that America passed some 30 years ago was Medicare, to assure that elderly Americans had adequate health care. I congratulate my Republican friends on finally making one change in your proposal. You have accepted the President's position that the base premium for part B Medicare should not exceed 25 percent of total cost, and I congratulate you on that change. Unfortunately, as I look at the details of your program, however, I discover that while you appear to have been easing your Medicare cuts over the 6-year period before 2002, that in reality, at the end of that time, the provider cuts in the final year, 2002, will actually have to be deeper and make Medicare more vulnerable than was your program as it passed the Congress and was vetoed by the President. That is hardly progress, my friends. We find throughout this budget a variety of sugar coating to make it look a little bit better than the radical agenda of 1995. But when we look at its long-term impact, we find that in many cases, it is as bad or worse than what the President fortunately had to veto. And Medicare is one of those cases. The cuts, let me say again, to that program in 2002 under your program of today, they are going to have to be deeper than the cuts that you were proposing just a few months ago that the President, fortunately, vetoed. We will have some more to say on that subject, much more, as we discover that your budget of 1996 is just simply a repeat of the unfortunate program of 1995. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]. Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget resolution and in strong support of the Democratic substitute offered by the conservative Democratic coalition. The people back home who are listening to this debate will hear echoed many of the same themes we debated in last year's budget debate. But while the Republican budget resolution has come closer to the coalition substitute in terms of numbers, it still represents a political philosophy that does not reflect the views of the American people, and one that will hurt our economy and our citizens. Because the Republicans insist on borrowing $122 billion to pay for a tax cut, their resolution achieves $142 billion less in deficit reduction than does the coalition budget. As it did last year, the coalition substitute still represents an honest path to a balanced budget, that protects both the middle class and our most vulnerable, and nowhere is this more true than in the Medicare Program. Last year the Republicans proposed over $28 billion in Medicare spending reuctions. This year, they are down to $16 billion. Last year the President proposed $98 billion in spending reductions, and this year he proposes $124 billion. So both sides have made substantial and significant progress forward toward a centrist compromise toward the coalition's budget. But yet while the numbers are moving closer, serious and substantive differences remain. Republicans have backed away from their radical cuts, but they have not backed away entirely from their radical policies. The Republican plan turns Medicare managed care into a voucher program and forces seniors to pay the difference. The coalition plan prohibits from charging extra and protects seniors from unscrupulous and unfair billing. The Republican plan spends $4.6 billion, over $7,000 a person, on medical savings accounts, at a time when the trust fund's solvency is in jeopardy. The coalition plan handles MSA's in a prudent and thoughtful way by having a test program, a demonstration project. The Republicans spend $4.6 billion on medical savings accounts, but not one penny on preventive benefits. The coalition Medicare package spends $2 billion on benefits for prostate and colon cancer screening, mammographies and pap smears, and diabetes self-testing equipment, a preventive benefit that will save over $100 million a year for the Medicare Program when it is fully implemented. The Republican budget cuts $123 billion from hospitals, home health agencies, and skilled nursing facilities. Under this new baseline, these cuts are even larger than those proposed by the Republicans last year, and they will devastate health care in rural areas such as mine. The Republican Medicare plan represents the majority's misplaced priorities. It benefits some of those who manage the care, but it harms many of those who receive the care. In doing so, it cuts $22 billion more from Medicare than does the coalition's bill. {time} 1630 The coalition's Medicare policy represents sensible middle ground, without gimmicks, without surprises, or without reversals in policy. I urge my colleagues to support our Medicare reform package and to support the coalition's budget resolution and to vote against this Republican budget resolution. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from new Jersey for yielding the time. I listened with interest to the comments of the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget and to the comments of my good friend from Virginia. It is not my intent to indulge in venom or vitriol this afternoon, but, instead, I think it is a time for truth. The gentleman from Minnesota seems to be saying, ``Well, you have almost learned your lesson, new majority.'' Therein lies the most clear difference between the two overwhelming philosophies, for those who champion the Washington bureaucracy and the Washington approach as knowing all and knowing best put their faith in that bureaucracy instead of putting their faith in the people of America. [[Page H5106]] Those of us in the new majority put our faith in the American people, not the Washington bureaucracy. And this, Mr. Chairman, is what is truly radical, this fact, this piece of truth: That the average person pays more in taxes and the average family pays more in taxes today than it pays in food, clothing and shelter combined. That is a fact. It is time for truth, and the truth is the largest tax increase in American history, and this is a fact that my friend from Virginia, who champions deficit reduction, gets away from. The fact is the Clinton budget and the Clinton tax increase costs every household in America $2,600 in additional taxes. We can do better. My friend from New Jersey brought this check up. We do not need the fictional Baby Jane Doe. I can put a real name there, John Mica Hayworth, who is now 2 years of age. If we fail to resolve these problems, if we fail to live within our means, John Mica Hayworth will pay in interest on the debt over $185,000 in his lifetime. That is unconscionable. This budget dispute is not about numbers, it is about flesh and blood and the future, and despite the rhetoric and the playground taunts, the fact is we can do better for today's seniors, for the youngsters of today, for generations yet unborn. Say no to the Clinton crunch, yes to our new budget and yes to a new plan for the future. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say that was about the most inaccurate description of what has happened I have seen. The fact is the bulk of the new revenues last year applied to changes in the income Tax Code for people with taxable incomes of over $140,000, which means they have close to a gross income of $200,000. The surcharge applies to incomes over $250,000, probably gross taxable income over $250,000, gross income of $300,000 or more. I have to indicate also to the gentleman that the numbers he is using on this chart of average taxes assumes or averages in the Ross Perots with the rest of everyone. That is clearly inaccurate. It assumes that the cost of shelter is only 15 percent, and all of a sudden here a while ago, in the housing bill, the gentleman was trying to increase rents to over 30 percent of income for people in low-income housing. Grossly inaccurate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, for yielding me this time, and really congratulate Mr. Sabo for working with Members on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, people of different persuasions, to try to get us together on a budget that will balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. I thought we were making progress and I thought Mr. Sabo had done a great job in bringing us closer together as we ended 1995. Unfortunately, as I look at the Republican budget that is being brought up under this resolution, it seems like we are no further together than we were a year ago. That is very unfortunate. A missed opportunity. The budget should speak to the framework on which we want to see the priorities of this Nation, on raising revenues and on spending priorities. Let me just talk, if I might, in the few minutes I have, on Medicare, one part of that budget. The Medicare proposal in the Republican budget will cost my seniors more, they are going to receive less care, and it seriously jeopardizes the quality of our Medicare system. Last year the Republicans suggested cutting $270 billion from the Medicare system in order to finance $245 billion of tax breaks. Well, we are not dealing with a 6-year budget rather than a 7-year budget, so this year the cut in Medicare is $168 billion, the tax breaks of $122 billion going basically to wealthier people. That is not what our seniors want. That is wrong. Instead, we should be looking at ways of preserving the Medicare system, which the Republicans talk about, but by their own admission they do nothing on the long-term solvency of the Medicare system and a large part of their savings do not go into the Medicare Part A Program. We talk about giving our seniors more choice, and they do if a person happens to be wealthy or healthy, under the Republican program. But the vast majority of my seniors do not fall into that category. They will not be able to choose a health care plan that will cover their needs. The Republican proposal removes the protections in Medicare about the plans charging more or the doctors charging more. Sure, if an individual is wealthy they can afford that extra money, but if they are of modest income, as most seniors are, they cannot and they will be forced into a plan where they do not have choice. We talk about people going into a private plan and returning the Medicare but we offer no protection on their Medigap plans. Most seniors rely on Medigap, and yet the Republicans have removed that from their proposal. We do have a choice. We do have a choice in order to preserve the Medicare system. We can vote for the President's budget, we can vote for the Congressional Black Caucus' budget. I favor the coalition budget because it is a responsible way to bring down the cost of Medicare without robbing our seniors to pay for tax breaks for wealthy people. It also preserves the quality of our Medicare system. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican proposal and support the coalition budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and ask the gentleman if he will yield to me. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, for those folks that are watching this debate, what the last speaker said is just so far from being accurate it almost ought to be on the Tonight Show in the opening dialog. I think we ought to stop scaring our senior citizens, our most vulnerable people. We have massive increases in Medicare spending, the program will be enhanced, preserved and improved, and I just really wish that these scare tactics would come to an end. The President blamed it on the press. He said, ``The press made me do it,'' and I think he may be getting around to the point where he is going to stop, and maybe the rest of the people scaring the seniors ought to stop as well. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic. My colleague from Maryland speaks of a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity when we fail to allow the American people to hang on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it here to Washington, DC. That is tragic. It is a missed opportunity when a Medicare trust fund under this administration is already $4 billion in arrears, instead of moving to solve the problem by allowing seniors the chance and the opportunity they have at every other phase of life to make their own choices, somehow try to lock them into a government bureaucracy. Again, Mr. Chairman, it comes down to this question: Who should we trust? Should we place more trust in the hands of the Washington bureaucrats, who in the wake of that largest tax increase in American history have only delivered 49 percent of the revenues this tax increase was supposed to bring in, in our breakneck pace of spending; or do we trust the American people to make the right choices for their families and their futures? We can play scare games all day, but in the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, we must stand at the bar of history with the American people as our judge; and, as for me and the new majority, we stand firmly in the column of the American people. We reject the outmoded notions that Washington knows best. Join us, save this country. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDermott. Mr. Chairman, I listen to this and I think that anybody who is watching it or listening to it in their office would ask themselves, who should I believe? Now, the last Speaker got up here and said that we ought to stop scaring [[Page H5107]] the seniors. I agree with that. It was the Republican proposal that scared the seniors in the first instance. And for those individuals who know who Yogi Berra is, Yogi Berra once said, when asked about a particular event, it is kind of deja vu all over again. What we are seeing today is the same plan they rolled out here last year. They did not change anything. Oh, they have tinkered with it a little bit. They said they are not going to fool with the senior citizens premiums. They are not going to raise it up to 31 percent; they are going to hold it at 25 percent. Now, of course that is the House. Now, we all know it will pass out of the House and go over to the Senate. Is there any agreement with the Senate on that; does anybody know? No, there is no agreement. This is a House proposal, and we will get the same wrangle and, just watch, we will get the same jerking around. Now, instead of the part B premiums, the House GOP is going to cut hospitals because they do not want to cut doctors. The part B, as my colleagues know, pays for the doctor bills, and they do not want to cut doctors because they made a deal with them. They said, ``If you will support our plan, we will give you a couple of things, and one of them is balance billing.'' Now, remember the history of balance billing. Back in 1985 we said that doctors had to accept what Medicare paid when it paid a senior citizen's bill. The doctor could not balance bill. For almost 11 years they have not been able to balance bill. But the Republicans said to the doctors, ``Look, if you will support our plans to cut the daylights out of Medicare, we will let you balance bill.'' So whatever Medicare pays, senior citizens can expect that the doctors will pile on an additional balance bill on top of that. Now, in addition to that, we have to remember that the Speaker said, public statement, that he expects the traditional Medicare plan to wither on the vine. Now, how do they expect to cause this withering on the vine? The traditional plan that most people are in, they simply are not going to give the kind of increases that will make it possible for doctors to stay in that, so doctors will say, we do not want any seniors, and the only place a senior will be able to get their health care is to go into a managed care plan. Now, by doing that, that means they will have moved all senior citizens into managed care and they simply are going to squeeze people down. It is very clear the plan the laid out. It is going to cost seniors $1,000 more a year by the year 2002. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of scaring that has gone on. It ought to stop. This same plan is being rolled out here again, and this should be enough in itself to defeat this budget resolution. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], and ask if the gentlewoman will yield to me. Ms. DUNN of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, you can fool some of the seniors some of the time but not all of the seniors all of the time. This trust fund is on the road toward bankruptcy. Our program is designed to significantly increase the amount of dollars in Medicare and to guarantee that this fund will be solvent well into the next century so our senior citizens can have a very viable program. {time} 1645 Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to switch the discussion to welfare, because welfare reform is included in this balanced budget resolution. During the past 30 years, the Federal Government has spent more than $5 trillion on welfare programs intended to alleviate poverty, but the problem is getting worse, not better. The system is getting more and more cruel. Today one American child in seven is raised on welfare. That is what this budget debate is all about: the children and their families. The current welfare system encourages a life of dependency and weak families, and that has a devastatingly negative effect on a child's development. Every one of us feels sick when we read in the paper, we see on television the real life stories of how the current welfare system has failed. Think of this: 19 children found together in a cold, dark Chicago apartment. Police found them sharing a bone with the family dog for food. Or the Boston family that has 14 out of its 17 adult children now living on welfare, right now, and receiving close to $1 million a year from taxpayers. Our solutions are focused on promoting families and work, moving families into the work force and off welfare is the only way to break this cycle of dependency. Most Americans on welfare want to work, but, sadly, our Government offers them a better short-run deal to stay dependent. To make our approach work, the amount of time someone stays on welfare must be limited. Our bill does that. The President says he supports a 5-year time limit on cash welfare benefits, but he includes so many exemptions that the current welfare system would no be significantly changed. Furthermore, under the President's plan, recipients are guaranteed noncash benefits forever. We understand that families, especially mothers, need a helping hand in moving from welfare to work. That is why we provide over $6 billion in additional child care assistance over what is currently contained in the current welfare system. This gives parents the peace of mind to go off welfare into the work force. We also understand that children are hurt when our system fails so pitifully in enforcing court-ordered child support. Right now today, $34 billion are owed in court-ordered child support not being paid to custodial parents from these children's own parents. Our program finds a way to locate those dollars, especially those deadbeat parents who move out of the State to avoid supporting their flesh and blood children. Mr. Chairman, what is at stake is real welfare reform. Imagine what our country will look like in 5 years if we do not pass it. The system continues to hold millions of poor families in its grip. The problem is not the people who are involved. The problem is the failed process. The President recently asked for a welfare bill with personal responsibility, work and family. We give it to him. Sign this balanced budget proposal, Mr. President. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the hard-working gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], a real knowledgeable Member on health care. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say the seniors in this country are scared and they have reason to be because of these Republican proposals on Medicare. There is no question in my mind what is going on here again is the same thing that we saw last year. That is that senior citizens are being made to pay for the cuts that are being proposed in this budget and that Medicare is taking a bigger hit, almost as big a hit as it did last year, and all to pay for tax breaks essentially for wealthy Americans. Now why should a senior citizen be scared? They should be scared because when the Medicare program was established in 1963, they were basically told that they were going to have at least three things: One, they were told they were going to have an unlimited choice of doctors and hospitals. Medicare would reimburse for that. Second, they were told that they would have protection against having to pay a lot of money out of their pocket. Right now it is limited to 15 percent. And then they were told they would have guaranteed coverage of all Medicare benefits for the premium that was established by law. All these things are at risk in this Republican budget today. First of all, because of the reimbursement rate, the fact of the matter is that seniors will be pushed into HMO's or managed care. They will not have their choice of doctors and hospitals. Secondly, the protections against balanced billing are eliminated. The doctors, if you stay in the traditional Medicare program, can charge anything beyond the 15 percent that is provided under current law. So more money out of pocket means you do not have the health care if you cannot afford it. Lastly, with the MSA's, with the medical savings accounts, basically seniors are going to be encouraged to go into this two-tiered system where [[Page H5108]] they have only catastrophic coverage, and they have to pay out of pocket for anything short of a catastrophic health care. So why should not senior citizens be scared? All the basic tenets, if you will, of the Medicare program are at risk under the Republican budget. They do not know for sure if they can have their doctor anymore. They could very easily have to pay a lot more out of their pocket for going to a doctor or other Medicare or other health care expenses, and they do not even know if they choose an MSA that they will be able to have a lot of the services that Medicare now provides. I would be scared. They should be scared because of what the Republicans are doing here today. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds. Of course the gentleman obviously has not read our program because our program would give senior citizens more choice. In fact, most senior citizens would love to be in the Arizona plan which offers them prescription drugs, eyeglass coverage with no charge, no part B premium and no deductibles. We want to give senior citizens more choice. In that system they would not have more copayments and in fact get to choose whatever kind of system they want. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford]. Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that if one looks at the polls today, for the first time in American history when folks were asked: do you think your children will do better off or worse off than you did, they are answering ``worse off.'' That is the absolute opposite of the American dream, because the American dream is built on the idea that I did this well, my father did a little bit poorer than that, and my children are going to be doing better than that. One cannot build a civilization, one cannot build a country around the idea that my children are going to do worse off then I did. So I think at the core of this debate and the core of this budget, what we are really talking about is the American dream. Mr. Chairman, I would say second what those polls show is that Americans at the gut level understand what history has well documented over the course of time. Rome fell in 476 after controlling essentially the entire known world. The Byzantine empire, the Italian renaissance came to an end, the Spanish empire came to an end, the Dutch empire came to an end, the Ottomon empire came to an end. A host of civilizations came to an end because everyone of them reached a crossroads wherein they had to decide: Do we go back to what made us competitive and a world power in the first place, or we stay on this cozy but ultimately unsustainable cycle of upward government spending and upward government taxation? We are at that same crossroads today. A child born into America today will pay an 82-percent tax rate if we stay on the course we are on. That either means economic enslavement or it means a collapse of the financial system as we know it. It took every single personal income tax return filed west of the Mississippi River simply to pay for the interest on the national debt. A child born in America, as you saw by the check earlier, will pay $187,000 in taxes on their share of interest on the national debt if we stay on the course we are on. So we are at that crossroads. I think what this budget does is point us at the right fork in the road, because it begins to move decisions back to people in their local communities, in their local towns, and in so doing restores the American dream, and I think has a lot to do with saving the civilization. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution and to advise my colleagues to carefully consider the implications of this budget on domestic discretionary spending. My colleagues need to understand there is simply no growth in this budget for important programs. Defense is the only area where they have proposed real growth. It makes no investment in safe highways, airline traffic safety, safe streets, safe schools, education, health care, public safety, clean water, clean air, research and development, business development, and transportation. The tough choices we made in 1990 and 1993 controlled the growth in discretionary spending. The caps have worked and we have the discipline to control future discretionary spending. There is simply no justification for further assaults on critical domestic programs. It is also difficult to understand how my Republican colleagues could propose slowing the growth in domestic discretionary spending to such low levels that by the year 2002, the purchasing power of overall nondefense discretionary appropriations will be 26 percent below this year's level. At the same time that they plan on eliminating any real investment in our economic security, they are proposing $13 billion more for defense than requested by the Pentagon. Let me remind my colleagues again, that these cuts are in the most basic programs. Education, environmental protection, medical research, Head Start, civilian research and development, nutritional assistance, transportation, and criminal justice. All of these programs, regardless of what you may hear will be adversely affected if we enact the domestic discretionary level proposed in the Republican budget resolution. In addition to the funding levels proposed, my Republican colleagues are also proposing some significant changes and eliminations. Included in this budget resolution is an assumption that 25 important educational programs will be block granted; the Governors will get to decide how to spend this money. While I have yet to see the list of these 25 programs, I can tell you that in some cases, the States will not act to serve vulnerable populations of children. It was because of the refusal of the States to address the unique educational needs of homeless children that I worked to create the Homeless Education Program. States and local governments simply did not reach out to these children and I can assure my Republican friends that under the block grant proposal, homeless children will be denied basic educational services. Once again the Republicans are proposing to dismantle the one agency whose mission is job development and growth. Did we learn nothing from last year's budget battle. We need a strong and effective Department of Commerce. The late Secretary Brown accomplished this objective and I am fully confident that Secretary Kantor will meet the same challenge. This Republican budget resolution also proposes the elimination of the Legal Services Corporation. Guaranteeing the basic protection of a citizen's constitutional rights is one of our responsibilities as Members of Congress. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Shouldn't we be concerned about guaranteeing every citizen, regardless of their income, the right to due process and the right of fair and just representation? Apparently only those who have the ability to pay are allowed adequate legal counsel. I am gravely concerned about the direction of this country as we enter the next century and firmly believe that this budget will not guarantee that we are prepared to meet the challenges. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican budget resolution. We can balance the budget without jeopardizing our economic future. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Oklahoma [Mr. Watts]. Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, there was a cultist popular humanistic theme in the 1960's that said ``God is dead.'' I am afraid that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided that they were left in charge, and what they did was drive us into the ever- deepening quicksand of more and more Government spending without results. Our budget resolution offers more savings so that Americans can ultimately keep more of what they earn and they can decide what is best for them, not the Government. Bottom line, in our budget we trust the American people. In their budget, they do not, Do I hate my Government? No. I just believe that we can do better for this [[Page H5109]] country and for our kids, our grandkids, working families, and seniors. We can do better than $200 plus billion annual deficits, a $5 trillion national debt. I think we can do better than an anemic welfare system that penalizes mothers for saving money and penalizes them for wanting to marry the father of their children. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can do better by saving Medicare from bankruptcy. In this country, we expect the best from our high school, our college, and our professional athletic teams. Why should we not expect the same from our Government? We are the greatest, freest, wealthiest country in the world. I believe we can do better and we should as Americans. Red, yellow, black, and white, we should demand the best from our Government, and our budget starts us in that direction. Am I an optimist? I am reminded of the guy who defined an optimist as going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with him. Am I an optimist? You bet I am. I do believe we can do better by trusting the American people and figuring out the right answers for this time in our Government. I believe that our budget resolution starts us in that direction. Our budget gets us another year down the road of accomplishing a balanced budget in the next 6 years. If we balance the budget, it opens the gateway to the future for our kids and our grandkids. If we do not, we can only look forward to more financial despair and burdens on families, a bankrupt Medicare system and keeping the caged eagles in the poor community locked up just waiting to soar. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to open the gateway to the future for our kids and our grandkids by voting for this budget resolution. Trust the American people. {time} 1700 Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne]. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to point out the many deficiencies in the Republican budget resolution. The Republican budget is fundamentally flawed. It places the burden of deficit reduction on health care, education, environmental, infrastructure, and safety net programs while leaving defense spending and corporate welfare virtually untouched. It still provides a substantial tax cut at a time when the Federal Government is running a sizable deficit. Defense spending is actually increased in this budget while critical domestic needs are ignored. Finally, the Republican budget puts a whole new spin on redistribution by increasing the burden on low- and moderate-income Americans and reducing the burden on the well-to-do; the Republican budget, for example, provides a child tax credit for middle- and upper-class families while cutting earned income tax credit assistance to low- and moderate-income households. The Republican budget also resurrects a number of policies discussed last year. It eliminates the Commerce Department, the Energy Department, AmeriCorps, the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA], the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH], the Legal Services Corporation, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, just to name a few. These agencies provide valuable services to the people of this country. The proposals to eliminate them are short- sighted efforts to pander to the public perception that all government is bad. If you doubt that this is the case, then ask yourself why many of the functions, operations, and even the staff of the Departments of Energy and Commerce will merely be shifted to other agencies, much like the transfer of the Interstate Commerce Commission's responsibilities and staff to the Department of Transportation last year. In addition, the Republican budget would provide more than $2 billion less than the President's budget on crime-fighting programs. It is inconsistent to enact tough anticrime measures on the one hand and then deny law enforcement officials the resources that they need to carry out those measures on the other. One of the most important investments the Federal Government can make is its investment in its human capital. And yet, the Republican budget would freeze Federal funding for job training programs at roughly 60 percent of the 1995 appropriations level for these programs. It would reduce funding for the Job Corps by nearly 10 percent as well. And it would eliminate AmeriCorps and the Direct Student Loan Program. Despite the strong public reaction to the Republicans' antienvironment initiatives last year, the Republican budget resolution would once again undermine Federal efforts to protect the environment and improve public health. It would cut the EPA's operating budget by 11 percent for fiscal year 1997. Cuts of this magnitude would damage the agency's ability to enforce existing environmental statutes. It would also eliminate EPA programs to develop advanced environmental technologies. This budget would also phase out energy conservation programs, renewable energy research, and fossil energy research and development. Such policies are incredibly short-sighted. One of the functions most dramatically reduced under the Republican budget proposal is community development. Funding for programs like the Community Development Block Grant Program would be reduced from $11 billion in 1996 to $6 billion in 2002. The Economic Development Administration would be eliminated altogether. Such cuts would devastate communities like Pittsburgh. Federal community development funding leverages billions of State, local, and private sector dollars into important development and revitalization efforts. Without this Federal seed money, many communities across the country will be at a loss to address many critical community needs. American workers are also adversely affected. The Republican budget would reduce funding for programs like OSHA that ensure workplace safety. It would eliminate the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH], the only Government agency that conducts research on workplace injuries. It would repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act, legislation that guarantees that employees of Federal contractors are paid locally prevailing wages for their work. And it would extract another $9.4 billion in savings from Federal civilian and military retirees, the same people who have been called upon again and again in recent years to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of balancing the budget. The Republican budget assumes dramatic changes in Federal housing assistance programs as well. While these programs are in need of reform, current funding for these programs falls far short of meeting the need for affordable housing in this country. The Republicans would reduce spending on housing assistance from the current level of services by roughly $20 billion over the next six years. The Republican budget would also make dramatic changes in important Federal transportation programs as well. The local matching rate for transit capital grants would be increased to 50 percent. Transit operating assistance would be phased out. And mass transit new starts would be eliminated. Research and development of advanced high speed rail would be eliminated as well. In total, transit funding would be reduced below a freeze level by more than $6.5 billion over the next six years. This policy shift would have a devastating impact on congestion, energy consumption, economic growth, and air quality in many of our urban areas. The Republican budget would eliminate or dramatically reduce technology transfer programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, programs that provide valuable technical assistance to small manufacturers across the country and promote the development of advanced technology and innovative products. These programs help American businesses compete with foreign manufacturers. They produce an incredible return on the Federal Government's modest investment. The Republican budget still makes dramatic changes in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. The proposed savings are large enough to devastate [[Page H5110]] these critical health care programs. It is interesting to note that the difference in Medicare savings from last year's budget resolution to this year's is roughly the same size as the reduction in the size of the tax cut that the Republicans are proposing. That would suggest to me that the Medicare savings in this budget are motivated by the Republican tax cut package, and not by concern over the future of the Medicare Program. Regardless of the motivation, it should be clear to all Americans that attempting to save $168 billion from Medicare over the next 6 years is simply irresponsible, as is the plan's reliance on medical savings accounts to cut costs and impose fiscal discipline on Medicare beneficiaries and providers. The Republican plan would also adversely affect Medicaid beneficiaries as well. The Republican's budget resolution would garner substantial savings, $72 billion, from Medicaid by converting it to a block grant, and it would eliminate the current guarantee of health care coverage for 2.5 million low-income children between the ages of 13 and 18. Finally, the Republican budget would pull a number of additional threads from the already fraying Federal safety net. The Republican budget would make $53 billion in savings in programs like AFDC, food stamps, and SSI, primarily by eliminating the Federal guarantee of assistance for the needy and converting them to block grants. Where does that leave us? With a Republican budget resolution that is fundamentally flawed. I voted against this resolution when it was considered by the House Budget Committee, and I shall vote against it when it is considered by the full House. Any of the Democratic alternatives would be preferable. The President's budget is a responsible attempt to balance serious deficit reduction with important investments in our future and the need to preserve Federal safety net programs, although I believe that it would be better to balance the budget before we cut taxes substantially. The coalition budget also deserves credit for its commitment to deficit reduction, although I also have concerns about some of the provisions it contains. I believe, however, that the Progressive Caucus- Congressional Black Caucus budget proposal provides the Federal budget strategy that best addresses the needs of this Nation over the next 6 years. This budget substitute balances the budget, invests in our communities and our human capital, and even expands Federal safety net programs. It does so by reducing defense spending to a level commensurate with the reduced military threat we face with the end of the cold war, and by eliminating corporate subsidies and tax breaks that are wasteful and inefficient. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to reject this improvident budget resolution and to adopt the Progressive Caucus-Congressional Black Caucus budget. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the city of Cincinnati, OH [Mr. Portman]. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I support this budget without reservation. It is a great budget for all the reasons we have heard up here today. I have got three kids at home. It is about the kids, it is about the next generation. We do not want to leave them with this crushing debt, now $5 trillion. We do not want to increase their taxes to the extent we would have to in order to service that debt. We want them to have a shot at the American dream. So this budget is at least one important step toward getting that budget under control and to get it into balance in 6 years. But let me mention something else, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talks about it a lot. Forget the numbers. This is also about shifting power and responsibility and authority and money out of this city, out of Washington and back to our States, back to our local communities and back to people, and that is very important, and it is a big distinction between the way we have been going and the way we like to go. For 40 years we have increasingly aggregated that power and authority here in Washington. This budget is all about getting it out. Medicaid is a good example of that. Education is a good example of that. Welfare is a great example of that. Let me give my colleagues one example in Ohio. For years Ohio tried to get a waiver to be able to do something innovative and creative in the area of welfare to try to help people actually move from welfare rolls to payrolls. Finally we got some of the waivers. We were able, in the last 3 years, to reduce our welfare rolls in Ohio by 23 percent. We could do twice that well, maybe three times that well, if we could get real flexibility that is in this budget proposal in the area of welfare reform. Let us trust the people that sent us here. Let us do this budget because it is the right thing to do for our kids, to get our fiscal house in order, but also let us do it because it is time to start moving some of the power and authority out of Washington where it is increasingly aggregated and reverse that trend. This is one small step and an important step toward doing that. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, there are two budgets; no, there are four budgets being considered tomorrow. The one that I support borrows $137 billion less than the majority budget. I listened to a lot of speeches today, and I do not understand how anyone can propose that borrowing $137 billion more is going to make good economic sense. We are talking about spending cuts. I hope my colleagues from rural America take a good hard look at our colleagues' budget. Cutting 46 percent more out of the agriculture discretionary function over the next 6 years does not make good economic sense by anybody's standards. Cutting 13 percent from research extension this year, 1997, does not make good sense. Whoever proposed that, I do not understand how they could possibly come up with that. The idea that there is that much more overhead down at USDA completely ignores the fact that we have spent the last 3 years reorganizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We have cut $4.2 billion from that overhead. Now to come in and say we are going to take another $695 million because somebody keeps saying there is unnecessary bureaucratic overhead downtown, they are not looking at what has already been done over the last 3 years in the current administration, and they are truly going to do irreparable harm to agriculture, rural health. Eliminating the office of rural health in the block grant program that has allowed rural hospitals who have been struggling to just keep their doors open, the success of that program, to suggest that is going to be eliminated does not make sense. So, a lot of cuts. Yes, we need to cut; yes, we need to make decisions along these lines. But I would say take a good hard look at rural health, and that also includes urban health because what I say about rural health applies exactly the same way to the inner cities, and there are being many decisions made in this budget in the name of cutting the bureaucracy that are going to have the opposite effect. They are going to have a devastating effect on the food supply of this Nation some day. Mr. Chairman, as Representative for the very rural 17th District of Texas, as a founding member and former cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and as a 16-year veteran on the House Agriculture Committee, I find the degree to which this budget resolution assaults rural America truly stunning and enormously disturbing. In the past, rural Members, which of course can be found in both parties, have always managed to put aside partisanship in rural issues for one fundamental reason: An overriding worry about the potential loss of access to quality health care, loss of business, and ultimately, loss of economic viability in rural areas. The programs and offices which this budget targets for elimination in the health function are the very programs and offices originated by the bipartisan Rural Health Care Coalition. I realize that constituents of urban Members do not worry about whether there is going to be a doctor to deliver their babies, an emergency room to treat the tractor accidents, a nurse to treat daily illnesses. But these are things my constituents do worry about. The programs targeted by this budget certainly do not respond to all of those needs by themselves but the programs and their coordination play a vital role at the edges. [[Page H5111]] The assault on agriculture is even more remarkable, with total agricultural discretionary spending cut a staggering 46 percent from 1997 to 2002. I understand Republicans think that this nearly 50 percent reduction will come from overhead, which I find particularly interesting since the Agriculture Department has just completed a major reorganization and downsizing. Since most of those cuts are unspecified, it's hard to know whether they will be taken from the hide of research and extension programs, conservation programs, or nutrition and safety programs. What is clear, however, is that with the Ag discretionary budget virtually cut in half, the impact will be felt in each and every function of the USDA. And that means the impact will be felt in each and every rural community. I find it hard to believe that my many friends across the aisle who serve with me on the Agriculture Committee or on the Rural Health Care Coalition have focused on the aspect of the majority's budget. I have little doubt, though, that as these numbers are implemented into policies and as constituents across the country notify their Representatives of their concerns, my friends will become as alarmed about the impact of this budget on the future of rural America as I am today. Mr. Chairman, for this and other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget and a ``yea'' vote for the coalition substitute which approaches a balanced budget in a far more humane and reasonable manner. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I dearly love my colleague from Texas, but as my colleagues know, talk about a vain effort, I mean there is no one that I have yet met outside of the beltway who thinks that we have cut bureaucracy and redtape and travel expenses and supplies and equipment enough in any, virtually any, piece of this Federal Government. This Republican majority believes that there is tons of money available in the travel allowance, the supply allowance, the equipment allowance of virtually every single department, bureau and agency of this Government, and frankly, I do not even think we started to downsize and save money. So we are after the overhead accounts of everything in this Federal Government, and I have not yet gone home and had one taxpaying citizen say to me, ``You have really cut the bureaucratic overhead too much in Washington.'' Not one single person has told me, and I think we are absolutely on the right track. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, at the outset of this debate, the gentleman from New Jersey laid out the case very eloquently for this budget. A budget is not really about numbers. It is not about whether we spend $1,500 billion on the Federal Government or $1,600 billion. It is not even about whether we cut a program, whether we increase a program, whether we add a program, or whether we eliminate a program. No, Mr. Chairman, a budget is an opportunity for this body and for our political parties to make a philosophical statement about the direction we believe this country should be going. It is an opportunity for us to say something about where we think our future is. It is an opportunity for each party in Congress to set forth its vision, its vision for America, its hopes, its dreams for our future and for our children's future. Mr. Chairman, our budget makes such a statement. It says very clearly what we believe the National Government's priorities should be. It insists that we should decide what this Government can do, what it must do, and what it should do. It says that we should reduce the burden on our children, the burden that a new child born today in this country, assumes upon his or her birth. That burden is a burden of $188,000 just to pay the interest on the national debt. Our budget says we believe other levels of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations, can perform government functions better than Washington can. We say this about education, we say this about some aspects of welfare, about some aspects of health care, we say it about such things as economic development. And, yes, most importantly, it says that we believe the burden of taxes on American citizens should be reduced. Our budget would reduce the burden of taxes on American citizens. The gentleman from Texas talked about having to borrow more money. But we reach a balanced budget as soon as any of our other budgets that are proposed. What we do differently is leave some of the money in people's pockets, leave money in the pockets of American citizens so they can decide how to spend the money on their health care, on their education, on their schooling, on their housing, on all the needs that they have. We do this because we believe that Americans who work hard and earn it should keep it. That is what this budget is about; that is the statement this budget makes. I urge my colleagues to support it. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution before us and I would like to comment on the treatment of resear